User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2011/Jul

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

query

Hi ... given that your rationale and your !vote were at odds here, I was wondering if perhaps you meant to use the Keep header instead of the Delete one that you used? Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This dif is strange. Did you mean keep? Or did you mean to write a different argument? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry; corrected now. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 07:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username I Jethrobot

Hi TreasuryTag,

I'm requesting a comment from you concerning my username, because there is some concern that it resembles a bot and could be confused for one. I invite you participate in that discussion here. Thanks a bunch. I Jethrobot (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

File:Dalekhybrid.jpg

Hi TreasuryTag. Hope all is well. When you have time, and if it's not too much trouble, could you please provide some input at User_talk:Fastily#File:Dalekhybrid.jpg? Thanks in advance. Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 07:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 09:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! -FASTILY (TALK) 23:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Road signs in Azerbaijan

In fact, Wikipedia has articles about road signs in different countries (see Template:Traffic signs). On the other hand, given that the user had created articles Road signs in Rafid and Road signs in hotsapore (what is Rafid and Hotsapore?), this article becomes dubious as well. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment regarding Basket of Puppies

Sadly, Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have a rather lacking understanding of WP:UP#OWN [1] and also of WP:POINT, WP:AOHA, WP:BEFORE, WP:DRV, WP:CIV, WP:SOUP, WP:IDHT, WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD, WP:JNN, WP:NOEFFORT and Honour system.
Just for the record. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 21:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Anything else you wish to convict me of? Basket of Puppies 05:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Not at the moment. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 08:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought you were trying to move beyond this type of thing TT. I even just recently complimented you on how much you've improved; but really, is this type of post something you'd want someone else to post about you? Not cool dude, and not even remotely funny. — Ched :  ?  04:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I was trying to engage with BoP over this issue on his talkpage, but he seemed not to want constructive criticism and told me not to post there any more. Starting an ANI thread about it would have been pointless so I thought this was the best way of putting my concerns on the record against future need. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 07:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

FYI

[2], thought you should be aware. Hobit (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Obviously nothing to do with me :P ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 07:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I figured, but wanted you aware. Hobit (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Sydney wade-1-.jpg

Sorry, but I declined your CSD - as it was G12 - which is "Text pages that contain copyrighted material" - no good for files, I'm afraid. There's already a pseudo CSD on the image. We need to know what copyright license the author will add, if wrong (i.e. he puts PD or CC-BY-SA and it isn't) then you can add a F9 CSD. If he fails to add the required data within a week then it gets deleted anyway.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Absurd Wikilawyering. So I added a template which pertained to text rather than {{db-filecopyvio}} which pertains to images. Big deal. The image is a blatant copyvio and should be deleted immediately, as I expect you know. Very poor decision. ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 21:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The author may well decide to claim "fair use", we can't tell until he places the correct template on the page. The system allows him one week to complete that operation. "Fair Use" does not apply to text, so copyright issues for text are a far easier decision.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Let me rephrase my criticism of your action, then, since you seem not to understand what I wrote above. You removed my {{db-copyvio}} tag on the grounds that it should have been {{db-filecopyvio}} – that is blatant Wikilawyering which very much goes against the spirit of WP:BURO. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 22:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I did not say it should be F9 straight away - I said there was already an (F4) CSD on the page, allowing the uploader one week to provide suitable rationale to keep the image. If that rationale is wrong then one can use F9. I've done exactly the same thing myself in the past, tagging copyright images with G12 and F9 and they nearly all got altered to one of the F4 templates.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
{{db-filecopyvio}} was a perfectly appropriate template to use – and indeed, the image has now been deleted. It was extremely foolish of you to remove it and Wikilawyer and quibble in this way and I'm afraid I've not time for any more bickering. Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 22:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm only applying the same system that was once applied to myself. If the uploader comes back with an OTRS permission, then someone will have to restore it. Waiting the prescribed 7 days just saves extra work.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologises & An update

