Wikipedia

User talk:Anynobody/Archives/2007/June

< User talk:Anynobody
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Mecu in topic Fair use rationale for Image:02010601.jpg

Non-free use disputed for Image:Exloring levels creation bk.jpg

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Exloring levels creation bk.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 12:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Graphic design help?

Latest comment: 16 years ago48 comments2 people in discussion

You are great with graphic design, I was wondering if you could help me with something? Currently, the standard DYK award uses this image: Image:DYK medal.png, and the template is used like so: {{subst:The DYK Medal|message ~~~~}}. I would like for there to be a special DYK to strive for, to motivate other users active in the project - 100 DYKs. Thus, is there a way that you could take the image Image:DYK medal.png, and put the number "100" on the red ribbon horizontal part somehow? Thanks for your time. Yours, Smee 23:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

I'll see what I can do, should have something in a few hours. Anynobody 00:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much! This would be really cool... Smee 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
Here's a concept:

Anynobody 01:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Wow! This looks really, really cool! I will start on making some new templates for these awards, and give them out after that. Neat! Thank you so much! Smee 01:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
Not a problem, I'm actually kind of surprised you liked the first concept. Anynobody 01:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Why? Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, right? Smee 02:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
I'm just surprised, I looked at em as a rough draft but I guess a hole in one happens from time to time. It's ok in this case though (looking a gift horse in the mouth), if there was something I missed. Anynobody 02:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I suppose the font on the numbers could be a tad darker, to show up a teensy bit better... Smee 02:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
Can do, are the numbers themselves appropriate? 25, 50, 100. Anynobody 02:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Yip, perfect. Eventually we might need a 200, hehe. Smee 02:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
Good deal, I left a couple of "levels" open. 200 would be Platinum and 500 Diamond. Anynobody 02:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, 500, that would take a looong time, hehe. Smee 02:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
I tweaked the color of the numbers, if the gallery hasn't updated reload the page and purge the cache. Anynobody 02:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hrm, cache purged, not noticing a big change though, that's okay, they still look awesome. I am going to go make up some award templates. Smee 02:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
It does look pretty sharp, a suggestion though (in two parts). Try a gold background with red letters. Anynobody 02:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how to find out which coding for background and text is gold or red... Smee 03:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
I dunno the number either but the names seem to work when designated.
Gold
Red
Anynobody 03:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I experimented with the color. The way it is now actually looks best. Now to go and spread the Wikipedia:WikiLove! Smee 03:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

Here are what they all look like:

