This is an archive of past discussions with User:Redvers. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Ok Redvers... I have a stupid question. When you gave me that welcome to wikipedia message, is that what Wikipedia considers adpoting me or not?Tm93 (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Not. It's a generic welcome message. Wikipedia itself doesn't adopt people (we rely on people being self-motivating and being WP:BOLD) although some long-standing users do adopt newer users. Visit Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User for information on how to become an adopter or an adoptee. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 08:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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) 08:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:BASE mobile telecommunications belgium - Redvers.png)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:BASE mobile telecommunications belgium - Redvers.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Commons thread
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Redvers, I started a topic at the Commons Village Pump about your concerns. You've definitely brought up some issues that should be addressed, and your comments on how Commons can improve would definitely be welcomed. I've also nominated User:Redvers/Say no to Commons for deletion here. With respect - Kellyhi!22:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, would you please stop hounding me? It would be better if you stayed off my talk page and away from my images, at least for a little while. The WP:POINT stuff is getting tiresome. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 07:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Avoid weasel words. Anonymous authority is a philosophical term for a wikipedia policy. In both cases, authors are finding support in undocumented or unpublished case histories. IOW, you are an authority on what works for you. You are not an authority on what most people do. Much of Freud's work is analysis of case history. It's usable material, but in some form, it must be published before you can use it. In case histories, it's Freud who is an exemplary authority, not his patients, so there really isn't such a thing as an anonymous authority. Avoid weasel words. Please reinstall my redirection, because it's the best answer unless case history exists, and it probably does. (I see that it doesn't).
I looked around at anecdotal evidence and related logic, and I find that authority is itself in the category of logical fallacy under appeals, but only in the case where it's used as a proof or an authority is held to be infallible. I'm copying this to the avoid weasel words talk page. Please address it there. BrewJay (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
No. We don't post rambling, unsourced complaints about Wikipedia processes to the article namespace, mainly because our readers (yes, them, the people we're here for) aren't interested. You can, of course, post such material to your userspace - User:Brewhaha@edmc.net/Anonymous authority for instance - but it can't go in the articlespace. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 07:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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) 04:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Commons
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Redvers, would you mind finally let us know what exactly was wrong with Commons, so that it can be fixed? rootology (T) 04:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The June 2008 issue of the Military history 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. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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) 09:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Beer for Redvers
Have a beer...
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hey. Sorry to hear about your foot mate. Hope it mends quickly. In the meantime, I thought a pint might help... WjBscribe16:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You should add much of what you said on Lar's talk to the essay. I think your reasons are quite sound and I hope you continue to point out problems where they exist. Far too much drama has been caused by Commons editors not understanding the nuances with certain areas of the encyclopedia and trying to apply misguided policy beliefs where they are not applicable. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Re Commons
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I couldn't help but notice your comments on Lar's talk page and have come here to express my sympathy with your position and agree with some of your observations regarding the imperious nature of some hardline Commons advocates.
Witness this odd exchange which came out of the blue on my talkpage a while back. I fully support your decision to upload your images here if you prefer. After all, there are enough gnomes around who will probably transfer them across at some date, although that isn't entirely without its pitfalls. Today I just had to spend half an hour fixing the mess caused here and on Commons when Image:Elizabeth Hamilton - Writer and educationalist.jpg was wrongly transferred over as Image:Image Elizabeth Hamilton - Writer and educationalist.jpg, and then deleted here. Luckily there were no links to other wikis.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Redvers, I've only used one account to upload the picture. If you looked, you would have noticed that the licence (as stated on the Flickr page) was ok now, and matched that I entered on wiki. I apologise for previously having gotten it wrong. I went to considerable trouble to get this organised (talking to the image owner, talking to a wiki admin who pointed out it was the wrong license, trying again etc). Finally, everything is ok. Now you come along and delete it. Moreover, threaten banning me. Why do you think "the Flickr image title is clearly a download and reupload from another location in Flickr?" The image most certainly belongs to the owner of the flickr page.
As an after-thought, I'm guessing that because I changed the image title myself, that is what you are referring to. I will leave the title as it is then. As there is no reason at all why it shouldn't be, I will also re-upload it.
