CalG

Regarding your Recent Comments

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --AmiDaniel (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Warning

You have stated that you bear a personal animosity towards another editor, and that your edits to articles are primarily motivated by a desire to upset her. I would like you to familiarize yourself with WP:POINT, which includes such things as frivolously nominating articles for deletion.

I would also like to point out that persistent and/or recurrent misbehavior towards Amy Nelson on your part will lead to your being blocked from further editing, for a period of no less than two weeks. I hope that this will not be necessary, and that you will allow your secondary motivation - improving Wikipedia - to dominate.

Thank you. DS 23:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me state once again that my edits take place ONLY in the intersection of upsetting Amy and improving Wikipedia. If my edits are frivolous or poor, or if you can cite misbehaviour, I'm open to correction. CalG 00:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Response

No.

It is NOT acceptable to use Wikipedia to pursue a personal vendetta. If you consider another user to be your "enemy", then there's definitely going to be a problem. Your statement that your primary motivation is to cause distress means that I, and other administrators, can no longer assume good faith where you are concerned.

You have made at least one violation of WP:POINT, by frivolously nominating an article for deletion; I'll let that go this time, because you're relatively new to the project. I have no way of knowing whether you intended to taunt Amy Nelson into making legal threats against you, or whether that would simply have been an unforeseen consequence on your part; however, I have explained to Ms Nelson the hazards of making such statements, and she has assured me that she will restrain herself in responding to you. Ms Nelson will not be accusing you of either "libel" or "libellous statements" any time soon.

Future edits on your part should be made only with the intention of improving the project as a whole. You should take no account whatsover of what emotional impact (if any) that your edits will have on Amy Nelson; in fact, it would be better if you behaved as if she did not exist. Please note that this is not an invitation to mark articles for speedy deletion on the grounds that "they're empty, because no one put any content in them", or any such nonsense.

If you disagree strongly with Ms Nelson on a personal level based on her actions on Wikipedia, you may file a Request for Comment against her. However, doing so frivolously will be considered another violation of WP:POINT, and will lead to your being blocked for no less than two weeks. Should this unfortunate event come to pass, and you subsequently continue your personal vendetta against Ms Nelson after this two-week period has elapsed, you will be blocked indefinitely. DS 14:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Another comment

Re: Let me state once again that my edits take place ONLY in the intersection of upsetting Amy and improving Wikipedia.:

This stance is absolutely inappropriate for an editor to take. We have a strict policy against harassment of other users, as well as personal attacks. I find that your recent conduct violates both of these. If you continue to work to upset other individual contributors, you will be blocked. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I won't mention it again. It was only brought up in the first place by Masterjamie for a spurious reason during a deletion discussion. CalG 23:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "spurious" reasoning.

As stated during the AfD, it was based on my understanding of the situation. I've had a look on some of the edits you made, and some strike me as verging on personal attacks:

In this comment to the ChatAutism talk page, you say that:

"FWIW, I think they're naive and arrogant (an unfortunate combination, not uncommon in autistics)"

I can't help but think that was aimed at Amy and Gareth as an attempt to hurt them, saying that you think that they are arrogant, and possibly verging on a collective insult to autistics.

Now, in the AfD, you claim that her website is:

"a clever manipulation of Google and Wikipedia"

In my opinion, I feel that is untrue, as the site does contain content, not just links.

In addition, your comment on Amy's talk page states that:

"Furthermore 'libel' is legal jargon, it shouldn't be part of a factual discussion (try 'arrant nonsense', 'piffle', or preferably stating a more authoritative version of the truth), and I believe legal threats are discouraged here."

I do believe that just saying 'libel' does not constitute a legal threat.

Based on what I've seen, I feel that the above are solid evidence behind the reasoning on the AfD (Others may think otherwise, so I will take that into account too).

But, I prefer that this dispute ends quickly as possible, so I'm going to simply suggest that you apologise to Amy, and suggest that you try dispute resolution. -- Masterjamie 23:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your straw clutching notwithstanding, I would have preferred the AfD to be discussed on its merits. Relevant parts for example would have included the 'clever manipulation' allegation, where Wickethewok noted that there are "only 14 unique for 'Aspies For Freedom' on Google with 72,800 non-unique links". Further research quickly yields Amy discussing googlebombing and stating they need to edit Wikipedia to 'reclaim' terms - and that's just what you can find publically, and bearing in mind Amy's predilection for deleting accusations against her. CalG 05:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The first link, as far as I can ascertain, does not involve Wikipedia in any way, so I consider it not very good evidence, unless diff links are provided that back that allegation. The second link, to me, shows a reasonable conversation of editing an article to meet WP:NPOV. I strongly recommend to attempt dispute resolution as soon as possible, as I fear that the dispute will drag on, and cause undue stress on all involved. To be fully honest, I do feel injured by your likely hostility, and I would prefer a calm discussion that can end the dispute quickly. -- Masterjamie 23:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

14 unique hits from 72,000 is evidence of inflated significance of a cause. The links are evidence of familiarity with, and approval of, methods for subverting Google and Wikipedia. I'm sorry you don't feel this is a calm discussion. I'm trying to stick to the facts. Uncovering the facts about the 'autism rights movement', so to improve Wikipedia, is a tricky business. Its protagonists, those who write about it, are political activists more inclined to change reality than report it. If you don't consider yourself biased as a 'member' of Aspies for Freedom, all assistance would be welcome. CalG 07:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, I would not trust any search engine result, since such a test does not measure the notabilityof any website. In addition, I do think that such tests should not be a 100% method for an AfD, but it is part of a criteria for inclution. See Wikipedia:Search engine test for more infomation and Wikipedia:Notability_(websites) for infomation regarding notability of websites. -- Masterjamie 23:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: criteria for player inclusion

Sorry, when I looked him up on HMDb I must have made a typo. The criteria is at Category:Scottish poker players and I would suggest he does meet it, although it probably warrants being referenced in the main body of the article's text. Essexmutant 20:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Easter bunny large.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Easter bunny large.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 13:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Barcode.GIF

Thank you for uploading File:Barcode.GIF. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk 02:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)