Smee 03:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

Great job, they look awesome :) Anynobody 03:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for helping out, this has really been a fun little side project. And it's nice to know I've helped others get some recognition and feel happy (see User talk:Smee). Smee 04:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
Anytime :) Anynobody 04:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you, it looks awesome! And I thought I had something to aspire to at 100, yeesh! Here is the new template: {{The 200 DYK Medal}}. Smee 07:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
    • We probably can stop at that, for a while...  :) Smee 07:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
Naturally, if it took this long to get to 180 or so, 400-500 is a long way off. (200 is right around the corner though so I figured might as well get this all done today.) Anynobody 07:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. Eventually, probably 500 would be the next one... The only one who would get that if we are counting him for noms (which we are not), is the bot at the bottom of T:TDYK, User:AlexNewArtBot. Smee 07:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
Actually, somebody did create the bot though. If it's been doing a good job and is useful there should be an award for the programmer. Granted they aren't doing the edits, but putting in the time to create a well designed bot can be just as time consuming. Anynobody 10:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A good point, I will get right on that. Smee 05:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Done. Smee 05:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
JSIK, how long do you usually leave talk pages on your watchlist? (I'll usually leave them myself between 2 - 5 days if no conversation is happening). Anynobody 05:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Something like that sounds about right. Sometimes a bit shorter, sometimes a bit longer, depending on the situation... Smee 05:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
Muchas gracias :) Anynobody 05:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No worries. Smee 05:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
I also figured bot makers should have their own recognition, no offense meant to the old DYK medal. Anynobody 08:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Eh, I already gave him the old medal, and as I think that there is only one bot related to DYK, this might be a bit much. Smee 10:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
I know, but the old medal really seems like something to give editors with 5-10 DYKs. (25 is a long way to go before getting any recognition) It also seems underwhelming to award it for the amount of effort that goes into a successful bot. I made the template myself,
Anynobody 22:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, I experimented with the background on the 25 medal... [1] Anynobody 22:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The bot builder award looks nice, but again, we actually really don't want to encourage bot building just for DYK too much, we already have an overload actually of too many nominations for DYKs lately. But as your graphic just says "BB", maybe it could be a generic award for excelllent bot-building on Wikipedia in general? I don't know if we have an award like that yet. You could just move the page to Template:The Bot Builder Award, and change the associated text. I actually think that would be a really nice award... Smee 04:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
That sounds like a good idea, I'll do that in the next day or so. To be honest this seemed like a good way to test my ability at template construction. (I'd made one a while ago {{PD-SOHO}} and didn't want to get rusty.) Anynobody 05:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You would not need to do anything else. Just use this same award, but for bot builders in general. It's already done, and looks great as is. Smee 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
Yeah, I just moved it to the new name and removed the DYK. I'll have to upload a new version of the medal to nix the ? but that's easy. Thanks :) Anynobody 02:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I see it. It looks great. Smee 03:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
    • FYI -- DIFF of my notice to others about the new Award... Smee 03:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the update, I appreciate being in the loop. Anynobody 03:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Added a navigation link to it, to {{Botnav}}. Smee 03:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
That was a good idea, hadn't thought of including it anywhere bots are discussed. D'oh! Anynobody 04:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia eat its own children?

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
  This post in a nutshell: Blocks should be the last resort of Admins. Make the attempt to find out where the editor is coming from. WP:CIVIL and WP:DICK apply to Admins as well.


By which I mean: why do so many editors simply give up after a while, often leaving a message on their Talk pages blaming other people's rudeness or some other frustration?

First a bit about me: I have an undergraduate degree and two postgraduate degrees, plus a professional qualification which is generally reckoned to be the same as an undergraduate degree. I'm 40, with a wife and child. As you've noted, I've been posting for a year or so, and in that time I have gone from working exclusively on articles to more or less completely neglecting them in favour of posting on Talk and Discussion pages. My contributions have dropped off and, eventually, I expect, so will I. And yet, I must be precisely the sort of knowledgeable professional that Wikipedia wants to contribute. And I'm not alone.

Two points: firstly, the rule of thumb in my industry is that recruiting a new customer costs 5 times as much as retaining an existing customer. Now, Wikipedia is voluntary at the point of contribution and free at the point of distribution, of course, so the monetary parallel is not exact. However, if you consider the amount of mentoring or training required for a 'newbie' or (on the other side of the coin) the amount of inadvertent damage that they can cause, the parallel becomes a bit clearer: it's a damn sight easier to keep editors who have gone to the time and trouble of educating themselves within Wikipedia than treating them so casually that they wander off and are replaced by a new generation of ignorant editors. Secondly: I'm a VOLUNTEER: when I charge for my time, I'm extremely expensive. I edit on Wikipedia because it really is a good idea and I believe in the ethos.

In my opinion, a lot of the - frankly - disappointment that I, and others, feel comes from disastrously poor Admin decisions. In far too many situations, it seems to me, they wade into an argument, make no serious analysis and hand out instant judgments. They adopt the famous John Wayne quotation: 'Never apologise, never explain'. They feel that they can be rude or sarcastic with editors, which is unfair because both sides know that only the Admin has the power to block. If you can't uphold the Wiki ethos, in particular WP:CIVIL, and make every effort not the throw your weight around, you shouldn't be an Admin.

