User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2011/May

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

You blew it my friend ...

this little tidbit was totally over the line TT. You should redact the statement, and issue an apology if you wanted to be mature about it. Let me be blunt: your recent actions at NYB's talk page, the AfD, and now at the AN/I thread have been unacceptable. If you continue along these lines, I consider it likely that you will find yourself on the outside looking in. Allow me to be perfectly clear. As much as we value tenured and prolific contributors, there are still policies and guidelines that must be followed. The behavior you've been displaying lately has been childish, immature, and against our founding principles here. Should I see anymore of your efforts that breach the WP:HARASS, WP:HOUND (yes, I know those two are parts of the same policy), WP:NPA or even the WP:CIVIL rules we have in place, I will not hesitate for a second to block you. Given past history you've built up here, it's likely the time will not be measured in hours. You really let me down TT. To be honest, I'm disappointed not only in you, but in myself, for not taking a firmer hand at the offset of this entire debacle. You really need to rethink your efforts here TT. — Ched :  ?  05:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

To emphasize this -
Our community tolerance for grave dancing and driving other contributors away is very low, or none.
You're pushing buttons that don't have any margin left. I appreciate all your contributions and your interest in the encyclopedia, but they won't save you should you continue on this path.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not entirely clear where NYB comes into this at all, but I can only reiterate what I said above – in responding to idiotic drivel of the "Keep, they're part of this season's MythArc" sort, plus baseless whinging, forum-shopping and borderline false/baseless allegations of the variety that Hyperdoctor Whatsit cooked up, yes, I may have slightly crossed a line.
I'm not going to go and dig up edits from tens of other contributors showing that they have done things far worse and got away scot free, because I know that's not quite the point, but I do think that you should both carefully consider whether I am being treated as would anybody else, or whether I am being in any way singled out.
In particular, the phrase, "Our community tolerance for grave dancing and driving other contributors away is very low, or none," gave me pause for thought. I'm not going to name names here, because I expect you know exactly who I mean, but if not, feel free to email me. The point is, as much for your own benefit as for mine, you need to be certain that you are not doling out the wiki equivalent of cruel and unusual punishments here. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 08:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

About the above section

Hi, I don't want to add this comment above because I'm not an admin and I don't want to misrepresent anyone. But, I'd like to point out that you're still missing the point. It's your response that matters. This is not about what others have said to you, and I think the community would benefit if everyone was more "understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility" (WP:CIVIL). You're a great editor. You've been here for over four years and I respect you highly for that. (You're constantly changing signature is quite unique, too, I might add.) However, I feel that you are still responsible for respecting those around you. After all, Wikipedia is a community and an encyclopedia, and we need both for the project to run smoothly. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Deskana