As another after-thought, and in an effort to try to finally resolve this for good, is there some way I can contact you privately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frog84 (talk • contribs)
For transparency, it's better to communicate on-wiki. However, if you have specific private information, you can email me.
There are a number of problems with this image, which is why it was deleted in the first place. The wandering license I can understand - Flickr's unhelpful decision to allow unrevokable licences to be changed is just annoying for everyone. But the big issue is with the actual picture. I don't believe, and neither did the admin who initially deleted the image, that "harrietdeface" took the picture. The picture is on Flickr with the title "543914975_daa2e10bfd_o". Now that's a filename from Flickr's server farm. This means the image was uploaded to Flickr, then downloaded to someone's computer and uploaded to Flickr again.
This has obscured the actual source of the image. It seems unlikely that "harrietdeface" took any of the three images of this person they have uploaded. A bad faith assumption would be that the image was uploaded to Flickr in this way in order to make a false license and source declaration. A good faith assumption would be that the uploader, like most people, is not familiar with copyright licensing and the need for re-users of material, like Wikipedia, to have an accurate and tracable source for each image. I suspect the actual source of the image is miradass but the copy of the photo there is very certainly copyright and not Commons licensed.
Because of this, every time this image is uploaded, it gets deleted again. This will simply continue to happen until someone gets sick of the process, at which point the uploader is likely to get blocked to stop the whole business. This is the point we're reaching.
So, I'd think the best thing to do here would be to pick another free image for this article. A search on Flickr for tags fran+healy with a Creative Commons licence set (+commercial use, +modifiable, so they're truly free) produces some potential options for you to download and reupload here, if you'd like. Let me know if you need help with the image tagging from one of those other images. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 08:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
ROTFLMAO!
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I love it. You know you're getting under a vandal's skin when they create a new account which accuses you of sodomy. Sounds like ol' Grawp to me, but what really knocked me out was your response to that loser no matter who the heck he is. Bravo! We need to taunt more vandals and shame them into staying the heck off this site! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
It wasn't so much taunting as expressing something I've long wondered about: I say, clearly, at the top of this page that I'm gay, so vandals "attack" me by saying "you're gay!" or "you like hot cocks" or "you have anal sex" and so forth. Well, I am, I do and I do but not often enough for my liking. I never quite see the point they're trying to make... :o) ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 07:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Redvers
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Yes, and done. The history consisted of a copyvio-advert from the website, nothing salvagable, and the shortened version was A3 as you said. Gone. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 10:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Re. Page Deletion - I work for the bands record label - One Little Indian, therefore am authorised to use the material provided. Feel free to email me at //email redacted// to confirm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmwalsh10 (talk • contribs)
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Can anyone give a welcome to Wikipedia? If so what is the template used? If possible please write me back on my talk page. Thanks and Happy Editing Tm93(TALK)16:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
One more question. How did you create you unique signature. Did you really do it in the my preferences? Or did you do it some other way. By the way, I wanted to thank-you for the welcome template. I have a friend who signed up on Wikipedia that hasn't gotten a welcome yet. Thanks again. If possible please write me back on my talk page. Thanks and Happy Editing Tm93(TALK)18:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Redvers can you please see LTTE Terrorists. This is currently set for speedy deletion as it serves only to attack the subject of the article (CSD C10). In addition, it was created by an account that seems to be a vandal only account. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ultraexactzz nuked it, so that's fine. Penwhale blocked the nasty little vandal for 24 hours for 3rr. Personally I was about to indefblock vandal-only. If he reappears tomorrow and continues to make the strange edits, shout me and I'll permanently uninvite him to edit here. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 14:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duality (mathematics)
Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
I didn't. I know nothing about maths and want to keep it that way! An anon placed an AfD tag on the page and a deletion rationale on the talk page, as the template suggests because they cannot create AfD pages. When I clear the backlog of these incomplete AfDs, I glance at the rationale to see that it even begins to make sense, then complete the AfD with a note that the text was copied from the talk page. Hope this helps. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 13:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It does make sense, from a purely procedural point of view. It might be better to just point these out on WT:WPM so that someone an admin there can assess whether the nomination is a speedy keep before starting the whole AFD. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Having been an admin since 2006, I'm probably qualified to judge. And the debate has had one delete !vote, so "speedy keep" isn't appropriate here. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 13:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
