User talk:Garth M/Archive 2

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sear and boswell 1962 black box.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sear and boswell 1962 black box.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.BetacommandBot (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sear and boswell 1962 black box.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sear and boswell 1962 black box.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.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

FOR GOD SAKE STOP DOING THIS! The bot is haywire. The image DOES qualify, you're a stupid bot and do not understand what you're doing. Either go get a human or GO AWAY! Garth M (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but you fail to correctly state that on the image page. Please check all requirements, and repair, otherwise the image will be deleted in the process. Thanks. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 14:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What does that MEAN? I HAVE checked the requirements, and the tag is perfectly correct and sufficient. If there's something missing, then fricking well tell me what.

Seriously, this is INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING. I have added an historically-significant image and this stupid thing keeps deleting it! If I weren't so bloody-minded, I'd have just said "to hell with this" and Wikipedia would be the poorer.

Revise your damn bot. Garth M (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not my bot. There is something wrong, which is probably easily repaired. You have to state on which page the image is used, at the moment the list of pages where it is used (bottom of the page) is not the same as the one the rationale is specified for. It may be just a matter of changing that (but you as the uploader are probably the best to verify that). Thanks, and please assume good faith, and take care not to turn this into a personal attack. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 14:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the bot does not delete, deletions are performed by administrators, who probably will also have a look before actually pressing the delete button. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 14:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What a stupid, user-unfriendly, badly-designed bot! If that's what it is, then instead of blandly and repeatedly plastering "INVALID" all over the page, it could have noted the missing content and it could have been fixed straight away.

And I wouldn't trust the administrators too much - you'll see they've already deleted a similar photograph for the same entry which actually showed the person who invented the black box. Garth M (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the trust (I am myself one of them ..). But the bot can only see that there is something wrong, if it could see exactly what is wrong, it would also be able to correct that (and although inserting the correct wikilink is often the right thing, it may be wrong, which would do the project more harm). It is therefore leaving a designed template on the image page, and a remark pointing to the manual on your talkpage. The problem is policy, which is quite strict in this case, and we may face the fact that images where there is something wrong are simply deleted, this bot is trying to notify the uploaders so we can actually save the images. So if the bot reports, then there is something wrong that has to be repaired, and I think in this case it would have been better to ask for some assistance to actually help you find what was wrong, i.s.o. blaming the bot. Happy editing! --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 14:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You're assuming the bot's now going to leave it alone; I wouldn't put money on it. And you know why we don't know? Because the bot's so badly designed that IT DOESN'T TELL YOU WHAT IS MISSING. In addition to leaving the tag, it should note the field it had a problem with. At the very least.

To simply say "go re-read the convoluted wikipedia copyright policy again" is beyond ridiculous.Garth M (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Landeryou

Please stop edit warring. The solution is to apply for page protection, which I will do. When you say "Removed obviously self-selected quote boxes", don't make assumptions. I added them, and have no connection to him. They do add to the article, they give noteworthy reception of him. Fences&Windows 00:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to include those sorts of quote boxes, you need to include a balanced pair. The pair selected are the ones he'd have chosen himself. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they were featured on his site.

BTW, you might notice that a lot of the edits you were concerned about earlier, like removal of the bankruptcy, were edited out last year and nobody noticed. I have simply attempted to restore them. Garth M (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

FOUR tildes! That's why it wasn't working. Cheers. Garth M (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:C2NPIIExtractS-31878886.pdf

A tag has been placed on File:C2NPIIExtractS-31878886.pdf, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

BLP/Privacy violation, contains private details not published elsewhere

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 23:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Garth M. You have new messages at Tom Morris's talk page.
Message added 09:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Tom Morris (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Landeryou at BLPN

I have posted the Andrew Landeryou issues on the BLP noticeboard. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Andrew Landeryou, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. --Brandonfarris (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Landeryou

Per this diff, you have a conflict of interest with the subject of Andrew Landeryou. You have attempted to add negative information concerning the subject's bankruptcy and further have uploaded private information about the subject and posted it on the talk page. You are warned not to contribute on this article or you will be blocked from editing for violating WP:COI and WP:BLP. Please see WP:BLPBAN for more information.--v/r - TP 22:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not true. I have not uploaded private information. What private information did I upload? The subject's bankruptcy record is PUBLIC. (That's a cost of going bankrupt.) Nor have I added negative information - the subject's bankruptcy was long in the article (see the history). The only material I have added is 1. correcting the WRONG birthdate and 2. adding that the bankruptcy was discharged. ALL OTHER MATERIAL I restored was material previous Wikipedia editors had decided amongst themselves should be included. I concede that I have previously been a target of Landeryou - but who in Melbourne hasn't - and that ultimately I had to seek an intervention order, but that doesn't mean his un-encyclopaedic edits should remain.