My training is as a lawyer, although I never took it further; but the same principles should apply: before an Admin makes a decision he should remember that there are two sides to each story and he should educate himself as to the situation (which almost always arises out of some frustration between two editors and with a bit of common sense and goodwill is usually resolvable); he should have the courtesy to talk to the editor(s) with whom he has an issue before rushing to judgment: audi alteram partem. We often say stupid things because we're frustrated which we can apologise for and redact with no harm done: as the good book has it: 'a soft word turneth away wrath'. And yet Admins seem to love blocks and treat them as a first resort: if you're an editor quietly plodding away, a block comes as a shock; the contempt of the community is being manifested towards you. It obviously rankles and it leads an editor to ask the obvious question: if what I'm doing is so little appreciated, why am I wasting my time with these ingrates? In fact, you come up with answers like these.

At worst, I've seen one particular heavy-handed Admin, handing out blocks almost at whim, actually inflame a situation because he wasn't explaining his actions and was consequently seen as being partial.

Think about it, any Admin reading this (as if!): you're dealing with a volunteer who has bought into the same ethos of building a encyclopedia that you have, and you're treating him like some naughty child, often being bloody rude yourself in doing so. Are you really encouraging editors to stay contributing by your actions? Are you in danger of driving away someone who is prepared to work for nothing, and in all likelihood has specialist knowledge that would be valuable to the project? Might you, in fact, be doing more harm than good?

Another shortcoming is the rush to instant judgment. This is constantly seen on the Administrator's Noticeboard, amongst other places. Often, as stated above, it's based on superficial judgment: a single Diff and a short explanation (which may well be partial). The Administrator's Noticeboard often comes across as a chest-beating exercise (including in my case); a Diff, an explanation, a whole load of instant pundits pile in, and the snowball starts rolling.

My interest now in Wikipedia is now more as a outsider; I see myself watching a number of inadequates splitting hairs over issues which are almost completely irrelevant and have no real world application. And I content myself with the thought that, like those subject to Essjay's 'corrections', I know my subject, and myself, better than some random Admin does.

