User talk:Redvers/Archive33

Iliphenee

The article you deleted has been recreated I'm afraid. Paste (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted again. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Iqueserasera

Still creating articles in Chinese. I need to be AFK soon, so maybe a stronger warning is needed and then report to AIV if they persist. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they stopped creating articles after my warning. The two remaining are ones that I can't be sure fit a speedy delete criterion (the others were clearly adverts, these two less so). Another admin may be more rouge and delete the remaining two anyway. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 10:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Fife Task Force

thanks for doing this for me. i was making a real mess of it. Kilnburn (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Easily done and easily repaired! :o) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 10:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Scizozorro

Hi Redvers. You blocked this vandal. It's obviously the Runtshit vandal. Can this user name be added to the list of suspected or confirmed socks of Runtshit (talk · contribs)? I'm concerned that we aren't dealing effectively with this long-term abuse and harrassment. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's already listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Runtshit. I'm unconvinced that making such lists actually helps the fight against such idiots; they enjoy seeing their name up in lights, so WP:RBI is usually a better option. Your mileage may differ, of course. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I do understand what you say, but I wish that some more effective action could be taken to protect a WP user and another individual from this constant harrassment. I understand that it coincides with off-wiki threats. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I Don't Care What They Say Myfanwy . . . .

. . . . you might be Welsh, but you're nearly as good as a real human. Cheers for reverting the vandalism on me userpage. X MarX the Spot (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Human???? How dare you come here and insult me with things that are only partially true?? :o) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You're only partially Welsh? Well, that's a relief. :) X MarX the Spot (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. The other half is from Hull. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Lord be praised! And here I was thinking you was from Bognor Regis. Yer welcome up me lattie any day or night. X MarX the Spot (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The sock we talked of....

Hi Redvers, in case you hadn't seen it yet, here's the master list of socks ID'd so far: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of VivaNorthCyprus. This contri lists most, if not all, that are getting hit. Once you start reading through the edit summaries of the different socks, you'll start to clearly see the patterns. In my admin work, I've not really ever had the need to get into CU stuff, so the capabilities that you mentioned I'm not familiar with. Many thanks, though! AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Citibank Deletions

Hi

You have deleted my article on Citi, saying its a copyvio. Most of the info is available on the internet and also I will be providing references to them, why is it that they are being deleted? can you please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belmond (talk • contribs)

If I take each line of your articles on Citibank subsidiaries and put them into Google, they turn up as exact matches for lines in Citibank websites and publications. We don't accept cut-and-pastes of other peoples' work as it violates international law. Stuff you wish to submit to Wikipedia must be entirely your own work (although citing sources is good). I left you a note with links on your talk page that explains Wikipedia policy on this. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok but would it be copyright violation, if I give a reference to the source, which is what I plan to do at the bottom of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belmond (talk • contribs)

Yes. Any copy-and-paste is a copyright violation, even if you say where you got it from. It must be entirely in your own words. The articles you are creating also don't have an assertion of notability or much in the way of potential to grow, so you may like to consider adding the details in your own words to the main Citibank article instead. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember me?

Hi Redvers, great to see you at it hard as ever. I've been too pre-occupied to spend time on WP and one of the things that assuages my guilt is that I nommed u for admin :). Just see this diff; He reverted your reversion and I've just now reverted him with a warning. I thought I should say a hi to you as well. --Gurubrahma (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey mate! Nice to hear from you again. This place doesn't half keep me busy, so I can understand your time constraints - WP will just eat all your free time. It does for mine! Since we last spoke, I've nominated three people for adminship (two successfully) using your criteria and method and have proudly watched one of them go on to become a very active bureaucrat and now stand for Arbcom, for which they will get my vote too. I'm still enjoying the place - I took a break last year due to the number of death threats when I was doing image clean-up work. The solution, in the end, was to not do image clean-up work any more! Glad to see that you're still doing okay too. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

