User talk:The Evil Spartan/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Trend setter plus is at it still...

... on Randy Dodge. I hate moronic vandals. Ψν^Psi_nu 13:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, don't hate. Not worth it. Anyway, I've got him up on Lupin's recent changes filter, so don't worry. Or try WP:AIV. The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wire pictures

Purely aesthetic reasons, my good man. They will of course be replaces when there's images from the episodes available. –FunkyVoltron ^talk 14:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

re Arceus fan

I have unblocked per the discussion here and have commented on the editors talkpage. Yuletide Felicitations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I Could Use Some Help

I tagged this template with a PROD tag for deletion. Obviously I am doing something wrong. Could you help me out? Take Care and Merry Christmas...NeutralHomer ^T:C 17:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sent to TFD. Prods are only allowed for articles and user pages. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK :) If I have to tag a template again, what do I use? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 17:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:TFD. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

/bookmarked/ Thanks for your help! Merry Christmas...NeutralHomer ^T:C 17:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Stringing machine

Well, it's a bit arguable, and since the article has no verifiable independent sources, it could have been deleted as not asserting notability anyway. The reinstated version also appears to have been spam until the commercial link was removed. The article, although still unsourced, at least is a few sentences long now, so I'll let it be, Jimfbleak (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Confused

The Evil Spartan, can you explain how changing an unsourced comment to something that seems more accurate, albeit still unsourced is considered vandalism?Reinoe (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, your referring to this. Because the second figure was patently wrong, quite simply (it looks like a lot more than 25 people attended this. We can't just change figures because they're unsourced; instead of changing them off-hand, it's better to source them. If I read something unsourced saying there were 3 million people in the USA at the time of the American Revolution, and change it to 30,000 just because it's unsourced, it's vandalism. Just another question - as stated, I do not assume bad faith - but can you explain why there are so many vandalism warnings on that page? The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not referring to that that. (I'm not that great at creating links yet). I'm referring to [this]. And the reason why I did so is because it's not the first time that a person with an agenda may have doctored photos. I'm sure we all know about the Saddam Statue Toppling Media Event. Since I could not find a source for the ridiculous claim of 25000, and given Beck's nature, I changed the rally numbers to something that looked more realistic. Glenn Beck's own site doesn't seem to have a number for the Marshall university event. And I'm going to go ahead and assume in good faith that your link implying that my IP address had been banned repeatedly was an accident and not an effort to try and show me in a negative light.Reinoe (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I saw a note at WP:ANI about someone who was complaining that your IP has been doctoring numbers for a while now, and I see he may have had a good point. Please do not change numbers simply because you disagree with them, especially to a number you happen to think is in the right vicinity, and most especially because you think there might be a conspiracy. Beck's website is quite clear that most rallies were in the range of 30000. Do not change numbers arbitrarily, it falls under the guise of WP:OR. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? I gave the WP:ANI a scan and I saw the following IP's listed that seemed to be under watch:

• 66.176.219.18=Not my IP address
• 82.148.96.68=Not my IP address
• 24.7.81.82=Not my IP address
• 68.123.72.85=Not my IP address

Also Beck's site is quite clear that none of his rallies surpassed 25k with numbers given as... 20k in Clearwater,20K in Fort Wayne, 25k in Atlanta, 10k in Philadelphia, 10k in Cleveland,10k in Houston, 7k in Memphis, 4.5k in Charleston, 3k in Sacramento, 3k in Nashville, 4.5k in Tulsa, 10k in Richmond, 8k in San Antonio, 5k in Omaha, 6k in Oklahoma City, and finally "Thousands around Kentucky". Your "Beck's website is quite clear that most rallies were in the range of 30000" isn't even within the realm of reality. Please remove my warning that was given unfairly.Reinoe (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You're not 82.148.96.68? I thought that was the warning we were talking about? In any case, it's not a warning, it was discussion. Also, even if the figure is incorrect, simply changing it to another figure out of the blue which is just as ridiculously low is not a proper solution, and introduces more errors. If there is a problem that big, then remove it, but don't change it, please. Finally, better than removing content from your talk page, it would be better to respond on it, perhaps pointing to this thread for the future reference of people. Otherwise, your page will once again just be a laundry list of vandalism warnings, and people will think you're a vandal again, and this whole process will repeat. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

howard devoto jpeg

E.S. said: "Thanks for uploading Image:Howard devoto.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... etc."

E.S., yours is the second message I received about properly tagging the copyright of this image. I thought I had responded properly to an earlier message from ImageTaggingBot: so far as I can determine, I then (correctly?) added the creative commons copyright tag to the description.

N.B.: I took this photo and created this image, this file. *I own the copyright.* Therefore, per your message, I don't need to do anything else?

I simply wanted to contribute something to wikipedia, where I noticed that something was missing (there was no image in this wiki), and I could help.

