| Revision as of 17:19, 19 August 2007 editDavid Levy (talk | contribs)Administrators45,228 edits →Erin Burnett Page: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:39, 18 November 2007 edit undoICarriere (talk | contribs)468 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| (48 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] | |||
| Please leave a message after the Beep... ''BEEEEEP'' | |||
| == Re: Erin Burnett image == | |||
| ==Image:Agatha Christie in 1937.jpg== | |||
| Sorry, but a screencap of a person simply to show what he/she looks like doesn't meet the fair use criteria. ] states that (copyrighted) ''"pictures of people who are still alive, groups that are still active, and buildings still standing"'' fall under unacceptable use as ''"these are almost always replaceable because of the relative ease of taking a new picture, provided such an alternative would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image"''. You'll see that most biographical articles don't have a picture for this reason, and those that do tend to have snaps from movie premieres and such like. I guess the equivalent for Erin involves loitering outside the NYSE with a camera at around 11am ET! ] 22:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have tagged ] as {{tl|no rationale}}, because it does not provide a ]. If you believe the image to be acceptable for ] according to Misplaced Pages policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the ], on ]. Please also consider using {{tlp|non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Missing rationale short --> ] 06:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== RE: King James I == | ||
| Take a look at what they tried to add to the main page. I removed it, but we might as well stop talking to this people and just start reverting them. ] (]) 06:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Please read ] and refrain from editing from your user id and your non logged in ip address. Thanking yourself on the ip talk ] seems rather deceptive. Please avoid deceptive editing practices and comments. If you continue you are likely to be blocked from editing. ] 01:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Korismo, I agree with much of what you've said, but I'm hoping all parties can be reasonable. Thank you. - ] (]) 08:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : The issue at hand is a simple misunderstanding. I have been working to prevent vandalism to a page I created. Because the vandals who are using Sock Puppets (I've checked the IPs) were constantly watching my edit/contribution history, I felt the need to log out to ask another person for help. I didn't want the vandals to know that I was asking for assistance. | |||
| : While, I was logged out, I had to revert vandalism to the page in question. So I accidentally did this using my IP address. Again, this was not intentional. I agree, the cute little note where I thank myself was deceptive, but for good reason. I didn't want the vandals to see my IP address and put two and two together. A person's IP Address can be easily hacked. Which is why I plan on renewing it shortly. | |||
| : Unfortunately, I made the mistake of asking for help from ]. ] became immediately hostile, claiming that I had violated the ] policy. | |||
| : Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry policy states, | |||
| : <font color="red"> "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has one or more accounts. The Wikipedian who uses a sock puppet may be called a sock puppeteer. Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases. | |||
| : The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Misplaced Pages policies or cause disruption. Some people feel that second accounts should not be used at all; others feel it is harmless if the accounts are behaving acceptably."</font> | |||
| : The request for help from ] was a harmless act. Moreover, the comment to myself on my own user page was a harmless act. - ICarriere 02:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Using a sock for the purpose of deceiving others is ''not'' honest nor harmless. ] 05:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: <font color="blue">There was no intention on my part to deceive anyone. Misplaced Pages does not deny us the notion of privacy when communicating with another user. As to the edit, I have explain that I did not intend for the edit to show with my ip address.</font> | |||
| ::: <font color="blue">I have also explained why I added the comment afterward. Somewhat stupid? Perhaps, but as I said, I did so to conceal my privacy from would be hackers. I did it for my protection, not to cause harm to anyone else. The fact that you chose to believe something else is outside my control.</font> | |||
| ::: <font color="blue">Frankly, the hostility on your part is truly questionable. From what I have read, the admins are suppose to be welcoming and helpful. Instead, you've been accusatory and vendictive * .</font> - ICarriere 09:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Protection of ] == | |||
