Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MuZemike (talk | contribs) at 21:23, 24 February 2010 (→RfC: Try asking the blocking CU. Otherwise I couldn't really tell you.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Hi, Arcayne, you've asked about my intent. I look things over, and call it as I see it. Since this discussion arose over the recent warning you were given about the Arrest of Henry Louis Gates article, I've had a look at it. At the article talk page three editors expressed concern over using mug shot as the main image in the infobox, and JN466 replaced it by the double picture. You wrote "And why was the image of the mugshot not retained elsewhere in the article?" and Mattnad who also objected reverted the change. Following a brief discussion JN inserted the mugshot in the Arrest section and replaced it in the infobox with the double picture. You then began reverting to keep the disputed image in the lead and demanding consensus before the change. Wrong. Per WP:BLP, "Article improvement to a neutral high quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved." All the other editors appear to have accepted that the layout was dubious, and accepted the compromise. Consensus was required if the dubious image was to be kept in the infobox, not the other way around. Far from accepting that policy, you made a false and bullying accusation on agr's talk page that he was "reverting images over and over again" and that he should "maybe take a little break,, and come back and build a consensus". After that, agr raised the issue at BLPN, where KC responded and gave you the warning. In response you called the warning a "bogus claim" and threatened "repercussions". Let's examine the issues you have raised about the warning, in the section you have now archived. Firstly, "continuing to add 'defamatory content' would find me blocked.(1), this despite the fact that nothing of the sort had been added to the article". You were adding the image in dispute to the infobox, in clear violation of BLP as cited above. "The image itself possesses no defamatory portion, nor would a neutral view of my actions be considered part of a "smear" campaign, and I take specific offense at that particularly base, unfounded and bad faith accusation. A look at the article discussion would support my characterization of the image." Several editors disagreed with you, as is clearly shown by the talk page, and the consensus is that its use in the lead is inappropriate. KC did say "Cease your campaign to make this article a smear; cease edit warring." and while that's not actually a reference to a "smear" campaign and refers to the effect of your actions rather than intent, it could be misunderstood.
Regarding edit warring, you stated "Even if that were the reason (and, looking back over the warning, it was indeed there, tucked in at the very end of the warning, right after accusing me of engaging in a racist "smear" campaign), we both understand that it takes two to edit-war. To illustrate my point, allow me to ask if KC warned any of the other participants of the edit-warring (including the editor filing the BLP noticeboard complaint) the same warning?" Where did that "racist" come from? I've not seen any edits where KC accused you of that. As before, making the article a smear is not the same as engaging in a smear campaign. As for warning other editors, they'd each only reverted you once, restoring the version with majority support and least BLP concerns, as required by policy. Admins warn editors making multiple reverts, as you'd done. You complain that you've "received three warnings from KillerChihuahua in as many months.... And yet, not once in the past three months have I been offered an apology", and demand that she stop dealing with your misdeeds. You don't get to pick and choose which admin deals with you, and think yourself lucky it wasn't someone who just looked at your record and decided that you should know by now about edit warring and didn't need another warning. As for an apology, you've falsely accused agr of edit warring, and far from apologising continued to bluster when that was pointed out. Your reputation for acting properly would be greatly enhanced if you were to apologise to him. . dave souza, talk21:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I will respond to this email in due course with DIFFS. As for an apology, I am fairly certain that successful alchemy has a better chance of happening. - Arcayne()00:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Seek admin input, J; I've talked 'til I was blue in the face, and he simply doesn't get it. I am going to assume good faith that he is not purposely missing the point, but its growing increasingly difficult to assume such. We both have other things to do; bring the problem to some admins who aren't afraid of reinventing the wheel, or file an RfC about the nonsense, and maybe the crush of voices will tell him what we have for weeks. I wish I could help, but with work and family issues, I'm going to be of little help, my friend. - Arcayne()08:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The August 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:FILM September Election Voting
The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter
The September 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Batman Split
I just want your thoughts on the disscussion I posted at the Batman article talk page if you have any questions feel free to contact me. --Schmeater (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:FILMS October Newsletter
The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:FILMS' Tag & Assess Drive and Roll Call
The project's Tag & Assess drive has begun. We will be assessing over 50,000 articles during the drive and we need your help! 200-article ranges can be adopted and completed at any pace. A variety of awards are available based on the number of articles assessed. Please help review whatever you are comfortable with, and if you have any questions, leave a message on the talk page of the drive. In addition, please add your name to the active member list if you have not already. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:River.and.reavers.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've had a bit to drink, and don't want to do something as irresponsible as updating an important Misplaced Pages page in my current state, but I'm still cursed with being a stickler for details. So I'm hoping that you can help me. The page for Ronald Reagan says that you are actively involved with it. It also lists Ronald Reagan's occupation as "Actor." I guess you could make an argument that he doesn't have an occupation, since he's dead, but I'm assuming that the occupation field is meant for the occupation(s) that he was known for when he was alive. As I am fairly confident that Governor of California and President of the United States are both paid positions, I would really appreciate it if you, or someone else, could update President Reagan's occupation section to read "Actor and Politician" or "Politician and Actor."
