User talk:Damiens.rf/Archive 1

Tribal Leadership

I found some book reviews in U.S. newspapers for Tribal Leadership and added them to the article, so I think notability is now indicated. --Eastmain (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Please check...

Although the image here is larger and has a 4:3 instead of 3:4 orientation, it is essentially the same image and the website states the same author, so it's fine. Thanks for fixing the problem. MECU≈talk 17:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ten Pound Sound

Wow, I nominated this for deletion at exactly the same moment that you did. What are the odds? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Suzanne and Jim

I do not know of any sources, in fact I tagged it. I do not truly know if Suzanne and Jim are notable per Wiki:musician guidelines; it was nominated to be speedy deleted, but speedy was rejected due to the "assertion of notability"... I'm searching for sources now. The articles' creator hasn't responded... not a good sign usiually. Frog47 (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

David Sustak

Your nomination for deletion is showing up as a red link on the David Sustak page. Corvus cornix_talk 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway

Anyway, Thanks & Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. And, in the morning (Indian Standard Time), I was in a crazy mood, and feel sorry if I hurt your feelings in anyway. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Rock and Ice climbing club at AfD

I have added some references, both print and online, to the AfD for the Rock and Ice climbing club in an attempt to demonstrate its notability -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock and Ice climbing club. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crutchfield

No harm no foul, okay? Innocent mistake, and I've toned down the harsh language in the AFD discussion page from an administrative standpoint, as it is divisive and unproductive. I like to emphasize content, not contributor. (In other words, you're forgiven. ;-) ) Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 01:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"first vendor-authorized audio/video retailer on the Internet"

As the internet was beginning its real growth as a commercial application, many sites opened up to sell stuff. Crutchfield was the first company to start up its own site, as opposed to hiring a firm to do it for them, or just offering its line to another vendor to sell. Kind of like the difference between buying Taco Bell products in a grocery store and going to one of their restaurants. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

List of climbers

If you are interested in any information related to high asia mountaineering, just ask Eberhard Jurgalski the leading chronicler and statistician of world mountaineering. There is no need to correct his data. Pepto65 (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Perhaps you find it helpful to ask Viewfinder to get a sense, which kind of source Jurgalski is. Pepto65 (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Red Roof Inn

Anon editors are not de facto vandals. Also, there was tons of legitimate content lost; next time try reverting to a a better version. It doesn't need to be perfect; don't lose all that useful and referenced content because it may have issues. I've restored a good version and tagged it for the issues I saw. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words: :Weasel words are small phrases attached to the beginning of a statement, such as "some argue that..." or "critics say...", etc.. A serious problem with weasel-worded statements, aside from their veracity, is that their implication is misleading or too vague to substantiate."

The statement you removed should, at most, be tagged for fact-checking via {{fact}}. It's kind of like "the sky is blue." Everyone knows it, but someone might require sources to verify it. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "distinguished" doesn't even appear on the page. Can you clarify, please? Thanks. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless its original research, it must have come from somewhere. The info doesn't seem harmful, so it's better to search, or ask the creator/editor of the info, instead of just deleting it. If we can't source it or find similar sources saying a similar thing, we should then delete it. But that sort of info is valuable and something like it should be in the article. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Truth" and "verifiability" are two distinct concepts here. We search for verifiability, and it is on that alone that the section should be tagged. If someone published it, and they are a reliable source, we should keep it. IF it's anecdotal original research, or contradicted by other reliable sources, then we need to document ALL of that. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Found this. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources are valid if notable and verifiable. We cite music artists' sites when the announce the release of an album or song (otherwise we usually tag as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL). We don't take their peacock terms, but facts are acceptable. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Trip hop

The trip hop page needs external links. Those websites are needed. What the hell is wrong with you? Fclass (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Foolish (Shawty Lo song)

Why did you take this to AfD if you think it should be merged? AfD is for deletion only, not for merging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I speedy closed that AfD and merged the song to its album. However, I still feel that I have to trout you for taking a merge proposal to AfD instead of using the {{merge}} template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Carl Freer

Why is it considered vandalism to report the truth? Is it because you don't want it to be true? You reversed a set of WELL documented edits to Freers' profile? Do you have an self-interest in smashing his reputation??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.61.67 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit I've reverted had removed well-sourced criticism about Freer from the article, and added two bad sourced (a blog and a primary source). The info on the donation reported by the Atlanta Business Chronicle seems ok and could have been kept. --Damiens.rf 17:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Angel Ramos

Sorry, that I took so long to respond. I have an important out of country trip tomorrow and you know how it is. O.K. I did fix the link. Stan Griffin is a writer and contributor to Deaf Friends International an online magazine for the worldwide Deaf Community. Stan Griffin is the author of various books: [1]. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

But still, can we use what he post on his webpage as reliable sources? The guy seems to have good credentials, but we must be careful to avoid an argument per authority here. --Damiens.rf 12:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• I just returned from my trip, what an adventure. Yes, I believe that we can use what he posted in his webpage since he posted his reference and source, which would be what is normally required by us. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comet

If you plan to rip out the majority of an article, please take it to the talk page. Thanks. --jacobolus (t) 20:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would re-revert each of your specific changes, and provide a justification, but I don't have the several hours to spend on it right this minute. Please leave the article for the moment, and take it to the talk page. I'll be happy to justify every section of the article. --jacobolus (t) 21:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

But to throw you a bone here, as one example of where your removals and their justifications go wrong, see WP:N: “These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles.” —jacobolus (t) 21:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with WP:OWN. Note from that page: “In many cases (but not all), primary editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, so keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field and/or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. Editors of this type often welcome discussion, so a simple exchange of ideas will usually solve the problem of ownership.” —jacobolus (t) 00:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please notice that Discuss is the key part of WP:BRD, and stop re-butchering the article until some consensus has been reached at the talk page. Thanks. —jacobolus (t) 19:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you refuse to continue a discussion on the talk page. I'm quite willing to entertain suggestions for (even drastic) changes to the article. It's only chopping out the major part of it, while providing limited and rather unconvincing justifications, that I oppose, particularly considering I wrote the majority of the article. Please explain more specifically what you find wrong with it, perhaps one section at a time, so we can improve the article. If you keep reverting to the chopped-down-to-useless version, however, I will have to assume that your aim is disruption, not article improvement, and I will seek out some administrator to block you. That would be wholly unnecessary though, if you leave the main article as is for a bit, and work to reach consensus on the talk page instead. Cheers! —jacobolus (t) 10:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with A) baseless accusations, B) personal attacks, and C) vendetta-based editing. Though you seem to gain personal satisfaction from the frustration they cause, all three are utterly unproductive, and have no place at Wikipedia. Thank you. —jacobolus (t) 19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing another persons talk page comments is not a good idea at the best of times; in this case it's a worse idea.....hmmm...no wonder my writing career never took off :/ Restepc (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comet_%28programming%29&diff=next&oldid=218509416

stamping on eggshells may be a more accurate phrase.

Restepc (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Regarding your comments on Talk:Comet (programming): Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I have removed a personal attack from the talk page, please be civil and don't drive contributors away. - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Polyamory

Which people are we talking about?Lord Balin (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Those people on that list were there before I changed it. And all I did was add the people on that list to the category.Lord Balin (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I did not intend harm. You know this is crazy. I've been on this website since 2005, and I'm getting very sick and tired of editing articles, and adding good information, but then someone comes along and changes it because of his/her own POV. I understand that this is the very idea of Wikipedia, and I am not saying anything against you personally sir, But it's getting rather frustrating. I have almost 6,000 edits, and almost 100 new articles to my name, and I am constantly going around and fixing things other folks have done. Sorry sir....just venting...lol.Lord Balin (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Online chat

About list of software, please see Talk:Online_chat, thanks. - 213.115.160.72 (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note

I removed your inline edit [2] to IP 63.64.108.5's comment. I think it is best to refute his claim below, and not to modify his text. Cheers, AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What are your motivations for Vandalizing articles?

You shoud consider more ethical behaviour. Your motivations might be from racism to political. Whatever they are, you are a bad guy. Why did you choose Damiens as an Icon? This historical figure is not a good example. You should choose somebody less violent than an anarchist murderer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebprofiler (talk • contribs) 21:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Kirby article

Please be aware of the WP:3RR policy. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest you refrain from adding to his talk page since you seem to be in conflict. But anyone can be blocked by an admin for WP:3RR without warning. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I always love deletionists. Not. Thanks for getting a whole bunch of images deleted where free images are next to impossible. Timeshift (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

per above, except without the sarcasm, great catch on Austrailian politicians Fasach Nua (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

An Enormous Thank You

Yeep! Thank you so much for letting me know about the weird imposter situation over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi. That's all kinds of scary. I'm going to look into what can be done. Thank you again for letting me know! Vickser (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC) dear Vickser. In French History Damiens is a very controversial figure. He supposededly murdered a king because he cared about a religious community. Actually many historians think his motivation was actually to fight this community by putting the blame on it. think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebprofiler (talk • contribs) 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Skiing in Lebanon

Hi, yep you're quite right with your rv. on my removal of the unref tag. It wasn't an WP:RS in the slightest. It's a commercial site for middle eastern skiing! Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: God work on Skiing in Lebanon

Hi, thanks! It's a bit slow going, as most of the sources I can find are in French, but I'm trying to go through it slowly with my limited knowledge of French, a lot of help from Google Translate, and whatever corroborating sources I can find. :) Cheers. ← George ^[talk] 17:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth

I'm sorry that my attitude towards you in our recent disagreement was a little flamey. In all truth, this was entirely intentional, and I regret taking such a poor attitude towards you. From all I can tell, you're a good editor with your heart in the right place, even though I disagree with you on when, exactly, one should ignore rules. I certainly should have known better than to read the wrong things (bad intentions and a desire to slap people around with rules to get one's way) into your actions, and even if you weren't acting with the best of intentions, that still wouldn't give me a license to act like a total dick towards you. I'm glad, however, that we resolved things in a way which we're all (as far as I can tell) happy with, something that would never have happened if you hadn't stirred the pot as you did. Please don't hold my occasional assholery against me, mmkay?

tl;dr sorry for being a dickhead, and here's a picture of a pretty bird. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Your use if twinkle is far from ideal, labelling editors who are making good faith edits (even if misguided) as vandals. Here is a selection of those edits; [3],[4],[5],[6],[7]. Continuing to use twinkle to label these edits as vandalism, and to help you edit war will lead to removal of your twinkle. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris Barnes (actor)

Please justify your repeated deletions of the link to the site Chris Barnes...Beyond Tanner, which is a biography of the actor that this article is about.

Thank you. Cbsite (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's just a fan's site and you only want it in because you're the fan behind the site. Don't use Wikipedia to promote your stuffs. If you believe your article really deserves to be on that article, just wait and someday someone will put it there. It will fell much more gratifying. --Damiens.rf 04:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC) - (moved from my talk page, where it didn't belong Cbsite (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

Thank you for your reply. Now cite the Wikipedia policy that your opinion is based upon. Cbsite (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, on edit, I see the conflict of interest article cited, however, this doesn't apply here since I don't reveal my identity as the author on the site, nor do I stand to make any kind of financial gain from the site - if you look, there are no ads. But nice try. Cbsite (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to involve financial gain to be a conflict of interest. Just do as I told you: Make a good site and, if it's really good, someone someday will add the external link. But not you. --Damiens.rf 13:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)moved from my talk page, where it didn't belong Cbsite (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And stop reverting my external links cleanup. You're about to violate the 3 rv rule. --Damiens.rf 13:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)moved from my talk page, where it didn't belong Cbsite (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE KEEP YOUR GARBAGE OFF MY TALK PAGE. Cbsite (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Angliski

Please don't edit on the English Wikipedia if English isn't your primary language. You're just embarassing yourself:

Christopher J. Barnes (born June 24 1965) is an American former child actor known for his role as Tanner Boyle in the movies The Bad News Bears and its sequel The Bad News Bears in Breaking Training'

Cbsite (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WTF

you got a friend... Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 13:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Go away

There's a message on my talk page warning about disparaging messages - so don't post there, ok? What I did was completely fine, and I will do it again if you continue with the nonsense you are carrying on with. You are making nominations in violation of WP:POINT to bully Australian editors and I will report you if you keep doing so. You do not understand Australia and you should stop making up spurious reasons for deleting photos when they are entitled to be there. There is not a blanket ban on non-free images, so stop trying to introduce one via the back door through pushing the boundaries of policy creep via the back door. If you want a blanket ban then od it through the proper channels. JRG (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate what JRG has said. Lots of editors put in hours upon hours to actually write articles here, find pictures, organise everything, and bring it all together coherently. They are contributing. Your action is nothing of that sort; it is bullying and vandalism, wasting the valuable time of valuable editors who have much more important things to do than clean up the erratic mess you are creating. Very kindly, stop. Find something constructive to do. Michael ^talk 08:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I've made a complaint about my rather unpleasant experience of you several weeks ago, if you'd like to chime in. Cbsite (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:DunstanAndRann.jpg

A deletion review of Image:DunstanAndRann.jpg has been requested. Since you were involved in the IfD for it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Joanna Newsom

Not sure what language you excel in, but it obviously isn't English. PLEASE STOP corrupting the Joanna Newsom page.

Cheers, Snoop God (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

RE Joanna Newsom

if you knew anything about Joanna Newsom and could be bothered looking at the page (for references) you wouldn't be waisting my time. Vandalise the page again and I will report it! Snoop God (talk)

NFCC 2 Interpretation

You seem to be basing a large number of your deletion criteria on the fact an image comes from a news agency, and therefore harms their economic interests. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news agency, we tag our non-free images as such, therefore, per NFCC 2 "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." our coverage, in and of itself, will not replace the original new agency's market. To this end we limit the number of images per page and require low resolution images, as well as the whole NFCC tagging and categorization scheme. I really would prefer you took this interpretation up at WT:NFCC than continuing to tag compliant images. MBisanz ^talk 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As I explained just now on IRC, Damiens.rf is essentially right in his interpretation of NFCC#2, and I very much encourage him to continue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Although, it might be wiser to take it a bit more slowly. Not to upset too many people all at the same time, you know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

WILL YOU PLEASE STOP IT?

Wil you please stop putting every fair use image up for deletion. It in no way helps wikipedia and I will be forced to report you if you keep putting images with adeqaute rationales up for deletion. Images of deceased people when a free image is impossible to obtain it is within wikipedian policy and copywright law to use the images if a replaceable image is not available. AN image used to identify the subject is encyclopedia and therefore rmeoval is damaging. Such images providing they have a fair use rationale and are irreplaceable are generally acceptable on wikipedia. Ask any administrator. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Those images you have nominated are not adequate for deletion unless a free image becomes available. If you study WP:FAIRUSE you will see that this is acceptable.Rule 1 is: No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)

I've been on here a long term and done a great deal of work for wikipedia and know what is generally acceptable for fair use. If we had free images of these people who are no longer living we would be using them instead, but as we don't and it won't be possible to obtain a new one we can legitamtely use them. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you think the image policy is but Yone Minagawa has an adequate rationale and a caption within the article which clearly helps the reader encyclopedically. If you remain fixated by your idea of what is not acceptable you are going to make yourself very unpopular on here fast and in doing so have to learn the hard way The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My time on wikipedia does not revolve around images. I see that is appears to be a Allied Press image. ALl I can suggest is that we contact Allied Press and ask them what their policy is with wikipedia using their images. What do you suggest we do then? The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for your IfDs

Hi Damien - can you stop tagging images for deletion just for the mo? Your interpretation of the NFCC is essentially under dispute, and flooding the IfD page with deletion requests that all amount to the same thing is not getting us anywhere. Can you hold off until some kind of consensus is reached, then you can tag merrily away knowing what the prevailing opinion is? Cheers Fritzpoll (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing the page about me

I understand your desire for an accurate article about me. I share that desire. To that end, stop removing valid citations. There is plenty of evidence that I have been making a living from free software for many many years. Look, for example, on the Free Software Business mailing list. If I was a fraud, surely someone would have called me out. You have no reason to call me a liar; no evidence for it whatsoever; and there's plenty of evidence (if only you would stop vandalizing my page) that I am not lying. RussNelson (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are being discussed at WP:COIN

Hello Damiens.rf. Though I'm still unclear on why you could be thought to have a COI on this article, take a look at WP:COIN#Russ Nelson. You are welcome to add your own opinion there.

Maybe we should treat online bios of the subject (hosted at an organization he's part of) as being similar to his own blog, i.e. a self-published testimony? This may be accepted as an external link on the person's own article, though it could not be used as a reference for matters of fact, per WP:SPS. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The time of good faith uploaders is just as valuable as yours

I meant to put this comment at the end of this thread -- only to find you archive comments after just two days.