However, it seems that contributing to wikipedia involves too many arcane hurdles. I find this frustrating.

Best regards.

Rob Robinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsub8 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rob. The problem with the image was simple: you didn't say that you were the creator. If you were not the creator, we would need to know where you got the image in order to verify the license (people incorrectly tag images with a breathtaking frequency). I have changed the image; please feel free to use the current layout as a template for future images. The Evil Spartan (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. - Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsub8 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

your msg

the tiger attack wasnt thursday, it was tuesday. that is why i removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlippman (talk • contribs) 13:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess you're right. Please put that kind of thing in the edit summary from here on. The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bert McCracken

Kindly explain to me how any of what I did classifies as vandalism. It says if I try to "vandalize" again it'll block me from Wikipedia. I've cited everything I can, and half of it isn't even me, it's a previous rendition of the page, thank you very much. What is going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.85.49 (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. This happens to look like a bad coincidence. Often times when you were editing, the part that the anti-vandal patrol was bringing up was where it said "and he likes to eat his boogers" - it appears to have (incorrectly) marked that as an addition by you. However, it looks like that was older vandalism, and not your fault. I didn't want to remove the warnings from your page, as to cause more problems. I will do so now. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.85.49 (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidently, the phrase was still there til I took it out just now. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bert DOES eat his boogers. It's a fact, no joke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.85.49 (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. Please do not add this material unless you can souce it very well. If you have any doubts as to Wikipedia policy, please read WP:BLP, which states quite clearly that this material not only should be must be sourced or taken out. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But it's a fairly well-observed fact even though I can't find a direct quote from him that I can source for whoever did add it. I wasn't making a joke (if that's what you were thinking). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.85.49 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping me out with the image. I can't figure out the whole uploading thing because the upload file page is confusing. I just want to use a picture I own on my laptop. Why is it so hard to put them on here? I mean I own the picture. No copywrite infringement there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfalexander (talk • contribs)

On the upload page, click the link that says "It is entirely my own work". Under licensing, choose a license: they're all pretty similar. I suggest just going with "own work, copyleft". No need to worry about the summary section. Click browse for source filename, give it an appropriate local name (i.e., if the source name is 472389233923_1982347PN0_L.jpg, try calling it something like Bfalexander_photo.jpg instead). And voila, you should be in the clear. Not half as hard as it sounds, either. :) The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this. I just needed to know about the license thing. I understand everything else. -Brian Alexander (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I'll not worry about archiving yet. I'm just tyring to keep my stuff organized that is all -Brian Alexander (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Artist Pictures Reply

I'll take a look at that after I complete what I'm working on now. -Brian Alexander (talk) 15:23, December 28 2007 (UTC)

AFC

I saw you reverted my "faulty assumption" on the sources, but the same IP user is creating many pages, and not specifying a specific source, just a bit confused. Thanks, Nol888_(Talk)^(Review) 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, you declined only part of a single submission (submitter improperly used headers). There were references, albeit it cheesy ones, at the bottom. I figured if you're going to decline a submission, you should decline the entirety of a single submission. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

What's with this edit? Vandalism? What sort of nonsense are you up to? 35.9.6.175 (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I was unaware that IPs could become admins, however, seeing as you claimed to be blocking someone, and just a few hours ago were vandalizing an admin's talk page. From now on, I will have to respect comments from block evading trolls. The Evil Spartan (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Weird. Not on a connect that's terribly secure, didn't want to log in. But the only edits I have made were to AN/I and this page - no idea how there are other edits attributed to this IP. Anyway, your edits are totally uncalled for. Good faith edits aren't vandalism. And insults are never acceptable - but maybe you should re-read our policies on personal attacks and civility and the definition of vandalism. 35.9.6.175 (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I tell you what, you log in as an admin account, I will apologize for it, but until then, perhaps I can explain to you how stupid I'm not: an IP, with many different edits over several months, showing a similar pattern of using edit summaries, article changes, comments, etc. and only a few hours ago vandalizing an admin talk page, just the same as 4 months ago: [1] (clearly this user had contact with that admin before). Perhaps you could read up on WP:PROXY, hard to say? Please come back when you've logged in and drop me a note: I will be presently surprised if I see it. And perhaps, when you do, I wouldn't be entirely surprised to find out you're an admin with a grudge against Natalie Erin? The Evil Spartan (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to see the ANI thread. The IP is Guettarda (talk · contribs) logged out and editing from a public computer lab. Enjoy - we all make mistakes once in a while. --B (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I myself have edited from public IP's before, and quite often, and I must still remain unfortunately skeptical about the Natalie Erin edits. Every edit except the Natalie Erin edits, over a space of a few years has been his edits, so far as I can tell. What's more, the edits show his style of edit summary: [2], and are clearly from an established user. Nevertheless, all is well. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm just going to remove my foot from my mouth now and alleviate any damage. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Early Christian Persecution in the New Testament

