Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:59, 20 June 2008

Redvers is male • gay • married • a socialist • a vegetarian • Welsh • an atheist • and it took a tattooed boy from Birkenhead to really really open my eyes 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Don't post your images to Commons. Why not? DON'T post "talkback" templates. I'm already watchlisting your talk page Watchlist this page to see replies

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)

Quite easy to make a huge leap between the two, and quite wrong. And I note with wry amusement that Kelly is once again the victim of a wicked, biased admin.

Before you leap to assumptions (well, after, but anyway) - I spent over a year clearing CSD I3 and CSD I4 images. I rigorously policed them, providing a clickable edit summary, a personalised talk page message, an FAQ with 24/7 advice, plus personal help. I got a year of user page vandalism, death/violence threats, talk page abuse, ANI threads and other shit. So, believe me, I know all there is to know about the hell that is image-upload policing. You may also remember that I have been and remain an outspoken defender of the work done by Betacommand and his bots - far beyond the rope the community would give him. So, knowing that, how do your assumptions now fit with the facts? And, yes, feel free to MfD my essay about the issues that Commons has. That'll solve the issues! Pretending they don't exist will really help. You're just the latest person to turn up here and make veiled threats (come on, out with it! If you actually want to threaten me, do so!) over my views on Commons. And that's fine. You're entitled to your views. As I am to mine, I would suggest. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 18:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Redvers. Look, I'd like to say "sorry" for any problems in the past. I have promised to modify my approach to image reviewing, and I hope this satisfies any concerns with my past conduct that you may have had. I don't consider myself to be your "victim", and I'd be happy to remove or strike out any such suggestion if asked. In return, I would respectfully ask that you consider the idea that violations of copyright law and WP:NFCC should be considered at least as seriously as violations of WP:DTTR, and that violators shold be warned or sanctioned accordingly. I now see your history of image review work, and I'm sure that you understand my concern.

That said, could you perhaps provide some details or diffs on the problems you have had at Commons? I do a lot of work there, and would be happy to help investigate and resolve this. Kelly 19:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to respond to Redvers's comments, I'm well aware of the work you have done and still do, but the concern is the damage you might do to Commons if your essay is based on misunderstandings or is misleading. If you really think Commons has gone off the rails, then you should be raising hell about it, not writing essays. As I said "Either there is an issue, and an open discussion is needed, or there isn't and the essay needs to go." I thought that was perfectly clear - no veiled threats there - if what you say is wrong, it needs to go, if not, you need to get more eyes on the issues. I suggest you work with Kelly - you might both find that a productive experience. First impressions and all that. Carcharoth (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be working with Lar on this. I'm not inclined to work with Kelly, who is still doing image work by editor, resulting in crapfloods on talk pages - mine, for instance - in a way that is either idiocy or WP:POINT. It would be best if Kelly considered that s/he and I have an unresolved dispute and thus stay away from me. I will do likewise. That way, no drama needs happen. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 08:09, 20 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)

Thanks for this useful info. I have removed them. Leoniana (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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)

FYI

 – iridescent 23:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Gotta love the sociopaths and their lovely assumption that exactly what they can see on a once-deleted, blanked, unused talkpage on a different project is all that I am complaining about. Yeah, that's likely. Heh. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 08:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this...

User_talk:Redvers/Say_no_to_Commons#Could_you_provide_some_examples.3F ... As you may know I am involved with Commons. I'd like to look into this matter if you'd be so kind as to provide some examples. I'd suggest answering there but here is ok too, as you like. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer there when things calm down in RL - Sunday, Monday-ish. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 08:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Base

Redvers, I don't expect every admin to be on top of every policy (and I hope they return the favor) but MOS:TM is pretty unambiguous on the capitalization of trademarks. Lots of companies like to write their names in block caps (or in lowercase or weird mixed case) so they stand out in text, including Base (BASE). But this is not indulged on Misplaced Pages, and legally speaking, capitalization does not affect trademark rights at all, so that can't be used as a reason to do it:

Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official":

• avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS
• instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss

And thus "Base" it must be, regardless of what KPN's own copywriters prefer. I admit the recent rename re "mobile telephony provider" is a bit wordy, but I couldn't think of anything better that might not also imply "base station". Regards, ProhibitOnions 19:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)