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise suggested:

Although, it might be wiser to take it a bit more slowly. Not to upset too many people all at the same time, you know.

I agree, but I would go much farther.

Some of your nominations hold merit. But, in my opinion, it would be far, far better for the wikipedia if you changed how you nominated articles:

1. Stop making opaque or obfuscated nominations -- nominations that cannot be understood by good faith uploaders, and can only be understood by regular participants in this forum. You make very frequent use of NFCC#2 and NFCC#8 -- at a bare minimum bear in mind it would be barely more work for you to use NFCC#2 or NFCC#8.
2. Stop making questionable nominations -- only make nominations for which you can offer a civil, meaningful explanation.

It seems to me that if you were to devote the same amount of effort to deletion nominations, but make them without violating the wikipedia's civility policies, you would have to cut back the volume of your nominations. There is nothing wrong with this. Sure, your time is valuable. But the time of good-faith uploaders is just as important as yours.

You absolutely can not ask good faith uploaders to feel slighted when your nominations represent less than a full effort to be clear, or civil, so that your nomination time is spent more efficiently.

Assuming that a nomination you make is in fact based on policy, but you do not explain it sufficiently well that a good faith uploader can understand it, you are not just doing a disservice to that good-faith uploader -- you are doing a disservice to the entire project. When you are unwilling, or unable, to explain to a good-faith uploader why the image they uploaded should be deleted you will not only piss them off, but you leave them in the position where they still don't know what they did wrong. So, unless they leave the project in disgust, they are going to continue to upload other images, in good faith, which may fail to comply with policy in the same way as the image you just nominated. How the heck are they supposed to know what they did wrong when you make rude, opaque, obfuscated explanations?

This is not just a waste of their time -- it is a waste of everyone's time. And it unnecessarily erodes the general level of civility on the project.

If you think an image should be deleted -- but you don't think you are capable of offering a civil, meaningful explanation why that image should be deleted that someone who is not an insider on the deletion fora could understand -- let someone else nominate it for deletion. If you think it is important ask someone who you think can explain why the image should be deleted for help.

Please consider -- isn't it possible that if you can't offer a simple explanation as to why an image should be deleted -- that you might be mistaken, and that image does not, in fact, merit deletion, after all?

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S.

You might consider telling the archive robot to allow comments to be left on your page for more than two days. Maybe it hasn't occurred to you, but only keeping comments around for two days might be interpreted as a reckless disregard for the value of other's feedback. Geo Swan (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Life really is too short to spend all your time trying to defend something which nobody pays you for or obliges you to do. A great deal of time is wasted on wikipedia by pointless discussion and threats of deletions. It does nothing to enchance the quality and reputation of wikipedia, and I really have little time to have to keep defending deletions and trying to state my case. What I will never understand is how you seem to get personal satisfaction from deleting content which can be the only explanation as to why you are so dedicated to solely thinking about this area of the project.

Believe it or not, I try to avoid confict or ANI disreputes as much as possible and get on with building the encylopedia. I only react or file a complaint if I believe content on wikipedia which people have worked hard for on here is under threat. I try to focus solely on content but if something is under threat of affecting this and I see a deliberately deletionist course of action then I come into conflict with editors such as yourself when I would rather no have to. The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Trolling

Mmm. I wonder what Blofeld is uploading today.

WP:TROLL. The Bald One ^{White cat} 20:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop stalking Blofeld's uploads, this is considered extremely disruptive. Could you please civilly talk with him before submitting the mass IFDs? He has submitted many perfectly acceptable fair use images and it seems that you are trying to delete them for the heck of it. Again, please stop. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I really can't see how it is a blatant copyvio. It has this under it:

{{Non-free fair use in}}

I can't say I know much about the image policies, but this certainly is acceptable. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I tell you it's not. That template is not magic wand against copyvios. As I suggested you, you should ask guidance for some other editor you may feel more comfortable with. --Damiens.rf 20:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it your aim at wikipedia to delete every fair use image tagged with that? What makes this upload any different? Because Blofeld uploaded it, and you seem to not like him? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The licensing template has been approved by the administration of wikipedia. It is generally accepted in non free rationale criteria not only on here but under United States law under Fair use. Is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act also non existant?? If the claim of fair use was invalid I seriously doubt anybody here would have dreamed of creating a template that implies use of the image is acceptable. By rebuking my images you are basically saying that the creator of this template and indeed the fair use law is redundant. If wikipedia did not accept such images why on earth would they create a licensing tag with a clear copywright mark on it???

If you are implying that this licensing is invalid, then automatically all non free content should be removed from wikipedia as somebody somewhere had to pay for an image originally. The Bald One ^{White cat} 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the template. The template clearly says "To the uploader: this tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed non-free use rationale.". You completely failed to provide any copyright information (i.e., that the image belongs to Corbis Photo Agency), and your non-free use rationale is broken. --Damiens.rf 20:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for the inclusion of that specific image. He uploaded that because you are trying to delete Image:Soe Win.jpg. An person of Soe Win's importance needs at least one image which depicts him. Chose one. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What image shall we use then, since you obviously know everything about copyrighting? There are hundreds of images out there for dead people. And this is perfectly acceptable under WP policy. Why aren't you talking to Blofeld, anyway?

PS your behavior has been raised on User:Keeper76's talk page. This is fast becoming the new ANI. :) --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I;ve found a free image. Try reverting me now or finding that that is copywrighted. The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Damiens.rf 21:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Both images have now been deleted. Happy? The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Good, discussion ended. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you realise how many flickr agreements I have made and how much work I have done finding free image content to add to articles. You seem to think I am just this copywright glutton who only tries to upload non free images but I have actually worked as hard as any editor on here in trying to do so. The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing is for sure we need to come to a solid conclusion legally about what qualifies for fair use as many of our existing images are being used in the same way that the image your removed of Soe Win was. If you think that the current policy is redundant then I would seriously suggest you go about it in a formal discussion rather than picking on isolated images uploaded by myself. The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Because even if I had stated that Corbis was the owner of the image and added every detail imaginable you would have still claimed that we couldn't use the image because of payment issues. This applies to many of the images we have on here. The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You can respond on your talk page its fine rather than copying it to mine. As I said even if I had explained about Corbis and why it qualifies for use here without payment, there is no rationale under the sun you would have found acceptable for the claim of that image. The same goes for other images where you seme to imply that no rationale is valid evne if it shows the deepermost respect to the copywright holder and the content in the image is irreplaceable. I am fully aware you can't wave a magic wand but given the criteria layed down in the copywright fair use requirements and fair use law there must be a way in which some rationale could claim for such an image. The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked the Soe Win2 image, the rationale didn't even try to explain why it qualifies for use here without payment. It would simply go on saying that it was ok to use it here, but didn't explain why.

I'm curious about what such a fabulous justification would be. I'm planning to publish an encyclopedia to directly compete with Britannica, but I don't have their funds to license good images from photo agencies. --Damiens.rf 21:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S.

How do I file a "deleted image" appeal? (I don't see a button anywhere on the page for the deleted image for it!) If you can help (me find where to file, not to appeal) -- thanks!  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 20:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Kiron (baby)

Hi Damien. ANy idea how we would go about finding permisssion to use the image of the baby with two heads seen here. The image is used on all the news sites but has obviously been sold to these people so I haven't uploaded it. However do you think its possible to find out given that we will never get another alternative to identify it. The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Mmm I don't know it not the same as a photo. Ah well it doesn't matter for now there is an external link to it and the image is all over the web. The thing is with many images we can see them within seconds by looking eleswhere but it is nice to have an image with the article (copywright permitting) of course. That image is owned by one agnecy though as I have checked and I bet they're making a mint out of it. In this circumstance I can see how it would be difficult to try to use the image without paying. The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

FPaS RFC

As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Waterfall image

Before simply reverting my removal of your bad faith IFD you might have looked to see that I had changed the license template and added a non-free use rationale. I have since also uploaded a new image (that does not have press-kit NFCC#6 issues) and under the website's copyright has permission to be displayed on the web for non-commercial purposes (like display in Wikipedia). I'll write the same thing at the IFD. You saw my edit history - but as usual you are acting like a bully to conveniently ignore it for your own purposes. Are you ever going to learn? JRG (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Danish copyright law

Hi I was wondering if you could look into seeing what the expiry date is on danish copyright images? The Bald One ^{White cat} 22:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Reid

Who is Reid?(in case you didn't read the references section) All of my statements in that section of the article are drawn from Reid's book on Canadian painting. I could reference them from him, but then the single source issue is still present. I will try to find more references. Personally, I think that such a great amount of maintenance tags on such a small section of the article is excessive.Lithoderm (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, the ISBN is already there: John Goodwin Lyman#References. Lithoderm (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Supermodel Statuses

I see you're reverting edits by Tarheelz - which I was also forced to do last night - so if you believe the term "supermodel" is non-NPOV, there is a debate going on right now you might be interested in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion Mbinebri (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Samantha Smith

I don't know how to use OTRS and I *did* get permission to use that portrait - i don't know why your singling out me. Paul Austin (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Your quote deletions

The link you continually cite on non-free content is in relation to images, video clips, etc - not cited verbal statements (please re-read it and familiarize yourself with wiki policy, which you seem to be unclear about). You have offered no justifiable reasoning for your drive-by hasty deletions of sourced, notable, and properly weighted commentary, and I will continue to revert until you do so or discuss your removal and achieve consensus. Under your current incorrect rationale, no quote could ever be used. thank you.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 13:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Damiens, as you can see - Roger and I were able to achieve consensus on the removal of the aforementioned quotes without losing their inherent content. I believe that your continual practice of following my edits and hastily deleting any quotes you deem "decorative" without any discussion is not only unhelpful and against the spirit of wiki, but borders on possible harassment. It is not your sole duty to "patrol" articles that I am working on and remove any quote you feel shouldn't be included like it was your personal "crusade". Many of these quotes have existed and been accepted on such articles for months and thus by implication not deemed "worthy of deletion" by others. I want to assume you are acting in good faith, but when every time I log on to see that you are following my edit history and randomly deleting any existing quote carte blanche (when they are allowed under wiki policy) it begins to make me question your motivation. Thank you.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You keep stating that I "have been shown that quotes are wrong", and I dispute this. It is your OPINION that quotes look “un-encyclopedic” and thus "decorative" but this is not wiki policy in regards to all quotes. Some quotes are allowed in articles, and your process of simply wanting them all deleted without incorporating the info from the quote into the article, is destructive. Please stop following my edits and deleting quotes I have included on articles months ago with no objection ... by continuing to do this you will leave me with no other option than to assume you are acting in bad faith, and force me to seek administrative redress. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 19:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I do admire your stubborn spirit & “chutzpah”, I do not appreciate your continual insistence on going to an article I have extensively edited, and deleting the included quotes without any discussion or rationale, and then when I revert and ask for some rationale or discussion to reach concensus you simply throw the proverbial "wiki spaghetti against the wall” hoping something sticks. Thus far, this has consisted of you declaring the Pre-Damiens version --- “Unencyclopedic” = (your created word, not mine), my “OWN” = and asking that I don’t “own it” so that of course you can “own it” and do what you want with it, “bad practice” = apparently in your eyes all quoted statements are such even though wiki MOS does not state such a policy, “decorative” = because after all beginning a section with quoted text is practically like making the article a myspace page (sarcasm) etc etc. Although I am sure that the land of “DamiensIpedia” is an exquisite locale in your own view, as you get to parade through wikipedia deleting everything you wish and then offering up weak attempts at “wiki-lawyering” when challenged, your stubborn desire to delete first, then revert the revert, then revert the second revert knowing that the other editor is left without the recourse to revert again and not be in violation of 3RR (of note: complete this step every 24 hours), is not the way wikipedia is supposed to function. Yesterday another editor and I settled a previous dispute of which you were part, through a process of consensus and discussion (something that you apparently find unnecessary) but I believe it provides a helpful blueprint for you of how this process is supposed to work. The profuse arrogance you display by simply hastily deleting sourced material and then simply calling it whatever comes to mind: “decoration”, etc ... IS counter-productive and unbecoming of an editor who wishes to edit collaboratively with those displaying good faith as I am.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 21:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Number of Terrorist Incidents

An important number

Hi, there! I hope you'll like the new one :-) Emilfaro (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please desist harassment

Taking your irrational anti-quote crusade, to every quote I have ever added on Wikipedia is a means of harassment ... in response to current disagreements. Nearly all of these quotes have NEVER been a problem for any other editor, and you have not justified your (no quote) policy. In addition, you never discuss your drive-by removals, as you hastily go page to page deleting every quote you find that I have ever added. If you continue this behavior I will report you to wiki administration & I will continue to revert your behavior for as many days as it takes, until you achieve some consensus or show me the specific policy BANNING all use of quotes.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, stop threatening me. I've already said that I don't oppose your seeking for (administrative or not) third part help. I was not aware that you single-handled decorated all those che-guevara-related articles with quotes yourself. But this is not a reason for me to stop following the site wide guidelines on the matter. You may want to read Wikipedia:QUOTE#When not to use quotations before asking for help. Also, I'd like to point out that, sometimes, your choice of words offend me. I know that you may be doing that unintentionally, an that's why I preferred to bring this out here, in the spirit of amicability, instead of keeping this feeling to myself. If you're not intentionally using harsh words (and that's what I bellieve deep inside), I apologize, and ask you to simply ignore this last paragraph. --Damiens.rf 19:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Damiens, you continue to cite "SITE GUIDELINES" which are as follows:

When editing an article, a contributor should try to avoid quotations when: ~ Note how this says "Try to avoid" not NEVER USE ?

a summary of a quote would be better. This may be due to lack of importance, lengthy articles, etc. On lengthy articles, editors should strive to keep long quotations to a minimum, opting to paraphrase and work smaller portions of quotes into articles. ~ Note how this says to work quote info into article, something you refuse to do, as you just delete them ?

the same quote has been used elsewhere in the article. For example, offering a quote under a section titled "Influences" expounding on the influence of someone's religion when it has already been used in the "Biography" section should be avoided. There is no need for duplication. ~ NONE of the quotes you have deleted have been duplicates !

the article is beginning to look like Wikiquote. Editors should remember that Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia, and not an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject. If there are many quotations, please move them to Wikiquote and place a Wikiquote template on the article to inform readers that there are relevant quotations regarding the subject. Most of the articles where you have deleted quotes, have only HAD 1 Cquote in them. Yet you still delete them and call them "decoration" ... when many articles have at least 1 cquote and you have yet to show that ANY use of them is banned.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please

discuss your rationale first, before templating articles (which should be a last resort). Thank you.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please Read and Understand This

Wikipedia:Non-free content# Guideline examples# Acceptable use

"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea."

  Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING. You have been shown that quotes are allowed under wiki policy. Your constant edit warring and violating of 3RR in order to remove cited and relevant material is an act of trolling. If you have a complaint about an article, use the talk page to discuss it. Your behavior is unacceptable and resembles bad faith. Thank you.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Your hilarious accusation of "stalking" is laughable. You are the one who continually for days has been deleting quotes I have added to articles. Then when I mimic your behavior you scream of "stalking". My behavior was simply to display to you, how your actions appear. It's not fun when the shoe is on the other foot is it? Now go play elsewhere, and quit vandalizing articles by deleting all quotes which are allowed under wiki policy.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

John Bannon image

While I agree that it is important to have an image on the page, what is more important is having an appropriate image on the page. This is, after all, an article in an encyclopedia and thus the images on the page, especially at a focal point such as an infobox, should be somewhat respectful and representative. A simple portrait-style image (such as the one that was removed) is more appropriate than an image of the subject carrying a tray of drinks. Was the subject a waiter? Or a bartender? No, he was the Hon. Premier of South Australia. Please refrain from re-adding that image until a suitable replacement can be found. ABVS1936 (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, taking the image out of context and adding it to the Waiting staff page is preposterous, per my comments above. ABVS1936 (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Paterson Bridge

I suggest that you think through your actions a little more.

The image that you have now twice tagged is very clearly from the era noted in image notes (i.e. approximately 1910), forty-odd years clear of the limit on public domain images. Wouldn't it be more helpful to go find the source for this image rather than deleting it for jollies when you and I both know that it is definitely public domain?