Due to some unforseen circumstances, I'm unable to spend as much time as I like on Wikipedia (studying for my Driving Test) & as a result, I may not have much time to "deal" with the current situation!!! But I'm currently hoping to "deal" with the situation at the end of July/beginning of August, hopefully by the end of August, I'll be able to delete most of the page/messes!!!--SGCommand 16:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

My afd comment/format

Hit TT -- I wonder if you would mind reverting your change to my afd comment here? I know that you are trying to help, and generally I am happy for people to fix up the format of my tp and afd comments, but I actually do want to break that out as a second para, as I had it. I reverted to my original format, but saw you reverted back, so figure it was best to just ask you to do the revert this time, and explain why. Many thanks, and I do appreciate that you were trying to help. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  • If you look at the actual page, it is a second paragraph, with a line-break and everything! The problem with bullet-points is that you can't just do a

normal line-break with the 'enter' key or it messes up the indentation. Hope that's OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 20:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I looked at the page, and to my eye it does not appear to skip a line, as I had it. Perhaps it looks different on different computers? The way I had it, there was a double space between paras, which is what I wanted.
Like this. And it doesn't mess up the indention to my eye -- it brings my text in my second para directly below the colon ... which I view as normal.
The way it appears now, there is only a single space between paras, which is not what I want. I makes the 2 paras blur together. Make sense?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha; I'll put another 'br' tag in there for you. ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 22:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Better than single spacing ... but the problem w/2 breaks is that it now looks like a triple-space between my paras. It is a larger break than one normally has between paras. The way I had it, it looked like the (more normal) double space. And I don't think there is anything wrong with aligning the text immediately below the star -- in fact, that is the norm.
You can respond here w/out leaving me a note on my page ... I will watch this page for now. Best..--Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Revert?

Hi, TT. I haven't been around in a while, but your revert here strikes me as odd. While the user in question is indeed an IP, I cannot quite wrap my head around why you chose to revert his comments (however critical of you they may be). As I do not feel I am 100% up to speed on the current ins and outs of WP:AN in this situation, I will not revert you here, but I was wondering if you could explain to me the thought process behind this choice. SQLQuery me! 09:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP is evading a block and vandalizing other editors' comments. TT was right to revert. 28bytes (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is an editor evading a block to make personal attacks and changing other editors' comments. That IP has now been blocked. The IP they were using moments before was reverted by 28bytes (talk · contribs) and also blocked. We do not allow blocked editors to edit! ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 09:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I knew I was missing something obvious! This is what I get for being on wikipedia at 5:30am. Thanks! SQLQuery me! 09:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Sarah Jane images deletion

Dear, Treasury Tag

You have tagged a number of Sarah Jane Adventures images saying "seeing this image would not harm readers" is there any way I can fix this?

Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, there isn't. In my opinion, the images do not meet the non-free content criteria I'm afraid. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 17:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at SJA Revenge of the Slitheen.jpg and tell me if the new updated rational conforms with non-free content. Sfxprefects (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
As it happens, the page you linked to doesn't exist, but I know which one you mean and, no, it doesn't. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 17:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
For future reference do you have any tips on new images for episode pages because I looked on the Heroes TV series page and they seem to be able to keep their picture even though that the fair use rational is the same as mine. Sfxprefects (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Then perhaps their image ought to be deleted too. However, there was a useful discussion at Talk:The Doctor's Wife (Doctor Who)#Secondary control room screenshot which contained some guidance on what may or may not make an image acceptable. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 17:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your many, colorful signatures

Everytime I see your sig, I keep being surprised because new things keep coming up. I like it! How many of those do you have, and how did you come up with them / obtain them? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

At the moment it's about 50, but I add new ones from time to time; they're randomly selected using the code at User:TreasuryTag/sig :) ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 08:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering about that, too. Maybe you could hold a contest for suggestions for new random stuff? Chiltern Hundreds gets my vote.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Chiltern Hundreds is the most ironic one of all to vote for ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 09:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
OK then, how about Rotten borough? ;-) --Shirt58 (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

