User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2009/Apr

Original research template

Regarding {{Original research}}, please bear this in mind for future use:

"This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given."

Note that a lack of citation is not evidence of original reasearch in itself, and there are other templates to cover poor sourcing. If you wish to assert the presence of OR, talk page commentary is desirable. Thank you. 212.32.125.164 (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Planet of the Dead

WP:FUR is utterly irrelevant here. Can't this just be left for 9 days until we've got a good image? This is pointless. Black Kite 18:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA

Sorry your RFA was not successful. I feel partly responsible; when I was writing your nom statement I noticed briefly some erroneous tagging - I should have probably examined your CSD work in more detail and ultimately suggested you delay your RFA. Anyways, better luck next time =) CSD tagging was one of the main concerns at my RFA too, it's something that you need to be spot-on with. –xeno (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I just closed your RfA as unsuccessful. Consensus was not reached. I imagine if you address the concerns of the opposition you may fair better next time. I hope you continue to work hard on the Wikipedia project. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me on my talk page or via email. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea, sorry to see it didn't go so well. It really looks like if you sort out your overenthusiastic speedy taggings the outcome could be very different in the future; the objections based on your past were there but they will only decline in time if you carry on being a good contributor. ~ mazca ^t|c 00:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - thanks for all the encouragement, anyway, guys - here's to the future! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 06:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

• Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
• News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
• WikiProject report: WikiProject China
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Waters of Mars discussion

Cheers for setting that shared ISP notice up. It is a good idea. Sorry if you don't think I followed the rules in that discussion. I became frustrated when the other waring editor did not follow them (which they did not, but we might have to agree to disagree on that one) and perhaps we both got carried away. I still think that they were at fault too, but we are each entitled to our own opinions! Thanks for stepping in and providing consensus, though please do watch your tone as I am not oversensitive and you do sometimes sound very very rude indeed. Though that is not your intention, it is something to consider in future to avoid putting other people's backs up, which nobody wants. Happy editing! -- Matt 86.153.63.30 (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, also sorry for not adding in the proper header! Thanks for catching that! -- Matt 86.153.63.30 (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Torchwoodtitle.svg

I have removed the tag because the image is on Commons. And a logo where only a font is used is inelligably for copyright, no matter how recognisable. If you still want it deleted, place a deletion request on Commons. — Edokter • Talk • 14:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

So you mean that logos such as this and this are in the public domain? Not sure that's correct... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

When copyright is concerned, yes. However, trademark still applies, but our policies do not consider trademarks with regards to use on Wikipedia. — Edokter • Talk • 15:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Your note

FYI, you didn't offend. Just had other things to get out of the way before replying here. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I was just a bit concerned that I might have out-stepped myself :-) It was just that I often find I get so involved in Doctor Who stuff that my actions would be unintelligble to anyone looking over them, and it looked like the same curse may have befallen you... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

IRC protection request granted

You logged onto #wikipedia at 2009-04-13T08:46:23Z and requested full protection on the Planet of the Dead page due to an edit war. Full protection has been applied. --  Denelson83  08:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You seem to have protected "The Wrong Version" - one which was over 3RR by the user in question, and against talkpage consensus here. Could you consider undoing that? No worries if not. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't do that, otherwise I would be seen as abusing my admin powers. Please go to WP:AN/EW and ask another administrator to make the change. Thank you. --  Denelson83  08:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. And just remember what {{protected}} says: "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version." --  Denelson83  09:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I do realise that (just couldn't be bothered to link to m:The Wrong Version!)... thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ways of handling problems

I'm concerned about the way in which you handled the edit war on Planet of the Dead in two regards.

1. Page protection rendered the page uneditable to everyone, despite the fact that the problem was a single 3RR violating user. A warning to the user about the 3RR followed by a block for further violation would have removed the actual problem (one user) without rendering a page uneditable for others.
2. I am concerned about your decision to forum shop your request for a revert after page protection. Either the page was protected because of an edit war, in which case policy is against reverting to anyone's preferred version, or the issue was a single problem user, in which case blocks were preferable to protection. You were already told this above by Denelson83, and so I am disheartened to see you simply go somewhere else to make the same request. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to your comments:

1. Denelson, a neutral third-party admin, considered it appropriate to protect the page; this is the main point. Secondly, waiting for an admin to get round to blocking the user for 3RR would have taken hours (see how long the report stayed on WP:AN3), and our position over 3RR was iffy and ill-defined.
2. I didn't forum shop. Denelson's reason for not performing the revert was due to him being the protecting admin, not due to the fact that the page was protected at all. The material in question was clearly original research, and thus should have been removed, and it seemed that Reedy (another neutral third-party admin) concurred.