This is on the same day that I've seen you a) try to delete an image of a dead person by claiming that he was in fact, alive, and b) claim that one of the most significant feminist book publishers in history was a self-published vanity press. Perhaps you should be a little more careful with your editing, because that's three times in the one day where your carelessness has negatively impacted upon the encyclopedia. Rebecca (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm gobsmacked. You've just reverted me on Jessica Valenti - by still claiming that Seal Press is a vanity press? This is a major press that has published many of the most significant feminist books and feminist authors of the last fifty years. Did you even bother to Google them before attacking the article? Rebecca (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

On what possible basis are you still making that claim? Not only is there utterly no evidence for it if you'd so much as Googled them, but it's arguably libelous as well. And you'd have noticed that he was dead if you'd actually looked at his article. Can you see what I'm getting at here? Rebecca (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, wow. Every biographical article in Wikipedia on a dead person lists the death date; if the person is living only the birth date will be listed. If you haven't worked that one out yet, you really shouldn't be deleting images on the basis that someone is living or dead. And you've still not answered why you're randomly smearing a major publishing company, or why you're hellbent on trying to delete an image which you know for a fact is public domain. Rebecca (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that in future you might want to read more closely before making accusations of that nature - since you're so familiar with Wikipedia policies, you might want to take heed of WP:BLP, which is one of our most important.

Seal Press is a significant imprint of a major publishing company. Their books are in I dare say most large bookstores in the Western world, and several are staples of university courses around the world (in fact, they put out one of the most cited women's studies texts ever written). I don't know where the hell you got the idea that they were a vanity press, but once again, you really need to think things through before you come out with a claim like that in a Wikipedia article.

As for the image, you know from the state of the image that it was made well before 1955, which it would have to be after to be copyrighted. You have two courses of action here - a) go look for the source to confirm the obvious, and b) delete a perfectly good and perfectly legal image. I'm damned if I know why you're choosing the latter course, but it certainly ain't helping the project. Rebecca (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you've again reverted the page, again on the basis of this bizarre claim. I'm at a loss - what the heck are you doing? Rebecca (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Jessica Valenti is one of the most successful (in terms of publishing and in terms of attention) feminist writers under 30 around. She's written a highly successful book (both in terms of books sold, media attention, and university courses picking it up), she's done things like The Colbert Report, she's written a successful follow-up, and she runs a highly popular website with a readership of many thousands. Trying to insist that your edits were still justified on that basis, even after admitting that you've made a gutload of reverts to the article on a basis which was totally bogus, will not fly. I hope you'll be better behaved upon returning from your block, because this sort of behaviour has consequences on Wikipedia. Rebecca (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Smashville^talk 18:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering your history with the article before, it might well be better for you to pick an article to work on that you don't have quite such an erratic history with - especially since the article is a BLP, and that you have had ongoing negative engagement with its subject. Rebecca (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your work is negatively affecting the project, and in this case, the article on a BLP. I'm asking you to do the right thing and find another article to direct your interest in light of your past history there. It isn't about acting nasty; it's about careless and erratic behaviour negatively impacting upon the project. And if you can't police your own behaviour, I'd have to say that by the reaction your block received, you're probably heading very quickly towards Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. Rebecca (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think with your history with both the article and its subject that your presence on Jessica Valenti is probably unhelpful. Rebecca (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. I'm actually a critic of Valenti; that book which you initially claimed was self-published was very controversial in parts of the feminist movement. It doesn't mean that I'm not going to complain when an editor starts doing the editing version of driving drunk and stoned through her article. It's not just your random attempts at disparaging the women (evidently driven by your past clashes with her in the article history); it's your cluelessness about the entire subject (i.e. repeatedly claiming that her publisher was a vanity press, and claiming that some Salon interview said something particularly illuminating when it's the subject of her entire book, and basically her attitude to feminism). Rebecca (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't even about good faith - it's about dealing with an editor who persistently makes an article worse, whether through being grumpy with its subject or just plain incompetence. Your handling of the anthologies she's been involved in is a good example of this; in your haste to downplay them, you've rewritten the sounding prose to take on a decidedly un-academic tone with worse grammar. I don't care why you can't seem to edit this article helpfully, but if you can't (and your edits since being unblocked suggest that you can't), then please go find somewhere else on the project to contribute. Rebecca (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, how about stopping making or reverting back in the problematic edits to begin with? Rebecca (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Jessica Valenti. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Smashville^talk 04:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

According to the report I had posted on Wikipedia:AN3, it was User:Rebecca that violated 3RR. I was doing valid changes to the article (like adding and formating references and external links), I tried to collaborate with her, only to receive reverts of my edits.

Decline reason:

This block was discussed at WP:ANI#Intervention welcomed, and consensus appears to be that you were disruptive. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 05:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm sorry, MaxSem. But I had already been blocked (for 24hs) for the reasons discussed on that ANI thread. This time, I wasn't blocked "for being disruptive", but "for violating the three-revert rule at Jessica Valenti", and that's what I'm disputing here. To the the report I had posted on Wikipedia:AN3, I add that Rebecca was reverting valid edits I was doing to Jessica Valenti, like adding and formating sources and formating external links. In her reverts, valid information was lost, like that Jessica worked for "The Huffington Post" and the use of the template cite-web on the Colbert Report reference. Please, carefully review the situation. Thanks.

Decline reason:

It is clear that you were edit-warring on this page. Your last block for edit-warring ended just hours before you started again: that you should so quickly recommence edit-warring so quickly is disturbing. I therefore fully endorse Smashville's escalation of the block to a week and strongly urge you not to edit war when the block expires. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ok, I fail to see how that was edit warring. I tied to communicate with Rebecca, but she preferred to keep reverting my valid edits. Now, due to Rebecca's edits, the Jessica Valenti article has a broken reference (number 4), the references number 5 is no longer formated with {{cite web}}, it no longer mentions that Jessica worked for "The Huffington Post", the interviews she gave about her book are hidden in the external links section (even without link-descriptions) instead of incorporated in the article as references, not to mention the reference Rebecca broke and had to be repaired by the bot AnomieBOT.

Nevermind, she's the former member of arbcom and I'm the recently blocked drama queen. --Damiens.rf 14:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR is pretty straightforward. You can't revert more than 3 times. You reverted 5. --Smashville^talk 21:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you realize it was Rebecca reverting to begin with? Do you realize she was the first one to revert? Do you realize she was the first to reach the "3 times" count? Do you realize she used the justification "bad grammar" to revert think like formating {{cite web}} templates altogether?

Does 3RR applies to "former arbcom members" just as straightforward as it applies to "recently blocked users"? --Damiens.rf 12:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"She started it" is not an excuse that is generally accepted on Wikipedia. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever another user did is irrelevant. I recently blocked you and was watching your edits when you came off your block. I was not watching Rebecca's edits because I had no need to. If she was not blocked at the 3RR noticeboard, take it up with someone else. I didn't decline it...and I didn't notice until about five minutes ago that you even reported it there. It doesn't excuse your behavior. Quite simply, 3 is the limit and 5 is more than 3. --Smashville^talk 14:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You were watching my edits but didn't notice I'had reported Rebecca to the 3RR noticeboard?

I guess I can't take it up with someone else, since you've blocked me for a week... --Damiens.rf 20:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't revert 3 times on the noticeboard. I checked your contribution history and noticed several edits to one article. And again - this is not about someone else's edits. It's about the fact that you violated 3RR. What someone else did is irrelevant. You knew better...you had just come off a 3RR block and within 4 hours did it again. The fact that I was checking up on you and not scrutinizing the behavior of another user does not excuse your behavior. --Smashville^talk 20:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I do believe the the actions of Rebecca do matter exactly because they show that the one reverting wasn't me, but her. I was adding content, adding sources, formating references, incorporating external links as references, etc... while she was just reverting each one of my edits, and refusing to cooperate when I tried to reach her on her talk page. --Damiens.rf 21:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You realize that everyone on Wikipedia can actually see your edits, right? You reverted to your original version, one, two, three, four, five times in a two hour period. --Smashville^talk 21:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Smashville, I will explain how each of these diffs occurred and why I believe they can't be sincerely interpreted as "Damiens is edit warring, violated 3RR" and why what other users are doing matters. It will be long, I and wish you could put as much dedication to read it as I've put to write.

The diff "one" is actually an undoing of an accidental article blanking by myself. If you use the diff function correctly and compare it to the version you called "your original version", you'll see that I was formating the external links with the {{cite web}} template. I did had to undo Rebecca's previous revert, since she reverterd a series of 6 valid edits by me where I added some references, formated some others, added content and cleaned the external links. User:Rebecca undid all of that with the justification "(revert edits that made grammar worse"[8].

Rebecca then reverted (2nd time) my use of {{cite web}} and all previous improvements using just the justification "Nyet. Removing changes that made article worse"[9] (Note that since her first revert I was trying to communicate with her at her talk page.)

In the diff "two", if you really compare it with "my original version", you will notice that I was not only undoing Rebecca's 2nd revert, but also, incorporating external links as content and references to the article.

After that, I added more improvements, like trying a better format for the references section[10], trying to homogenize the use of italics through the article [11] and even trying to address what (I believe could be) Rebecca's concerns with my grammar[12].

Then User:Rebecca reverted it all again (3rd time), saying simply "Revert, again, edits making article worse than the original article"[13].

In the diff "three", I undo User:Rebecca's 3rd revert, believing that she was making some progress in our talk page conversations, were I was repeatedly asking her to help me to fix her "grammar" concerns, and explaining that things like adding new references and formating existing ones with {{cite web}} could not be "making article worse than the original".

I went on with MOS improvements in the references[14] and adding more content to the "Essays" section[15]...

Just to see Rebecca not only reverting (4th time) everything again, but also completely removing the "Essays" section[16] that I had just started to work on to improve!!! This section also served as a reference to some claims in the article, and now the article is broken without it (see the reference #4 in the current (rebecca's) version of the article, that now mentions an non existing section).

She went on to remove one more paragraph from the article that she doubled a "clueless factoid"[17]

And note that before her 4th revert, I had already gently warned her about the risk of violating 3RR (on her talk page).

Your diff "four" is me, not only undoing Rebeca's 3RR-violating revert (and subsequent content removal), but also adding more content to the (now restored) "Essays" section.

I went on to add information about one place more where the article's subject worked as a freelance (what was supported my recently added content on the "Essays" section, to do some minor MOS homogenizations[18] and external-links cleanup[19]

User:Rebecca reverted (5th rtime!) all of this (and everything prior) explaining "these edits either a) don't make sense, or b) are totally unnecessary. knock it off'" [20].

In your diff "five", I'm not only undoing Rebeca's 5th revert, but adding content about the publication of a second book by the article's subject.

User:Rebecca reverted them for the 6th time, but she liked the sentence about the 2nd book, and left it on the article[21]. In her edit summary, She qualified all previous improvements as "cruft".

This edit indeed left the article with a broken reference (#6) and a reference mentioning a removed section (#4) (see her version)

Not to mention that she lost the {{cite web}} formatting I've added to reference #5.

At this point, I was unable to fix the article since I was already blocked for a week for "violating the 3RR rule". Hopefully, a bot fixed one of the problems with the references.

So, do you still stand that it doesn't matters what Rebecca did? Do you feel more comfortable in letting my 3RR report to be archived with the result "Submitter already blocked?"

Your's truly, --Damiens.rf 00:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, and I don't know how many times we have to go over this: The actions of another user do not excuse your actions. You violated 3RR. I have never said it "doesn't matter" what she did - I said I was not watching her edits. --Smashville^talk 03:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Do the fact that when I did my 4th (so called) "revert" I had already reported Rebecca to 3RR have any weight? Or the fact that I tried to reach her on her talk page since her first revert? Did you read the talk page discussion? As I repeatedly invited her to work with me in the article, she repeatedly said "go edit another article". --Damiens.rf 11:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Again - the actions of another user are not an excuse for you to violate 3RR. I apologize that I did not look at her edits, but you clearly exceeded 3RR. --Smashville^talk 13:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, her 3RR report was closed with the result "Submitter already blocked"[22], so, I guess, my actions did served as an excuse for her violation of 3RR.

Since I'm incapable at the moment, would you mind communication with her or with the closing admin? Explaining them that my blocking is no excuse for her violatiion of the 3RR? I don't believe she needs to be blocked at this point (since the question is currently moot), but I hope to have a more collaborative instance from her when my block expires. --Damiens.rf 13:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Damiens, Il faut arreter. Toute cette histoire te rend malade. Ici c'est comme une secte, tu dois etre gentil sinon on te casse. Tu as bien travaille, tu as ete gentil, mais tu t es enerve. C'est trop tot pour te prendre pour un maitre de l'univers avec toute puissance sur les edits des autres. Il faut gagner ce privilege. iL FAUT DEVENIR ADMIN. Et pour devenir admin, il faut lecher le cul des autres admin, avant de pouvoir niquer les autres, les newbies. Il faut pas les mordre (dont bite newbies), il faut leur dire de te faire une pipe sans te mordre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparsa? (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you REALLY know about Cuba?

You have TWICE reverted my edit calling Fidel Castro 'a strongman'. In reality, in this case 'strongman' is a gross understatement. NPOV rules tend to protect people from unjust attacks. Fine. Trouble is, they also protect bastards from being called bastards. It's a sad truth about Wikipedia that there will always be a plentiful supply of self-appointed vigilantes, good-intentioned or not, who will immediately and zealously react against and revert an edit of, say, Fidel Castro's article calling him what he really is, a dictator. Also sadly, most of such vigilantes often are completely ignorant of the applicable historical facts, so we have (along the same example) an Norwegian kid, ignorant of the 20th-Century history of the Americas, reverting edits about Fidel Castro made by a Cuban expatriate who lived in Cuba at the time of the Cuban revolution, suffered the horrors of the communist dictatorship that Castro implanted, lost relatives at the Paredón, and lost all his property upon leaving his homeland for good; the Norwegian youngster administering the final insult: he delivers a sermon on WP:NPOV policy, because the Cuban editor didn't supply proper "references" or "citations" about facts the whole world is well aware of. It's nauseating. Perhaps if Wikipedia was based in a country less dominated (or better, harassed) by lawyers than the USA, then saying THE TRUTH would be more important than saying just polite, tactful, NPOV-correct, mild, harmless, non-offensive, and hypocritical statements about people, or than "adequately sourcing" said truth. So, Mr. Vigilante, Fidel Castro is not only 'a strongman' (did you look at the article or not?), he is a criminal, a murderer, a ruthless Dictator, a liar, a thief, and a rotten bastard. That's the truth, not "THRUTH" as you wrote. So quit protecting the article on Cuba: you simple lack que qualifications for the task. You need a lot of further study and to do a lot of research. Perhaps a 2-year stay in Cuba itself would be best. You'd learn a lot, and be surprised a lot. Regards, --AVM (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for complaining about how your relatives were harmed by the elimination of poverty in a country. --Damiens.rf 19:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Caution

You've recently come off a week long block, and are being incautious. [23] was unhelpful and looks like stalking / trolling. Not having fully worked out what is going on, I have done nothing. But the advice you received above in french (shorn of the naughty words) is plausible William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Some questions for you for a book about Wikipedia.

Damiens, hello--

My name is Mike Smith, and I am currently at work on a book--a book about Wikipedia--about how Wikipedia has affected our culture, and about the wide range of people who help to make Wikipedia the social force that it is. (It will also be accompanied by an hour-long documentary.) I am attempting to contact a number of notable Wikipedia users, yourself included, in pursuit of information about the inner Wikipedia community and its members.

If you are at all interested in being interviewed for my book, drop me an e-mail at [email protected], with a mailing address so I can send you one of my publisher's press kits for this project. It'll give you a good overview of what sorts of questions I'll be asking, and will even includes a promotional T-shirt.

If you're not interested, that's fine as well; it's my loss. Well, it would be yours too, since you won't get to represent yourself in the book--while some of those who know you from Wikipedia will.

I hope to hear from you soon,

Sincerely,

Mike Smith Author, WIK-ED: HOW WIKIPEDIA CONQUERED, REVOLUTIONIZED, AND REDEFINED THE WORLD (Spring 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antarcticsuburbs (talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I won't do for less than 3 t-shirts!!! --Damiens.rf 23:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You are being disruptive

I am fully entitled to remove disruptive comments. You are acting completely inappropriately even after you have been warned multiple times and blocked several times. Desist or you will be blocked. Ok? JRG (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Watson

I agree that removing other people's comments is generally disruptive, but does it really matter what names people are being called on some forum outside of Wikipedia? What does it have to do with the deletion discussion? Why isn't the templated notice at the top of the page enough? --Onorem♠Dil 14:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, FYI, Opcn brought up the situation on WP:AN. --Onorem♠Dil 14:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Help Wikipedia.

If you have any intrest in or knowledge of Anrican films, go to this wikiproject [24] and join! If you don't, then spread this around. The African Films Task force needs you, so follow the link, or spread this post, so people can join the African Films Task Force.