User:derek_farn

Why have you deleted my user page? Derek farn (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up after a blocked spammer. The only contribution was a misplaced attempt to contact you. I've restored it if you want to keep it. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 11:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I should have paid more attention and realised it was a user page and not my talk page. Please redelete. Sorry for wasting your time. Derek farn (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please delete the page. Derek farn (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Redvers, since I've got your talk page watchlisted, and saw that you've been away for a few hours, I took care of this...hope you don't mind my buttinskyism. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me! Thanks. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit to {{AfDM}}

Did reverting fix the problem? The preloaded debate worked for me in the new version. Do you agree that the changes, assuming they weren't responsible for the breakage, are an improvement? Happy‑melon 17:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this was weird. Changing it back did make the "preloaded debate" bit reappear. But I don't see how. Your versions made no changes to that point. But when changed back, it reappeared after a ?action=purge on the page in question (which hadn't before). This all suggests MediaWiki was playing funny buggers. If so, please revert me forthwith to your version: I've simply not proven the case that the change caused the problem! ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 19:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Happy‑melon 11:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of images

Hello! :-)

As I see you've been prowling over on the BBC Radio 3 page - which I have the ambition of raising from Start Class to B Class - I wondered if you could clarify something for me about the use of images and copyright? I have seen the justification of Fair Use because an image illustrates an important point and there's no other likely alternative. Since possibilities for using images relating to a radio station are limited, I'd be disappointed not to be able to use either of two that I've found. Both are credited: Photo by George W. Hales/Fox Photos/Getty Images or Photo by Harry Todd/Fox Photos/Getty Images. They date from 1966 and are already in use on the web, on http://www.jamd.com/ (no idea of its reputation ...) and seem to be on offer. Your thorts? Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Historically, Getty have been very clear that they dislike their images being reproduced, since reproduction is their main source of income. Jamd is interesting: Getty are encouraging the free sharing of their images but haven't published on that site any clear indication of licencing for reuse (we are a reuser, not a sharer). The closest I could find was this from their Terms of Use:

You are specifically prohibited from: (a) downloading, copying, or re-transmitting any or all of the Site or the Jamd Content without, or in violation of, a written license or agreement with Jamd

That suggests the existence of a licence, without one being published. To be honest, Jamd are making a mistake here - they're effectively freely licencing their content and not keeping any controls whatsoever, whilst thinking that they're not. Eventually this will end up in a US court and they'll be sorry.

From a Wikipedia point of view, we can't accept the presumption that a lack of licence == free use, because we can't afford to be that test case. Therefore any use of the images would need to come under our non-free usage criteria. In short, this boils down to the images being unique (not replacable with a theoretical free image) and being specific (the image or its contents being specifically referenced in the article in such a way as to spoil the article if the image doesn't appear). If they pictures in question fit that, then you're within your rights to upload them to the English Wikipedia.

As for Jamd, well, this bears a community discussion - something I'll start in appropriate places later. Hope this all helps! ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sort of helps - in fact it's a very comprehensive answer. In truth, I don't even have to mention the point to be illustrated at all, though it would have been fun to do so. Apparently in the 1960s the BBC used a young blonde model to advertise the Third Programme (!) in an attempt to attract new listeners ("People like me like the Third Programme" - she didn't, of course, she admitted afterwards that she listened to Radio Caroline). The two Jamd pictures were of the same model (though not advertising the Third). It would have made a nice parallel with more recent policies to broaden the listenership. But mainly this was just a wish on my part to find a use for a nice piccie. I know, not a compelling case. Thanks for the reply. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

List of historical figures in Civilization IV

Greetings,

I found out that some time ago you deleted the List of historical figures in Civilization IV article. I believe it would be a nice addition to the Civilization IV Wikia wiki. Would it still be possible to restore the page just so that it could be copied to Wikia? —ZeroOne (talk / @) 22:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Now at User:ZeroOne/List of historical figures in Civilization IV. Shout me when you've finished with it. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, the article now has a new life at http://civ4.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_historical_figures! You can remove it from my user space. Thank you! —ZeroOne (talk / @) 19:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Xavier Saint-Just

