Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:19, 22 May 2009

Deletion

Please do not gratuitously remove content from Misplaced Pages. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 20:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleting images without any discussion or explanation

Fasach Nua, please do not remove images without either engaging in discussion, or (at the very, very least) providing some form of explanation. It was bad enough when you were doing multiple reverts a short while ago using only cryptic references, but today's deletion of images from several Star Trek: Voyager articles did not have any form of edit summary. You may or may not be correct in removing them - I'm not addressing that issue here - but your methodology is causing problems. --Ckatz_spy 20:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Fasach Nua, you know full well that the images were not added; instead, they were restored from deletions by you, all of which were without any form of explanation whatsoever. (One of your edits even broke the formatting for an article's infobox, an error that you did not correct when you reverted me.) Again, as per what I and others have told you repeatedly, you would probably find that your concerns receive a more positive response if you took the time to engage in discussion, rather than just deleting without even explaining why you are doing so. --Ckatz_spy 21:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

(reply to your message on my talk page) Please do not misrepresent the situation. You deleted material, you did not explain why, you did not provide an edit summary, and you refuse to participate in any form of discussion about the deletions. FN, I'm presuming that your intentions are good> However, you must keep in mind that the behaviour I've described above - if taken by an IP or an editor without a good track record - would be considered vandalism. Please reconsider your refusal to explain your edits; I am certainly not the only editor to take issue with this problem. --Ckatz_spy 21:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletions

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, you will be blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 20:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please read WP:EDSUM about using edit summaries to detail why you perform your edits. Canterbury Tail talk 20:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletions

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Misplaced Pages, you will be blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 11:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If you continue to remove content from Misplaced Pages, especially without an explanation, you will be blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 11:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use images

If you consider an image to not be being used in accordance with fair use policies, could you please open a discussion at Files for deletion rather than just deleting them without comment from articles. If there is a reason to delete the images the yes, they should go, but just removing them from articles without comment isn't a very productive way of approaching the problem. As you see it's started a few edit wars and disruptive editing patterns. So please, if you think an image isn't suitable or not allowed to be used, please take it through the deletion discussion instead of gratuitously removing them from articles without explanation. Also, I encourage you to use edit summaries on your edits to prevent edit warring and to let other editors know why you've performed an edit. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 11:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

AN thread

Hi. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion here regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Steve 13:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Responses

It is very important to keep ontop of the flood of image violations we get every day. I thank you for that effort. However in doing so you must explain to folks that ask why you do things in a clear and concise manner. Failure to do so is no better then reverting to the "correct" version in an editwar without discussing your revert on the talk page. Its just as disruptive, and it does not help others understand why you are doing your actions. Please work on using accurate and informative edit summaries and spend time explaining your actions to those that ask you. Thanks —— nixeagle 16:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR

In practice I don't think it's as stringent as FAC YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Image question

Fasach Nua, I uploaded this picture but as you can see it is sideways. Is there any way to turn it upright? NancyHeise 05:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm running low on time at the moment, I'll drop a note how to do it later Fasach Nua (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Fasach, Thank you very much! I saw your edits on the monastery page to see how you did it. I was wondering about the arrangement of the other pictures too and saw how you added "gallery". You don't need to tell me anything more, I think I can do this now. Thanks again. NancyHeise 20:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

House cast image

Hi, I don't know if you watch FAcs, but I have replied to your image comment on the House FAc, and removed the image. Please read the FAc and consider striking your oppose. Thank you very much.--Music26/11 18:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

FAC is not a vote, if my object is found to be invalid, ie the images is gone then it will be discounted by the director, however I am not prepared to strike the oppose until I am content the article is stable, and there I think there is still ongoing discussion on the matter. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Another image question

This photo is taken with the subjects own camera and is posted on his myspace page. He gave me permission to upload this for Misplaced Pages but it has been tagged as needing a copyright. Do I have to have something in writing from Howard Davis? Is it not OK to take pictures off of someone's myspace page? He told me all his myspace pictures are public domain and preferred for these to be used instead of something I might take myself. The picture of him winning the Olympic gold medal is unreproduceable and I would like to use it on his page but it is also tagged. I can get written permission if necessary, I was just wondering why these were not being considered public domain.NancyHeise 21:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to link to the source, ie the myspace page, you can tag the copyright status yourself, but best practice would be to use the WP:OTRS system. It may be worth looking at WP:PERMISSION Fasach Nua (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I provided the link now. NancyHeise 17:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to you about RCC pics here . NancyHeise 21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

FAC

Can you point me to some FACs where you supported and they contained fair use images. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is no, I only look at criteria 3, and meeting one criteria is not enough for a FA, which must meet all four criterion. I generally only hold a position of neutrality or opposition, and I allow other editors better qualified than I, to make judgements in their area of expertise, all opinions are collated by Sandy, and she decides whether the article meets FA criteria. If it is something specific you are looking for, all contributions to FAC are available in the archive. (I had this on my main page for a long time , but recently removed it) Fasach Nua (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Template:Defunct national football teams. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Canterbury Tail talk 11:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Template suggestion

Hi, I'm posting the same message to you and chandler. After discussing possible alterations to the Defunct national teams template at ludicrous length and seeing the problems on both sides of this argument, I think I can offer a solution.

All team articles that have a recognised successor should be merged and redirected to their successor's article (eg South Vietnam national football team merged into Vietnam national football team). In the case of Russia/CIS/USSR there may be a case for having separate articles on the teams' histories for the sake of length but not 3 separate 'national team' articles. The introduction would explain the team's history, and historic names would be bolded - much like the current Congo DR national football team article. I explained the rationale here, and although there was only one reply, there wasn't any disagreement so it doesn't seem like it would be a controversial move.

This would make the 'other' section of the template meaningless as all the listed teams would simply be redirects. The template could have a footnote redirecting here and/or here for further information if you wanted.

Let me know what you think. Stu.W UK (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, although people dont like to see their pet articles turned into redirects, An alternative might be creating History articles, renaming the USSR to History_of_the_Russia_national_football_team_(Soviet Era) or History_of_the_Russia_national_football_team_(1917-1989), which would maintain the article without any POV, and could sit alongside History_of_the_Scotland_national_football_team, History_of_the_England_national_football_team ....etc Fasach Nua (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Canterbury Tail talk 00:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You are very near a new block. Please start communicating and stop edit warring. Consider this your last warning. Rettetast (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Hello, Fasach Nua. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Template:Defunct national football teams. Thank you. — Aitias // discussion 22:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)