Please help, --RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210    16:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop being disruptive

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• 1st revert: [25]
• 2nd revert: [26]
• 3rd revert: [27]

One more revert and you are in violation of the 3rr, which you have a long history of violating. I did not delete your comments I moved them to a different place. You did however revert them with out my comments. This subject is open for discussion in the Discussion page, please do so there rather than through reverts. --Brendan White (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Since I lot of people seem to take any complaint posted on my talk page as concrete, irrefutable evidence of my misbehavior, I'd like to state for the record that the above used was blocked for 3RR violation. --Damiens.rf 15:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Damiens.rf. I have restored some of the comments removed from the AfD, and I've been keeping an eye on further events there. Please avoid touching anyone else's comments from now on. Let me know if you see any more misbehavior in that discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You were still edit warring, you still reverted past my comment [28]and all to keep a comment that had no bearing on the AfD there instead of moving it to the AfD Discussion page, and you never made any attempt to show how the comment was relevant per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy despite my attempts to start a discussion on the issue. --Brendan White (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Brendan, you've recently come of a block which is easily renewable. It would be helpful to all of us if you would be very patient until the AfD closes. When one AfD gets mentioned that many times at the admin noticeboards, you should be aware that the admins have less patience that we did originally. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Dwight Lauderdale page

Damien, do NOT vandalize that article again. I asked for comments, not outright blanking. Secondly, your rationale for blanking it is totally false. Everything is Verified "WP:V", all sources are reliable "WP:RS", any claim made in there is followed by a reference. Please use the talk page to state why you're making changes on the page. Should you blank that article again, be aware that I will begin reporting you for vandalism. Use the talk page, make your case, don't just blank again. 20:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 21:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Murder of Amanda Milan

An article that you have been involved in editing, Murder of Amanda Milan, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Amanda Milan. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Blanking your page"

Damien, you have a user page consisting of a copyrighted picture (your source is Encyclopedia Britanica). You can't have a copyrighted picture on your user page, therefore it was removed. If you disagree, please file a WP:RFC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs)

It's a 300 year old public domain picture - the licensing even says so. Why would he have to take it to RFC? --Smashville^talk 21:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Licensing states its from Encyclopedia Britanica - Encyclopedia Britanica is copyrighted, as is everything in it. It's copyrighted. KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the licensing states that it is public domain. It also states "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". For details, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag.

This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain". If you have an issue with the image, then you should be the one to take it to WP:FUR instead of potentially starting an edit war on a userpage over an image the user did not upload. If the tag/WMF is wrong, then take it up in the appropriate channels.--Smashville^talk 22:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute the age of the photograph, but please be aware of Britanica's terms of use they seem to be in conflict with Wiki's terms.

Well, this is Wiki and not Britannica. We use the WMF's legal interpretations, not Britannica's. --Smashville^talk 22:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of the problems with the article

Your points, and my response:

1. 1st reference is a 404 error

It's a valid page found on Google. It's now cached [29], Article # 1908 (at this time - but that may change)

1. "was born and raised in a working-class suburb of Columbus, Ohio" - Just name the place instead of describing it with POV charged terms

Read the reference that goes along with it. It doesn't list the town name, it lists his birth place in that exact verbiage. Therefore I have to list it that way.

1. Too many emphasis on what he said once about his parents.
2. "He took this lesson to heart..." - peacock terms.
3. "winning many oratorical (speech) contests..." - No sources

Are you reading the references with this, it's REFERENCED!!!

1. "...being publically recognized in local newspaper articles..." - weasel words

... REFERENCED info

1. "One such article would lead to a phone call that would set him on the path to become South Florida's first black anchor" - no sources for this peacocky sentence.

AGAIN, referenced....read the references next time

1. my.highschooljournalism.org is not a reliable source. It's used at least 8 times.

Your POV

1. MiamiNightOut.com is not a reliable source. It's used at least 9 times.

It's reliable

1. "...to learn the news business from the bottom up" - Improper tone.

Referenced in just that way

1. "It wasn't terribly exciting...'" - Improper tone.

His exact quote - read the references, please

1. "...it did hook him on the business..." - Improper tone.

Again, referenced quote

1. "He did everything from processing the film, to news writing, to producing, even substiuting for on-air talent." - No sources

See above

1. "He even found time to complete his education..." - Improper tone.

WP:SOFIXIT

1. "WPLG (chanel 10) offerd him a three-year contract as a reporter / weekend anchor..." - No sources

READ THE REFERENCES - it IS referenced

1. Unnecessarily long quotations on section "Dwight moves to South Florida"

Your POV

1. Title of section "Dwight moves to South Florida" has an improper tone.

Nope

1. "He quickly established himself as a prolific street reporter..." - peacock terms.

Nope -- per referenced sources

1. "...working half a dozen stories per day." - No sources

Referenced....you DO see that little number next to that sentance, dont' you ;)

1. "...including the Miami River Cops Case..." - No sources. Clarify.

See above

1. "He also managed to score..." - Improper tone.

No - per references

1. "...the first one-on-one interview of President Clinton's presidency..." - No sources

REFERENCED

1. "More than anything, he remembers the rigid ground rules..." - peacock terms.

Nope - his exact quote

1. "He was bumped up to the weeknight anchor desk..." - Improper tone.

Nope - per the references

1. "...the legendary Ann Bishop..." - WP:NPOV.

Nope - per sources

1. "He's since shared anchor duties with Diane Magnum, Kristi Krueger and Laurie Jennings..." - No sources.

Read the references with that

1. "Dwight Lauderdale was known, among many things, for his sense of style" - Weasel words.

ARE YOU READING THE REFERENCES ON THIS - THEY'RE THERE!!!!!!

1. "He always wore sleek suits and had impeccable diction on air.." - No sources and non-neutral.

PER SOURCES

1. Undue weight to quotes of Mr. Lauderdale praising him on "On Camera" section

Open up an RFC on it, if that's the consensus, that by all means, refactor them. (By the way, I claim IAR on that, you get a better idea of what he's like by those quotes, and he DID retire, so what do you expect his co-workers would say ?  :)

1. "This passion to "get the story right" led him to..." - peacock terms.

Nope - again, per sources

1. "Dwight Lauderdale's road to success..." - peacock terms.

Per References

1. "...had it's fair share of bumps and obstacles." - Improper tone.

Your POV

1. "...briefly went from delivering the news to making the news..." - Improper tone.

Nope - again -- READ the references, it's actually direct quote

1. "...learned that he might be a candidate for corrective eye surgery after viewing a news story about this surgery on his own station..." - No sources.

Lay off the crack, it's sourced :) (Yes, I'm being funny)

1. "He never had a problem reading the telepromter, which was 20 feet away from him.." - No sources.

Again, it's sourced, just look

1. "He would, however, have a problem if he had to read from a script without his glasses..." - No sources.

....do you see the little number at the end of the sentance....it called a reference, click on it and you can see my source.... :)

1. "It happened only once in what he refers to has his worse case scenario..." - No sources.

See above

1. Overuse of quotations.

RFC it, if consensus agrees, no problem

1. Section entitled "Things you may not know about Dwight Lauderdale" - Improper tone and unnecessary trivia

Read the comment in the source -- IAR. It improves the article. I realize this can be challenged, and if a consesus is reached that this shouldn't be here, I won't war to keep it in.

1. Section "References" should use {{cite web}} templates (and reliable sources, of course).

See the numbers at the bottom....... :)

--Damiens.rf 21:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Damien.rf you're being difficult. You've been blocked before, please stop before you get another block. 23:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama deletion discussion

I would ask that you refrain from further mischaracterisation of my writing: far from being a JUSTAPOLICY, I specifically gave contexts to my writing, assuming that the closing administrator and anyone else who's familiar with the deletion process would recognise which parts of the fair use criteria my answers addressed. I don't demand that you agree with me, but (here's the JUSTAPOLICY for you :-) I believe that WP:CIV requires that you WP:AGF. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: offsite canvassing

I believe in probability. On the off chance it becomes popular and dozens of comments come to "defend" it, at least one of them is bound to be not-clueless. Although that would be a virtual pain in the ass to sort through... so since you asked I won't do it again.

Cheers.

--Aeon17x (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Headset

As per my edit summary, the image is of a prominent Australian Politician wearing a headset for broadcast, NOT a headset for telephone or computer. The article is not about the former type of headset, not the latter - it doesn't matter how "nice" the image is, it is not an appropriate representation of the subject of the article. It is also not about the politician in question. Please try to keep the images you add to articles in-context, as I have asked you before. ABVS1936 (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The two are entirely distinct. I'm not entirely sure that the image should be in the Headset section of the Headphone article as that section links to the main article of Headset (telephone/computer). My concern is also that the actual subject of the image - John Bannon - has nothing to do with either topic. ABVS1936 (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say that anywhere. However we ARE allowed to use tact and common sense. As I said earlier, my main concern is that the image is in no way related to the article - the article being about headsets for telephone or computer, and the image being that of a politician wearing a broadcast headset. ABVS1936 (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Paterson Bridge

Please don't remove a provided source for an image. That you'd remove it when provided after nominating it for deletion smells of bad faith, and is not a good look. Rebecca (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The "provided source" was a broken link. The it was provided by a single purpose account smells suspect to me. --Damiens.rf 10:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Araujo

we both seem to be getting constantly reverted on the above article, for the record I do agree with your deletion of some of the more memorial style websites that are linked there.

I don't want to see anyone blocked over this, any suggestions on how to solve this little drama?

Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Delete Microphone Gaffe? Silly newbie, remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be about containing all the important information of the world and if you think the examples cited in that article aren't important then you are very much mistaken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.213.150 (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

stuff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Amanda_Milan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Gwen_Araujo

As someone involved, it seems like a good idea to tell you that at last we have some discussion on the talk pages of these article, and some changes (which you may or may not agree with)

Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Images for deletion

Hi. I see that you recently proposed a bunch of "fair use" images for deletion. Unfortunately, when you added the image-deletion template to articles where the image was used, the deletion template hides the image caption. Among other things, this makes it harder to evaluate the "fair use" claims for the images. The deletion template should be inserted in the caption field; if you put a "|" in front of it, the deletion template hides the caption. I've fixed a few of these, but you are likely to be able to fix them more efficiently than I can. --Orlady (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you have not responded to the legitimate request of Orlady. In not doing so, you raise the suspicion that you are trying to manipulate the discussion process. It would be highly appreciated if you would restore the captions. - Mafia Expert (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The script did it. I'm trying to understand the script code to fix it, instead of fixing one by one while still not fixing the problem source. --Damiens.rf 13:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what did it, this is just a petty excuse not to reinstall the captions you deleted. By refusing to repair your mistake you are deliberately manipulating the discussion. Meanwhile, you have the balls to accuse others that they delete information in the discussion. - Mafia Expert (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:An American Renaaissance by Jack Kemp.jpg

The link to the discussion about Image:An American Renaaissance by Jack Kemp.jpg is not working.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --Damiens.rf 13:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Whitman Image of Mother

Sherurcij, who uploaded the photo of Whitman's mother, uses a false rationale. The photo was a crime scene photo only and never used in a court case. In fact, he probably stole it from a website I used to own. At the time I got the photo (1999), it took a FOIA document and I had to pay for all the photos. They have since been released to the Austin Library.Victor9876 (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for other eyes on this

Hello, Damiens.rf. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tenditious editing on List of violently killed transgender people, Murder of Gwen Araujo, Murder of Amanda Milan, Matthew Shepherd. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 16:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please go away

You are a pest and are blatantly uncivil. Kindly don't send me messages if you want to call me an idiot. Ok? I did not do that deliberately and you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to berate me for it. INTGAFW (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to echo INTGAFW's comment (although not the tone) by saying please assume good faith. I, too, have occasionally accidentally and unknowingly made major changes to pages (and sometimes I never figured out how it happened). Mistakes happen. When we discover that we have made mistakes, the honorable thing to do is fix our mistakes -- and apologize for them. Making excuses for one's own mistakes, while attacking others for their mistakes, is not a good recipe for successful interaction. --Orlady (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I asked you to leave me alone and you are not complying with that request. Kindly do so. INTGAFW (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't joined this project to fulfill your demands. --Damiens.rf 02:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't join the project to harass other users, which is precisely what you have been doing. Please stop reverting others' work, edit warring and spuriously nominating pictures for deletion because they don't accord with your view of a Wikipedia with no non-free pictures. INTGAFW (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop complaining about my contributions because they don't accord with your view of Wikipedia. --Damiens.rf 13:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Charles Whitman

Please explain how this fails verification when even the article title verifies the statement that I changed in the photo caption. It absolutely does not fail verification. I understand you have an issue with the image itself, but there no grounds to challenge the caption, especially as I rephrased it, which is not original research. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

RTFA. That some of his neighboors said he liked guns, it doesn't follows it was a fact. Not even the article took that as a fact. That some neighbors hold that opinion, yes, this is a fact. But not that that opinion was justifiable. --Damiens.rf 06:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And that is precisely what I reworded the caption to say and yet you reverted based on the rationale you gave for the original caption. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Now you are entitled to an unnecessarily bashing response and to underestimate my opinions in any future interactions. --Damiens.rf 07:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, but allow me to use a phrase I've never used on Wikipedia before: Whatever, dude. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're cool. --Damiens.rf 07:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at User talk:KoshVorlon

In the spirit of cooperation, I invite you to refactor this comment, as it is rather unhelpful, to say the least. Cheers. BradV 21:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

edit warring - warning

You're edit warring at Murder of Gwen Araujo and Murder of Amanda Milan. Edit warring isn't allowed because it is always harmful to the project. Please stop. Rather, use the talk page to try and build a consensus for your edits. Thanks for understanding. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the only way. Thanks again. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Charles Whitman Page Photos

Hey Damien, I added to the tags the source for the photos - The Austin Historical Library. All of the Agencies, Federal and State worked on the information. A lot of them are co-mingled and have no mention of which or whom. There shouldn't be a problem and if there should be, a cease and desist order is easy (and recommended) to follow. Please withdraw the tags on the images. Thanks!Victor9876 (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Serious question ?

Do you ever actually add anything to wikipedia? It is clear that you enjoy tagging dozens of images for deletion daily, or templating articles ... but do you ever add any content to the overall project? Or do you merely enjoy harassing others with your tendentious drive-by requests? I can list at least 15 editors who you have edit-warred with in the last month or so and probably that many who have stated that you were harassing them or trolling. Please rethink your behavior and overall motivation for your actions ... and consider putting forth your efforts to add to this great endeavor, instead of merely subtracting from it.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You continue to make your answer to my question clear. You are an intolerable example of a wiki editor ... it's a shame when I think of how many editors you have probably driven away with your antics. Newsflash: you do know that you can also ADD something to wikipedia ... instead of acting like the deletion troll.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 13:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight. A brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves.

— WP:QUOTE

  Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Some maturity please

This is the last time I am going to request that you quit the immature pestering. Your recent revert of my edit at Bay of Pigs was non-sensical as the link itself is set up incorrectly (hence why I removed it). It is clear that you are following my edits as a means of harassment. You already violated 3RR yesterday against me and have been blocked twice recently for your behavior. I have heard from at least 5 other editors who accuse you of harassment, and if you commit any such behavior after this, I will not only see to it that you are requested for a comment, but I will also organize all of those editors that you have harassed and see to it that you are banned. Your behavior is unacceptable. I have been more than reasonable in responding to your tendentious templating (ref'ing every single time you have requested it, including trying to respond to your concerns on quotes etc). You are acting like a petty child ... and this is my last warning to you to rethink your actions and correct them.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 14:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

At Che Guevara (photo). Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

EdJohnston stated that his "attempt at negotiation went nowhere" and "both users (...) gave any hint of willingness to compromise, or pursue WP:DR". Actually, when EdJohnston's suggested a RFC, I promptly agreed. I have refrained from further reverting when I noticed the other user was willing to ignore 3RR. And the whole point of the dispute was to use a tag that would attract more users to discuss the contents of a article owned by one user (specifically, discuss either it's adequate to have 61 quotations in the article). I'm completly for DR here! I even [the help of other user], to avoid touching the owned article.

Decline reason:

That does not change that you and Redthoreau were edit warring up until your blocks, which were therefore appropriate. —  Sandstein  08:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Possible RFC

Hello Damiens.rf. Since you didn't mention an RFC in that sentence, I didn't know that's what you meant. If you will consider an WP:RFC, can you please draft up the text, here on your Talk page, of the issue that you would present for other editors to comment on? The question should be neutrally phrased. Also, I'd like to be assured that you have a plan for avoiding conflict with RedThoreau in the future. Can you say if you have any ideas for doing that. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with that. Would you help me with the neutral text, or is it ask too much involvement from your part?