Do you have a proposal as to how we proceed here, or were you just airing an issue? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

In terms of this talk page, I was airing an issue - use of protection to handle disputes better handled through other means. The existence of a brief edit war is not reason for protection, and people need to be more responsible about asking for protection instead of filing ill-advised requests and then shifting the blame to whomever fulfills them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. The reason that I have failed two RfAs is because I am not considered to have the judgement and/or temperament to use admin functions. You'd presumably agree with that. However, Reedy and Denelson presumably have been identified as possessing the necessary attributes. The purpose of WP:RPP is that it is a two-stage process, where humble users such as I make suggestions, and more experienced/wise (!) admins make the final call.

It was Denelson's decision, not mine, to protect the page; I think he did right, myself, but nonetheless, whatever happened was his doing and his decision. He could have perfectly reasonably said no. So it's not a matter of shifting the blame; is he completely inculpable for doing that because he was requested? Like a hitman? Of course not.

Sorry, that was quite an illiterate rant, but I hope you get my meaning... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not excusing him - it was, I think, a poorly chosen protection. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't have thought better than to ask. And more broadly, I'm honestly dismayed - I didn't vote on your last RFA, in part because I hadn't really seen any problems and I was conflicted. But now, right after the airing of an episode of Doctor Who, you're back to revert-warring. And I'm really disappointed. Because other than that it seems like you could be trusted with the tools. But unfortunately we don't have an "admin except during months where Doctor Who is on" setting. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm dismayed that you saw fit to pour ink all over my clean block-record, to be honest. As you'll see from my unblock request below, there's no grounds for a block. The issue is stale. We've now reached an amicable agreement. Blocks aren't punitive. I'm honestly not very happy about this, it serves no purpose of protecting the encyclopedia that I can see. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As for Planet of the Dead

As for the article, as I look further the issue is not so much that your position was ill-defined as that you also violated the 3RR. The easiest solution to the edit war thus seems to be to block everyone who violated the 3RR for 24 hours, which I am doing now. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be a very well-thought out block Phil. It also doesn't look too good in light of the disagreement above. –xeno (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|1=This is a stale issue from about 7 hours ago. The parties have now reached agreement. Also, GDonato closed the AN3 thread as not warranting a block, due to it being so long ago etc. Also see [1]. Basically, blocks should not be punitive, and as the parties had already reached an amicable agreement, I see no reason why we should be blocked nearly an hour later. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)}}

Thanks very much. For archiving purposes, the text of my unblock-request can be viewed here. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(archive-now) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much... you too! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi! [Friday's kiddies list]

Your name is mentioned here - just thought I'd let you know! Cheers, Majorly talk 02:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - thanks for telling me. Fortunately I stopped caring about what Friday (one of the most persistently rude admins on Wikpedia) has to say long ago. But thanks for letting me know, anyway. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

• License update: Licensing vote begins
• News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
• Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 17:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

AWB

Hello TreasuryTag,

I've not been familiar with AWB before seeing it applied to God as the Devil by you. I went to the page about it and don't see any list of changes that it recommends. Some of the changes make sense, but I don't agree with all of them, for example, the removal of ellipses in quotes, which I see as proper usage. But I wanted to check with you before reverting any of the changes, in case they represent Wikipedia policies that I'm not familiar with. Would you please tell me if there is an explanation available somewhere of the changes you made?

It would be helpful if you would ping me with an e-mail when you reply, so I'll know to come back here and look for it.

Thank you.

WagePeace (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Clackson101 aka Claxson?

You may wish to run your eyes over the contributions of Clackson101 (talk · contribs), given your previous involvement in sockpuppetry cases related to Claxson (talk · contribs) (aka France a). 62.169.159.216 (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

talk page

We'll see... The problem is if I do too many at once I get edit conflicted, so I either try to work fast or to do one section at a time. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)