Hi I recreated the article you deleted on famous painter and illustrator [Xavier Saint-Just] to wikipedia specs, I joined wikipedia just to make that article you deleted, as I was after info's on him and was surprised to find no page. There is very little about his personal life known or that I can find out in english. He was an important and influential artist who's work sells for crazy money and should be included in the summation of all human knowledge that is wikipedia, if there's formating problems could you please correct them instead of deleting the article, as I want others to contribute so I can find out more. Thanks ^__^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abacusbox (talk • contribs)

Please read our policy on verifiability. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, links to books of publications of his works for sale on amazon.com etc would count as verified. Please flag anything else in the article and I'll try to address it. --abacusbox (talk)

Re: User:Ponty Pirate

I must say I'm a little puzzled by your actions User talk:Ponty Pirate. I think he's quite offended that you ignored him completed. I told him that when I unprotected his page and gave him an opportunity to talk, people would listen. Can you please explain why you felt it necessary to do that? Nice picture at the top of your page, by the way. Ooof. --Deskana (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

He's been told repeatedly that we're not going to delete his talk page via a request on-wiki. His response has been threats, attacks and sockpuppetry to force us to do so. Therefore the page was blanked and protected. You lifted the protection, he reappeared and added another {{db-u1}} (which does not apply to talk pages, as he knows). If his email to you was persuasive, you were within your rights to delete the page yourself. But the repeated admin shopping to have the page deleted "or else" is cutting no ice with me, as is the constant (ab)use of db templates. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

His e-mail was not persuasive, which is why I've not deleted his talk page yet. I will direct him to your response. Thank you for your time. --Deskana (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

User:GMTV Chart Show

Well done on spotting him. I noticed something was up when s/he was making up bull information about channels, coupled with the ITV-related name (Granada Plus). I was going to do that myself, but I wasn't sure what to do, so thanks for that. Malpass93 (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd thought the puppetmaster was 5ivetv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who I spotted a while ago. But when I saw Granada Plus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I thought it was time to research further. I thought I was going to find a whole drawer of them, but no, just the 4. I don't usually go for sockpuppet categories, but this guy is pernicious and damaging - I think he (and it'll be a "he") doesn't even realise that he's doing wrong - so this (and a couple of other steps I've taken) will help in spotting him and stopping him in future. He's on Talk Talk, so his IP is pretty dynamic, but he's not quick-fire, so staying ahead of him (or only half a step behind) should be easy. If you spot him first, shout me! ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Kaohsiung American School Article

We are students of KAS. You reverted edits we made concerning studentslistening to iPods and torn walls. Please allow us to edit. The school is attempting to control freedom of speech. Thank you. Images with proof will hopefully be posted on soon. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and should not be censored. 211.21.238.26 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We assure you that the information is 100% accurate. KAS has a "great" reputation of this, as you may see in the blog commenting KAS sucks from http://www.xanga.com/KAS_SUCKS. 211.21.238.26 (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not censorship. I have protected the page temporarily to try to encourage the you to understand Wikipedia's rules.

The rules in question are: that all text must be verifiable with reliable sources that are checkable and that the use of multiple accounts to repeatedly insert this material is not allowed. Your "KAS SUCKS" website is not a reliable source and cannot be used to prove your points. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 07:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Abingdon

I feel you could have referenced the talk page before messing around with Abingdon again. As you see there has been some history in the naming of this article. Abingdon on Thames was easier to identify because the town has only been in Oxfordshire for the last 30 years or so. Regards Motmit (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I did read the talk page. There's no move discussion Abdingdon, Oxfordshire > Abingdon-on-Thames. There's discussion about moving it to just Abingdon, but I didn't do that. There's no point calling an article by what the article then says is archaic. It's not something we do here. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

But you could have opened a discussion before moving it unilaterally. Motmit (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Fast block

Very quick! Thanks, Verbal chat 16:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure! ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 17:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