I revised the proposal to meet the concerns addressed on the talk page, thus achieving consensus. No one disputed the revised proposal and until someone produces a legitimate argument against, consensus can be presumed. I addressed the fact vs. text analysis question on the talk page. If you disagree, discuss it on the talk page as opposed to just disrupting the move. - CheshireKatz (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No one commented on it at all. The problem was your change to the words "in the New Testament". As stated many times on the talk page, there is abundant historical material for this, and it is well provided for in the article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the talk page. The article discusses what the New Testament and Patristic texts depict and the historical criticism of those texts. It does not include reliable, published secondary sources attesting to the factual accounts, but merely questioning the texts' plausibility. - CheshireKatz (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion

Hi. I agree that JvG should self revert, since he's an "involved admin". If he does not, what's the next step? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The next step is you take it to ANI, people on JzG's side of the conflict side with him so no one can figure out who's right and who's wrong, eventually people figure out that JzG edited against the rules but cite WP:IAR because he was protecting the encyclopedia (or some such bullhockey), and precisely nothing is done, because of the level of scrutiny for administrator's compared to regular editors is precisely 2%. If you're lucky, a few administrators will decide he was in the wrong, but do nothing about it (neither revert nor block him), but the result is the same. Oh wait, I see that's already happened. Boy, and I didn't even have to read the board to find out... The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR

No, Kamujin reverted 4 times and the IP 3. Could I have diffs, please? Thanks. Regards, Keilana^talk_(recall) 22:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your help in this matter. I am sorry if my newness with editing the wiki caused any confusion. I am very grateful that you took the time to review this. Kamujin (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The 4th edit wasn't a revert. He did not revert back to the previous version, simply removed an incorrect salutation that was rightly removed. The IP didn't break 3RR on that edit, as far as I can tell. Thanks for the diffs. Regards, Keilana^talk_(recall) 22:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

American football

I'm wondering if instead of the fact tags we could find a way to rewrite the high school section so they aren't necessary. As has been discussed on the talk page, it would be difficult to find an appropriate source to use as a footnote for the fact that high school football is a big part of small-town American culture. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Got one for Texas here: [3] and [4]. As for PA and Ohio, one could look at the fact that pro-football started there, and oen could mention the attendance figures. That said, I can make a much better case for Texas than others. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC) sentence started with just Texas, I think, and people progressively added more states. Don't think, though, that citing a movie review and a British newspaper article about Margaret Thatcher's grandson makes an improvement over not using any citation. Citing those types of sources doesn't prove anything, and -- and I mean no disrespect to you personally -- make Wikipedia look far more amateurish than it would with no footnote. It would be far better to rewrite the paragraphs in question so they are indisputable and require no footnotes. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: When someone leaves a note on your talk page, it's probably best to respond on the other person's talk page so they get a notification.

I respectfully disagree, on both accounts. I believe a cited source is always better than none, and the reason they're both British is because I searched among the UK archives - otherwise, I would have gotten inundated with too much news. As for responding on my talk page, I believe it is common practice to respond to a user on your own talk page when someone first comments there. I usually do, unless the matter is pressing, or I am asked otherwise. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed on the article's talk page. Things that would not generally receive a citation in an academic article because they are self-evident or undisputable should not get a citation on Wikipedia. One would not add a footnote to the sentence, "The sky is blue," for example. The fact that high-school football is a big part of small-town American culture is not really disputable, and even if it is, there is no appropriate source to back it up. What should we cite, Friday Night Lights? On the other hand, the "fact" that Texas, Florida, California, Pennsylvania and Ohio are particular hotbeds of high-school football certainly is disputable. But the source we cite would have to be an expert source. In this case, that doesn't necessarily mean a peer-reviewed academic source; an article in Sports Illustrated or ESPN Magazine should suffice. But it can't be just some random webpage. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would hardly call the online version of The Times "just some random website". The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Post-abortion Syndrome

It's been a while since you made changes to neutralize the intro to Post-abortion syndrome. I invite you to come back and see how they have changed and to joing th conversation regarding WEIGHT and the blanking of peer reviewed studies. If this is improper "Canvassing" I apologize. But since you weighed in once, I thought you might again. --Strider12 (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Neve Sha'anan (Jerusalem)

Hi, Can you tell me what "Non-admin closure" means please? Regards Springnuts (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - all explained by Andrew c ^[talk]. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

rollback

I have granted your request for rollback. Please make sure you are familiar with how rollback works. The tool is only for reverting obvious vandalism - any edit, no matter how awful or biased, that could possibly have been made in good faith should not be reverted in this manner. Never use rollback on the edits of regular contributors and most of all, use common sense. Remember rollback privileges can be revoked by any administrator. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism.--Doc^g 01:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time. It is much appreciated. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on becoming a Rollback! To learn even more about the feature click here. Have fun crushing vandals!!!--Kushan I.A.K.J 05:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Asking for help