Happy to step back and let Wikipedia return to the previously discussed version. But you should watch for highly POV edits from user Caterann and anonymous IPs, because that's what I was reverting in the first place. Garth M (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

About the contentious paragraphs at James Campbell (journalist)

Make sure you're not violating WP:3RR with all the reverts you're making there; it's probably time to take your concerns to the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem is, I have - and he just ignores them. Garth M (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --Brandonfarris (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

An extraordinary assertion given the behaviour of your week-old account. Garth M (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Your recent editing history at James Campbell (journalist) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Mtking ^(edits) 08:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've only been reverting BrandonFarris' reversions of my edits, which in most cases he's done without reference to the talk page. Garth M (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well both of you would be well advised not to edit either James Campbell (journalist) and The Age hacking scandal and to discuss all proposed edits on the talk page and agree them all before making them or you are likely to find you are subject to more and longer blocks. Mtking ^(edits) 22:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I would LOVE not to. Could someone genuinely independent please look at the changes each were making and form a view on their inclusion or not, based on the debate on the talk page? Garth M (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, take the rest of your block, to work out what you think is wrong with the article(s) in a concise way and when your block expires post it to the talk page then we can all take it from there. Mtking ^(edits) 22:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked 24 hours for disruptive editing and edit warring. –MuZemike 09:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Mainly for the stuff going on at James Campbell (journalist) and related articles. –MuZemike 09:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:EW

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Age hacking scandal. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please discuss and agree your edits before making them or you will see yourself blocked again. Mtking ^(edits) 03:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My edits were clearly marked and explained in the edit description. But frankly I give up. If WP wants to have POV rubbish all through it because it makes it a damn nightmare for anyone to fix, then I don't have the time or patience to keep banging my head against a brick wall. Garth M (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No offense...

No offense intended, nor am I meaning to WP:BITE you, but you seem well on your way to a block. You seem to have violated a topic ban a ADMIN placed on you; you have been edit warring; you have been repeatedly rude on your own talk page (see one of the BetacommandBot sections above; there is no need for that. Sure, you can say it is haywire. Just don't use words that would not call your parents with, such as "stupid", "dumb", etc., if anything); it all adds up, and you could well be on your way to a indef (non-expiring) block, eventually.

Basically, you may want to tone down how you are communicating, and read Wikipedia's WP:RULES.

Think of your options:

1. You could continue edit warring and risk a block.
2. You could continue being rude and risk a block.
3. You could contribute in a nicer manor.

And before you ask:

1. No, I am not an admin, but I am just warning you of what the consequences may be.
2. I learned of this and your edits via Wikipedia's IRC channel.

Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 03:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Where have I been rude? *looks above* Wait, are you talking about a dispute three years ago with a bot that kept deleting a historical image I was trying to upload? Yes, I was frustrated by its bloody mindedness... three years ago. I think I've been very civil given the nasty attacks from this BrandonFarris user. Garth M (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban

That is absurd. Once again, I have made no changes to that article other than:

1. correcting a false birthdate

2. restoring material previously added by other editors and resolved in previous disputes NOT INVOLVING ME.

I have admitted no "conflict of interest", and I have not made any edits that would be consistent with such a "conflict of interest" either.

If you're looking for "conflict of interest" issues, check out the last year's worth of highly POV edits by persons and anonymous IPs friendly to the subject. Garth M (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In this edit you said "I concede that I have previously been a target of Landeryou" is an admission of a conflict of interest. I asked you kindly to quit adding negative and POV information to an article where you have a conflict of interest with the subject. You couldn't resist. You may appeal to WP:AE or the WP:ARBCOM.--v/r - TP 14:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What "negative and POV information" did I add?

Anyway, so be it. If Wikipedia would rather be used by that subject as tacky POV advertising, and a method for whitewashing his past, then why should I care? It's Wikipedia's credibility that's damaged. You drive every honest editor away and you leave it a haven for the spivs and shills - which is, of course, all I was ever trying to help rectify. Garth M (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You could've done so from the article's talk page. Whether or not the other editors have a POV or COI, you do and it's been confirmed by you. If you have read WP:COI, you'd see we look poorly on editing when you are in any way connected to the subject. I warned you earlier, you should've listened. You could still be arguing your case on the talk page. Other editors actions do not excuse your own. I hope you intend to stick around and keep contributing elsewhere, it's a shame that this particular article and this particular case has come to this.--v/r - TP 23:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)