Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trödel (talk | contribs) at 07:11, 8 January 2007 (→Your ANI complaint: copyedit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

Image:Chloeinpolitcalmachine.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Chloeinpolitcalmachine.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. -- GreenReaper 22:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Political Machine Chloe Sullivan

How did you get the screenshot? I looked for a few hours and couldn't find a way to do it. -TheGreenFaerae

Printscreen button on the keyboard. Takes a screenshot, puts it in the clipboard. True for all of Windows (alt+PrintScreen does just the current window). Open Paint Shop Pro (or Microsoft Paint), paste, save as PNG. Done.

By the way, you can do ~~~~ to get a signature, or ~~~ if you don't want the time. GreenReaper 03:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, PrintKey 2000 also lets you selectively take screenshots of specific portions of the screen using hair trigger selection and then save it in many different formats. CMD+SHIFT+4 in MacOS X allows you to do the same without external software installed. - Debuskjt 22:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

RfM

I think you are confused about what mediation is. You keep saying that we are bound by mediation to cease editing Chloe Sullivan. That is not true. Mediation is neither compulsory or binding, and we could withdraw at any time. Nothing in Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a Request for Mediation or in the RfM states that users who agree to mediation must cease editing the article in question. - Debuskjt 22:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You must not move or remove any content under any circumstances. Content removal is restricted to members of the Mediation Committee.

That is one of the primary rules for the request for mediation process. Try reading something a little more carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreenFaerae (talk • contribs)

That rule is in regard to the RfM itself, not the article. - Debuskjt 23:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

where does ti say that? that seems like your own intepretation to me. TheGreenFaerae 00:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you won't believe me, I asked for you: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation. Armedblowfish is a member of the Mediation Committee, and stated "Yes, it is definately only referring to the RfM page." You can also look at current pages that have been accepted for mediation, such as Google bomb, where members involved in mediation haven't stopped editing. - Debuskjt 03:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

well then technically, uo broke the rules for mediation by removing the additional issues to be mediated, didn't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.152.229 (talk • contribs)

No. I did not. I restored an edit by User:Guanaco, who is an active mediator within his rights to remove material. - Debuskjt 03:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:OWN

I do admit I aggressively edit and look over the Doctor Who articles, and occasionally that rubs people the wrong way. That being said, people are free to argue against me and bring it up with the rest of the WikiProject or solicit third opinions and otherwise and I have never, ever, refused to follow consensus when an edit is concerned where consensus is reached on those points (case in point, the An Unearthly Child article naming debate). I do not believe that violates WP:OWN in any way. Unless the reasons are patently obvious (vandalism, speculation, et al.) I usually explain my edits in the edit summary and people are always welcome to discuss the reasons behind them. (In particular, editing of the plot synopses is rather radical at times because for a synopsis to flow properly and be readable, it has to be edited as a whole rather than piecemeal.) All in all, I am relatively confident that my edits contribute to making sure that the articles are up to certain standards. I'm just more focussed on the Doctor Who articles than most, but I've never claimed ownership, nor that no-one else can edit. I'm just making sure it conforms to Misplaced Pages standards. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't remove the "human optional" bit: I incorporated it into the paragraph immediately below in a more relevant context (the idea of Time Lords changing species across regenerations mentioned and implied in other stories), that's why I didn't feel the edit summary was necessary. As for other areas of the project, I have nearly 5,000 pages on my watchlist. I don't police all of them as rigourously, of course, but surely I can choose which pages I pay attention to. There are plenty of admins out there. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree. There's nothing that says an administrator (or editor for that matter) can't focus his energies on Wiki on anything he wants. If you feel that my edits are not an improvement, or that I'm in violation of Misplaced Pages policies, you're always free to bring it up to the rest of the project, or through the usual dispute resolution channels. I don't own the articles, but at the same time I don't see any reason why I should not be as hands-on as any other editor can be. I don't believe my status as an admin makes any difference to that. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I'll try to bear that perception in mind. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Advice on RFA

Copied from User talk:Val42

Being an administrator is a position of trust within the community. The nominator vouches to the community that the person nominated is deserving of that trust. If the nominator doesn't have enough experience on Misplaced Pages (and thus has not gained the trust of the community himself, much less gained enough trust to vouch for another), then many voters may rightfully examine the nomination in more detail. Of the current RFAs that are open, none of the nominators has less than 4500 edits - most have many more than that - show me an example of a nominator with less than 150 total edits whose nominee was successfully promoted - I doubt that there is even one successful candidate. --Trödel 05:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC) PS to Val42 - this discussion has nothing to do with your fitness as an admin for which I think you are qualified.