Thank you very much, and sorry to be a pain. I'm just not that good with Misplaced Pages sober, and don't want to risk messing things up drunk.
Hey, thanks for the thoughtful response, especially in view of the fact that I was floating an alternative to your proposal. While I still think my idea has some value in some cases, it’s clear that it didn’t get sufficient support, so I’ll drop it for now. However, that’s not why I’m writing.
I’m writing because of my surprise at your statement - “Additionally, I think you might be confusing how the phrase "term limits" is being utilized here. The initial proposal did not suggest that admins serve x years and then then never again.”. Wondering if I misread, I went back to see how you defined it, but I don’t see a clear definition. Term limits means serving x years and never again. It isn’t uncommon for WP to use a phrase in a very specific way, not always matching general usage, but it should be avoided if possible.
If you are willing to allow service forever, but wanting periodic community buy-in, then you are proposing terms, not term limits. One of the reasons I came up with an alternative is that I thought term limits was too severe. I’m probably more in favor of your idea, now that I know you didn’t mean term limits. I wonder if I’m the only one who had the same thought?
Note that Rlevse responded “We have enough trouble getting good admins to stay, why make them leave when they've not abused their position?” That sounds like a response to a term limit proposal, not your proposal.SPhilbrickT22:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of belaboring this, have you read term limits? That's how I assumed you were using the phrase. I've reread carefully, and see you mean something else, but it looks like you mean that admins should serve a term, then rerun. No? I'm in favor of terms. SPhilbrickT22:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Re:RfC: Inactive admins
Hi Arcayne. Well, to be honest, I have never started an RfC either. But yes, I would certainly be interested in working on a proposal regarding the desysopping of inactive admins for the purposes of maintaining a more accurate statistics list. I'll look into the RfC process weekend and get back to you shortly on that. Regards, FASTILY07:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Colloquialism or not...
...it's still racist and denigrating to those who live on reservations: the insinuation being that they will run amok once "off the reservation". There are less inflammatory ways to describe problem admins. Might I suggest "going rogue". Thanks, –xeno19:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
If I could also butt in and give my two-pence, which is that deleting others' comments (especially when they are – in this case correctly, but even so – critical of you) is completely inappropriate? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 19:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I've left commentary on your page Xeno. Respectfully, you should have approached me before adding in a comment that tags me as a racist, which is why I removed it. I tend to respond rather negatively towards being called a racist. - Arcayne()19:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The usage could have been borne of ignorance rather than willful racism - it doesn't make the usage any less problematic. I've replaced "racist" with "insensitive". –xeno20:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
So, now I'm ignorant now? How precisely is that an improvement? Maybe - and I'm spitballing here - you could take a moment between reverting to actually discuss the topic with me? The topic being discussed is relatively volatile, and you tossing in the hand grenade that one of the participants are adding racist language does little to raise the tone there. Allow me to be blunt: "going off the reservation" is about as racist as using the term "vandalism"; yes, both have disparaging origins, but both have since evolved beyond their origins. Now, unless you want me to interrupt discussion and call your usage of the word "vandalism" as "racist" or "insensitive", have enough respect to approach me first. I would like you to cull the comment, because you really don't want me to call you on this, Xeno. - Arcayne()20:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we are all ignorant of some things. The Vandals haven't been around since the 5th century (side note: look at this vandalism that stood for a week, , lol). There are natives on reserves, today, who find the use insensitive. Let's just say "going rogue" or something. As for my choice of raising the concern - I prefer not to have things happening at several different venues, so I replied to you where the comment was made. –xeno20:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you possibly cite where natives on reservations were insulted by my comment at Talk:RfA? Please include me - 1/4 Oglala Sioux - as someone who not only gets to use the term, but who is unoffended by the usage. And as an aside, before I accuse someone of racism, I try to discuss the matter quietly first, before tossing gas on the fire in a public area. Maybe that's just me... - Arcayne()20:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
And, as per the link, are you stating that, because someone else chose to use the term vandalism is a disparaging way, that it's okay to do so? If so, look at how off the reservation is used by others thought a simple Google search. - Arcayne()20:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
No, someone vandalized the vandals article and changed Vandals to Goths... A week ago! Heh. I'll take your comments under advisement. The link I placed on my talk page seems to indicate the phrase should probably still be avoided. –xeno20:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, I got it now. You are right, that is tongue in cheek. :)
Here's the thing, Xeno. I get that you might find the term racist/insensitive, but the greeater portion of folk in the discussion - as well as the larger majority of the population - do not share that sentiment. Had you come to me first and asked me to edit myself, I likely would have done so. Posting as you did made it seem like I was a racist, and I had to act as I did. Being ¼ Native American myself, if I don;t have a problem with the phrase, then neither should you. Add to that the usage of the phrase in common parlance, and I don't see as I did anything wrong at all.