My first try would be something like:

1. "Is the use of quotations that are not referenced in the article's text decorative use of non-free content?"
2. "Are 61 quotations necessary for describing the famous Che Guevara's picture?"
3. "Does the use of 61 quotations on Che Guevara (photo) gives the article an unnencyclopedic tone?"
4. "Is the current version of Che Guevara (photo) a quote-farm?"
5. "Does Redthoreau acts as he owns every Che Guevara-related article? (Che Guevara,Che Guevara (photo),Alberto Korda, Camilo Cienfuegos, etc...)"
   1. "Is this the cause of this articles sufferring from an excessive use of irrelevant quotations?"

Your help is much appreciated! --Damiens.rf 22:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't sound very neutral. Perhaps you could draft up an alternative article, that uses fewer quotes, and let people vote between the two articles. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You know this is not how Wikipedia works. --Damiens.rf 00:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That is the condition under which I'd unblock. I need to see you make a proposed solution to the edit war. (You and Redthoreau have declined to use WP:Dispute resolution in the past, and I'm waiting to see if you will attempt it now). If you don't accept my offer, you can always wait around to see if a different admin is willing to unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On my Talk page, Mattisse has suggested that we ask some GA reviewers whether the article has too many quotes. If you and Red agree to abide by their advice, the blocks would be lifted. This would be instead of doing an RfC. What do you think? EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that. Would be better if it was at least 2 GA editors involved, but we can do with just one. Make sure it's not just someone RedThoreau sympathizes with. --Damiens.rf 13:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like we have a plan. We will get some outsiders to look at the number and usage of quotes in Che Guevara (photo), and they will make the changes that they think best. I hope that, since this problem is going to be addressed, you will agree *not* to edit Che Guevara (photo) until this process is complete? Should not take more than two months. You can still participate on the Talk page, but not the article itself. OK? EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If you mean neither me nor the other editor can touch the article while it's being fixed, yes, I think this could work and I accept that. --Damiens.rf 16:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. A further wrinkle is that Redthoreau has *not* agreed to be restricted from the article for two months, and he remains blocked. I think it would still be reasonable for you to be unblocked if you would agree to stay off the article until outsiders (people besides you and Red) have had time to reach a Talk page consensus on how the quotes should be handled. If by 8 February no consensus has been reached, you would have no further restriction on the article. You are only restricted from the article, not the Talk page. What do you think? EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it's reasonable as long as it applies to RedThoreau as well. There's no point in letting him edit the article just because he's more stubborn. Ownership has always been the main problem here. --Damiens.rf 16:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't agreed. It is possible that somebody could get him restricted without his agreement per WP:AN, but you'd be taking your chances. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Time Cover William L Clayton.jpg IFD closed

I non-administratively closed Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_November_16#Image:Time_Cover_William_L_Clayton.jpg because the image is no longer in use. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sourced Content Removal Warning

Please refrain from making bogus edit sumaries on the removal of sourced content as you did on Eye Color your reason has no validity, please do not remove photo again it could be considered vandalism if done again thank you--Wikiscribe (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't use copyrighted non-free images to illustrate simple concepts as "green-eyes". You'll have to use a free picture for that. --Damiens.rf 02:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Please point out the wiki policy portal and i will be satisfied and will leave it out of the eye color artcle but sorry i can't just take your word for it you understand right--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The policy covering the use of non-free pictures is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and the relevant item is the first one, "No free equivalent". We can't use a non-free image to illustrate "green eyes" because a frees images showing green eyes can be found or created. --Damiens.rf 14:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

okay great that is settled but just in the future damiens.rf when citing removal of something from an article via policy, just port the wiki policy within the summary edit,so this kind of minor snafu can be avoided.--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

ok. Will do that. --Damiens.rf 22:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Just a short friendly reminder (in case you forgot) about a question that I asked you on Talk:Che Guevara (photo)#Quote issue. Thanks and take your time.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

STOP TROLLING THIS PAGE !!!!

Now that I have your attention.....three out of the four changes you made to that article have been reverted because they're bullshit changes. I've warned you before about trolling on that page, try it again and I'll push for a topic ban.
You tagged for sources where sources already existed at least three times. (All have been reverted) The only change left standing is the change you made to the lead sentance regarding Dwight Lauderdale's LASIK surgery. I don't have any reason to change it, I think it sucks, of course, but I have no grounds to change it because I think it sucks. Bottom line, stay off the Dwight Lauderdale page, because you contribute nothing to the project! KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 13:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

Re. History of painting and Western painting: this issue is acknowledged and being addressed in these and other articles, initially Color Field. See article talk page and also discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. Participation is welcome to work through the text and images properly. Ty 13:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

TROLL

......I just reverted you AGAIN'. I will continue to revert any trolling you do on the Dwight Lauderdale article. The item you keep tagging as OR is, in fact supported by the source at the end of the article and therefore is NOT OR. The phrase you keep changing is ALSO supported by the referenced article. I don't give a fat rat's ass if you don't like it, it's supported by references and it will STAY IN. You, on the other hand, can STAY OUT of the article. You have contributed absolutely ZERO to the article and are actually HINDERING not helping the article. Make yourself useful and write an article instead! KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 14:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Talkpages aren't battlegrounds hey?

Your two faces are clearly showing. Your behaviour has already landed you in hot water in the past, reverting someone's own userpage edit is NOT on by any stretch. Timeshift (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User's don't own their talk page (yes, that was not a user page). --Damiens.rf 22:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes they do, and you know that. Timeshift (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No reply? I expected as much. Timeshift (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You're siding with an user that was hiding information about his sockpupetry activities. I haven't much to argue with you. --Damiens.rf 06:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverting another user's own talkpage revert, which is breaking a wikipedia policy? Considering your past behaviour, I can't say i'm surprised by such an attitude. Timeshift (talk) 06:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no WP:SOCK violation - my understanding was the user retired under one nickname then registered a new account, which is not proscribed by policy as the account was not being used, for instance, to evade a ban or block (the original account had, and has, an empty block log) and the two were not being used simultaneously. Please assume good faith. Also per WP:USER it's generally not advised to revert users on their own talk page. Orderinchaos 06:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Get the facts. Both accouts were being uses at the same time. And at least in some occasions both were used to foster a position in the same discussion. --Damiens.rf 16:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

WARNING

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Dwight_Lauderdale, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

ANI

Hello, Damiens.rf. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at [[30]] regarding Disussion of topic ban. The discussion is about the topic topic. Thank you. --— Kosh^jumpgate 17:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

IRC

You don't happen to be able to use IRC, do you? I'd kind of like to discuss this with you, but it might drag on if I keep on posting to your talk. If you can, please meet me in ##neurolysis. Thanks. — neuro^(talk) 19:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you came afterwards, but I didn't notice at the time because you didn't ping me, heh. Sorry for not mentioning, on IRC to grab attention you have to say the user's name. Want to try again? ;) — neuro^(talk) 21:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't like my first irc experience. Would you mind discussing this in-wiki? --Damiens.rf 03:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Dwight_Lauderdale, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This warning is entirely inappropriate. BradV 01:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dwight Lauderdale

Damiens, I have no problem building an encyclopedia, in fact, this article has undergone many changes since I first posted it. All of which have gone through without any problems from me (even when I've disagreed with them!  :) ). Your edits, however, involve removal of referenced data, which is not supported by policy, that's why I keep reverting you. As the data itself is referenced by the article, in fact, word-for-word, it's inclusion is per policy. I am currently discussing this issue with Nishkid64 as well (not about your edits, but simply about the material itself). Thanks — Kosh ^Jumpgate 13:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Jessica Valenti

I have no idea why you seem to have such a big problem with the subject of this article, even keeping in mind your clashes with her on the article talk page. Nonetheless, your continued antics on this page - most recently moving a clearly verifiable and notable publication for no apparent reason - is inappropriate. Rebecca (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacks apart, the book Jessica herself is trying to add to her own article is planned to be published in 2009 (not 2008 as she said). I don't think Wikipedia is the best venue for her promoting her upcoming works.

And by the way, why did she hide the name of Jaclyn Friedman, the main author? --Damiens.rf 23:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Hi. I'm aware you've had disputes with User:Rebecca in the past but this is unnecessary given she's left Wikipedia. At best it only prolongs ill feeling over a past disagreement. Would you consider amending your goodbye message to something more neutral? Euryalus (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my voice to this. Parting shots are very poor form, and unnecessary. Edit warring to keep them in? Even more so. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Undoing edits to my own comments is hardly edit-warring. --Damiens.rf 12:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to John_Searl and Searl_Effect_Generator

Hello Damiens.rf,

i can not understand the reasons you give for your edits. The investigation by Heerfordt is exactly about Searl and his SEG, so i can not see how you can declare that as "unrelated". You might not like it's critical content, but still is about the Searl and his SEG.

The YouTube video simply shows what was printed in the newspapers. Feel free and request an archive copy to read it for yourself. To save other that work, the video should be seen as a courtesy. There are many more WP articles that refer to YT clips. So i really don't see what your point is, other than you might be uncomfortable with their critical content towards Searl.

Following your reasoning for the edits, both articles have to be deleted completely. After all, it could be considered pure self-promotion by Searl, and nothing of what is given as sources is really verifyable at all, let alone his claims to start with. The article is quite controversial, and it is purely pseudoscientific. This very nature makes it questionable. Therefore, any sources about the topic can be considered. Searl himself even acknowledges the very existence of Heerfordt, for example, so it really is related.

I'm going to revert your edits again now. Please discuss your proposed edits on the talk pages of the articles so that we can reach some consensus about them, before simply reverting it.

Greetings,

Chris --213.160.11.146 (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, add something (verifiable) about Searl talking about Heerfordt's work, and it's notability will be established.

Also, do you understand the youtube video may be a fake? --Damiens.rf 14:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean, like [31]? Is that enough for you? A simple google search will find this at position 1 in the list. Note that this is on Searl's very own site.

Yes, i understand that. Do you understand that by simply requesting copies of the original articles from the publisher will verify the contents of the clips? One could put up photographs of the articles, but that would then again just be some pictures uploaded by some anon user, right? So in the end you have to request the copies yourself to satisfy your demands.

And again, please note that the whole Searl/SEG stuff does, in fact, rely on self-made "evidence". Namely, made by Searl. Don't get me wrong, but if i would make a site, claiming one can fly by simply flapping with the arms, put up some photos of me "in flight", give some fantasy description of how to achieve that, and then put it up on WP, would the article be kept or deleted? If kept, why is self-referencing material good enough then? If deleted, why are the Searl and SEG articles still on WP?

That's just the problem with crackpot things. They are just not verifiable. So is their evidence. And so is most of the refuting material. We have to live with that, or delete them completely (which i would prefer, btw.)

Greetings,

Chris

--213.160.11.146 (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that reference is good enough. Please work it into to the article (being on a google search isn't good enough).

About the video, that's exactly my point. The video helps nothing, since it's unreliable. --Damiens.rf 14:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, added a reference to the reply. However, i left the YT link in. I really fail to see how that is more unreliable than simply stating in the article that there are these newspaper-articles, giving a rough outline of what they say, and then put ref's to the newspaper name and date up there (which are also there). Note that in many WP articles there are references to newspaper articles, so that is no problem at all. The video simply back's up what is stated in the WP article. Again, i can't see why links to YT clips are OK in other articles, and why it shouldn't be the case here. Take my word for it that what is shown there is really what was in the newspaper. Otherwise, any ref to newspaper articles should be removed from the whole WP, since it would just be heresy placed online from some anonymous user in the WP, because no one can directly check them without requesting copies of the original from the publisher. I hope you recognize that problem.

Greetings,

Chris

--213.160.11.146 (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

List of programmers

Hi Damiens,

I want to give you a heads-up that I reverted the List of programmers change because it wiped out a large chunk of computing history with regard to their contributions. While I agree that there were a number of red links, several significant programmers removed, including computer language inventors, important OS developers, and one of the two main developers of the WWW. Probably the links (brackets) should be removed, rather than the entries themselves.

kind regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

not worth it

Once is a bit edgy. Twice is too pointy. Please don't edit war over this, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Feministing

Hi there! I reverted a number of changes that you made to Feministing last night, trying to edit to appease your many legitimate points. (See more about why and how I restored certain edits on Feministing's talk page.) I reverted a lot of the edits because you deleted a couple of reliable sources that are important to establishing the subject's notability, particularly since the page was just created. I have a number of new sources that I plan on adding when I have a little more spare time, so please give me an opportunity (say, until the end of business today) to add these sources and expand the article appropriately before you bring your much-needed perspective to the article. :) I genuinely appreciate your help in making this article rigorous and solid. Thanks! RMJ (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, have your time. I'll re-check the article later. We talk at the article's talk. --Damiens.rf 14:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Shanti Carson AfD

Hello, Damiens, I'm looking for the AfD of Shanti Carson, but I can't find the page. Could you check the link? Regards, Baileypalblue (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Head counting

I'm sorry but your closing rationale at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_January_28#GeorgeBushwithTateFamily.jpg was completly based on head counting. There's nothing on those "arguments" that exaplain why do we need to see that (notable) old-woman-on-a-wheelchair besides Senior Bush to understand the articles using that image. You should never use votes for establishing WP:NFCC#8 compliance. (Am I being an insensitive clod in referring her as the old-woman-on-a-wheelchair? Yes, but so should be anyone willing to apply WP:NFCC#8). --Damiens.rf 16:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to have someone accuse me of headcounting on the keep side - more often than not the disputes over my Ifd closures are that I deleted it when there were more on the keep side. I took on board the pertinent comments from the two participants other than yourself:

• It is an important event in the life of Doris Tate, as the most significant form of recognition she received for her work as a victim's right crusader. (Noted by Rossrs in reference to the image rationale)
• The event was also part of a documentary, which is also covered in the article. These circumstances are well covered in the article and this image is used to illustrate that

Here both people are saying that the event being depicted is significant and, from the language used, that the image is also significant for that understanding. The event is noted in the article (for Doris at least) and without refuting argument from anyone I have to take heed that two people have stated that the image is significant and why. With the (admittedly small) supporting text in the article I can't see how I can close it other than keep. Both participants addressed your deletion reason and stated, in what I read as a reasonable way, why it meets the specified criteria. Had anyone come in to refute their assertions it may have been closed differently. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"from the language used, that the image is also significant for that understanding" - I completely fail to notice that on the language used.