(Which, PS, is not to say that there aren't good Admins out there - generally the ones with a more mature outlook, the quiet ones - and that there aren't stupid and disruptive editors as well.)--Major Bonkers (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to start by saying you are indeed not alone in your beliefs, and you have exactly described one of the most serious problems on here. Toward your ps I totally understand what you are saying, I have come to think the majority of admins and editors are good but, are rendered harmless by those who you've described.
The question you've posed is one I've given much thought to. Using various lessons I've learned about people coupled with what I've read from history I have formulated an answer which works for me:
In short human deficiencies prevent the endeavors of idealists
On paper, Communism is a brilliant idea but in reality the "equality" it aspires to can not be achieved because someone will always want or have more than others. Jimmy Wales wants to create an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with administrators decided by the community. As noble as this sounds in theory, in practice it causes exactly the kind of issues you've discussed.
Making this situation even worse is the less than specific nature of the rules, everybody thinks they understand but sadly many (even some admins) obviously do not. This is the end result of electing people without having them prove themselves in a uniform way, and welcoming editors who may be well intentioned but do not understand the fundamentals of how this project is supposed to work. Anynobody 23:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I suspect, at root, there are two, very much related, problems: firstly the problem of anonymity and secondly the problem of brevity. The problem of anonymity is this: someone using a pseudonym for his posts - as we both do - can hide behind that anonymity to behave in ways that he would either not do, or consider very much more carefully, were he operating under his own name. This is a general rule, only, in my experience; for example, one Admin recently posted news of a ban which he had handed out with the additional gratuitous comment, 'Fuck off' on the Talk page of the editor in question; and yet he posts his full name on his own Talk page. The problem of brevity is the familiar problem that, because we all use the bloody awful QWERTY keyboard and type with two fingers, we try to be as brief as possible. Given the anonymous nature of the people that we are dealing with, and the brevity of the messages that we post, it's extremely difficult to pick up nuances. An example that I came across yesterday had User 1 making his point, User 2 disagreeing with him, and User 1 rejoining that User 2 had made a mistake, the two were actually in agreement.
Contributing is a solitary endeavour: there's no wife/ girlfriend/ whatever to pull you up when you're making an idiot of yourself; and it's human nature not to notice one's own deficiencies.
The problem with the rules is twofold: firstly, they are written generally, not specifically, so that if a spat blows up between two editors, for example, each immediately starts waving WP:AGF at the other (which gets nowhere and probably serves only to inflate the problem). The second problem is the plethora of essays hanging about, which seem to be bandied about and used as trump cards. Ultimately, don't we all know how to behave, deep down? And perhaps the first rule of Wikipedia should be, 'Do as you would be done by'.
I agree with your comments about electing people without having them prove themselves. In my job (insurance, but I'm sure the observation is general), the people who are promoted are those who bring in the business; they get a pay rise, a new title, and given a management position. The problem is this: that the skill of getting business is completely different to being a manager (actually the two skill sets are completely antithetical). Being an editor - making thousands of posts, bringing pages up to scratch - is completely different to arbitrating between warring parties.
I suspect, as a demographic, most Admins are in their 20s, with editors in a spread between teens to 70s, but with a bulge around 16-26.
Finally, before I posted yesterday, I went to the trouble of reading through your entire Talk page, archives and all. It seems to me that either you're some Zen Buddhist or otherwise have the patience of a saint, and for that reason they're the coolest Talk pages that I've come across. And as for your User page - finally: someone who thinks! --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Let me first thank you for the compliments, I appreciate them. I'd also like to apologize for not responding sooner, I am most interested in discussing with you some newly developing events pertaining to the self defeating nature of Wikipedia we have been talking about. I don't mean to sound vague, it's just that in a dispute I've found it a safe assumption that those I am arguing with will track my discussions. Expressing my thoughts now would open opportunities for misrepresentation on the part of my "opponents". I liken it to being trapped in that Twilight Zone episode where the kid has god like powers and can read thoughts, if you're not into or haven't seen it perhaps you saw the spoof on The Simpsons. Anynobody 10:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll keep a eye on your Talk page and see what develops in the fullness of time.--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you nailed the essence of what's "wrong" with Wikipedia. I've worked mostly for banking and credit card companies, by mentioning the dichotomy between management and sales it made me analyze Wikipedia as if it were a "company" I'd previously worked for. I've actually thought of it as a division between marketing and service. The difference in a grossly generalized way is that marketing promises the moon, and when it isn't delivered customers deal with the people in service. Naturally marketing and service are not the only elements in the model, there is also the customer and upper management.
Wikipedia's marketing/sales is it's mission: a free online encyclopedia available to all for both research and editing. This is also it's biggest flaw if accuracy and quality are desired from the project since those that "buy" the marketing become part of the "service" division with no training or requirement to prove understanding of the policies, which themselves are almost too vague to be of use. The same person can easily go on to become an admin by simply making friends and generating a positive perception of themselves. Once they are admins, there is no set policy for how to punish their mistakes/infractions or consistent policy of reviewing admin performance. Indeed popular admins have wide latitude to do as they please, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 2. I'm not saying the editor who opened the RFC is completely in the right, but there are some issues which could be addressed regarding this admin.
This whole concept (Wikipedia) seems to be the overcompensated response to the reasons why Jimmy Wales thought Nupedia failed, it was too ordered and reliant on "experts". As you have noted, we now have a system where good editors are discouraged because they experience the constant inconsistency of both the admins and rules. In summary I think the pseudo-anarchy that Wikipedia is will doom it to eventual failure due to it's tendency to "consume" good editors in a storm of personal differences. Anynobody 03:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This talk section area has to be the most intelligent hting i have ever read on wikipedia (Esskater11 14:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for reading it. :) Anynobody 01:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Biman Bangladesh Airlines

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

No comments yet on Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Biman Bangladesh Airlines. Care to take a look? Cheers. Aditya Kabir 14:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Voluntary Retirement Scheme

Hi, Firstly, thanks for your edits. I notice you've changed "scheme" to "plan" but it is the name given to the process (the source mentions it and abbreviates it to VRS). Maybe it should be in quotes? → AA (talk • contribs) — 21:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the most WP:NPOV way to term it might be using the full term. As part of an official name it loses the negative connotation (in English at least). Quotes might actually do the same thing, imply something negative, but capitalizing the first instance of Voluntary Retirement Scheme and then any other mention VRS. It'd look sort of like this hypothetical example:
  • Airline X implemented a Voluntary Retirement Scheme in order to reduce it's operational losses. The airline says the VRS will apply first to employees with...
I didn't notice it mentioned twice, but I mention the option in case it gets mentioned in a rewrite. Anynobody 22:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Understood - thanks. This topic will certainly be expanded a bit more as the process has just started so I'll adopt the approach you've highlighted once more information is available. → AA (talk • contribs) — 22:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The article is very well done for the most part though, extremely informative :) Anynobody 22:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment?

