User talk:ClarityFacts

If you need to talk to me, please feel free.

Holly Har Dispute RE Image: Taio Cruz in 2008.jpg[edit]

Hello, thank you for posting on my talk page. Who are you and what is your relationship to Taio Cruz? Why do you want to remove a photo taken by a genuine fan of Taio at his first gig? Especially as the photo was actually the first one of Taio to be placed on his page in 2008. Holly har (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See posting of 15 April 2011 on the talk page for Taio Cruz page which appears to indicate the nature of your relationship with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holly har (talk • contribs) 13:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the amicable solution that you propose? Holly har (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not adding a heading earlier. I have posted about this photo on the Taio Cruz talk page and look forward to further discussion Holly har (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to address each of your statements individually. 1, Reporting you is not a threat, is a guarantee if we can not resolve this situation. Your threat to involve parties external to wikipedia in some kind of slanderous tabloid effort is a clear threat, there is a distinct difference. Secondly, Please read the link I posted regarding edit warring, and you will know that I am in fact NOT edit warring, however you clearly ARE with user 78.25.222.231. If you are not pushing your own agenda, then please explain why this older image of the subject, whose face is contorted during performance is a better reference photo than the current image that depicts him straight on without expression? The purpose of wikipedia is to be an encyclopaedic source of information. Allow me to give you an example. If a child were writing a paper on Taio Cruz and wished to know what he looked like, Do you honestly feel that your image shows his face clearer and truer than the current image? I do not believe you can honestly say yes. We all like our pictures to be showcased in some form but there are many places you can display this image, Getty, Flickr, etc. 3. Seeing as you queued up to go to his first concert, I believe you are a fan, but that does not change the facts. And lastly 4, Wikipedia does not have a "first post stands forever" policy, the subject in question is ageing and evolving and in turn requires updated images that are true to the subjects likeness. The best compromise I can see, Is If you were to write a post that is historically relevant that also warrants the use of your image and post it there. ClarityFacts (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and the lecture. To be honest I think the patronising attitude and arrogance of your post on my talk page is obvious (reposted above) so I won't make a more detailed critique. However I would point out that the photo you prefer is a carefully constructed studio shot and does not actually look at all like Taio does in real life, as I know from being in the front row at his gig. I would also like to know how you are such an expert on Wikipedia, including on reporting people, when you have made so few contributions yourself. Holly har (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

n reference to the above: I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think Ive been patronising at all. far from it, but you are entitled to your opinion. This photo is not one that i "Prefer". Unlike you, I have no direct vested interest in any of the photos currently on his page other than what makes sense. I see you have added new text to the page in an effort to creating a relevant post. I believe this will result in what you seek to achieve. that said please take a look at the Wiki page for the artist Kesha (she is of similar musical genre and relevance to Taio Cruz) You will see entries relating to live performances, formatted well and with corresponding live imagery. I believe this will sit appropriately on the page and will avoid users removing your image. Lastly, I am not an expert on Wikipedia, I simply just read the rules and abide by them. ClarityFacts (talk) 12:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you write on your own talk page? Holly har (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because, to this point we have been posting and replying in this fashion. Also, what difference does it make where this conversation occurs? ClarityFacts (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just weird that's all. Lots of weird things are happening on the Taio Cruz page which all seem to me to be about image manipulation and publicising product sales. For example, it is interesting in itself that there is far more reference to sunglasses on his page than there is to his touring history, as you have highlighted. I have reported this to Wikipedia as it looks to me as though some editors may have a conflict of interest. Holly har (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now a Wikipedia god has removed my little bit of information about the touring history (which even you thought was relevant) but left all the references to celebrity sunglass wearers intact! Obviously I am not going to have another edit war (nobody would ever hear from me again) but have posted about it on the Taio Cruz talk page Holly har (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll never get consensus to include things if you keep spreading the conversation over 4 or more pages, and continue with your sarcastic and uncivil behaviour. As already noted, that will lead to a block. Period. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am trying posting on the relevant talkpage (that for Taio Cruz) but nobody actually is engaging in discussion there! Is is mandatory for every comment of yours to include a block threat? Holly har (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's freaking Boxing Day! Who the hell is going to be engaging in a conversation on Wikipedia when they should be spending time with family and friends, or playing with their kids on the livingroom floor with the toys they received from Santa? Consensus discussions can take weeks - not hours. And yes, my comments will continue to include warnings as long as you continue to be uncivil and sarcastic (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are for a start. And ClarityFacts has posted today as well. You are an experienced administrator and should be able to take a bit of joshing in your stride. I have explored a couple of issues: (1) How easy it is for an ordinary person to make relevant contributions to Wikipedia which challenge a financial interest, and the answer has been that is it impossible - even on Christmas day. (2) Also, to see how touchy the site administrators are to any mention of conflicts of interest - and the answer is VERY. Holly har (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I do investigate a lot of COI ... indeed, I'm the one who wrote the well-used template {{coiq}} that we use with blocked editors. At what point have you been "joshing"? Calling me "god" in now 3 separate places? That's not "joshing" it's uncivil - and the first time you did it, you were warned to stop (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did call you an 'experienced administrator' in the last post. I assume that is more acceptable. Holly har (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring Block[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring over image of Taio Cruz. Any admin can unblock this editor when he agrees to cease reverting image changes to articles without discussion.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 20:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