Hi, I just saw you a few minutes ago while I was trying to put properly the license to a photo I took of Robert Doisneau in 1992. I was asked a while ago by unknown editor to permit to put this photo, which appears in Flickr, onWikipedia. I always in principle say yes. Recently I discovered that it was not done properly, and is in risk of being deleted. I am trying to do it by myself, but I have no Idea if I did it properly. If you can help me to check if it was done properly I will be very thankful. I can receive messages in the post of Flickr under my name, in case you wish to help. This will be appreciated. All best wishes, Bracha Lichtenberg Ettinger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.132.140 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only issue right now is that you can provide us with the original flickr link. It will be necessary that the file at flickr also has a licensing conforming to the one hosted here - in this case, cc-by-sa. That is really what we need right now. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again many thanks. I will need help on this too: The Flickr is on my name, simply go to Bracha Ettinger Flickr. Now, I never had any idea what kind of license I should put in Flickr either, I simply have put there photos, and from time to time people ask permission to take or print them, which I always give. However, if you tell me what to do, I will log into Flickr tonight and will put the exact needed license. Please let me know if I can contact you in the future in the case that I am asked again by unknown editors for photos--- because I prefer that this will be done properly right from the start. Thanks again for helping, Bracha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.132.140 (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Upon reading you again, I am going to try to go to Flickr right now, and I hope to let you know in few minutes if I succeeded to do it. Bracha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.132.140 (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I have gone to your page: [5]. You will see the little icon right under the images; in this case, they say "all rights reserved". That will not due for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia requires images whose use can be reproduced by anyone anywhere without charge (though attribution may be required). For this, you will wish to change the licenses of any photos you wish to be able to upload here to either cc-by (allowing anyone to use the image, with attribution) or cc-by-sa:CC Sharealike (same as before, but the underlying work must also have a similar license). It is important to understand the ramifications of changing your images to such a license: it does mean that anybody will be able to reproduce your work without you being able to ask for a fee (such is the nature of Wikipedia, too). The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, You are really kind. Why do you call yourself evil? I really appreciate your kindness and good faith. So, I went on the Flickr, I didn't know which on the list of licenses to choose, because I didn't recognize the cc-by-aa. So, what I did, to begin with, was to write in this particular photo, in the title, the [license cc-by-aa] note. Like this we are sure that we established contact, and I am on the right way. I understand that people will be able to use it without fees, and it is OK with me. What I want to make sure is that any user will know that they must attribute the photo to me as artist. Should I stick to this license, or should I choose another one? And last thing, can you help me what is the full title of the license in Flickr? They give a list of 5 or 6, I copied the list here. Perhaps it should be the first one, and not the 5 one? What I mean is, I do not ask for fees, but I do not want others to use it commercially either. Is the license n. 1 any good for Wikipedia? or should it be n. 1? Here is the list

1.Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons
2. Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons
3.Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons
4.Attribution Creative Commons
5.Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons
6.Attribution-NoDerivs Creative Commons

Many thanks again, Bracha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.132.140 (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Well many thank you for the complement. I believe the license you're looking for is #5 - Attribution Sharealike. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't house images that don't allow commercial use or derivatives (it conflicts with its license), so only 4 and 5 above are valid for Wikipedia. If this is the case, we can always go ahead and delete the image. I apologize for the inconvenience here. However, you will note that if anybody uses it commercially, they still need to provide attribution to you; and, if you license it under sharealike, it means any derivatives must also allow free distribution. You can read the full text here: [6]. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Beep beep. There is a lot of confusion about photos related to Bracha Ettinger in the last few days.

How can we know that you are the real Bracha Ettinger? Anyone could open a Flickr account with that name. I really want to assume good faith, but something is very weird about these images. This might be a copyright violation. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we usually try to assume good faith in such areas. The photos certainly appear to be by the same author, and its seems more likely than not that this is in fact that actual author who owns the account. In fact, you are correct, Bracha L. Ettinger does appear to be a person of some repute; if you have doubts, I suggest you could briefly try emailing the author: brachaet AT gmail (given at her website: [7]) with a very brief missive saying, "was this person you on Wikipedia?". The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Amir, I know that recently you blocked few images who were taken by me as artist. It seems, apparently, that an editor, who is unknown to me, didn't put it properly on the net. I normally would have left it at that. This photo, however, is very special to me, and it is also an important photo historically speaking, and therefore a kind of a gift to the community. I do care that it will remain where it is, to honor my friend Robert Doineau. it is surely considered one of his best portraits. However, tell me what for you would be a proof that I am me? I do not understand what is the nature of the problem, I simply try to resolve the problem. I am waiting for a reply from The Evil Spartan, and will try to work the license properly in Flickr. The rest is up to you. All best wishes, Bracha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.132.140 (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bracha. I am going to send an email to the account you have listed at your website to confirm this correspondence. That should be enough. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The portrait is indeed beautiful. It would be great to have it under a free license.