Please watch your tone. Posts like this are not helpful, are unnecessarily aggrivating to the person they're directed at, and violate our policy on civility. Thank you. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 08:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it was a potentially useful observation for HalfShadow (talk · contribs), who seems to assume that because a lot of his contributions are challenged, that's an attack on him, and inevitable on Wikipedia, and I wanted to point out that it is perfectly possible (indeed easy) to go through Wikipedia and not have your edits undone and your images deleted. I'm happy to consider any alternative wording you may suggest? ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 09:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
In that case it would have been better for you to say nothing at all. If he already thinks you are targeting him, then he's not going to be reassured by you leaving a message like that, is he? Would you be? I wouldn't. Anyway, you are of course free to ignore my warning, but don't be surprised if you end up getting blocked by me for being uncivil in the future. Also note that I have warned HalfShadow for making similarly uncivil comments towards you. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I saw your warning to him for his (much more brazenly uncivil) comment, and thanks for that. I don't doubt at all that you're being fair and even-handed, I just doubt your judgement in suggsting that my comment was inadvisable. It's very easy for HalfShadow to blame the system when people try to delete his contributions, and I thought and think that it could be beneficial for him to understand that it's not like that at all. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 09:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, what's your opinion on gloats such as this which contribute nothing to the deletion discussion at hand? ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 09:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't read as gloating, to me. Cas is pointing out, quite correctly, that everyone disagrees with you. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of what he was pointing out. A lifetime of speaking English did rather aid me in ascertaining that. You are presumably familiar with what the word 'gloating' means: it involves "exhibiting a conspicuous sense of self-satisfaction, often at an adversary's misfortune." It necessarily involves something which is correct at its heart.
My problem is, I'm puzzled about Cas' motive in typing that comment there at that time. Did it serve any purpose other than being a synonym for, "Ner ner ner ner, I'm winning," – if so, what? ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 09:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to take that tone with me as well, then I'm afraid I'm not going to reply any further to this discussion. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Or, "That's a good question which I'm afraid I can't answer without admitting to something I've just denied," as people used to say? ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 09:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(yeah, that was going a little off topic over there on the ol' deletion page so I'll drop a note here, right after this nice discussion...oh look my ears were burning) I am not intolerant just making some observations - but seriously, you do have a way with words and it'd be a great asset to have other editors that can spruce up some prose a smidgen here and there. Okay, look I'll be serious now - you wanna write a Good or Featured Article, drop me a line and I'll be glad to help. Truly. I think you could do it quite readily. Otherwise, whatever, I'll be off now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if you were more help.

Instead of just flat-out tagging something for deletion, see if it's possible to work with what's there, or at least give me a better idea of how to clean it up myself instead of telling me I've done it wrong, it's going to be deleted unless I fix it and then tossing acronyms at me. Help me out here; I'm doing the best I can. HalfShadow 17:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that I don't think you're doing the best you can (if I can manage to properly tag images then so can you, you seem perfectly intelligent to me), I am really not inclined to spend my time fixing other people's mistakes, especially where they're lazy copy-paste errors, and particularly given the sensitivity of copyright issues. It is your job, not mine to ensure that the image has a proper fair-use rationale for every page it appears on. If you spent fifteen minutes reading the relevant pages through – WP:NFC, WP:NFCC and WP:FUR – then I can't imagine that you'd have any difficulty in future. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 17:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Eh, my skills appear to be more along the lines of vandal-chasing and info-updating. Hell, I can revert vandalism so fast some people think I'm a bot, and I love tidying up articles if I can. Everyone has at least one thing they're no good at, I guess this is mine. I'm the kind of guy who goes over or through something instead of just around it. I remember the older system being significantly simpler... HalfShadow 17:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Well dare I suggest that if there's something you're not so good at, you either put some effort in trying to improve, or just stick to doing other things? I really can't play the piano. I've had lessons, I gave it time, but I just couldn't. So now I play the clarinet to a high standard, and everyone's happy.
And did the "older system" involve quill pens by any chance? ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 17:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't really remember it that well, just that it was a lot less...detailed then this one. I prefer doing the other things myself, but I saw a page (pages now, I guess) that was just shouting for a picture, so I tried my hand. I'm not really bothered, as such, the vast majority of my time here is spent keeping the place clean and making articles better than they were anyway and I like doing it. How about we come to a compromise? The FUR for the image as used in Silence (Doctor Who) is apparently okay, right? Given that there's a moderate chance the page will probably be reverted to a redirect, that means the image will be deleted seven days later. I'll go to the AfD page and agree that currently there isn't enough info for a full page. Assuming the FUR is okay (I freely admit it may not be), I could download the image to my desktop and copy/paste the FUR, I could then re-upload it when and if an "official" page is made, assuming someone else hasn't already. HalfShadow 18:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's appropriate to bargain for your co-operation in an ongoing AfD, but your proposal does sound not bad :) ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 18:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh no, don't look at it like that. It's just it's getting kind of ugly out there, and as for the AfD, I wouldn't have bothered suggesting one way or the other anyway (by definition, I'm going to see things my way. Anyone would.). I was just hoping to defuse the situation, assuming that's possible at this point. Normally, I would have just waited to see what the outcome was anyway. HalfShadow 18:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah well...Can't say I didn't try. HalfShadow 19:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed not... ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 19:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Explanation?