International relations

I've blocked you for 24 hours for your actions at International relations — I've not looked at any of the content, but 8RR is definitely edit warring. Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TreasuryTag/Archives/2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocking me hours after the incident seems punitive. Blocking me without looking at the content seems unwise. And blocking me for reverting vandalisn - constantly deleting a valid paragraph without explanation - seems rather lacking in judgement. I assure everyone that this block is not currently preventing any damage to Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

I've examined the content, and (a) "constantly deleting a valid paragraph without explanation" is misrepresentative in a way that does you no credit (b) your attempted reliance on the 3RR exemption for vandalism is untenable, and an editor of your experience should know this. (c) the core of the editing dispute was Skylark's attempt to insert text you felt was unwarranted, and in the process (with the exception of the last edit you reverted - you seem to have missed this) replacing some previous text. Nearing 3RR, you should have retained their addition and only reinserted the text you didn't want deleted. Then you could discuss on the talk page, and/or allow others to take care of Skylark's addition. Rd232 talk 09:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TreasuryTag/Archives/2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This diff clearly shows an editor deleting a perfectly valid paragraph (beginning, "What is explicitly recognized as...") – the editor in question refused to explain their reasons for deleting that material. Yes, they were also adding content which was not vandalism (although it was ungrammatical original research) but this doesn't change the fact that I was reverting the blatant vandalism of the deletion of the paragraph.
Rd232 (talk · contribs) says, "Your attempted reliance on the 3RR exemption for vandalism is untenable, and an editor of your experience should know this." Well, let's say that I wasn't surprised an admin chose to block me for reverting vandalism, because I know that's sometimes how things work here. However, I was rather surprised that they chose to do so without examining any of the content. That seems rather irresponsible.
And I can only repeat what I said before: I was blocked almost 4hrs 30min after my last edit to the page in question, and in fact, after I'd already left the house to go out for the afternoon and evening and stay the night elsewhere. This means that it wasn't preventing any damage – obviously the blocking admin wasn't aware of my social calendar, but they were aware that the issue had been dormant for hours and hours. This strikes me as being a purely punitive block, and some of the comments at WP:AN (where I declared the issue myself, not in any way trying to hide it) do seem so reminiscent of a lynch-mob as to make things even more punitive. Evidence-less accusations of Twinkle abuse in unspecified "other cases." Comments from Egg Centric (talk · contribs) saying that I prefer to "pick on less competent targets" – an utterly absurd accusation.
My final point is this: right now, the block is not preventing any damage. It was 24 hours ago that the incident took place. It was 20 hours ago that the block was made. I have no intention of editing the International relations article in the near future. If folks want me to let other editors delete swathes of valid encyclopedic information, that's fine, I can go along with that. But right now, I am not aware of any damage that this block is preventing, and therefore, according to our blocking policy, it ought to be lifted. ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 13:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

1. They appeared to be good faith edits and are therefore not vandalism. 2. You have an extensive history of edit warring, so I'm personally not comfortable with unblocking based on a promise not to edit war. --slakr\ talk / 14:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Calm down