"Had anyone come in to refute their assertions it may have been closed differently." - So, you agree it's all about head counting? --Damiens.rf 01:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a baseless assertion putting words into my mouth. I do not close any discussion based on a headcount (see this example) and you are twisting things to assert I have. It is a discussion. You asserted the image failed NFCC#8 and two others refuted this in a way that I saw a relevant. Had others re-refuted their discussions we may have ended up as delete but it is never a head count - Peripitus (Talk) 02:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I clearly am not going to convince you I was correct here - you are welcome to take it to WP:DRV if you want - Peripitus (Talk) 02:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Damien - I lack the energy to go back and forth on this endlessly with you - especially after seeing this very poorly considered comment. If you like, take it to DrV and we'll watch in unfold. I'm not going to present any additional arguments and'll let the Drv go which way it will - Peripitus (Talk) 11:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN

The edit that I reverted was an attempt to invoke (inappropriately, in my opinion) WP:BURDEN in a content dispute over WP:NFCC. I have started a talk page discussion at Talk:Intelligent design, if you would like to contribute substantively to a discussion on the applicability of WP:BURDEN to things that (ostensibly) have nothing to do with verifiability. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

...I'm waiting for the discussion, please. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is going on for ages on the article talk page, with no convincing argument for using those images in accordance to NFCC. Indeed, lately, some editors change the focus of the discussion to how-evil the policy is. --Damiens.rf 04:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. Please read the discussion, or better yet, participate in it. There are clear fair-use rationales made. No one has ever bothered to address them beyond IDONTLIKEIT, which is not an acceptable argument. Guettarda (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Your report on AN/I

When making a report, it's considered a courtesy to inform those involved. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Glossy

I don't understand this edit [32]. It seems very likely to me that the dust jacket shown was glossy, i.e., shiny instead of matte. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A more technically neutral synonym should be found, since "glossy" can be correctly interpreted as "having a false or deceptive appearance"[33], which is not covered by any source. --Damiens.rf 15:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and assumptions of bad faith

You are engaged in edit-warring on the intelligent design article. This is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Edit war. You have engaged in multiple reverts on several occasions; please be advised that the three-revert rule is an absolute boundary, not an entitlement. In addition, it does not appear that you have contributed to the discussion at Talk:Intelligent design. You should seek to resolve your content dispute through discussion, not through edit warring. In addition, regarding this post to ANI, please read, and try to abide by, this behavioural guideline: Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. Guettarda (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit war? --Damiens.rf 15:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, edit war. Did you read the policy page I linked to? And since my warning you have continued to edit war. Your post at ANI appears to suggest that you are aware of te three-revert rule, but since your reply suggests that you are unaware of it, here is a formal warning. Guettarda (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on intelligent design. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Guettarda (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This rule does not applies to enforcing policies. By the way, I advice you not to use your admin-super-powers to defend the version of an article you so proudly helped to build. --Damiens.rf 16:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1. "I'm enforcing policy" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Please don't play it as one. You aren't immunised against the 3RR simply by saying the magic words. For one, it actually has to be unambiguously true. It isn't good enough that you believe that you're saving the world. If you're right, others will support you. If they don't, on an actively watched page, then you need to stop as ask yourself why that is. When you find that the burden of ridding the world of dragons has fallen on your shoulders, you need to stop and ask yourself whether you're tilting at windmills.
2. When you cite yourself as being immunised against violating one policy because you are enforcing another, you should really make sure that you are familiar with the actual exceptions to the 3RR. The actual exception applies to Reverting the addition of copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy. There is a good faith disagreement over whether the content actually meets all of the NFCC or not. Many uninvolved editors have expressed the opinion that it meets the requirements. No one can claim that it unquestionably violated the NFC policy.
3. Much of your edit-warring is simply about content. Not only are you warring over the wording of the text, and re-inserting alternative images. Clearly, you are engaged in edit-warring.
4. I did not threaten to block you. I warned you about your edit-warring, and it appeared to me that you claimed not to know what edit-warring was. While your ANI post seemed to show awareness of our policy, since you are a fairly editor, I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and added the official warning templated, despite my general dislike for templates as a mode of communication. I made no threat to block you personally. Nonetheless, the fact that I helped bring the article FA does not mean that I would not issue blocks for simple violations of the 3rr or obvious vandalism on that page. On the contrary - since I watch that page, there's all the more reason to intervene. Hence the warning I issued for your edit-warring.
5. You sound like you have disdain for content contributions. Let me remind you that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Guettarda (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

regarding the image you tagged

I guess I am a either a little bit thick or confused (likely both, as I have yet to get my second cuppa), but I was unsure of your meaning. You are tagging the image for removal because it is from a news source? Many of our images are. I understand that if we could have a free image of a late federal judge leaving the armed compound of Native American protesters, we would use that, but no such image would appear to exist. As the image is discussed and described in the text of the article in which it is being used, how is it in violation of the NFCC? I look forward to hearing from you prior to proceeding. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We need a very strong reason to use an image from a news source, since most of the, like the one in question here, violates WP:NFCC#2. This one, by the way, also violates WP:NFCC#8. --Damiens.rf 15:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess i am not seeing your reasoning behind #2, Damiens:

Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

How precisely is this image supposed to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media? I mean, we have this image from an FA article on history, or this one from an FA article on film, or this one from music, or these two from politics? I am not cherry-picking these results (well, actually I am, choosing examples from media well within the 100 year copyright guidelines). Don't even get me started on the huge amount of articles using copywritten images in their articles. The point is, this image was added using the precedent utilized in every one of the afore-linked articles. How is this one disrespecting commercial opportunities?

Additionally, you brought up the old, oft-debated #8 (Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.) the image is of a historic event; Wood was the only governmental representative allowed into the compound without leaving with extra lead. His negotiations have been cited as instrumental in preventing further bloodshed and a peaceful resolution. Seems fairly significant to me, and I'd noted it as such in the article.

All that said, how would you propose to fix the problem? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The event is surely of historic importance. The image itself is not.

What is the "100 year copyright guidelines"? Some of your examples are plain wrong, and I've nominated them as well. --Damiens.rf 16:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite how the image itself is not historical? For the reasons I noted above, i think it is. Additionally, it is described within the article itself, providing a context that text alone cannot accomplish.

I am not going to comment on the relatively small number of edits you currently have, but I will note that each one of the articles from whoch you've nominated image deletions are the result of thousands of work hours by editors more experienced in Fair Use than you or I. It might have been a bit more insightful to gain some of their input before plowing ahead and nomination the examples I provided for deletion. Additionally, perhaps you can point to images taken since say, 1923 that you find acceptable. Please exclude any pictures that an editor specifically took for use here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You still have to understand the difference between an historical image and an image showing an historical event. Historical images have book, critics and commentary written about them (about the image itself, not about the event they show).

"I am not going to comment on the relatively small number of edits you currently have" - You already have.

Any freely licensed image taken after 1923, for instance, is acceptable. What was the point of that? --Damiens.rf 16:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to understand your reasoning in applying NFC 2 and 8 to the image. Forgive me for not immediately grasping it. While I understand that certain images, like the flag raising at Iwo Jima are historical, images such as the signing of unconditional surrender of Japan are of a historical event. In what way is one acceptable, and the other not? And my point about images is that images taken prior to 1923 (unless special circumstances attach) are within the public domain. That is less relevant to this image, but germane to my understanding your point of view. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

While it's fair to use the Iwo Jima image in texts about the image itself, it's simply a violation of AP copyrights to freely use it to illustrate texts about Iwo Jima battle. That's the point of WP:NFCC#2.

Yes, pre-1923 = PD. --Damiens.rf 17:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So, it is your position that the image (now both images that I uploaded to the article) are a violation of copyright because they are being used to illustrate (and thus complement) an article discussing the matters they portray? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, since the copyright holder uses the image for the same purpose (or charges for others doing the same). --Damiens.rf 17:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being so patient with me while I learn your reasoning. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does allow this sort of imagery to portray historical events, when used in a way that is not simple decoration, and is in fact discussed within the text. While free images are indeed preferable to have, the images in this case are wholly unlikely to have free equivalents - the events depicted took place years prior, and most (if not all) of the principals are deceased. Would you like to discuss the matter with some other editors or admins in regards to Wikipedia's position on this issue? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion will follow its path in the MFD page. --Damiens.rf 18:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring on Intelligent design. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 20:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I've had done just 2 reverts (out of 10 edits) in the aforementioned article in the last 24hours prior to the blocking, and the article was already protected when I was blocked.

Decline reason:

Your second point is irrelevant. To your first point, I would consider you to have been disruptive, based on this and edit summaries like this and this. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Your support for the block is not based on the blocking reasons. The edit-summaries on the diffs you provide are not blockable offenses by any measure. And of course my "second point" is relevant. If I'm blocked for "edit warring" (not 3rr) in an article after the article is fully-protected, then the block is punitive rather than preventive. The block is not preventing me to "edit war". It's actually only preventing me to engage in the ongoing talk page discussion

Decline reason:

I consider your edits disruptive and your conduct blockable. The blocking admins' failure to select an appropriate block reason does not bar the admin reviewing the unblock request from concluding that the editor was blocked appropriately. I think this is explained at WP:GAB somewhere. — Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I would like to note this block was placed before (or at the same time) the protection was issued, second the reviewing admin may like to also take a look at File:Darwinsblackbox.jpg. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 21:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Potustrie.JPG

This image has been marked as "White House photograph 1996" and has been identified as a work of the federal government. It sure looks like an official White House photo to me, the sort of thing that would be taken by the official photographer when someone visits the President. What source information do you think is missing here? I'm removing your speedy deletion tag pending a better articulation from you of what the issue is. Crypticfirefly (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The source information must be verifiable. "It looks like an official photo to me" isn't enough. But in respect to your disagreement, I'll take the discussion to a non-speedy-delete forum. You're invited to weight in. --Damiens.rf 18:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"It looks like an offical photo to me" is why I'm not doubting the identification as an offical photo. Why do you doubt it? Crypticfirefly (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt neither believe. We're not called for issuing such judgments here. We need verifiable sources. --Damiens.rf 20:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Comrade, as far as I can tell nothing is verifiable to you unless it goes through OTRS. Probably including your own baby picture. :-) But anyway, please redo your posting of this image to the non-speedy-delete forum-- it appears that you didn't do it properly because it wasn't on the list. Since I'm unsure how to fix it, I just took it off for you to redo. Thanks! Crypticfirefly (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take a look. --Damiens.rf 12:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

FFD

Your most recent FFD nomination seems to be malformed. You didn't include the image name. Stifle (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Too small?

If you feel they are too small, I do have a picture with bigger ones too. =) JIP | Talk 10:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Meat Puppeteering

Hi there. I am relatively inexperienced in editing Wikipedia and conducting myself in debates, so I want to apologize in advance for a recent error in judgment on my part by engaging in meat puppeteering with some Internet friends on the deletion debate surrounding Samhita Mukhopadhyay. Since this is clearly inappropriate and reflects an immature understanding of Wikipedia standards on my part, I'm going to discontinue my contribution to the debate, make note of my mistakes on the debate page, and take a break from heavy editing while I review Wikipedia standards more closely. Is this appropriate? What else can I do to rectify this situation?

I hope you will take this sincere apology in good faith. This has been a learning experience, and I appreciate your civility and help. Thanks. RMJ (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you recognize the mistake. But try to think about meat puppeteering not only as a violation of Wikipedia's rules, but as a general bad practice in any Internet forum, and why not, in any real-life forum. All the best. --Damiens.rf 15:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Brazil Relations with US

Damien, if the news media cover the Washington protest for Sean Goldman in regards to the relations of Brazil and the US, then how can YOU judge that it is not relevant to the overall relations between the US and Brazil. Afterall, this topic was discussed by Obama and Lula in their meeting Saturday, as the media noted, so it is relevant to them, and to the two country's relations, isn't it? You know that Hillary Clinton also discussed Sean Goldman with Brazil's leaders weeks ago. Why is your view of priorities stand over Lula and Obama's priorities at the meeting? Also, when you stoop down and say "Get a life," why is it that you personally verbally abuse Wikipedia volunteers. Do you need a vacation from your volunteer tasks? Perhaps it is you who needs to hear your own "Get a life" statement?

24.148.73.133 (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Mykjoseph

See WP:RECENTISM. --Damiens.rf 18:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Damien Excuse me, but recentism does not address your "Get a life" statement to me. I expect an apology if you are capable of one. Your comment was totally unnecssary if you are an adult.

24.148.73.133 (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Mykjoseph

Sorry. Please forget about the "get a life" part. No need to question my adulthood. --Damiens.rf 13:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Muphry's law

Please stop removing content from this. You may have a POV about Erin McKean; I do not. I added this as an interesting aspect of the topic. Just leave it alone, please. PamD (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That you find in interesting doesn't make it so. Can you point me to some independent reliable sources that, while discussing Muphry's law, cared to mention this irrelevant trivia by Ms. McKean? --Damiens.rf 20:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. PamD (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Quinion source - I'm sorry you didn't notice that I specified the issue of the Newsletter to which I was referring. The site appears to use frames so that there isn't a URL specific to issue 596, but you can locate it by following obvious links from the home page. I'm also sorry that what appears to be a WP:POV attitude to Ms McKean is leading you to attack a harmless little article like this, while WikiPedia abounds in unsourced badly-written rubbish on a wide range of topics. Ah well, that's Wikipedia. I guess I have been lucky hitherto to avoid unpleasantness of this kind. PamD (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Image undelete request

Dear Damiens.rf Just a quick request regarding the image which was deleted from the file File:John-Serry-Sr.gif which was deleted from the infobox on the article John Serry, Sr.. If possible kindly arrange for the administrator/editor to undelete this image for fair use as a copyrighted historical photo of a noteworthy musician. I failed to explain during the debate that the image should be tagged for fair use in the article John Serry, Sr. since it:

1. its inclusion in the article would add significantly to the article since the photograph of the subject and its historical significance are the subject of discussion in the article.
2. the photo itself is of historical significance due to the historic musical contributions of the musician during the early 20th century
3. it illustrate an educational article about the entity the accordion which was used as a classical orchestra instrument-not a folk instrument
4. it is not replacable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted photo of the musician of comparable value.

I appologize for not including these remarks during the deletion review--alas I am totally unfamiliar with the deletion process and not very adept at editing articles. If possible- kindly arrange for a restoration of the image found in the deleted file. If this is no longer possible, would you be able to post an Image Undelete request for me?? I am not certain how to propose such an action. Many thanks for your help. Sincerely pjs012915--Pjs012915 (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)pjs012915

Hi, pjs. Believe me, it won't be easy to have that image on the article. To begin with, the image was deleted primarily because the copyright holder and author were unknown, and you're not addressing this in your 4 points argumentations above.

Besides that, point #1 and #3 are not enough to justify the use of non-free images. Item #2 is mistaken. Historical images are images that are famous themselves, like famous paintings or award-winning photographies. Item #4 is also wrong when you understand that "comparable value" should be restricted to the value that this image serves Wikipedia, i.e., to illustrate the person.

That said, deletion review is a process to remedy bad deletion-discussions closings by admins, and not to extend or repeat the deletion discussion itself.

Pjs, I'm sure you have a nice picture of your father you took yourself. Why don't you release it under a free license? --Damiens.rf 20:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Damiens.rf - Thank you once again for your insights. Again I must apologize for my ignorance regarding copyright issues and the policies which Wikipedia utilizes in order to regulate images which are presented in the encyclopedia. Alas, I am quite ignorant of the technical issues involved. If possible, kindly reconsider the decision to delete the photograph in light of the following thoughts:

1. I guess that I disagree with the conclusion that the photograph is not historically valuable. Images of this musician were circulated for promotional purposes by several accordion manufacturers from the 1930's through the 1960's, as well as by the CBS network while he performed live at CBS for Voice of America in the 1940s. In addition,

this musician's image was published in A Pictorial History of Radio (See John Serry, Sr. references) which documents images of noted performers in the history of radio. While the deleted image is not identical to those cited above, it is significant in that it portrays the same historical figure in his professional capacity. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo (depicting the use of the accordion by the musician as a legitimate orchestral instrument) and its historical significance (in the sense that few musicians of that era attempted to utilize the instrument in this fashion --See Accordion (Use in classical music)) are the object of discussion in the parent article John Serry, Sr.. As such it is both illustrative and educational and serves as a valuabe enhancement to the article.

1. To the best of my knowledge,the photograph was prepared by a professionally trained photographer and professor of architecture/interior design (Robert J. Serry) who was one of the subject's sons. It was prepared solely for educational purposes for the benefit of the musician's students in his studio and copyrighted for this purpose only. In so far as it was conceived as a purely educational tool to document the musician's contributions to the advancement of music, it seems appropriate to incorporate it within the parent article.
2. It should also be noted that the photograph does include a clear instrument logo on the accordion which was itself protected under copyright and trademark restrictions by the manufacturer. As such, the photograph is worthy of being categorized as a protected image under copyright and trademark provisions. A free use image of the musician cannot be utilized to convey his utilization of this accordion in his professional attempts to advance the use of Stradella accordion and Free bass system accordion the realm of classical music.
3. In addition, I am not able to upload a free use image of the musician which depicts his professional activities on any of the accordions which he utilized in his professional activities since they also utilize logos and are protected by the manufacturer's trademarks.

Thanks again for your insights. I hope that this helps to clarify my thoughts for the benefit of the editors. Sorry that I cannot be of much more assistance. I appreciate your efforts to salvage the image for the benefit of future students of the instrument. Thanks again. --Pjs012915 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)pjs012915

Assistance

Having read the guidelines for the WP:BLP I see that information is meant to be unbiased and factual. I feel that you are inflicting a bias by deleting and rewording based on your opinions in the Nikol Hasler article. There is no need to threaten that I am in any violation of terms. As you ask for citations, it is being clarified that either the citation exists or your opinion based changes, such as "this person is not known" are being removed.BeforeSwine (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeforeSwine (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The onus is still yours to prove she's an "Internet Personality" and that she is "known".--Damiens.rf 21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Assistance, please. If it is your desire to make all of Wiki better in reference of public pools of knowledge, how would you define someone as known and reference it? Given the amount of information available in any search regarding this person, it is not difficult to see that "internet personality" is fitting.BeforeSwine (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeforeSwine (talk • contribs) 21:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, sir, you are demanding that every bit of information have a reference. What prompted a reference of the person's biographical location to be deleted?BeforeSwine (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeforeSwine (talk • contribs) 21:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This information is publicly known and the person speaks about her children as part of her public speaking with teens. The information is given by the person in her biography on her own column. Many BLPs list location and family.BeforeSwine (talk)

In the article you insisted did not have the information about Hasler's foster care time, I found this: "As a foster child in an unstable home, Hasler became sexually active at 11. After receiving a scholarship to Southern Illinois University, she had to drop out to care for her baby. A single mom, she moved from a homeless shelter to a series of people's couches.