Please explain why you again failed to notify me of your attempt to get File:Vampire-queen.jpg deleted. Exxolon (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Last I heard it was not a requirement to notify the uploader, hence why notification in Twinkle is controlled by a checkbox set to 'no' by default. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 21:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, though, what you've linked to also says "...it is strongly encouraged and also very helpful..." Just sayin'. HalfShadow 21:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I had noticed that :) However, the question I was given above was very specific. And for what it's worth, I've asked three very specific questions of Exxolon on the FFD page for the image. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 21:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:FFD instructions are clear - "Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:fdw|File_name.ext}} Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media" - am I missing something? Exxolon (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you missing something? Yes. You're missing the fact that it's not mandatory – hence why notification in Twinkle is controlled by a checkbox set to 'no' by default. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 21:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record: material salvaged from User talk:Fences and windows

I deliberately stayed away from ANI (and Wikipedia) and I'd not noticed until now that TreasuryTag had started a thread about this. I'm glad to see nothing came of that timewasting and that nobody decided to restore the earlier defamatory comments that Orangemarlin made. Fences&Windows 10:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well "nothing came of the timewasting" other than your disputed RevDel being overturned, which was my aim. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 10:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Your sig

How do you make a sig that leaves a different comment each time you post? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

See User:TreasuryTag/sig. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 08:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nimur

I've reported him to WP:ANI, in case you care to comment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I got there first, nur nur nur ;) I've also got an WP:AN3 report ready to hit 'save' on the next time he reverts after my warning. That will be his 7th. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 17:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I saw. I say go ahead and do it. But that's up to you. I just want his ownership behavior stopped, one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I won't, because to be fair, he'd never been warned for it before (I checked his history) and it's a required part of the form. I mentioned the WP:3RR issue in my ANI report, so the admins may pick up on it. But so long as he stops, that's enough for me! ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 17:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
He's been here long enough to know about the 3-revert rule, and his edit summaries of "vandalism" are false. I am inclined to concur that if he stops, then it's "mission accomplished", hopefully with no harm done. I'm sure the troll loved it, but that's show biz. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
An admin has now warned Nimur. Shall we mark the ANI case "resolved"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess so. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 21:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I detect at least some heightened awareness of the troll's activities, so hopefully things will get better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

FFDs

I am being careful: if I were careless, I would have used a copy/paste rationale to decline all of the images you tagged under this process. When an admin declines a deletion like this, don't accuse said admin of carelessness, and be aware that said admin may actually have thought through declining and that he wanted to be careful about deletion. Please heed your own hatnote's warning about being polite, positive, and constructive. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It should have been obvious to anyone with even the vaguest understanding of the non-free content criteria that the image was desperately lacking. If you did not have this understanding, you should not be processing image deletion tags. If you did have this understanding, you should have deleted the image. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 22:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I do have an understanding of those criteria: it simply happens that you failed to explain how they were being violated. If you don't explain why you want a page to be deleted, you shouldn't be surprised when it's not deleted. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
If you see an image tagged for not meeting the NFCC, and you know that it doesn't meet the NFCC, then you should delete it. And if you didn't know that that image failed the NFCC, then your understanding of the relevant policy is, sadly, too basic to justify your working in that area. Will you answer a simple question for me: now, at this moment in time, do you feel that the image meets the NFCC? ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 22:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any difference between this and other episode screenshots: we seem to say that they're generally permitted in article infoboxes. Both The Beginning of the End (Lost) and Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation) had non-free images in their infoboxes when they were promoted to FA, and as the fair-use rationale for the eye image says that it's a pivotal moment in the episode, it's reasonable to say that it's both essential to the article and non-replaceable. It is possible for people to disagree with you without lacking familiarity with our policies: your claim that an image fails policy is not to be trusted any more or any less than anyone else's claim. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
You're just being ridiculous now. A blurry picture of an eye is not irreplaceable and is not pivotal. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 23:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

Ani Notice

Thanks for your notice, I couldn't find which thread it might be you were thinking of? There doesn't seem to be any ANI reports about me as an editor. Which incident is it?·Maunus·ƛ· 16:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Contentious?