How is adding a nonprofit organization's mission statement to the page considered promotional material? A mission statement is the base of any nonprofit and defines what the organization is and why it exists. User: KatevonR - Attempting to add detail to entry: BoardSource —Preceding unsigned comment added by KatevonR (talk • contribs)

We don't want sales language in our articles (even for non-profits) and we don't want cut-and-pastes from other websites. Adding the mission statement was both. Almost every edit you made to this article was to add some sales puff to it - "highly acclaimed", "BoardSource reaches large numbers of nonprofit leaders", "building exceptional nonprofit boards". This does not an encyclopedia article make. Why are you adding such material? Are you connected with BoardSource? If so, you have a conflict of interest when editing this article. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed

That is quite a lengthy discussion and I need a signficant amount of time to read all that and order my thoughts. At the moment I don't have that time. I'm about to leave this computer and travel home in about 15-30 minutes. Please have some patience while I look into this. (In the mean time, if you can get a Bangladeshi editor in good standing to take a look at the article to aid me in my decision, it would be very much appreciated) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Take your time: there's no deadline. Thanks for looking into this. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, Mgm let me know that there's no problem undeleting the article - either when Mgm returns or earlier, as you see fit. - Bilby (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that was good of them. I've undeleted it on that basis. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Mysterious discussion

I have just read all of the discussion at Wikipedia:AN#User:_Moondyne_and_User:_Sarah. I never heard of this until it was closed. The discussion leaves me in the dark as to why he was blocked. Apparently I would have to follow a large number of links to find out. Is it unreasonable to expect that such discussions would be clear and explicit about the reason for blocking? I followed ONE of the links and found an objection to his edit to the algebra-stub template. The issue of his edits to that template was discussed at very great length in the appropriate forum and I seem to recall that he ultimately went with the consensus, although I didn't follow the discussion in great detail.

I've noticed that "Topology expert" tends to be lax about various issues of grammar, style, and conformance to Wikipedia style conventions, but that's not a reason to block anyone. He is obviously a competent professional in his field who has made worthwhile contributions here.

If the discussion linked to above is not the appropriate place for people like me to find out why a user was blocked, then what is? I think things like this should be done openly, not behind closed doors. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have made the assumption that TE was blocked for his previous vandalism and edit warring. You appear to have made this assumption without seeing my statement on AN at the time of the block, my block notice to him, my reply to a thread on his talk page or my entry in his block log, all of which clearly explain what he did to achieve a block. You have also ignored his direct personal attacks following the block [1] [2] and the two other admins who declined his unblock on the basis of him making personal attacks [3] [4]. You have then, with no evidence, made a personal attack against me [5].

I confess to being confused. Either you're having a bad day, or you're deliberately wheel-warring. Which would it be? At the very worst, it would appear I blocked a friend of yours and you've come out with all guns blazing. I think you need to explain yourself. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, as you said above, you followed one of the links. I followed them all and replied in detail on the AN thread. Perhaps you should've done more than followed just one link? There's been a misuse of judgment and tools here, I believe. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 23:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why I should have to follow all those links; I think the discussion page should have stated the reason for the block without the need to follow links. I can understand needing to follow links to see the evidence, but a simple statement of the reason for the block shouldn't require that. You say I have personally attacked you. What I said was that I thought it was disrespectful to anyone concerned not to be explicit about the reason for the block on the page where it was discussed. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

...I did not ignore all of those things you said I ignored. They just don't add up to a reason to block someone. "Topology Expert" was clearly angry and so were those arguing against his position. If anger is a reason to block someone, then the others would need to get blocked as well. If someone habitually replaces articles with vulgar graffiti or nonsense, that's a reason to block. If someone is angry, even if they're overreacting, that's not a reason to block. It is said that his unblock request was not polite. That is certainly true. And it's irrelevant to the merits of the request. If someone neglects to properly bolt his door and burglars steal something from him, then it is certainly true that he should have behaved otherwise, in order to prevent the burglary, but that does not in the least mitigate the crime; it's a separate issue.