You can email me at amir.aharoni@gmail.com, i suppose that it would be enough for me.

The perfect thing would be to have those images at the Bracha Ettinger website with a proper license note and not on Flickr. A Flickr account can be easily forged. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Good perfect, Bracha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.132.140 (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have received the email confirming the authorship. Thank you very much. Could I ask you to confirm that all of the following photos are indeed your own, and that you release them under Commons ShareAlike license? Of course you would not have to release any others:

• Image:Bracha Lichtenberg Ettinger - 2007 - berlin.jpg
• Image:Bracha Ettinger, Matrix - Family Album series,n.3, 2001.jpg (now deleted; I suppose you will know more about this than I)
• Image:Bracha Lichtenberg Ettinger - 2007.jpg
• Image:Brach ettinger 035.jpg
• Image:PompidouView.jpg.

Thanks then. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear E-S, I received you email and replied. I hope that everyone is reassured now, I will press the n. 5 license later on, and I hope that the problem is solved. I know that Mr. Amir was worried recently about 2 other photos, of which I am the holder of rights. I do not care so much about the other photos, and I kept out of this, but, in case that this can reassure him and solve the problem, i also declare that I hold the rights for the 2 other photos that he wishes to delete, and I would appreciate if anyone wants to help to put it rightly, with the right license etc., but this is not so important to me. Apparently, the person who mailed me some time ago with the request to put them on Wikipedia didn't know how to do it properly. The result was a confusion. All best wishes again, Bracha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.132.140 (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Evil Spartan, I am the copyright holder of all these images. In fact, they all appear here or there on the Internet, and editors find them there and ask me to reprint it. and I automatically always gave permission to produce them, without fees etc. All taken are by me except the berlin photo of my own face. This one belongs to me too. The photo of me in Berlin was taken by a museum art curator named Sofie Van Loo, when we were on professional tour in Berlin last year. She tried to put it on the wikipedia after it was deleted, but she lost her courage when this was disputed. She didn't feel so good when she was questioned about her identity. As I said, I do not care so much, and I remained out of this, but yes, they are all mine, and I wish that they would not have been removed. This is really up to you. best wishes and many thanks, Bracha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.132.140 (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I confirm that I release all these listed photos under the Commons ShareAlike license. many thanks, Bracha Ettinger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.132.140 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear ES The image 035 I do not want on the Internetm because it is an old photo of mine and it is not relevant these days. The Berlin Photo is the one from now--2007. Please do not restore the 035. Many thanks, Bracha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.132.140 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: OTRS for photos

 Done - if the license on Flickr isn't changed in a reasonable amount of time, could you please get the author to email permissions-en@wikimedia.org? Thanks. east.718 at 23:36, January 16, 2008

I sent an email, but I accidentally sent it to the commons OTRS. Hopefully they will be able to sort it out anyway. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, once you send it to one OTRS address, you don't need to do it to any other address. We can indeed sort it out once it gets in the system. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 22:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I replied at User talk:Jerry

JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Burma

May I ask, was there a particular reason you removed that message from my talk page? I found it quite useful. Biruitorul (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The user was in clear violation of WP:CANVASS: he had sent about 20-25 messages, and only to people who participated in one side of the debate. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Megamanrly.jpg

What sort of free equivalent is possible? All uses outside the Internet listed in the article would be non-free. I think the non-internet appearances are sufficiently different from Internet uses that they should have some representation. –Pomte 02:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many free video games out there, and simply finding such a game and such a text wouldn't be too hard. In fact, you could play the game yourself and fake the dialog. Feel free to take this to WP:DRV. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cracker Jack

It's a scan of a bag, and it says so. What's the problem? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

See Commons:COM:L#Derivative_works. The Evil Spartan (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you had better zap the other illustration in the article also. Image:Crackerjack2.jpg And also the pictures of Animal cracker containers in that article. It's not fair to just pick on the one illustration. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this admin (which you are not) not only told me it was OK, he placed it in the article for me. [8] I'll take his word over yours. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I will remark it as a copyrighted photo. I do not believe this could have been anything other than a mistake by Howcheng; I assume he did not see it was marked GFDL. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, as a non-admin, please do not remove images from PUI before they run their course, or remove someone's messages from another person's talk page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you intending to also mark the other ones I pointed out? If not, why not? They are every bit as "derivative" as mine is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 07:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:

I would except the program I use Huggle doesn't have them. Sorry, Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 02:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it does. Revert without warning, then leave the user a message. Expecting to have template warnings available for every possible situation is unrealistic – Gurch 14:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that was a legit comment Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 03:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to be trolling to me, but OK. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Name

Just wanted to say I love your name, it's funny, clever lol. Makes me think of "Meet the Spartans lol --Crash Underride 21:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha well thanks. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Price Is Right and Hdayejr

No, I certainly didn't assume good faith with this particular user, and I can promise you that I never will, either. I have been dealing with this person for over seven years across the internet, and I assure you that anything he does that involves me in any way is motivated solely by a deep-seeded hatred of me and anything that I do. I think this will become quite clear if you check his posting history, as we already went through this once last summer before he was indefinitely blocked.