Hello TreasuryTag:

I wrote "I see that editor TreasuryTag has a long record of edits to his or her credit. However some of the recent edits are quite contentious, according to notes from other editors on TreasuryTag's talk page."

I still think "quite contentious" is a fair and objective statement based on what I saw on your talk page. I have not been following your edits.

Why was I even looking at your talk page? Because I thought your response to the apparently brand new editor "85.165.123.18" was a bit harsh and dogmatic.

I'm sorry but I don't think that what I said was badmouthing. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not clear why you felt it was necessary to leave a comment, apropos of nothing, on another editor's talkpage in which you basically said, "Ignore TT, he's a crank and he's always in trouble." I'm not sure how you could have thought that that was the best (or even 'a good') way of handling the situation. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 18:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey

In the May 1 deletion log, I referred to your comment while misreading one word which I later noticed. I read your comment as "And I think WP:SNOW applies when the first four or five editors in the first four or five hours of a week-long process happen to all have the same view" without noticing the word "don't" in there. I am striking a portion of the comment below my chart; even without the chart analysis that I still believe allows for a snow close, however, I still think you ought to consider allowing for a speedy close on the DRV. There is no other possible outcome at this point that it's a waste of the DRV process at this stage. CycloneGU (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

AWB

Hey TT, tanks for helping out on article with AWB. However, edits like this, this and this don't actually change the output of the page, so in most cases there's no real need to make them. You can skip the changes by clicking the "Skip" button in AWB, or you can set AWB to automatically skip past changes like that in the options, which speeds up getting to useful edits (the whitespace changes and should be made at the same time as those useful edits, rather than as standalone edits). There's been a bit of controversy surrounding these kinds of changes recently (meaning of course, over the last few years ;D), please also see the AWB rules of use. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Erm, I was using the 'skip minor genfixes' option in AWB at the time, it's my default setting... ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 14:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
That's weird, why were you making whitespace changes then? :/ Did you have any other tasks enabled other than gen fixes? (such as a find and replace) - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, I wasn't really paying that close attention to the rule because I thought I had it covered with the checkbox – I was doing typos but not anything else special. I'll keep an eye out next time. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 18:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You could have just asked me you know =p

I am wondering why I see fifty different people marked "Treasury Tag" with various titles in different colours after them, yet they all link here afaik. Surely you have been asked about this before (sorry my message didn't make that clear). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

They're (obviously) not fifty different people, hence having identical usernames, userpages and signatures. They're all me, and my signature subtly and randomly changes each time I post him. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 09:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Well I got that much (unless there was some weird group of people that for some reason, no other user commented on), and the randomised thing was a hypothesis I had. So I guess that hypothesis was correct. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 16:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

wikifying...

I'm sorry but which of the grand total of 17 words were you thinking needed bluelinking with this tag? You've done this elsewhere. Would some form of "expand" tag be more useful? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well firstly (as I'm sure you know, given your extensive following of my edits), that's a tag which AWB automatically applies, and since it doesn't show the entire article in its diff-window, to an extent I have to take its recommendation on trust. But anyway, I see words like 'Europe', say, that could easily be linked there. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 08:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
scintillating - no I've never used nor come across that program. I think Europe is possibly a bit obvious to link, but meh. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
And presumably the clear link to WP:AWB in the edit-summary prompted you to read that (previously unknown?) page thoroughly before coming to my talkpage and objecting to me making bad edits? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 10:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Why would that exonerate you from slapping inappropriate wikify tags on pages? Some others were too, which is why I scanned some of the wikify tags that you were placing on articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
If you're so clueless as to have never heard of AWB, and so bizarre as to think that linking the word 'Europe' to Europe is a bad idea, then you'll excuse me for not valuing your feedback and asking you to keep it to yourself in future. Please do not edit my talkpage again unless leaving me a notification required by policy. Please do not feel obliged to follow me around Wikipedia tracking my edits and commenting in the same places I comment. OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 10:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 16:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Plautdietsch language