| I have protected the page due to the ongoing edit warring there. Note the protection does not endorse the current version. You have been involved in a protracted edit war and appear to have violated ], please avoid such behavior in the future. Your edit warring and admitted sock usage could easily have resulted in a block, please consider this a warning for the future. I expect to see some civil discussion on the talk page involved in an attempt by you and the other editors to resolve the issue. ] 04:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : While I truly thank you for protecting the page, I disagree with your claim I have violated Misplaced Pages policy. | |||
| : The policy clearly allows exception for removing content that violates the WP:BLV. | |||
| : ] Policy states, | |||
| : Exceptions: | |||
| : <font color="red">Reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons) </font> | |||
| : The <u>only</u> reverts that I have made to the page were for the purpose of retaining the pages' integrity. | |||
| : I would appreciate your response. - ICarriere 04:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Others have a different view of your actions, including another admin. Calling another users edits ''vandalism'' does not make it so. There may be some BLP issues here plus some notability problems - however "clearly libelous" and "poorly sourced" have been disputed on the talk page by others. At that point your continuing edit warring became a problem. I have no interest in the details of the dispute - quite simply move on and resolve the issue. ] 05:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again, I was defending the page I created from repeated vandalism by a 1-2 users. The user/users both hide themselves using a proxy and multiple user accounts. Now, if you don't mind, I'll defend myself, | |||
| ::: 1) Revert of unsourced school name when sourced school name is already provided:* | |||
| ::: + 23:29, 16 August 2007 by ] | |||
| ::: 2) Revert to so-called controversy citing 'youtube' as source:* | |||
| ::: + 12:08, 17 August 2007 by ] | |||
| ::: 3) Revert to so-called controversy citing 'youtube' as source:* | |||
| ::: + 12:44, 17 August 2007 - ] | |||
| ::: 4) Revert to so-called controversy citing 'Political blog' consumerist as source:* | |||
| ::: + 17:19, 17 August 2007 - ] sock ] | |||
| ::: 5) Revert to controversial quote citing NO source* | |||
| ::: + 19:02, 17 August 2007 - ] proxy 4.231.238.99 | |||
| ::: 6) Revert to defamatory statement, "Proving That She Is A Quasi-Fascist"* | |||
| ::: + 20:41, 17 August 2007 - 72.70.224.38 | |||
| ::: 7) Revert to controversy now citing 'Daily Show' as source * | |||
| ::: - made by mistake on 67.185.221.175 | |||
| ::: - thank you note added | |||
| ::: + 21:20, 17 August 2007 - ] | |||
| ::: 8) Removal of picture from main which violated GNU.* | |||
| ::: + 21:25, 17 August 2007 - ] I added note to explain* | |||
| ::: 9) Revert to edit, citing the 'Crooks and Liars' political blog as source* | |||
| ::: + 22:24, 17 August 2007 - ] proxy 4.231.233.88 | |||
| ::: 10) Revert to edit, citing the 'Crooks and Liars' political blog as source * | |||
| ::: + 03:01, 18 August 2007 - ] proxy 4.236.222.149 | |||
| ::: I hope after a careful review of the record, you will see that I did not violate ]. Thank you - ICarriere 16:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Erin Burnett Page== | |||
| David, I was sorry to see an Administrator of all people making a person attack, as you did on the Erin Burnett discussion page, ''see'' ]. I have responded to your claim on that page. ''Please respond here or on my talk page.'' | |||
| I truly believe that Administrators should be a good example for others to follow. Furthermore, I believe the Misplaced Pages Foundation would agree with that assessment. - ICarriere 17:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Criticising an individual's behavior is ''not'' a personal attack. (If it were, you'd be guilty of numerous personal attacks on that very page.) | |||
| :There is no "Misplaced Pages Foundation." You're thinking of the Wikimedia Foundation. And don't think for a moment that your thinly veiled threat intimidates me. —] 17:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:39, 18 November 2007
Archived | Previous Discussions
Image:Agatha Christie in 1937.jpg
I have tagged Image:Agatha Christie in 1937.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Misplaced Pages policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Burstmeets 06:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
RE: King James I
Take a look at what they tried to add to the main page. I removed it, but we might as well stop talking to this people and just start reverting them. Korismo (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Korismo, I agree with much of what you've said, but I'm hoping all parties can be reasonable. Thank you. - ICarriere (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)