I understand your good intent with your message, but in all seriousness, we're dealing with a guy here who one of Dayton's newspapers had so much trouble with on their online forums that they actually got a restraining order making it illegal for him to even go on their website. He isn't your run-of-the-mill troublemaker. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI board comment

Hi TES, this is in regard to the JW posting you made at ANI. I can't tell if he's sincere either at this point. But he at least seems to have another interest (a fire dept. in CA). If he resumes his previous editorial habits, I will file the complaint myself and hopefully save you some more trouble. Thanks for listing it in the first place though, if he does work out to be more productive, I think it will be due in large part to the ANI post you made. R. Baley (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough...

Can we leave his talk page alone now? Hasn't he been through enough? Truce! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not sure why I leave my head in my rear-end sometimes when I post to talk pages. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Explain this now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would rather not. Just let it drop. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

The controversy IS that Card's views are seen as homophobic. Quit covering up the facts because you don't like them. There are many cited sources (School Book Journal, for chrissake's) that discuss this issue. FCYTravis (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that you can't just go along and throw names around about without a) properly sourcing and b) including the vigorous rebuttal that Card has given of these slanderous claims. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me restate: the term "controversial" is clear enough. The text explains quite clearly what his point of view is. To use the term right in the text is simply WP:WEASELy in its issuance. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources, don't we? School Library Journal and Salon, to name two.

Where's the vigorous rebuttal? If we have a vigorous rebuttal, then we can put that in the lead. "However, Card disagrees with their characterization of his views." Let's link the vigorous rebuttal. Where's he quoted saying that his views are not homophobic? I have no problem putting that in.

You can call them "slanderous claims" all you want - but there are reliable sources which put forth the claim. You may not censor out the claim because you don't like it.

This is a BLP, but being a BLP does not mean we erase criticism - it means we place it in proper context within the totality of his work. The section on his views on homosexuality is appropriately sized and, as I read it, scrupulously neutral.

We cannot ignore the reliably-sourced claims of homophobia and pretend they don't exist. Full stop. FCYTravis (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I take it you edit-conflicted; please reread the statement. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)`

No, I didn't edit-conflict. The term "controversial" is not nearly "clear enough." Readers want to know, WHAT is controversial about the views?

Well, the views are controversial because some authors and literary critics see them as homophobic.

Whether they are or not, is for the reader to decide. But we are not going to weasel around the controversy by ignoring the elephant in the room.

If you would prefer, the term "anti-gay" would work, as it's also used.

But we are going to have, in the first line, WHY his views on homosexuality are controversial. To do otherwise is to lie to our readers. FCYTravis (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as an elephant in the room when you could say it just as clearly by saying controversial. I see it merely as editorializing. As you said, let the reader decide; it's not as if the text isn't clear enough right now. Tere's a good reason several similar words are mentioned at WP:WTA. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is about an article, not an editor. This all belongs on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 08:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Commented. The Evil Spartan (talk)

Speedy fingers

You keep on reverting vandalism before I do, hehe. Doesn't seem that evil to me... but on other terms.. it could be... not giving us who are new to mass-reverting of vandalism a chance.. Daedalus (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's just say I have a lot of experience in vandalism reversion on both my main accounts. That said, I've actually been operating behind by several minutes for about an hour now. Surprised I'm ahead of you. ;) The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Blanking sections

I'm sorry for not specifying any reasons for blanking a section. It's just that rumors aren't encyclopedic material that is why I did it. Thanks for the concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiArtifact (talk • contribs) 10:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a quite valid reason: from now on, just say so in the edit summary, and/or the talk page. Otherwise, you'll usually just get blanket reverted. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

.: RFA thanks :.

Thanks for supporting me! My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 17:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just curious

Was this answer "yes", you do have access to the tool? The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

See nmap. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oooooh neat. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR/Khazars

Thanks for the warning. May I ask though, why it's I who receives this warning and not Briangotts who keeps reverting my (always accompanied by a justification) edits?? (In fact, I just warned him I'll report him for violation of 3RR rule if he keeps reverting the edits.) It's extremely important to be very careful on this issue because a quick look at the nature of the changes shows that it's a controversy between someone who uses the article for agendas other than the history of Khazars and someone who wants to protect Wiki's integrity from unverified claims. Schlcoh (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, quite simply, he was already acquainted with the rules, as an experienced user, whereas you are a new one. I do not hand out templated messages except to new users who aren't already acquainted with those rules. I would also not advise reporting for 3RR for a user who has not violated it, whereas you have. In fact, I see you have now reverted after receiving this message, which is disappointing. The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Briangotts reverted at 16:31 on 2/11, at 18:46 on 2/11 and 02:06 on 2/12. That's 3 times within 24 hours. I'll take it to the Talk Page, but, until we reach a consensus, whose version stays if both parties find the other one's completely unacceptable?? (I think mine has the merit of making the minimum number of claims.) Schlcoh (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have responded on Schlcoh's talk page. His accusation of 3rr against me is without merit. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