Please stop "fixing" the Plautdietsch language article. You are changing the diphthong "ie" and turning into abbreviation of the Latin phrase id est: i.e.. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC) (archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 16:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Your talk page

You cannot ban users from posting to your talk page. You can remove any comments you wish, and you can ask users not to post to your talk page. But unless their comments are intended to be disruptive, you cannot prevent them from posting here. Any user with a valid reason to contact you must be able to post to your talk page - that is the purpose of user talk pages. Prodego talk 15:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This may interest you. This may interest you. This may interest you. This may interest you. This may interest you. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 15:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, as I said "unless their comments are intended to be disruptive". Prodego talk 15:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
If you think that this had any purpose other than to piss me off then you are clearly too clueless to be of use here. Goodbye. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 15:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I was primarily considering the first message. Prodego talk 15:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

< Fine. So what are your thoughts on the second two?╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 15:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

They were probably intended to annoy you, but given your response, and particularly that you posted to his talk page while doing so, I can understand why that might be. Sarek shouldn't continue posting comments here for no reason. Prodego talk 15:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Similarly though, this sort of thing is also disruptive. You two should probably just leave each other alone now. Prodego talk 15:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I do not want any further input from you at this stage, since you clearly have no idea what 'disruptive' means and are prepared to tolerate Sarek's rampant baiting of me. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 15:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC) (archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 16:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A few paltry thanks

You or perhaps your bot are doing a yeoman's job (whatever that means) tidying up the encyclopedica. When I see a bunch of changes similar to this[1] I learn by example how to do it right in the future, e.g. using the "year" field instead of "date" for citations when all I have is the year. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well technically it's a "semi-automated tool" so I guess halfway between me and my bot! You're more than welcome, anyway, always happy to help! ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 18:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

AWB (again)

Hi TT, I appreciate that it's frustrating to have someone you don't get along with picking trhough your contribs page looking for any problems they can find (yes, I'm describing Sarek, not myself! ;D). However, you did say last time I brought the problem of cosmetic changes up with you that you would be more careful, but instead you appear to still be making these changes and still editing very fast - so possibly not examining the changes as closely as you could be. I do want to help: perhaps you could email me your AWB settings file and I'll see if I can spot anything wrong with it? Or alternatively you could limit yourself to making a maximum number of saves a minute, there's no hurry to make these changes after all, although I do appreciate you making them (the useful ones that is). Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm unwilling to dignify with any sort of recognition Sarek's brazen and desperate stalking of my contributions [2] [3] [4] - please understand that this is absolutely nothing personal and I appreciate your neutral stance in this, Kingpin. ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 21:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not looking for "evidence" to build some sort of case against you, I'm simply wondering if I can spot why your AWB is not skipping these changes. I would not share your settings file with anyone else. In any case, it's just a suggestion, so no problem if you don't want to. But please do try and keep keep an eye on those preview diffs :). Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I do understand your position (the link was mainly tongue-in-cheek!), and thank you for your offers of help. However, I really cannot stomach the prospect of humouring Sarek's stalking, I'm afraid. Perhaps some other time. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 21:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure, any time :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Coming here via Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Trivial_changes - the story with Sarek here is irrelevant: it's your responsibility to respect AWB rules of use when editing via AWB, and I think too many of your recent AWB edits don't. AWB is a powerful tool, and the injunction to not make trivial changes is there for a reason. Respect it, or risk losing access to the tool. Rd232 talk 22:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't look at your contribs, but did see the thread at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Trivial changes. I have set the boxes on AWB's "Skip" tab to skip pages where "No changes are made" and "Only whitespace is changed". Hope this helps - happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Hello