Calm down, FYI, the block is due to expire in another hour time. Go for a break or something in the mean time, don't let yourself be bogged down/stressed out by the block itself. Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm, and although it is due to expire shortly, that's only because the admins have refused to even glance at my unblock request since I placed it there about three hours ago. It was still a desperately poor block and if any member of the admin corps has any integrity, they would undo it forthwith. (That's a big 'if' there.) ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 13:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I declined your first and read your unpersuasive second; I didn't want to decline it a second time. One particular point: 3RR blocks are not infrequently some hours after the incident. Most people would say that for staleness to become an issue, you're looking at at least 24 hours passing. Also, I would probably have blocked for 48 or even 72 hours here, taking into account your experience, that you accused an editor of vandalism when it wasn't and should know it wasn't, and then sought to apply a vandalism exemption for 3RR. Sorry, but I really think you were in the wrong there, regardless of why/how you think the block came about, and regardless of how good faith your belief that it was vandalism. Rd232 talk 14:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
3RR blocks are not infrequently some hours after the incident. That doesn't make inappropriate. Innocent people are not infrequently defrauded. Banks are not infrequently robbed. Also, I would probably have blocked for 48 or even 72 hours here – that doesn't reflect well on you, then. You accused an editor of vandalism when it wasn't – if you consider the deletion of valid material from an article, five times, without any explanation, to be non-vandalism, that is your choice, but I think it is a little unreasonable of you to expect me to share that view.
I'm saying now: if I am not unblocked before the block expires, I am leaving Wikipedia because I have quite simply had enough of this absurd treatment of people who are not only trying to help but who are actually managing to help and get blocked and maligned in the process. I repeat: if I am to remain blocked for doing nothing wrong, I am departing from this project, and that is a promise. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 14:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
TT, about what you've done, it is imperative that you read WP:Gaming the system. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
This is the problem with Wikipedia: think about what you've just said. You've said that reverting the deletion of valid information is gaming the system. Or perhaps that's not what you mean: perhaps you mean that making a decision to leave the project over a blatantly inappropriate block is gaming the system. I don't really know which, but neither thought strikes me as being either original or useful. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 14:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Leaving over this would be too petulant to be plausible; but if you insist on using it as an excuse to leave (i.e. if you wanted to anyway), go ahead. But allow me to cite (I shouldn't have to...) the 3RR vandalism exemption: "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." It can be very annoying to have to work around 3RR when people are doing things that not vandalism but not really improvements, but an editor of your experience should be very used to that. You surely know these rules, and an inability to stick to them in one instance has the usual consequence. If you had admitted your error, maybe I or someone else would have reduced the block to time served, but... I mean, c'mon, I'm one of the most liberal interpreters of 3RR around (in terms of not applying it where it's not really edit warring), but even I can't see how to be so kind to you in these circumstances as to avoid blocking, or to unblock absent agreement that you were in error. Rd232 talk 14:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Leaving over this would be too petulant to be plausible – I happen to have just responded to this point in our ongoing email conversation, but I'll paste in my comment here just so others can look over it: If you were volunteering in a charity shop ('thrift store' in the US I think?) and the manager falsely accused you of stealing, you'd probably leave, thinking, "Why should I donate my time if I'm just going to be insulted and have my honesty questioned?" I don't see why Wikipedia should be any different.
If you insist on using it as an excuse to leave (i.e. if you wanted to anyway), go ahead. I was not planning to leave anyway. I know there are a substantial number of editors who make concerted efforts to try and coerce me into leaving, and if I'm honest, one of my main motives in staying and being a constructive editor was to spite them (I think the phrase is, "The best revenge is living well,") and show them that I had no intention of giving in to their absurd bullyboy tactics. If you mean that you want to salve your conscience over this by saying, "Well he was going to leave anyway," then I can't really stop you. But it's not true. It's this crappy block that's done it. And I expect you know that. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 14:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe either of the blocking or reviewing administrator accused you of bad faith, so the "stealing" metaphor is misguided. If you weren't planning to leave, then don't. Take a wikibreak, and then get back to the "living well" (whatever your motivations for it). PS My conscience is easily bruised, but currently completely fine. Rd232 talk 14:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
No, the blocking admin didn't accuse me of bad faith. But that doesn't change the fact that they acted in bad faith ("Soz but i didnt bothr to read the diffs involved cos its so boring so ill just block u") and that is something that I am simply not prepared to put up with. ╟─TreasuryTag►contemnor─╢ 14:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Talk about not assuming good faith: many of your edits didn't claim to be reversions of vandalism, and there was no evidence of any other exception to 3RR, so policy says that I didn't need to look at your edits to know that a block was warranted. That's quite different from one of your recent edits to another page, which policy says is quite unwarranted. Learn to put up with people enforcing policy without mocking them. Nyttend (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's CYA logic. There are 3 reverts that day (23 July [3]) which are on the basis of removing OR; the remaining five all mention vandalism in the edit summary. Only by looking at the content, as I did, could you determine that the vandalism exemption clearly did not apply. Your block notification gives every indication of having seen 8 reverts and reached for the block button. It happens, but it shouldn't. Rd232 talk 21:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2011/Jul&oldid=1150993609"