One of my favorite pictures

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Socks

Since all four appeared to be exclusively editing each others' pages, it seems doubtful that by blocking I was inhibiting anyone from editing the encyclopedia. Acroterion _(talk) 00:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

LOTR film trilogy

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Alientraveller (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be uncivil, but I was genuinely annoyed you ignored me and Erik and our good reasons for not moving that particular page (clearly good reason why discussions should always begin when people have a day to forgive and forget). Remember, silence implies consent and no one objected to our reasoning. LOTR is not a film series: it is known as trilogy adaptation of one book. The whole move discussion was over a technical issue: clearly, X-Men film series can happily redirect to X-Men (film series). Alientraveller (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Those comments were not present on the discussion page. I now see they are present on the requested move page; however, this is not the proper place to put them. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Body Snatchers

I would like you to take a quick look at the article comparing the Body Snatchers novel to filmed versions before you edit it out as 'vandalism' again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.29.223 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism it was spam. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If critique is spam, let's get rid of cinefantastique as well, then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.29.223 (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Responding on your talk page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am affiliated with the site, and I have put a great deal of research into the piece you are editing out, which compares the book's structure and themes to all film versions, with an examination of how the prevalent culture influenced or failed to influence those versions. It is not a tossed-off article written so I could get Google ranking by linking in Wikipedia (not a valid method anyway since Google changed their algorithm late last year), nor was it written with the intent to lead Wikipedians by proxy to the site's front page.

There is no similar article available at the moment on the net. That's not to say I am special, just that no-one else has bothered to write the piece, and as it has something to contribute to the subject, I don't see why it should be excised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.29.223 (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mileyworld.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mileyworld.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

You have not addressed the major issue here. This is a copyrighted image that does not meet the requirements for fair use. The issues is not about the windows decoration but the use of this image as decoration and not critical commentary about the website. It is only valid in an article about the website. NrDg 15:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true. If there is critical commentary about the page, then it is legit. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Gun laws in the United States (by state) -- Possible copyright infringement

You recently tagged Gun laws in the United States (by state) as a possible copyright infringement, "from various sources, as spelled out below", but I don't see any specifics. Where should I look for that? And, where should this possible copyright infringement be discussed -- at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#2008-02-16, or somewhere else?

I am aware of problems with this article, and in fact I participated in a discussion about them -- see Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Material copied from CarryConcealed.net. I'm thinking that the copied material should be removed, but I'm concerned that the copied material be carefully identified and the original material left in the article, so I'd like to participate in the discussion.

If you reply here I will see what you say. Thanks. — Mudwater 15:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Upon further review, I've started a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 February 16/Articles. Feel free to join in. — Mudwater 16:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:76.203.4.84

Replied over there. BTW - when did I call User:JFD a banned editor?[9] - Alison ^❤ 03:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't, that's why I rolled back. I thought you did, though, because you removed a section which has his signature, and the last contribution on the page before your removal was by him. Turns out someone else forged the sig. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW - the editor requesting unblock was the banned editor. Just FYI - I checked - Alison ^❤ 13:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've discovered that as long as the block was a reasonable one in the first place, the autoblocks are usually pretty effective. Nothing raises my spidey senses like "autoblocked because your address was recently used by POVPushingSock503. Reason POVPushingSock503 was blocked: sock of TechnicallyCluelessBannedEditor". The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: February 2008

Which article? Dbutler1986 (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

diff. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you an admin?

If so would you mind reminding User:Martinphi and User:Sunray to leave the POV tag on Yi Ching until dispute resolved. Thanks. Mccready (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've readded the tag, but please use the talk page more, or it will all be a moot point, and if they remove it, it will be justified. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Crediblesport

OK EVIL ONESPARTAN, REspond to me about Credible sport. I know more about htis program than anyone else alive. I ahve been researching this program since 1986. I have thougnass of documents and have interviewed nearly everyone involved in the program. I am preparing a book lenght article on credible psort for publication. you whoever wrote the operation credible sport page is all wrong ther was never an operation Credible Sport. Project Credible sport yes. Honey Badger was not Credible Sport nor was project Max credinble spport! awating a reply! <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crediblesport (talk • contribs) 10:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated several times before, if there's something wrong about a document, please take it to the talk page, or feel free to change the content on your own, provided you can give reliable sources. And please make an effort to use proper grammar when editing articles. If you need information, feel free to look at Wikipedia:Tutorial and Wikipedia:Article development. The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dang