Thanks for your message. What a bearpit. My advice to you would be to rise above it. I don't care particularly if egregious troll vandals post on my talk page. I just ignore it. Whatever you make of Sarek, they're clearly not an egregious troll vandal. Given that you say you need to interact because of your mutual interest, then drop the requests for them not to post on your talk page and just ignore comments you find insulting or otherwise bothersome and respond to the rest. I think if you follow this formula, you'll have an immeasurably better relationship pretty quickly, to the satisfaction of both of you and the benefit of Wikipedia. I've never been a fan of preventing interaction - it cuts to the heart of being the opposite of Wikipedia is all about. All I was saying in that old diff, is that if you do impose such a ban yourself, it seems polite not to go posting at the other's usertalk. Sorry if that's less helpful than you hoped it'd be, but sometimes the best well-intentioned advice is the hardest to follow. --Dweller (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My Response 2

Thanks, didn't realise that. I'll problaly haveit deleted by the end of the year (if you don't mind), thanks again)!!!--SGCommand 14:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Also wished to add that most will be deleted (the games, book collection, etc, I was trying to incorporate onto my main userpage if thats alright)!!--SGCommand 14:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The WP:CSD on the images used in the articles about the House MD episodes - Reg.

Hi,

Just dropped by to talk to you about the WP:CSD tags that you have placed on the images that have been used to identify various house MD episodes. :)

I have uploaded the image for one of the episodes (File:House-Heavy.png) and have filled in a complete set of Non-free media use rationale, Licensing & Rationale of fair use to clarify why the image in question is required.

Upon checking the other images used in other House MD episodes, I have seen that they have all been thoroughly vetted as well, but all of them are tagged with WP:CSD.

As a regular user of wikipedia to refresh my memory on various TV show episodes, I can attest to the fact that a visual cue such as the screenshot from the episode helps me remember things easily. It is also known that visual cues help in refreshing memories much better than textual cues (Scientific research in this area backs me in this regard and I'd be glad to provide evidence of the same, if required.) This would effectively meet all requirements for Wikipedia's NFCC policy (incl. #8).

I would request that the WP:CSD tags are removed from all the images in question. If however you are not satisfied with my explanation, I would suggest that you change the WP:CSD to a Proposed deletion tag that would allow for discussion before the media is deleted.

Cheers!

Manoj Prajwal (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the images I have tagged all fail the non-free content criteria, part of an important Wikipedia policy. I won't be changing any of the tags. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

List of The Apprentice candidates (UK) copypaste tag

Hello TreasuryTag, can you comment on the situation here. A copypaste tag you placed back in 2009 may not be resolved. Thanks.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep Young and Beautiful (song)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Keep_Young_and_Beautiful_.28song.29. You know the drill :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm quite surprised that you chose to honour a request quite as crappy as that but I guess the choice is yours. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 14:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument to be avoided in deletion "discussions". If someone comes to WP:REFUND and says "I want it undeleted because purple monkey dishwasher" and it was deleted by PROD, I restore it unless there are major problems with it. (unsourced BLP etc.) This one's going to have to go through AFD and I am already noticing some ITSNOTABLE arguments there. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Changes to the Eleventh Doctor

Dear TreasuryTag,

While I thought (at first) that the initial deletion was a mistake, I was surprised to see that my posts were flagged under the "No original research" policy. I know that I'm new to this, so I'm hoping that you will be willing to clarify this for me. As a fictional program, the most authoritative source on any incarnation of the Doctor is the show itself. Following the character summary on the Tenth Doctor, I tried to add a neutral summary of this incarnation's idiosyncratic personality quirks, while reorganizing the section on his physical appearance to more closely resemble the pages on the other doctors.

I later removed the one line of pure speculation that I put on it, namely the bit about the Doctor's motivations regarding guilt, but basically summarized the plot of several episodes. Based on what I saw on the pages for the other Doctors, I'm really not sure what I've done wrong.