Now married in Waukesha and determined to raise her three children differently, Hasler said she's discussed sex with her kids since they were old enough to ask questions."

I have also provided more external links to help with proof that the person is "known". I don't wish to be combative, merely to become a better wikipedian. If you have done this for some amount of time, I am sure you can understand that there is a level of frustration at trying to enter information in the proper format while having others just delete everything entered, even if it is referenced. BeforeSwine (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC).

.

Stop stalking me and attempting to delete every image I upload or edit. PRODUCER (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering why

you removed a portrait of Robert Brackman from the Robert Brackman article? Carptrash (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

American Rhapsody Redirct to John Serry Sr

Please not that I have undone your redirect tag on this article. In the future kindly do not delete the article's entire contents with a simple redirect tag. The results of the deletion review process clearly indicate that contents from the article should be merged into the parent article John Serry Sr. It is clearly not appropriate to simply eliminate the contents of American Rhapsody entirely while failing to retain any description of the composition within the parent article. I have notified an administrator of your attempt to expunge the entire article in this manner and requested that he monitor your actions in this regard. Kindly refrain from taking such drastic action until a proper attempt can be made to merge the contents into the parent article. --Pjs012915 (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

The redirect was correct. It was a mistake from your part to undo it. Fortunately, someone else already fixed your error. --Damiens.rf 13:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Pandas

Please see User_talk:John#File:Pandas_and_ppl.jpg. J Milburn (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Misadventure of a French Gentleman Without Pants at the Zandvoort Beach

Nothing else to write about but trivia.

Hi Damiens, I reverted (part of) your edit at The Misadventure of a French Gentleman Without Pants at the Zandvoort Beach--that there was nothing else to report is the essence of what in Dutch is called the "cucumber time," and it's found in the source: "Vanwege de komkommertijd gedurende de zomermaanden (dat was ruim 100 jaar geleden dus ook al) pakte de landelijke pers groot uit met het filmschandaal in Zandvoort." Your removal of the wikilink to silly season, that's fine with me. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Violence against LGBT people. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 22:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:LawrenceFobesKing.jpg

If you are arguing for the image's deletion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_7#LawrenceFobesKing.jpg, there's no point in screwing around with the rationales simultaneously and removing them from articles. Discuss at FfD and leave it there. One central place of discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you

read the source in question? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at ANI

See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring, ownership issues, disruption. Also note that the previous WP:AN3 report may lead to action if any more reverts occur at Violence against LGBT people regarding the image. EdJohnston (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Image

Damiens, yes I reverted "that" image again. It's copyrighted by Encyclopedia Britanica, and therefore cannot be on a user page. Per their own page:
Ownership: The content on the Services is the property of Britannica, its affiliated companies or licensors and is protected by international copyright, patent, and trademark laws.
Just a heads up — Kosh _{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 17:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC) _{shit! forgot to sign}

Thanks for your diligence. But I believe we can assume with a good deal of certainty that nobody owns the copyright of an 18th century painting. But in the case you still feel uncomfortable, consider nominating the image for deletion on Commons (that wouldn't accept copyright-protected images): commons:File:Robert-damiens.jpg. --Damiens.rf 18:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

--

talk:intelligent design

The reason people remove or hide the discussions from the intelligent design talk page is because it gets a lot of trolling from people who want to portray it as something meritorious, somehow science-based, and for general soapboxing. Hiding the text or removing it from the page discourages engaging with such editors (which long and bitter experience has shown often have minimal appreciation for wikipedia's policies and biology in general, and virtually never have anything substantive and appropriate to add) and in the long term simply saves time. If you feel there is actual merit to the points established, perhaps bring them up in a separate section. The actual comments I see as lacking any merit - the citations are to intelligent design advocates (whose claims have been thoroughly debunked), the claims are also to basic issues long since dealt with (abiogenesis and evolution are separate, unconnected ideas), Darwin's black box is also useless as a citation in a serious page, and anything that takes intelligent design seriously from a non-critical perspective is pretty much bunk. You are also verging on a three revert violation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Image question

I realize you're probably busy going down the List of fictional supercouples in an image deleting spree, but do you think you can answer a quick question for me. Why are you choosing File:Thad and Adrianne mid-show promo 2006.jpg for deletion but not the one at the top of that article. They serve the same purpose in giving a visual depiction of the actors portraying the characters. I might understand if both images were of the same actors, but I added the second one to show Leon in the role as part of the fictional pairing. Rocksey (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Got the point. Different actress. Will deal with that later. --Damiens.rf 21:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Daniel Romalotti and Lily Winters on their wedding day, March 24, 2006..jpg has the same problem. It's a depiction of a different actress in the role. Rocksey (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What is your problem?

Was it really necessary to go after most, if not all, of the images I have uploaded? Most of those images are perfectly valid regarding fictional characters. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And, oh, nominating images such as Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg, which there is significant critical commentary about and is a famous kiss, is ridiculous. I am leaning toward reporting such mass and ludicrous deletion nominations. Flyer22 (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually this has been taken to WP:AN/I. AniMate^draw 00:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest you stop what appears to me to be ill-considered image-tagging until you have responded at WP:ANI. Image policy can be subtle, and requires some thought. Rodhullandemu 01:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  There's nothing wrong with my nominations other than the fact that some editors really like their uploads. I'll respectfully ignore your suggestion, but you're still welcome to try to give me any contentful adivice. --Damiens.rf 01:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Most if not all of your deletion nominations are valid in my opinion. CADEN ^{is cool} 02:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only valid, but actually uncontroversial. WP:NFCC is unpopular, thatś the fact. --Damiens.rf 02:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with you man. CADEN ^{is cool} 02:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to repeat Rodhullandemu's suggestion. As another uninvolved administrator, your actions of the previous day appear to be intentionally disruptive to the Wiki. I believe you have good intentions but I believe that this was not well thought out and is needlessly confrontational and disruptive. Please stop until there's been a chance to review and discuss this. It should not take two administrators politely informing you that you're pushing too hard for you to back off and seek patient consensus. Pushing bullheadedly through concerns and problems is not the mark of a constructive collaborative editor. Please stop and talk. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  This was specially wrong. There's no urge to remove the nominations since they can make no harm. Nominations themselves don't automatically remove images, they just promote discussion. --Damiens.rf 13:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't recommend Allstar do that. Hopefully this can be discussed without further disruption on any part. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• I will expand on my comments above. WP:NFCC is, indeed, unpopular in some quarters, and in some cases, open to interpretation of the detail. This is largely why User:Betacommand became unpopular, through a perceived too inflexible interpretation and application of that policy, and more so, an unwillingness to negotiate. When you start nominating images for deletion without first initiating a discussion as to their merits on the relevant article talk pages, it begins to look like a crusade. It's arguably worse when you are seen to be targetting images of a particular nature, because then you apparently offend against the liberal (in the sense of tolerant) sensibilities that prevail here. If I had been in your position I would have had some regard to the politics of the situation here and not made such mass, and therefore noticeable, nominations. "Softly, softly, catchee monkey" is a good political adage; "might is right" isn't. However, the result is now that your card is marked, and you have to live with that, however correct you may be in technical terms. On balance, I don't think CadenS's support does you any favours. Best of luck in the future. Rodhullandemu 01:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

  "When you start nominating images for deletion without first initiating a discussion as to their merits on the relevant article talk pages, it begins to look like a crusade.". Should I think it's a crusade when users start uploading non-free images without first initiating a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Non-free content? About CadenS's, I don't care much about support or disapproval when it comes with no valid argument. Thanks anyway, --Damiens.rf 02:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Equality Mississippi‎

You placed a {sources} tag on an article with nine cited sources; this confuses me. I removed the tag, as it doesn't appear to have a clear purpose on that article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I was writing to the article's talk page as you did that. Please, read there. Your help may be needed. --Damiens.rf 14:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Shaun Murphy (murderer)

I assume I created it for a good reason, but since the page it redirects to has been deleted, I can't tell you why. So I have no objection to it being deleted also. --Jameboy (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For excellent nominations at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18, pointing out that WP:NFCC is not optional. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press photo

Hi. Thanks for the barnstar. But I believe this closing was a mistake (it's not one of my nominations). Associated Press would be interested in licensing this image for us. We can't claim fair use on it. Fair use does not mean "using for free instead of paying". Our use is not transformative, we're using the image for the very same purpose as USA Today, for instance, and they paid AP for that use. Please, reconsider. This is pretty much a clear cut case around here. See this recent well put argument, for instance. --Damiens.rf 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought someone would suggest amending. Unfortunately, a delete closure would be straight to DRV because everyone other than the nom supported keeping. I have no problem with you going to DRV, but I had effectively no choice. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as an admin, you always have the choice to ignore votes enforce the police. لennavecia and BQZip01 simply argued "yes we can", and the other two votes talked about "deceased people" (that's reflects the common mistake that our living people replaceability criterion has anything to do with the law). Please, be bold, go there and delete the violation. Save us from a stressing deletion review. --Damiens.rf 00:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid neither I nor any other admin is entitled to close a deletion discussion as delete when none but the nominator supports doing so. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are and you should. The nomination itself is an argument, and the "keep"s (should be) counter-arguments. The number votes is irrelevant: The arguments should be weighted. See this, this and this for recent examples. Please, don't be ashamed to undo your decision. --Damiens.rf 12:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It'll end up at DRV either way; you may as well be the one to list it as any of the keep !voters. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have listed this at DRV; no point in drawing things out further. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Magazine covers not fair use

Since whetn are magazine covers not fair use? What makes you an expert? Mrdthree (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Of Pandas and People 1987 manuscript copy.png

I've uploaded a new version of this image, which is now entirely my own work. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No it's not (unless you're the book's author). --Damiens.rf 21:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't assume that I have ever edited that page before or contributed to any of the discussions about the images on that page. I do know some of the history, however, so I can see why you might have jumped to that conclusion. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely don't understand what you are talking about. --Damiens.rf 22:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"But why this urge to abuse non-free content on Intelligent design?" - I thought the question was directed at me, if it was instead a rhetorical question, then I'm sorry that I misunderstood you. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

File:NA 127-N-114541.jpg

May I ask the reason why you listed this for deletion, and what source information you are missing here. The image is correctly identified as coming from the National Archive (I cross-checked) with the archive number; and it's tagged as public-domain government work, which seems also correct. So please tell me which additional information you'd like to see. Averell (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is it said that the image comes from the National Archive? And where's the archive number? All I see is an unjustifeid {{PD-USGov}} tag. --Damiens.rf 20:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The archive number was "hidden" in the comment in the file history. However, it is there; and checking for it leads to that image (direct link). Will it be ok if we put the archive number in the actual image page and add the link to the archive? Averell (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Damiens.rf 21:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Have taken your advice

I just wanted to let you know, if you are not already aware, that I have taken your advice about looking through my image contributions and weeding out images that really are not needed. I have just done that with the Josh Madden article, and also did it with a few other articles some days ago. I am definitely seeing things more through your eyes now on how useless some of these images are. Of course, there are some images I have disagreed with you on and will disagree with you on, but I am now more open to images that are seemingly only decorative being deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That's my boy! --Damiens.rf 00:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Girl (er...woman), but it's okay, LOL. Yeah, you're not so bad after all. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Civility

You know I agree that we should delete AP images, but comments like this do not help. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Issue with multiple files posted for deletion after recent previous contact

I replied to your issues at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 9 and explained why I still believe the image is fair use. A short time later, eight images I had uploaded at various times over a span of a few years and used in eight different articles were all nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 12 within a span of five minutes. I cannot understand why you would take a sudden interest in images I have uploaded other than based on our prior interaction. I would appreciate an explanation for your actions in nominating these images, which would appear to present issues of WP:STALK and WP:HARASS. Alansohn (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Please, don't be silly. Reading your upload logs is not WP:STALKing or WP:HARASSment. You clearly have a problem in understanding our non-free content policies, and I'm doing Wikipedia a service. Have a nice day. --Damiens.rf 13:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

FYI, you've been discussed here on ANI. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Summit

Calling a summit on LGBT rights "pompous" isn't very helpful. "Mississippi State LGBT Summit", best that I can figure, was a summit on LGBT rights, differences, and the like for people in the State of Mississippi. Pretty straight forward. Oh and the "2005 Saint-Etienne Rogue-Dreamers Victims Summit", good for you for presiding over it. I presided over the "2000 Virginia State Disablities Conference", doesn't make me or it "pompous". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you could say my "agent orange" is acting up a little bit on this whole thing. But, I do believe it would be better to ask ASE how many people attended the summit since it was his group and his group hosted the summit. He would probably have exact numbers on the attendance. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but if he has attendance records, he can upload them to OTRS and get a ticket and they can be verified like he has done with another part of the article. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have you mind made up about ASE already. You seem to think that he is just here to advertise his own group and bolster his groups former image. I don't see that. I see someone who has and is working hard on LGBT rights and created a group and a summit for. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You would definitely be right there. I have my mind made up about you and you are quickly proving me right. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously

You know that your conduct at Equality Mississippi has been widely criticized, by many people who say that, although the article has issues that need addressing, your methods are problematic and come off as hostile and bordering on harassment... and you still choose an insulting edit summary? I posted on the talk page to try to come to consensus rather than battling with other users- I am not, all by myself, consensus. I'm so irritated with you right now that I have no inclination to help further. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A word of advice

From reading the discussions at ANI, it appears to me that there is a strong possibility that you may be blocked or even banned due to your interactions with Allstarecho. I sense that you are only trying to do what you believe is correct, but the way in which you are doing it seems to be overly aggressive and too focused on one editor. I do not know why no one else has attempted to discuss this with you, or why you are not participating at ANI. If you care about being blocked or banned, I suggest that you immediately stop editing articles related to Allstarecho, try to be more careful how you phrase your discussions on the talk pages (especially if English is not your first language), and explain your intentions at the ANI discussions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. What exactly should a "explain" in ANI? I'm following the discussion, but I don't know exactly how my input could be useful at this point. I'll re-read the conversation, but I appreciate any help. --Damiens.rf 17:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a statement acknowledging that you understand the concerns (assuming you do) and that you will try to work things out through discussion rather than editing the articles yourself (again, assuming that you wish to do this) would really help. I think that Allstarecho feels like you are attacking him (as a person, and for his political viewpoint) instead of trying to apply Wikipedia guidelines. Unless that is what you are trying to do, a simple statement that you are not doing this would probably help smooth the situation. Just my suggestion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am interested in applying WP rules and to make sure Wikipedia is free of (even unintended) self-promotion / agenda-pushing. This is part of my overall goal of improving the credibility of Wikipedia. Most of my article-space edits deals with that (my other area of interest is non-free content use). But from my reading of the ANI discussion, the parties had already made their minds, and I don't think my words would convince anyone of my intentions. Thanks, anyway. --Damiens.rf 18:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Block at Wiki-pt

Hello, you have been the victim of an unjust block at Wiki pt (Portuguese), as our policy allows the kind of images you were uploading, even if part of the community is against them. I've appealed on that block and it has been removed, please check if you are still blocked. I advise you, however, not to engage in reversions but rather discuss the issue on the talk page of the article. Best regards, --Darwinius (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm capable of engaging in discussions on pt. I was barely understanding what was happening. Will let the community decide. Thanks for all. --Damiens.rf 11:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Equality Mississippi, attribution notice

The attribution given at that page is quite common for releases via OTRS and well in keeping with the body of attribution templates stored Category:Attribution templates. While public domain sources do not require attribution, sources under most free licenses do. While I am personally of the opinion that the attribution template is not strictly necessary in this case, the copyright holder disagrees. Noting the verbatim duplication of copyrighted text taken from other sources is standard and there is no good reason to remove this notice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but the link to a Wikipedia revision of the article was annoying. I see this has been worked out. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 14:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It was based on the language of Template:GFDLSource, but I don't personally care whether it is a link or a date, so long as we comply with the copyright holder's wishes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your real GOOD FAITH

I just took a look at your contribution history and I would like to thank you on behalf of Mr. Ahmadinejad for working this hard to wipe out any signs of opposition to the current regime of Iran.--Breathing Dead (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Chill out. You're paranoid. --Damiens.rf 22:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No really I mean it. He will definitely give you a medal of honor if he know you work THIS hard to promote him. I suggest for the next step, you work on holocaust articles and delete any facts about the genocide. He will appreciate your work even more. My best regards, --Breathing Dead (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You're one step from violating Godwin's Law. Please stand back. --Damiens.rf 23:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. But I am afraid to say that you are one step ahead of becoming a total supporter of Islamic terrorists. And guess what, I am totally fed up of seeing these kind of people because I have to see a lot of them everyday in the streets of Tehran. Meeting even more of this type on the cyber environment is not of any pleasure for me. But if you keep working like this, I am 100% sure that Mr. Ahmadinejad will consider a medal of honor or something like that for you. --Breathing Dead (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, dude. --Damiens.rf 00:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do believe you were warned about peppering a page with fact tags as you did here. I would recommend you resend some of them or be reported. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back from your block. --Damiens.rf 23:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you think that "block" upset me? Hell, I consider it a forced WikiBreak. Got a good amount of work done and I see you were shutdown from that article too. Back to your old games on an Iran article. I would be careful or you might wind up with a block of your own. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've always appreciated advice from experienced people. --Damiens.rf 23:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You are just as "experienced" as I am. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not. You did your math wrong. --Damiens.rf 00:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems someone is a little ashamed of their block log. It's OK, embrace it...I do. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ashamed of what? Of it not being as massive as yours? --Damiens.rf 03:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Image listed for deletion

In reply to your listing the image Image:Johan Helsingius.jpg for deletion: the original copyright message has been added with an added explanation on the copyright status. Please also see the comment on the Images and media for deletion page.