How on earth did you catch that literally a minute after i made it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordogo (talk • contribs) 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We're kind of like your mother. We have eyes in the back of our head. If you're misbehaving, we'll know. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User Farazilu

Thanks 4 ur contact as my account is blocked but u can contact me by email given on the blog profile. http://www.blogger.com/profile/10531159099475516272 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.116.63 (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Siebel_EIM

If you want to !vote on the AfD, I'd say you+nom over 3 weeks is consensus to delete. And it would prevent a repost under db-report. MBisanz ^talk 16:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for the revert on my user page. I wouldn't have realised that he had done it if you didn't revert it! -- Blake01 17:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No need to thank! Just vandal patrol! The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your concern

I don't know if you've seen it yet, but I did respond to your concern on my talk page. I don't know if you were satisfied with my answer or not, so I'd appreciate a response. Thanks. Acalamari 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Template discussion

As an occasional editor to the discussion at Template:United States presidential election, 2008 your input would be appreciated at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Proposal: A return to the old standards. Thank you.--STX 04:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully with 40 supports, 13 opposes, and 4 neutrals. For those of you who supported my RFA, I greatly appreciate it. For those who did not, I'm also thankful for your constructive criticism. If you need some advice or have some pointers for me, you know where to reach me! A special thank you to Majorly for all his time and effort he has placed in my nomination. Once again, thank you all for your helpful comments. Now off to new admin school! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice

I advice you regarding Guy0307's message pertinent most popular sport because this point is discussed involving various related articles in which we both often edit. I restore those comments. Regards,--PIO (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Your comments were a bit more on target, but it sure as heck looked a lot to me like "my sport is better than your sport", and had little to do with bettering any articles. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a misunderstandig because I and Guy0307 discuss about popularity of various sports citing sources and principal point regarding validity of these sources. Regards,--PIO (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah. This is just chest-beating. And, BTW, please read WP:TEMPLAR; just because he does it doesn't mean you should too. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What the hell did you warn me for?????????

Hi. In my talk page you wrote, "Your recent contributions have been nothing but chat as of late." WTF? My recent edits are all about national sport. How the hell is that chat? Please remove the message. Guy0307 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See the thread immediately above this one. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

:O)

Keep them coming :O) Good work! seicer | talk | contribs 14:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying! I can't keep up with it during school hours when I'm the only vandal fighter! The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Work

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You always seem to be one minute ahead of my Vandal reverts. Well done Lantrix (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

AIV backlog

You know, if you went to this, you could block the vandals 10 edits sooner? MBisanz ^talk 18:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

McCain article trimming

Don't bother starting to trim the John McCain article now. Starting tonight or tomorrow, Ferrylodge and I are going to reduce it to 1/3 or so of its present size. Then you are welcome to comment and help adjust the result. You must not have seen the discussion further up on the talk page ... Wasted Time R (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh alright. I did see it, but I figured I'd go ahead and do some of it myself. Hey, I got 2K out of 179, right?The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Evil Spartan. Thanks for taking an interest in the McCain article, and I'm glad you like the new picture.

On another matter, I was wondering if you could advise me about something. Suppose that only two editors are working on an article (and I'm not talking about the McCain article). The first of the two editors wants to remove longstanding info from the article and/or insert new material into the article. The other editor objects on various grounds to those particular edits, and reverts them. Then the first editor reverts back.

Since Wikipedia is supposed to operate by consensus, I assume that the first editor would be the primary wrongdoer here. Can the second editor make a complaint about the first editor? Where, how, and with what probable result? Thanks in advance for any advice.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've already opined before that you are no more molevalent than anyone else on these pages, and that simply by the nature of the pages you edit, you end up getting a bad rap. That said, a quick revert is never a good idea, unless the issue has already been discussed before, for either person. Seeing as you are under arbcom probation, and cannot revert anymore, I would suggest WP:RFC; WP:AN will get you nowhere in this circumstance. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Evil Spartan. Do you mean a content RFC, or a personal RFC? The problem I'm having is that one particular editor is jamming new stuff into articles (or removing longstanding stuff) when at least 50% of the involved editors have already disagreed. This one editor simply overrides that 50%+. This kind of thing seems very cut and dried, just like a 3RR violation. And yet, it seems like there's no enforcement.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it's hard to comment without knowing the specific situation. Of course, you could bring it up at WP:ANI, where the only thing it's guaranteed to do is make obnoxious WP:SPIDERy drama. But as I said, I do not know this editor, or if this editor is as out of line as you think. I would go for a content RFC unless this has been a reocurrring problem with this editor, possibly over multiple articles, and several people have commented on it (preferrably some admins as well). The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And I will be sure not to climb the Reichstag in my Spidey outfit.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)