In short, while I understand that the principle of the policy is to protect the integrity of the page from interpretative assertions, I'm not sure how summarizing the plot points of episodes or The Doctor's personality traits while citing the episode itself is in error. After going over the policy, it would seem both redundant and superfluous to try and find a quote by a third party source (such as magazine or newspaper) on Steven Moffat to repeat these same details (e.g. that The Doctor eats custard or loses his temper) when they are clear facts in the episodes themselves. I can tell from your page that you have a lot more experience working with Wiki style than I do, and so your patience and help in making this clearer to me would be greatly appreciated.

Best,

Analyst12 (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It was almost more the phraseology than the content of what you wrote which was problematic: the more poetic you get, the more likely you are to stray into personal interpretation. For example, "he shares the same mercurial passion as the Ninth Doctor, in particular when confronted with human weakness," is the sort of thing an arts-critic would get away with writing, but not an encyclopedia. "Another unique trait of this incarnation is his deep emotional sensitivity" – who says it's unique? I could go on...! ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 08:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record: material salvaged from User talk:Edokter

Firstly, please consider this your 3RR warning. Secondly, perhaps you could, as an administrator, help me with the following queries?

  1. Is there any doubt that the discussion has a 'delete' result?
  2. How long do you suggest I wait for the discussion should be closed, bearing in mind that it's now nearly three weeks late?
  3. Would you suggest I list the image for FfD instead?

Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Maintaining process is not subject to 3RR. I explained further here. — Edokter (talk) — 17:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you could, as an administrator, help me by answering the following query: which exemption listed at WP:NOT3RR applies? ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 17:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Thought not. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 18:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Welcome to Wikipedia"

I consider "welcoming" one of Wikipedia's most respected and experienced users (NYB) highly offensive. It completely discredited everything you had to say as far as I'm concerned. Please don't do that again. Juliancolton (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As I stated in the same edit, "I generally don't template the regulars on the basis that experienced editors are familiar enough with Wikipedia policies not to need such basic, boiler-plate reminders. However, that unfortunately doesn't seem to be the case here."
I do take your point, but if I'm honest, I found NYB's chutzpah in openly flouting extremely basic policy offensive as well. Do you have a take on that? ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 19:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The closing admin will be able to determine which arguments are more credible; it's generally not expected of the nominator to refute every comment. Honestly, I don't know what your posting on NYB's talk page did other than to further strain the situation. Juliancolton (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The closing admin will be able to determine which arguments are more credible; it's generally not expected of the nominator to refute every comment. Nor is it forbidden, but that's not the point. The point is that NYB ("one of Wikipedia's most respected and experienced users" no less) made an edit which rampantly stuck two fingers up at established policy. If you don't find that at least as objectionable as my post on his talkpage, then we may have to agree to disagree. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 19:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not forbidden, but it doesn't look good for you or those who agree with you. I see a comment which perhaps could have been fleshed out more, but which doesn't cause nearly as much harm as you seem to believe. If the closing admin decides it's no good, he'll throw it out (but somehow I doubt this will be the case). With all due respect, I think you need to remember what you're arguing to delete – a harmless article which is viewed only 300 times per month. Juliancolton (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, given the overwhelming preponderance of 'delete' !votes, I'm sure that there's no real chance of the article being kept, but I am equally sure that any admin who gave weight to a transparent WP:JUSTAVOTE/WP:ADHOM such as the one that NYB left would be swiftly overturned at DRV. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 19:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
If you think the community agrees with you by consensus, why do you care so much about a few stray dissidents so as to harass them on their talk pages? Juliancolton (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Why do you revert vandalism, much of which will only be to harmless articles viewed fewer than 300 times per month? (And please note that I am resisting the temptation to feed the absurd tea-party which NYB seems to have started.) ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 19:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure you brought that upon yourself. Anyway, best of luck with your case, I think we've both made our points. Juliancolton (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I brought it "upon myself" because that rather implies that I'm losing something or suffering somehow. The worst that will happen is that some fool of an admin will keep the article on the strength of those non-votes and be rebuked at DRV, though I strongly suspect that it won't come to that. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 19:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