There are dozens of sources on the topic of duality in mathematics (I listed eight books on the topic on the AFD page); the IP's nomination is frivolous to say the least. I appreciate that you might not realize this if you don't have a background in mathematics - that's why I recommend letting someone who does have such a background look at these. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
←At least one person on the AfD doesn't think it's a speedy keep. I'd also dispute that the IP's nomination is frivolous - wrong, maybe, even possibly wrongheaded, but not frivolous. I know math is a pet subject of yours, but surely you see the flaw in having someone complete a good faith AfD nomination in good faith and then spending ages running it past related Wikiprojects first for them to debate it (or have someone an admin steamroller it away) before posting it? Instruction creep. Not gonna happen. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 13:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd be glad to replace "frivious" with "wrong, possibly even wrongheaded". I was only hoping to give you a friendly option to avoid being tricked by wrong nominations in the future. It's your prerogative, of course, whether to seek knowledgeable advice before copying this sort of nomination from a talk page to an AFD page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The anon is entitled to his/her view, even if wrong. They are entitled to nominate an article for deletion, even if it is going to be kept in the end. Your idea of running maths-related deletions past your Wikiproject first in future is inappropriate and you shouldn't have made it (and with your experience, you shouldn't need to be told this). Your Wikiproject is now acting together to have the article kept regardless of whether the anon had any point, good or bad. So a victory for you. But a pyrrhic one - the maths Wikiproject hasn't exactly distinguished itself here and my level of respect for you has fallen. That's a shame. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 16:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
You know, I just found this discussion and it completely justifies my "accusation" of your assumption of bad faith. CBM's request for comment on the WikiProject page was neutral. People often go and have contrary opinions. In the obvious cases when to anyone with any knowledge of the subject, the result is clear, then of course we are all going to agree. Your assumption that we are "now acting together to have the article kept regardless of whether the anon had any point" is indeed a clear assumption of bad faith (and a "burying head in the sand" approach to the ongoing discussion). I knew your quick tagging of the AFD with "not a ballot" was because of such an attitude. Not only that, it amazes me that you can consider requesting expert opinions on AFDS as a bad idea; it is in fact a recommended procedure (although it is often not done beforehand but at the opening of the AFD). --C S (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
And so the bullying of dissenting voices who don't believe that your Wikiproject is the beginning and the end of wisdom continue. As do the (related) throwing about of accusations, slurs, personal attacks and downright lies to promote your cause. You've opened my eyes. Now be off with you. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 18:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not the one provoking. Open your eyes. You have just made serious accusations about me. If you are unwilling to back them up, remove them. Remember this all started because you made the assumption of bad faith on the part of math editors and added a "not a ballot" tag. I simply removed it, and then you insisted on leveling accusations at me on my talk page. If you don't remove your calling of me as a liar, I will report it. --C S (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Report away, ducky. Tell whomever you like. Just try to leave me alone. You're like a dog with a bone on this. And I'm not prepared to play "he started it, Miss!" with you. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 18:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
All schools notable
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please point me to where this decision was made? It seems rather silly that ALL schools can be made articles of. However, if this is the consensus, I will go with it and create articles for every school in Taichung city. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the classic assumption that the person telling you about something agrees with the thing they are telling you about. Lovely. Wikipedia:Notability (schools), if you're interested. A couple of points: first, if you completed the AfD rather than leaving it half-way, you wouldn't get an admin coming along to make a judgement - so always do your own work rather than hoping someone else will. Second, please assume good faith in future. Third, if you create a pile of articles about schools, you'll be very popular with the very people you implicitly dislike who say that all schools are notable. Fourth, you'd be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. You and everyone else, of course, but always a Bad Thing. Is there anything else I can help you with today? ➨ Ʀƹɗѵєɾϧ collects very sharp bread knives 22:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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) 06:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:BASE mobile telecommunications belgium - Redvers.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