Latest comment: 16 years ago18 comments2 people in discussion

As you were involved in the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, you may wish to comment at WP:ANI, involving COFS (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu). Then again, you may not, it's up to you. But keep me posted, I am probably going to take ANI off of my watchlist as well. And regardless of what happens, as stated at the post, I have also taken those articles off of my watchlist. It is more fun to create new articles. Later, Smee 04:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

I'm keeping WP:ANI on mine, since I like to see what else is causing people trouble. On the actual comment, really I checked and we should consider anything Hubbard Jr. said to be non-sourceable. There is no doubt some truth to it, but given his attitude toward his father and later retraction he's about as watertight a source as a screen door.
Before removing sourced info, you gotta discredit the source. Sorry I couldn't be more supportive, but I do find it odd nobody even mentioned the COI/RFCU issue. Anynobody 06:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't even bother. No one seems to care anymore when Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS is brought up. Somehow, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS is seen on Wikipedia as completely different than User:MyWikiBiz. I don't understand it, but I also feel it is best for me to move on, and thus as I have already explained I am now in the process of taking certain pages off of my watchlist. Yours, Smee 07:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

Other articles concerning controversial aspects of religion on here must have similar WP:COI problems. Perhaps we should look into finding them. I've noticed people don't seem to care either, and theorized that the perception is we're just slinging mud rather than pointing out a problem. Anynobody 07:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I meant to say I started a new article I was surprised to find wsn't here already: Sylvia Seegrist. Anynobody 07:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Nice start to the article. You know how to use the <ref></ref> formatting, right? Smee 07:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC).
  • Oops, what I meant to ask was, you know how to "name" the refs if you need to use them multiple times? Smee 07:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC).
You bet. <ref name="crimelibrary">[http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/sylvia_seegrist/index.html] Website: www.crimelibrary.com feature article Sylvia Seegrist by Katherine Ramsland.</ref> Anynobody 07:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Next time would be <ref name="crimelibrary"/> Anynobody 07:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Also that NYT article was pretty interesting too, FYI. (The other reference) Anynobody 07:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll have to take a look see... Smee 08:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC).
    • I put the article up for a nomination at WP:DYK. You may want to expand it further and add some additional citations in the meantime. Good luck! Yours, Smee 08:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

If it gets selected you can keep the DYK award (on the significant improvement angle). I'd just like to see it on the main page and wouldn't really do anything with the DYK notice anyway. Anynobody 10:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I noticed. You're not using your userpage for that kind of stuff nowadays? More like just useful tools for yourself and such? Smee 12:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

I don't mean to give the impression that I feel negatively about awards and recognition, I'm just not motivated by them. (I've always been apathetic about recognition at work/school/anywhere, though I don't mind receiving money as a "recognition" at work :) Anynobody 22:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

  • To each his/her own. Smee 01:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

I also don't mind making them of course :) Anynobody 02:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Sounds good :) Smee 02:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

Sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets...