Show me a case where an RFA was denied because of the nominator's experience. Show proof or shut up, that's all there is to it. For a wikipedian, you dont seem to be able to cite your sources very well.TheGreenFaerae 05:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing a policy for documenting information on Article and discussing what happens when someone is nominated to be an admin. In the latter case, I am reporting, original research, my personal summary of past experiences that generally the nominator is not as new as you are. Additionally, I am using a logical argument that a new person does not yet have the trust of the community and to nominate someone is to vouch to the community that the person nominated is trustworthy. It is logical that the assertion of trustworthiness will not be given as much credence if the the person making the assertion is not yet a trusted member of the community. Not that I specifically am using a trusted member not an admin because there are many editors who are trusted members of the community. Furthermore, I would assume good faith that you are to be trusted until you prove otherwise; however, to nominate someone for admin when you are so new, imho, would be a red flag that would require further investigation. --Trödel 19:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Trödel

All im asking you to do is give me a link to an an RfA where that argument was either brought up, or sued as an argument against the admin in question. I'm not mixing this up with other articles. I'm simply trying to figure out where you got this argument from. You tell me it has been your experience, then show me where you got that from. It's a simple request, and your inability to do so means that you are lying about it being a requirement from the community as a whole, or that you just made this argument up today. If it's a personal reservation you have come up with, it is perfectly reasonable. But to say that standard applies to the community as a whole without proving so is just bad wikipedia ettiquete.TheGreenFaerae 22:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling me a liar is a personal attack. Now that I have wasted time because you have failed to assume good faith about my view (which by the way you have misrepresented), I am quite irritated but here are a few:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Sean gorter
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Foxearth
• Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 19#Change in Nomination policy - "...the point of having a nominator is that editors see who the nominator is, and this helps in itself to evaluate the nomination. If a sockpuppet does the nomination, that says a lot."
• Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 19#The poll above - "Many people do lean on their knowledge of the nominator to help them evaluate a candidate."
• Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 74#Co-nominations - "Another reason to allow co-nominations is that your original nominator might accidently poison the well against you through innocent bungling. You may be an excellent candidate, but your nominator is a newbie who doesn't know the normal style and decides to nominate you for being "Nice and helpful to me." A co-nominator may be the only thing saving you from an early death in that case. (Or what if your nominator is an ESL writer and has poor grammar as a result?)"
• Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 15#qualifications for nominators... - note that as I stated there is no rule against a new user nominating someone, but some editors will consider it as a flaw in the administrators nomination.
• Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 15#Requiring nominations to be accepted before they are posted "We also had the unfortunate situation involving Hcheney, whose nomination was effectively torpedoed largely because of controversy surrounding the nominator, instead of the nominee."
• Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 47#This is a Poll - "About the nominations, I don't believe that it would be essential to restrict valid nominations to Admins. The first step to a serious, worthy RfA is having a nominator that knows the potential candidate, has been in contact with the user extensively and knows that that person would make a good Admin." [How can you have had extensive contact with the user if you have less than 150 edits unless this is a sock account or you edited before as an IP, in which case you should nominate as that IP (as I stated before).

There are others... The very fact that you are so strenuously opposing what is a common sense comment and your unfamiliarity with the RFA process is additional proof that a new editor should not make such a nomination without careful consideration of the impact they would have on the nomination. --Trödel 23:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not communicate with me again - if you do I will block you for trolling --Trödel 02:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I try to help settle situations I come across as an admin. I hope this doesn't upset you too much. Viridae 09:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Superman-loneranger.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Superman-loneranger.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Misplaced Pages 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

Additionally, this image appears to be a higher resolution than is necessary. --Trödel 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I sent a reply to your talk page regarding this. I checked it is not orphaned. I would also suggest that if you want me to stay off your talk page, then you should stay off of mine.TheGreenFaerae 04:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:SupermanLoneranger.jpg is used on the lone ranger page not the image that is orphaned. Please restore the orphaned fair use tag and expend some effort to verify your claims before making them - such as the claim that this image is used on the lone ranger page. --Trödel 04:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your ANI complaint

The treacherous are ever distrustful. You choose not to walk away but to continue to levy accusations against me on WP:ANI even though I have not reviewed or changed any of your edits since you made the offer, and I come back to even more accusations on WP:ANI after what I thought was the beginning of a cordial exhange on my talk page (which I now see were made before the exchange - so I am hoping that it ends there).

You are trolling, even if you don't know it, which is why I have exercised restraint. When you continue to accuse others of improper behavior and misrepresent what they have done, and file baseless complaints against them - that is the very definition of trolling. That is to create conflict where none is needed. I admit I have been less than steller in my own behavior - letting you irritate me yesterday to the point where I convinced myself you are a throwaway account used for trolling (which btw a review of your edits convinced me that is not true - see - reviewing your edits is not vindictive or improper, it is useful to review edits before acting - which is what I should have done yesterday before I warned you).

Quite frankly, if you are going to make comments because they have a "cool rythym" regardless of how offensive they are and call another person a liar, then you should expect a lot of trouble on Misplaced Pages. And regardless of how sincere your apology is, it came only because you had no alternative, and then you used it as part of your rheteric to ask that I be blocked.

You demand that I trust and respect you as a new user, but you are accusatory and disrespectful to me starting with our first couple communications, even though you acknowledge that I am an experienced user (who, granted, makes many mistakes). That is the exact opposite of what you should be doing. If you want trust and respect then you should respect and trust others. Instead, so far, you demand that I "prove it," and respond to the proof with - see - you should do what I tell you, and then follow that with a baseless complaint to WP:ANI (for an alleged future event), more false accusations, and misrepresentations of my statements. Do you see the irony --Trödel 07:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)