Much seems to be made of his edits to Christ Church Grammar School. It is true that if he wants to make accusations against the school, he should cite clear evidence, and his failure to do so is probably a reason to revert his edits. But is it not crystal-clear that they were nonetheless good-faith edits?

I have blocked users to repeatedly replace articles with graffiti or otherwise deliberately damage Wikipedia. But I would never block a user on the grounds that I'm angry at him—I've had plenty of opportunities to do that and I haven't done it. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Michael, a number of things in your posts here and on my talk page suggest you have the wrong end of the stick. TE was blocked by Redvers for disruptive trolling and frivolous complaints at ANI, nothing to do with his project contributions. I never blocked him. There was nothing done "behind closed doors" that I'm aware of or can see. I too was unaware of the ANI posting until after several others had posted there as you can see from the belated reply by myself. I agree with you that in the ideal world, it would be nice to have an executive summary of all of the issues (which I attempted to do in my 1st response[6]), but if a complainant posts a long winded ramble about all the alleged injustices done to him with a collection of only half-relevant links, is it the fault of his target that 3rd parties have to wade through all of that? If you decide to get involved in such issues, its incumbent on you to research fully before pressing the unblock button. I see that you unblocked Topology Expert, but your reasons for doing so are unclear, whereas Redvers' block reasons aren't. Please comment. –Moondyne 01:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

[7] The fact that Michael said in his block rationale that he personally felt "disrespected" by "those who blocked" TE demonstrates exactly why he had no business at all in overturning the block and unilaterally at that. If he's been disrespected somehow then the unblock review must be left to an uninvolved admin per WP:BLOCK (and the unblock was declined by numerous uninvolved admins). I don't personally care if the user is blocked or not and I didn't even know he had been blocked until I logged on this morning and found that he had been both blocked and unblocked, but this to me is a very clear case of misuse of admin tools. Sarah 01:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What I felt was disrespectful to anyone who who might be concerned is that the rationale for blocking was cryptic. "Disruptive trolling" to me would mean intentional disruption. He was angry, he often seems unaware of standard Wikipedia conventions, and he often writes clumsily with errors in grammar, spelling, etc., and is something of a hothead. In particular, he made what amounted to an accusation against the administrators of a school that was the topic of an article, saying they wanted to conceal the fact (if it was a fact) that they want their pupils to become professional athletes, without citing sufficient evidence for that accusation. That is certainly a reason to revert his edit and inform him of the problem. But I had always understood blocking to be done to those who intentionally disrupt Wikiepedia, e.g. with graffiti in articles or edits not intended to improve Wikipedia, not to those who do a poor job of editing, or whose formal complaints are found to lack merit, or who are simply angry about what others have said. Are the latter sorts of things what you consider "disruptive trolling"? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You keep missing the point. TE wasn't blocked for his article editing, he was only given warnings. The block was given for disrupting Wikipedia, by posting trollish complaints against me (and later Sarah) on the ANI. But you haven't responded to Sarah's, Redvers' and mine far more serious concerns that you have misused your admin tools. –Moondyne 02:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been seeing this particular problem for weeks on my watchlist, it wasn't simply "a problematic edit", more of a one-man campaign against the school on its article. I hadn't gotten involved as others already were, and also I have been very busy offline. I have no view either way on the school, apart from maybe concealed envy at anyone whose parents can afford to send them there :) The behaviour on AN/I was clearly disruptive trolling - the initial post was not, but subsequent ones and escalation of the complaint were clearly in that category. I have reset the block to approximately the original duration as I do not believe that unblocks that are such obvious breaches of an administrator's contract with the community should be allowed to impede the community's ability to decide on an appropriate penalty and enforce it. TE had already tried to get unblocked through legitimate channels, and then resorted to illegitimate ones. That in itself suggests he has learned nothing from this and needs a holiday from editing for the weekend (the block will expire about 12am Monday in his time zone.) Orderinchaos 02:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)