I am not at all surprised that TT broke a land-speed record to post a complaint in AN/I. I cannot really say anymore without making the little feller feel any more petty than I've know him to be in the past. Seems little has changed during my hiatus.... - Arcayne()20:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining your concern. I'm still not sure we should use the phrase when other neutral (and apropos) phrases that are already in use on the project to describe the event. There are terms considered highly offensive today that were common parlance just a few short decades ago. Greater tolerance and education has made these terms fall into relative disuse. Perhaps I am overreacting but that article I linked is very recent and seems to indicate some still consider the phrase offensive. –xeno20:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think the linked article is an example of a phrase that isn't in the common usage parlance, as is "going off the reservation". I haven't really heard the term 'honest injun' - I was almost going to say, 'in a coon's age' The term refers to the long-lived animal and not a racial slur, the latter coming into use as a slur during the American Civil War (1). I am racially sensitive, xeno. Had I felt it to be disparaging, I would not have used it. - Arcayne()20:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Arcayne. Yes, the origins of the phrase are not positive, but the understanding of the phrase has evolved beyond that point. I doubt that most people even think about what the specific origins were... just as we don't think about "left field" being derogatory. Plenty of words/phrases start out with specific connotations to specific groups, but lose that association with time as the term is used in a larger context with an expanding repetoire of the community. If you really think about it and delve into the subject, I think you'd be surprised at how many phrases we use that were initially jibes at specific segments of our community. Many of these assaults have been reclaimed by the target population, but most simply evolve to where they lose the focus on the specific association. I'm sorry, but while I appreciate your concerns, there are other things more worthy of getting worked up on.---Balloonman15:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I find your new word choice to be even more offensive! My son has not yet mastered the art of colouring inside the lines and you are disparaging him! (i keed - thanks) –xeno21:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Lol! There is no pleasing everyone. Consider it dramatic license. Now, if you sic the Toddler Posse on me, it's on! ;) - Arcayne()21:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the first part of your signature (i.e. your username) is invisible to editors using the greenscreen gadget, which I do to prevent eyestrain. I understand that this is caused by the font colour being set to black. Would you consider changing it? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The greenscreen gadget displays most text as green on a black background. When an editor forces a black font for text, it displays as black text on a black background, and is therefor invisible. There is a related thread at User talk:The Thing That Should Not Be#Your sig. I have also encountered this problem on user talk pages where editors have set the text font to black, and this was discussed at the Village Pump/Technical recently. DuncanHill (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Pardon my possibly obtuse question, but why would you have your screen set to display text a green on a black background? I mean, it seems like a vanity choice to me. I have temporarily altered my sig to accommodate your request, but again, I would like an answer to my question as to why your display preferences are set as such. - Arcayne()14:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
As I said in my first post above, I use the gadget to avoid eyestrain. You may think that avoiding pain is a vanity decision, but I don't agree, and it's certainly not as vain as insisting on a personalized signature that makes interaction harder for other editors. DuncanHill (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Your personal preferences aside, it is a fallacy that reverse type (white or light-colored text on a black or dark-colored background) are easier to read. Several studies have demonstrably proven that reverse type actively increases eyestrain. In my former career as an advertising copywriter, I used to live and breathe the holy writ of advertising guru David Ogilvy. You will note that many auto commercials on tv use reverse type when listing terms for lease, mpg, etc. This is because it is harder to read than white text on a black background. The research, conducted in the medical field has been effectively applied to the business world.
What most therapists recommend is lowering the intensity of your entire screen display. As for my personalized signature, I merely made the text bold - no special handling beyond that. Either way, I've altered my signature, as I do like interaction with my fellow editors. I just found your reasoning a bit confounding. - Arcayne()14:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
You didn't "merely make the text bold", you had the font set to black as well. Anyway, thank you for making the change. There is a significant difference between viewing a TV screen at a distance of a few feet, and a computer screen at about a foot. The computer screen takes up a much larger proportion of the field of view. Also, one concentrates much harder on a computer screen when reading and editing text that one does on a TV screen when an advert comes on. These factors make a significant difference. Use of a greenscreen was initially advised to me by a health and safety manager when I was working in credit referencing and having problems with eyestrain - indeed, the company concerned had made this feature available on its systems in response to previous complaints and medical advice taken. I was delighted when I found the gadget here, as it stopped Misplaced Pages being physically painful. DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I could debate the matter with you further (the reverse-type examples can be equally applied to print and electronic media, the default font color is black, etc.). but seeing as I've already made the alteration, and you are happy with it, let's just move on. Have splendid day. :) - Arcayne()14:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
MZMcBride arbitration case
Hi Arcayne. I have removed your evidence section from this case - the incident you describe is well-known to the Committee, so we are aware of all the points you raise. However, because of the very privacy issues that you raise, MZMcBride cannot respond adequately to this allegation in a public forum - as a result, I have removed this section. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This is the Chicago Public Library main branch. I edit here sometimes when connection speeds are slow at home. I am not sure tht unblocking the entire IP is warranted (esp. if there is abuse occurring on the part of someone else), but I am certainly not a part of it. - Arcayne()21:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the warning; I've never been prone to abuse any privilege given me. Is there other info about the abuse occurring? - Arcayne()21:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Besides that a CheckUser made the block, not really. You might want to ask User:NiskKid64 (who ran the CU and made that hardblock) and see what the circumstances were behind the hardblock (probably someone socking from what I can guess). –MuZemike21:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
