| Revision as of 18:12, 15 June 2008 view sourceRedvers (talk | contribs)29,889 edits →Tags for references and notability on United States Artists: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:32, 15 June 2008 view source Carcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,579 edits →Moving on in light of warnings: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| :I remain resolute that bombarding a regular user with a dozen or so templates in a short space of time is harassment and that doing it through automated tools is abuse of those tools. Editors ''must'' take responsibility for their edits, however they are produced. If the tool is faulty, then the tool must not be used until the fault is corrected. It cannot be dismissed as something that can be cleaned up later - as this whole drama has shown. And I think Kelly has been clever in convincing (almost) everyone that s/he is the victim here, a powerless humble editor who happened to edit somewhere sensitive. This is a gross misreading of the whole drama, and the escalation of what I said into an imminent "block threat" is part of this. I cannot and will not hand any editor ''carte blanche'' to abuse automated editing tools, which is what I'm being asked to do here. However, if the tool's error (the bombarding) is corrected, or Kelly decides to choose a different way to batch requests other doing it by editor, then our paths will never cross and neither of us will have anything to worry about. ➨ ''']''' used to be a sweet boy 18:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC) | :I remain resolute that bombarding a regular user with a dozen or so templates in a short space of time is harassment and that doing it through automated tools is abuse of those tools. Editors ''must'' take responsibility for their edits, however they are produced. If the tool is faulty, then the tool must not be used until the fault is corrected. It cannot be dismissed as something that can be cleaned up later - as this whole drama has shown. And I think Kelly has been clever in convincing (almost) everyone that s/he is the victim here, a powerless humble editor who happened to edit somewhere sensitive. This is a gross misreading of the whole drama, and the escalation of what I said into an imminent "block threat" is part of this. I cannot and will not hand any editor ''carte blanche'' to abuse automated editing tools, which is what I'm being asked to do here. However, if the tool's error (the bombarding) is corrected, or Kelly decides to choose a different way to batch requests other doing it by editor, then our paths will never cross and neither of us will have anything to worry about. ➨ ''']''' used to be a sweet boy 18:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Well, Kelly just pointed me to ], and I have to say that the possibility that there is a connection here between your views on image work on Misplaced Pages and your attitude to Commons is, well, something that I think should be asked. Is there a connection? I got rather annoyed at ST47 for the "Death to Fair Use" banner he had. I don't know how much attention your essay has got, but I think it needs attention drawing to it. Either there is an issue, and an open discussion is needed, or there isn't and the essay needs to go. Sorry to switch focus like this. I won't have much time for a few days now, so I'm just leving this note as a placeholder. ] (]) 18:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Tags for references and notability on ] == | == Tags for references and notability on ] == | ||
Revision as of 18:32, 15 June 2008
 .svg){kind=small} male •  gay •  married •  a socialist •  a vegetarian •  Welsh •  an atheist • and you're the one for me, fatty
|
.gif){kind=small}
Thank you
Hello! This morning, you blocked the editor Blackknight93, whom I reported to WP:AIV for vandalism. He wouldn't listen to my warnings, and I am glad you stepped in to halt his mischief. I appreciate your efforts to keep silly vandals off this site, and I just wanted to drop a word of thanks for your fine work. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sophie Raworth Pic
Boy that was a quick deletion. It was only up about 45 seconds! Do people really object so strongly to images? SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 10:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's a copyright violation, and a big one. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content says in "Unacceptable uses #10": Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. What we have to remember with images which are copyright and belong to other people is that, whilst they may be fine for use on the non-commercial, educational Misplaced Pages, many sites take our content and use it in commercial, entertainment settings. So we can't allow them to be used. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 10:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Moving on in light of warnings
Hi Redvers. About the image tagging and talk page notifications incident with Ryulong and Kelly, you said the following at ANI: "It really is now time to move on... but please don't abuse automated tools in future, or you will be blocked again, especially if you don't understand what the problem was in the first place." I've been talking to Kelly and Kylu on their talk pages in the aftermath of this, trying to resolve some of the loose ends in a less confrontational atmosphere than ANI, and one thing that came out at User talk:Kelly#Image tagging and editing approach is that Kelly feels unable to move on until what you said at ANI (which was perceived as a block threat) has been resolved. Given that Future Perfect strongly objected to what you said (and I do too, for the record) and that GMaxwell now says that he thinks "the block was unneeded and inappropriate", and that many people have said this was overblown, do you think you could help everyone move on by clarifying what you meant or even retracting your statement? At the moment, Kelly feels unable to return to image work, and that is not ideal. Do you think you could help resolve this? Carcharoth (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I remain resolute that bombarding a regular user with a dozen or so templates in a short space of time is harassment and that doing it through automated tools is abuse of those tools. Editors must take responsibility for their edits, however they are produced. If the tool is faulty, then the tool must not be used until the fault is corrected. It cannot be dismissed as something that can be cleaned up later - as this whole drama has shown. And I think Kelly has been clever in convincing (almost) everyone that s/he is the victim here, a powerless humble editor who happened to edit somewhere sensitive. This is a gross misreading of the whole drama, and the escalation of what I said into an imminent "block threat" is part of this. I cannot and will not hand any editor carte blanche to abuse automated editing tools, which is what I'm being asked to do here. However, if the tool's error (the bombarding) is corrected, or Kelly decides to choose a different way to batch requests other doing it by editor, then our paths will never cross and neither of us will have anything to worry about. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 18:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Kelly just pointed me to User talk:Redvers/Say no to Commons, and I have to say that the possibility that there is a connection here between your views on image work on Misplaced Pages and your attitude to Commons is, well, something that I think should be asked. Is there a connection? I got rather annoyed at ST47 for the "Death to Fair Use" banner he had. I don't know how much attention your essay has got, but I think it needs attention drawing to it. Either there is an issue, and an open discussion is needed, or there isn't and the essay needs to go. Sorry to switch focus like this. I won't have much time for a few days now, so I'm just leving this note as a placeholder. Carcharoth (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Tags for references and notability on United States Artists
Hello Redvers, I am working to improve the article United States Artists. At this point it doesn't seem to warrant the above tags any more. What is the procedure for removing them? Thank you. Leoniana (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Leoniana! If you have addressed the problems noted in any tags on an article, you should remove them forthwith. You're doing Misplaced Pages a service by cleaning up and expanding a "problem" article, so remove them immediately! If you're worried that others may not agree, remove them anyway, then drop a note on the article's talk page, saying something like "I've added X and taken away Y, so I'm confident that tag Z can now go, please let me know if you don't agree" or the like. Communication is all in Misplaced Pages. But if you are confident, just remove them. You have the angels on your side. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 18:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)