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

It is interesting though, isn't it? It seems like the only results of the troubling revelations from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, was that the sockpuppets/meatpuppets whatever you want to call them, cannot comment in the same WP:AFD or WP:RFA or something like that. Other than that, they can do as they please, sockpuppets or not. Doesn't that seem a little bit... strange, to you? Smee 07:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

Yes and no, my feelings are complicated. I don't know if you saw the discussion with Major Bonkers but it's touched on some points I think are relevant to this situation. First and foremost, the policies and guidelines (P/Gs) are so vague they are hard for editors/admins to understand and don't actually say what to do in these cases or define when they are causing disruption. WP:COI essentially says "COIs are bad, mmm'kay." but nothing else about what to do about them let alone anything specific about what a COI is in regard to religion. It depends on an admin to act, and that is especially where the conversation above becomes relevant because the "requirements" to be one are so FUBAR. Anynobody 07:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Quite, quite. Smee 07:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC).
On a related note, you and Tilman should warn COFS about making such off base warnings. Vandalism is not even close what you or he did on the HubJu page (a pet name I'm developing for DeWolfe/Hubbard Jr., pronounced Hub-joo). Stalking is a ludicrous accusation when COFS knows you edit those articles on a regular basis too. I also wonder how COFS can reconcile calling any other editor a WP:SPA, even though it is an essay, the logic seems to illustrate a fundamental lack of self-awareness of some kind. Anynobody 07:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to be warning anyone about anything at the moment. As others seem to think that COFS (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) did nothing wrong at all in this disturbing situation, I am going to step back, take a bunch of articles off of my watchlist, and take a break from editing them. And instead, focus on new article creation. Tilman remarked that this decision by me may result in degraded quality of some articles, but that is just too bad at this point. Smee 07:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

You have an excellent point about perception being a key factor. Therefore perhaps a new type of post on WP:ANI I've been thinking about might be appropriate.

  • Call it a redux of the previous Stalking post.
  • Make it clear you totally understand and accept the critique about removing sourced info. (If you aren't emphatic about your error people will think you are just trying to get back at COFS.)
  • Ask why COFS can violate WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and ignore what WP:VANDAL and WP:STALK actually are without some kind of warning.
  • Make it clear you don't want vengeance, just consistency in enforcing policies/guidelines. Anynobody 07:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Nope. Sorry. Done with that stuff for now. Focusing on new article creation, and collaboration on other areas of the project to improve article quality. Sorry, but the overall sentiment at this point in time seems to be to ignore the disturbing results of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS. Smee 08:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

response.

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Responded on my talk page. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 14:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate you taking the time to answer my question, I replied on your page to keep everything together. Anynobody 03:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dwarf planet

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello... sorry, but I had to revert your edit at Dwarf planet. Charon is a unique case in that it is thought to possibly be part of a double-planet system (well, double dwarf planet now), based on Charon's large size relative to Pluto. This is not official, as the IAU has made no formal decision in this regard. However, it has been mentioned as a possible candidate for dwarf planet status, and was actually under consideration for designation as a planet under the initial IAU proposal last August. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 07:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Sorry about the lack of an edit comment at Dwarf planet - my bad.

Thank you for your courteous explanation, but I'm actually aware of these facts. Since the IAU hasn't made an official ruling, Charon is still orbiting Pluto (similar to how Pluto was still a planet while the debate about it's status carried on, and it changed whenn they made it official.) I agree with the proposal because the barycenter of their interaction is actually not inside either one, whereas the Earth/Moon barycenter is inside the diameter of the Earth making it obvious that the Moon is the one orbiting the Earth. However even though the proposal makes sense we ought not act like it has already been announced. Anynobody 07:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I also copied the above to the Talk:Dwarf planet in case anyone else wants to discuss this. Anynobody 07:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for the nice note - I appreciate it. Cheers! --Ckatzchatspy 08:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you again, and you're welcome :) Anynobody 08:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sylvia Seegrist

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
  On 13 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sylvia Seegrist, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 00:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) Anynobody 04:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless USS Avocet (AVP-4) was a WP:DYK, then yes it was. I'm more about article improvement than creation I guess. Anynobody 08:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • FYI: -- If you wish, you can now utilize the userbox: {{User DYK|1}}, and the number can be adjusted to show number of created articles appeared on DYK, which looks a little something like: {{User DYK}}, (plus the number inserted). You can also utilize the user box {{User Did You Know}}, by inserting {{User Did You Know|Sylvia Seegrist}} on your userpage. Yours, Smee 08:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:02010601.jpg

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:02010601.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 14:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anynobody/Archives/2007/June&oldid=1142858263"