This should satisfy the standing guidelines, please un-list the image for deletion.

review

please review the article V (programming language)

Camel Trophy Photos

Hi there, thanks for informing me about the copyright information required for the photos I uploaded as a gallery on the Camel Trophy page. I have the required information (website links) How do I add this information to the pictures? I appreciate that you directed me to the media copyright page for questions but this isn't particularly helpful. Thanks for your help.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbencooper (talk • contribs)

Response to Images

I took the images from a Camel trophy website. I now that currently they will not be allowed here but I have contacted the Camel Trophy site webmaster for permission. If permission is granted can I then upload the photos? Thanks for your help and advice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbencooper (talk • contribs)

Replied

Hello, Damiens.rf. You have new messages at Redthoreau's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Murder of Michael Causer

In this diff you write "this article is about a murder, not a murder victim", and the next day in this diff you write " the Murder of Michael Causer is not a murder article". Perhaps you could explain your reasoning to me? I happen to think that the article is about Michael Causer and about the murder. --Law Lord (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is not about Michael Causer in the sense that it's not a biography. Michael Causer hasn't done anything in his life to deserve encyclopedic notability (this is not to put him down, having encyclopedic notability has nothing to do with being a nice person). His murder was notable. It was covered by the press and the like. It deserves an article.

Also, the murder of Michael Causer was a murder, not a murder article. Got it? A page on the Murder article category would read like "The Wikpedia page about the murder of Michael Causer is a notable piece of Internet collaborative work, covering the murder of a young....". --Damiens.rf 15:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look in the Category:Murder articles you will see that the vast majority of articles in the category deals with the murder of specific people. Exactly like the case of Michael Causer. Perhaps your issue is with the category itself? As far as I can tell, you have not explained why this specific article should not be included in the category, when all the other similar articles are in fact included. --Law Lord (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a problem with this category and my argument would apply to any other article there. I believe it's being dealt with at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 6#Category:Murder articles. --Damiens.rf 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Then I think we could agree there is really not any reason to deal differently with this article than with all the other articles in the category. Let us put this article in the category, and then focus on the category discussion instead. --Law Lord (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let it be. --Damiens.rf 22:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please use talk pages

Hi Damiens, could you please start using the talk pages to discuss your concerns with the Iranian election related articles? This back and forth using edit summaries is getting a bit ridiculous... thanks.
— Ω (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that could work. Will give it a try. --Damiens.rf 23:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks!
— Ω (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

...

Then please explain why I cant have this? Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 8#File:Tbtcvidsnap.jpeg. Happens everytime, no one will reply to my query for a week and the file is deleted unanswered. How am I supposed to learn then? Suede67 (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Prepare for an Edit War

Hi there. You recently (and correctly) deleted the controversy section from the article Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century. There was an IP user who refused to stop changing the order of Man O'War and Secretariat. I only got them to stop, when I encouraged them to add a controversy section. I also warned them at the time that the content they provided was not adequately sourced and that sooner or later someone would remove the content. Well, here we are. The deed is done. I would appreciate your help watching the article. imars (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about this image

While we're on the issue of discussing the legitimate use of magazine covers in articles, would this qualify as unnecessary? Should it be nominated for deletion? Thanks. Brian Reading (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. In both cases, it's used just as a decoration for the information "Sports Illustrated once put this symbol on its cover". Even if we consider this cover-appearance to be noteworthy information, what the cover really looked like, its details, are not really relevant for the reader trying to understand the article. --Damiens.rf 20:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've now proposed it for deletion. If you're interested, you may participate in the discussion here. Brian Reading (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No permission shown

Howdy. In situations like this you might consider using this template.--Rockfang (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility?

I would have hoped that, with an intro on your talk page such as you have, you would maintain a cool head. But subtly-veiled insults like this aren't cool. Nobody likes biting summaries. Seriously. Even one word can be quite hurtful.

Please be sure to be considerate in the future. I know that you may feel exasperated, but treating other editors like trash isn't the answer. Thank you, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As for "WhisperToMe you're completly mistaken in your lack of dedication to the project mission... and If you think this is unreasonable, please go argue with this Wales guy or go contribute to some other project, thank you good bye." - I feel that I am very much dedicated to the project mission. Why not rephrase things like saying "XXX, It's absolutely possible to produce a free image of a dead person: You just talk to some photographer owing a photo (taken preferably before the subject's death) and ask him to release the photo under a free licensing." - That way you cut to the point and are not questioning other people's dedication.

• And it is absolutely possible to ask for free images - I've made many relicensing requests on Flickr - It's that **when should one give up and presume that a free image does not exist?** With many recent figures they already had a free image inserted before they died, or a free image has easily been found.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Deletion review

The first step of deletion review is talking to the closing administrator- asking them to reconsider and offering your reasons. Note that deletion review is not just a "second go" at deletion- instead, it is for when a closure has been made incorrectly. As such, you would have to focus on how the primary argument was not responded to- no one offered an explanation of why the image was actually needed, they only discussed the importance of the campaign, and why it was irreplaceable; neither of which featured in the nomination statement. J Milburn (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Murder of Michael Causer

I have undone your removal of Murder of Michael Causer from the Murders category. To me that removal seems completely without merit. Perhaps you could clarify your reasoning? --Law Lord (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is already on Category:Murder in England, that is on Category:Murder in the United Kingdom, that is on Category:Murder by country that is on Murder. --Damiens.rf 21:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

SNOW

I restored the image File:New Zealand soldiers in Iraq, March, 2004.jpg. Previously, I deleted the image after J Milburn's nagging because the discussion was pretty clear. Currently, there is no consensus at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#No consensus, so we should keep such images on hold until the discussion concludes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You should delete it again. Regardless of that RFC, I disagree with the closing this deletion discussion as "no consensus". Please, don't make me go back to what I have already pointed you to in User talk:King of Hearts#Head counting. --Damiens.rf 21:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me repeat this again. What is wrong with waiting? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait for what, sir? For the RFC? It is unrelated to your mistakenly closing of that FFD as no consensus. Since you RUSHED and restored the image, we're back to the original argument that you once avoided by deleting the image and opening an rfc.

So, back from were we stopped, you asked me to explain why was File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg historical, and I did it. Would you delete File:New_Zealand_soldiers_in_Iraq,_March,_2004.jpg now, or you will say it's just as historical? --Damiens.rf 21:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I still hold that there was no consensus; I only deleted it because the RfC back then was quite clear that no consensus defaulted to delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You should keep distance from ffd discussion if you read that as a no-consensus... --Damiens.rf 22:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally a little sceptical of the whole process at the moment (and feel some of King's actions a little odd- there have been/are discussions about that) but your nomination looks more than sound. It would appear that the vast majority of arguments in the deletion debate were completely invalid. If the close is upheld at this deletion review, I think that really will be the nail in the coffin of my faith in the FfD process. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Damiens: The speedy tags are not valid. Please don't game the system. The image was orphaned because it was deleted, and so it cannot be deleted because it is orphaned; that would be circular reasoning. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And why did you ignore the {{di-replaceable fair use}} tag Carnildo added? Do not accuse me of gaming the system, you've done enough mess by now. --Damiens.rf 22:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you seem to emphasize "policy" over everything, I invite you to read WP:CSD, which is a policy: "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete articles except in the most obvious cases." This is clearly a controversial issue, and should not be subjected to speedy deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete? If it wasn't for your lack of competency, this image would have been deleted ages ago. And please stop ignoring every thing I ask you. This is annoying and unrespectful. --Damiens.rf 13:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

Go fly a kite. --Damiens.rf 03:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, stay cool. This talk page is not a battle ground. If you're getting frustrated, go outside, walk around, and come back after you've relaxed a bit. Everybody will be better off that way. 68.32.94.161 (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, go outside and fly a kite. It's relaxing. --Damiens.rf 22:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't respond to me in such a manner. I am being entirely serious. My decision to use the words posted at the top of your talk page was intended to communicate the importance of civility and staying "cool" in language that resonates with you. The words that resonate the best with people are often their own although I realize that many people might not appreciate this when they are in the middle of a heated debate on the Wiki. And that's why it is so important to remember the importance of assuming good faith, staying cool, and, above all, avoiding personal attacks. I hope that this clears up any misconceptions - take care. 68.32.94.161 (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

File:20090120 Oath with Closed Caption.JPG

File:20090120 Oath with Closed Caption.JPG was moved to Commons and therefore speedily deleted at Wikipedia without discussion. Then, commons:File:20090120 Oath with Closed Caption.JPG to see it was dhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Damiens.rf&action=edit&section=5eleted at Commons after discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:20090120 Oath with Closed Caption.JPG. I was the photographer. You were the nominator for this discussion. Is it possible that the image might be viable on WP under Fair use. The file had been at use in First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency as shown by this edit--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me an opinion on this matter. I see you have recently editted this page and have been active in the last two days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't envision a valid fair use rationale since I fail to feel a need in First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency of an illustration of how he looked like in the bigscreen during his inauguration discourse. If you want, add the information about the closed-caption text not being inline with what the guy said, but there's no need to add an non-free image as a proof or something. --Damiens.rf 15:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying that you do not feel that there is a need is valid. However, would you strongly oppose hosting it on wikipedia under fair use with this point being made. It is a fairly unique depiction that can not be replaced. Furthermore, the transmission on the big screen was probably actually the work of the United States Government and may fall under PD protections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I would oppose to use this unneeded image if it's really non-free. Being "unique" is not a justification to use non-free images, you should know. It's just one of out of 10 criteria for accepting such material. But if the transmission is really pd, I would not object it's use. While not necessary, it's not detrimental. --Damiens.rf 00:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If I claim that it was a transmission by the United States Congress Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, it would be PD would it not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Does commons have a WP:DRV and if so would it be required since in all likelihood this was a transmission by the United States Congress Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It probably has, but just ignore it and reupload the image instead. I wouldn't object.--Damiens.rf 15:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reuploaded. Can you tell if I had cropped the prior version that was deleted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:CSEP

Redirects go to WP:RFD, not MFD. Also, there wasn't really a reason to nominate this for deletion anyway; since the target is also at MFD, the best solution is to hold out and wait for the discussion on the target to end first. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You may not be aware

Hi, I'm sure you mean well however that anon has been baiting editors across multiple pages and talkpages and user talkpages for a while. Their "concerns" about content are masked personal attacks against many editors so we try not to encourage them. If they are unable to work collaboratively then likely this is not a great match for their interests. Their "content concern" were addressed already and seemed to be inflated in the first place. Labeling my edits as vandalism is rather insulting but I trust you meant well. If you look at the edits and the source you likely will see there is no plagarism or copyvio as claimed. -- Banjeboi 00:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked 3 hours for this. That was highly inappropo, you opened the ifd yourself, rv'd the close, which was a clear keep, and made a personal attack in the edit summary. A calmly worded DRV would have been the proper course of action. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What were you trying to achieve by with this block? A punishment? --Damiens.rf 13:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Damiens, I'm disappointed. I'd left our previous conversation above hoping that you understood the importance of staying cool and avoiding personal attacks. I really encourage you to consider what's been said in this very thoughtful essay: [34] 68.32.94.161 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to second that ... that was uncalled for. Jeffrey summarized the discussion; rightly or wrongly, it was a consensus for keep. DRV is the appeal for that, if the closing admin called the consensus right and policy right, which he did.

Getting personal with the closing admin when they just followed the rules is just not ok. It corrodes the level of discussion and reduces everyone's interest in communicating and collaborating when you do things like that. Please don't do it again... You've been around for long enough to know what's ok and what's not ok, and what effects rude and abusive behavior have. Please keep those in mind. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And it turns out you were putting this all over the place. I'll let other admins handle that part. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Please do not accuse other editors of self-promotion without proof as you did at this redirect for discussion entry. This is especially true if you have not taken the time to verify your claim that "Six Sigma Pricing" is a non-notable term. Assuming good faith is a core principle of Wikipedia and it should be respected. Failure to do so is detrimental to the project and an extremely selfish way to act towards other editors. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies regarding editor conduct before continuing to contribute further. Thank you. 141.214.37.134 (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:Rlevse. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Final warning

Re this, you are way out of line here. Knock it off. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm free to express my disappointment with that admin's competence. What am I'm being "warned" about? --Damiens.rf 14:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I've replied your e-mail message from Sept 18, where you accused me of sock puppetry. Would you return the favor? Do you still have my message or you had it deleted? --Damiens.rf 14:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're being warned for your repeated personal attacks. If you think an administrator is incompetent, bring it up in the relevant forum. I suspect your reasons for attacking people on their talk pages are two-fold. (1) You feel as if the user has somehow slighted you and want revenge to make yourself feel better. (2) You know that your claims have no merit and don't want the embarrassment of having a formal complaint shot down upon community review. 141.214.168.148 (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What would be the "relevant forum" and why shouldn't I try to resolve the matter with the user in question before seeking third-part involvement? (And why do most of the people criticizing me are afraid of doing so while logged in?) --Damiens.rf 15:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This would be a good place to start. Clearly your efforts to resolve your disputes on user's talk pages haven't succeeded (probably because they usually devolve into name-calling and vague assertions of "incompetence" on your part). And nice red herring about logging in. The legitimacy of complaints about your conduct doesn't depend on whether your critic is logged in or even has an account. 141.214.168.148 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not a "good place to start". It's more like a last instance. And I would say that some of my efforts to resolve disputes on talk pages fail because some users like rsleve or KOH prefer to ignore my comments (and e-mail messages). I never questioned the legitimacy of your complaints. Please read my comment again. --Damiens.rf 15:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't split hairs with me, you and I both know that you specifically brought up the question of logging in as a way to cast doubt on the legitimacy of my complaints. People ignore your comments because they are always accusatory and you have a history of hounding people who you think have slighted you. 141.214.168.148 (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's quite true I'm swampped right now, but I really don't think you want this spilled all over your talk page. I do not have an email from you. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nor do I. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(Same IP as above) Wait, Damiens hadn't actually e-mailed you folks despite implying above that he had? Come on Damiens, don't try to assassinate somebody's character with lies. Besides, I think KOH has definitely responded quite adequately to your messages on his talk page. If anything's lacking from his talk page, it's a rebuttal from you. 141.214.37.137 (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have emailed Rlevse and he just replied and I had never claimed to have mailed the hearts guy. I have no idea what is he doing here. About you, please find someone else to educate.

(Me again) You're right, you never explicitly claimed to have e-mailed KoH. I'm flabbergasted that a person as precise in his language as you would completely and utterly fail to notice that I never explicitly accused you of e-mailing KoH. I merely indicated that your language implied you e-mailed KoH. This was an intentional move on my part because I recognize the type of game you play - you make thinly veiled accusations but are always careful to leave yourself a way out in case somebody calls you out. I think you need to improve your game. Clearly KoH thought you were saying that you'd e-mailed him. It's only natural for him to think that. After all, you hadn't (and apparently still haven't) gotten back to the replies he left for you on his talk page - so who exactly is doing the ignoring? Perhaps if you communicated more effectively, your talk page wouldn't turn into a battleground. 141.214.37.156 (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

he asked me to find a valid case of a non-free content file that is not in one of the recognized classes. Maybe I will spent some time on that, but I know he (and you) will simply ignore or downplay my reply. So, I'm not in a hurry. Again, please consider bothering someone else. --Damiens.rf 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And don't come to my talk page to accuse me of playing games. --Damiens.rf 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)