hey

TT ... If you're interested, then I wouldn't mind talking to you. I'm not here to find fault, or condemn you in any way. I'm just saying that if you wanna talk, maybe I can help point out some things. — Ched :  ?  03:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I'd really like to discuss things with you. It seems email is not your preferred means, so would you prefer onwiki discussion? --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

cease communication

Do not place talkbacks on my talk page, I watch all pages I edit. I am not interested in your comments or any dialog with you. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, did you just post, "I am not interested in any dialogue with you," on my talkpage? ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 19:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Well I just checked, and I'm pretty sure he did. SlightSmile 21:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No consensus default

Now that the DRV is off on its way, we can stop worrying about that specific image. Now, what do we do with the general question? We know demonstrably that raw discussion does not work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what can be done. My automatic response is to say, start a discussion at WT:FFD, but that's obviously been tried. Perhaps start an RfC discussion subpage? Out of interest, what's your personal view on default-to-keep-or-delete? ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 10:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Compared to other people I've definitely started more meta-discussions than participated (as in the ratio). I guess I'm like, "I don't care what it is, just tell me what to do and I'll do it, but you have to tell me." A discussion that I started because somebody complained about my closure of an AfD with one !vote for "delete" other than the nominator as "no consensus WP:NPASR" turned out to be a big success. After so many failed proposals, soft deletion finally gained acceptance, and I followed whatever consensus was. (In fact, I supported soft deletion, but of course had to follow current policy at the time.) Though I do find Sandstein's analysis (and Jheald's continuation) to be quite persuasive: "The issue of who has the burden of proof in a discussion is unrelated to whether that discussion reaches a consensus." (You can read on in the discussion.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I'm in the US and it's really late, so I'm going to bed. Feel free to post whatever you want to say now, but let's continue our discussion tomorrow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, and think that the issue needs resolution one way or another. Personally, I think it would be beneficial if FfDs without clear consensus were relisted for a further week, cut-and-pasted onto the current day's deletion page, that is, so as to gather more input. But then who's asking me? :P ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 11:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that would be a good idea where there is the nominator and say one "keep" !vote. But in general, if you have 6 "delete" !votes vs. 6 "keep" !votes, all of them policy-based and equal in weight, there is little to be gained in further discussion. Certain discussions simply are begging to be closed "no consensus," and there's no workaround. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You might be interested in this discussion from last August. Here's what I said there...

Agreed, both guidelines and policies are generally "descriptive". They "describe" what's already been done and what's already agreed to. However, WP:NFCC is an exception. It's one of the few policies, another being WP:BLP, that's enforced "prescriptively". Therefore, those advocating "no consensus" defaulting to "delete" have a good case. IMHO it should depend on the situation. In an FFD on a non free image with more or less split !votes, if the "keep" !voters provide a plausible interpretation of the policy that supports keeping it, then "no consensus" should default to "keep", however, if all the keep !votes are simply ILIKEITs, (they think it makes the article look cool or something) then the image should be deleted. The former is quite common if NFCC 8 is the issue because reasonable people can disagree on whether or not an image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". I can also see it for images of people who recently died or buildings recently demolished. Are they replaceable with a free image?

I still stand by that for "8" but if the issue is NFCC 2 (ie something from "Getty Images") then the image should be deleted no matter how many editors yell "keep" unless someone can provide a DAMN GOOD REASON why the articleimage should be kept. For a Getty image the only DGR I can think of is if the article is about the image itself or contains extensive commentary of the image such as with Tank Man . (image FFD) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions about self-harm on the reference desk

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Responding to requests for advice about self harm - best practice?. Equisetum (talk | email | contributions) 23:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2011/May&oldid=1146277028"