ClarityFacts (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry, my third revert (or image adjustment/indirect revert) was an oversight. I will no longer make changes or reverts to this image. Please unblock me at your earliest convenience. Thank You. CF

Accept reason:

User has promised not to edit war. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Thank you and BWilkins for stepping in.

I agree and strong oppose for indefinite block for user ClarityFacts. User (admin) Kww completely abusing his admin rights. For one users blocked with an expiry time of indefinite (edit warning), for another users blocked with an expiry time of indefinite (canvassing), for another another user blocked with an expiry time of indefinite (what else). We can give block of 24h as first block, never indefinite. It is contemplated receive administrative privileges of Kww, reason: too radical and aggressive approach, weak attempt to compromises, absurd blocks of other users and no neutral point of view. Subtropical-man (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You would be wise to understand what "indefinite" means on Wikipedia before making comments like that :-) ... and always good to recognize when your comments will actually harm an unblock (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When used in blocks, indefinite just means "no set duration". In this case, Kww even pointed out in the block notice that anyone could unblock as soon as the user promised to edit war. All standard practice. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, much appreciated, Also I'm glad to know that you guys are watching the behaviour on the Taio Cruz page. I will seek your consult if in future any issues arise. Hopefully this is the end of it, and the last I have to bear of Holly Har's Sarcasm ;) ClarityFacts (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm their new target instead. Yay. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise and feel your pain! If I were an admin I would gladly bear this burden for you :) ClarityFacts (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that your buddy Bwilkins hasn't taught you how to use the colon : to WP:INDENT text yet. Holly har (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know Holly, read this essay. I've never interacted with ClarityFacts until today ... now you're suggesting we're "buddies". Grow up and STOP creating battlegrounds all over the place. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please grow up, for the sake of all those who come into contact with your, conflicted, misguided, contradictory, painfully self righteous, over zealous, disparaging attitude. Sarcasm Is the lowest form of wit, and you use it in abundance. Im sure you will now have an "oh my god how dare you attack me Im so innocent in all of this" standpoint, but believe me you are far from innocent. This is the last ime you will have the privilege of receiving a response from me. And for the record, that is an example of patronising.ClarityFacts (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Way to behave after your unblock, both of you. If you don't both stop this then I'll reinstate your blocks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh, not sure where I fit into those blocks now ;-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp My tether is beyond its end, so you need not be concerned (from my end at least) Thanks again.ClarityFacts (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, It appears someone else has been tampering. Shame, now the only fully straight on image in the commons is now "controversial". Question to Bwilkins & Kww & Deskana. Any objection to using File:Taio_Cruz_live_at_Palmesus_2012.jpg instead. My reasoning is that (other than the contested image) this seems to be the "Most Recent" image in the commons. Let me know if you have any objections, seeing as im not allowed to change it myself. FYI I have no Issue with the current image other that it is a 2011 image and we're now approaching 2013 so the "Palmeseus" image is most relevant (in my humble opinion). Thanks all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarityFacts (talk • contribs)

Who wrote this last suggestion? Holly har (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I don't think anyone that has participated in the edit warring is going to have much of a voice in the selection of the image on the page.—Kww(talk) 03:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some people are going to have a hard time in the New Year explaining what happened over Xmas to their boss. Holly har (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]