User talk:Asenine/Archive 16

Sure
Go Ahead :)  U z E E  09:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for fixing my page. I made some really stupid mistakes. :p  U z E E  13:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Calling my edit vandalism
I assume you are talking about Luis A. Márquez? Sorry, it was not your edit I was identifying as vandalism but the previous edit. As you can see I restored the non-vandalised page, reverting the vandalism that had occurred by the IP. Apologies again, mattbr 19:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Disfigured Narcissus cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Disfigured Narcissus cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 21:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is being sorted now. I uploaded the image before I created the article.  a s e nine  say what?  21:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Burma/Myanmar
You gave me a warning for a personal attack. Was this because I used the word "n00b"? Deamon138 (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: User_talk:Jbmurray
It's no use you slapping this template on my page (four times in succession) if you don't give any explanation about what to do about it. These are self-made images, as I make clear. What more do you need? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your comment. I am also trying to make it better and looking for more details (such as education, background, achievements, etc) other than the gay sex. When the article is done, the gay sex should only be a small part of the article.JerryVanF (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to your comment on my talk page re Bruce Barclay (Commissioner)
Your comment was:

Please at least look at what you are tagging. That was clearly not CSD material. '' a s e nine  say what? '' 06:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Pardon, I did read the article, in its entirety, at the time of my tagging it. I believe the subject of the article is non-notable, at best. At the time I tagged it, it did not have the section regarding "Vindication". I also believe your comment "Please at least look at what you are tagging." is inappropriate, and not per guidelines for editing, as it accuses me of bad faith. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I sincerely apologise if you believe I acted in bad faith, and if I have offended you in any way. It still, however, is not an attack page.  a s e nine  say what?  06:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You most assuredly DID offend me. I can't see how anyone acting in good faith to improve the Encyclopedia would not be offended.


 * As for a "false CSD", to me, "false, as a synonym for "untrue", suggest vandalism, which again, seems to be accusing me of bad faith. An apology followed by a similar accusation seems lacking in sincerity. Moreover, you're an admin - to whom can I get relief?
 * More importantly I thought CSD is a PROCESS, which can include:
 * Agreement by an administrator, in which case it is deleted
 * Disagreement by the author, along with documentation on the talk page of the article, which can either be agreed with or not
 * Disagreement by an admin., in which case it is not deleted
 * Having a CSD nomination not deleted does not seem, to me, to mean it is "false" (and, if you'll note, the one noted on my talk page resulted in an apology from the poster).
 * I saw no discussion on the talk page, only reference (on your talk page) by the author as to suggestions you made, and your curt comment to me (which I believe would be viewed by a neutral 3rd party as a inappropriate comment, and a form of attack).
 * The tone of both of your comments are discouraging to my continued contribution. This seems to be a bad result.
 * Finally, I apologize in advance for copying these comments to your user talk page. I was uncertain you'd reply if I did not. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is your second reply to me on this topic:


 * I apologise if you believe I acted in bad faith, but I noticed that this is not the first time that you have been notified of a false CSD. I apologise sincerely if I have offended you in any way.


 * Here is my reply to that reply:


 * You most assuredly DID offend me. I can't see how anyone acting in good faith to improve the Encyclopedia would not be offended.


 * As for a "false CSD", to me, "false, as a synonym for "untrue", suggest vandalism, which again, seems to be accusing me of bad faith. An apology followed by a similar accusation seems lacking in sincerity. Moreover, you're an admin - to whom can I get relief?
 * More importantly I thought CSD is a PROCESS, which can include:
 * Agreement by an administrator, in which case it is deleted
 * Disagreement by the author, along with documentation on the talk page of the article, which can either be agreed with or not
 * Disagreement by an admin., in which case it is not deleted
 * Having a CSD nomination not deleted does not seem, to me, to mean it is "false" (and, if you'll note, the one noted on my talk page resulted in an apology from the poster).
 * I saw no discussion on the talk page, only reference (on your talk page) by the author as to suggestions you made, and your curt comment to me (which I believe would be viewed by a neutral 3rd party as a inappropriate comment, and a form of attack).
 * The tone of both of your comments are discouraging to my continued contribution. This seems to be a bad result.
 * Finally, I apologize in advance for copying these comments to your user talk page. I was uncertain you'd reply if I did not. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I note that you have twice edited your second reply, on MY talk page, to remove "but I noticed that this is not the first time that you have been notified of a false CSD." and to add "It still, however, is not an attack page." Here is my reply to your edited reply.


 * I have four comments:

--Joe Sperrazza (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)::::As I have said before, I mean well. I do not wish to harm any relationship with other editors by seeming not to WP:AGF. The reason why I edited my comment was because I have Asperger's Syndrome, which does indeed sometimes cause me to phrase things badly. I did not wish to offend you any further, and as thus edited my comment. I am indeed deeply sorry for any 'bad blood', and I mean that sincerely. '' a s e nine  say what? '' 06:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I note Template:Uw-tpv1, which states "talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well". My response was to your comments, which you did save to my talk page, and I read. Revising history seems unfair, although I do assume you acted in good faith in this case, and reconsidered your comments with respect to "false CSDs" as being unfair and inappropriate
 * As to your comment "It still, however, is not an attack page.", I refer you to my original response, in which I stated "At the time I tagged it, it did not have the section regarding "Vindication".". I also refer you to my second response, above, in which I referred to the process. I believe it would have followed the Wiki guidelines better, and been a lot more pleasant for me, at least, if "good faith" discussions and suggestions had occurred on the article talk page, vice what has occurred.
 * Finally, I am unhappy to be at the receiving end of your "Apology" followed by "Attack" (in your unedited response") and then followed by "Justification" (in your edited response). Apologies, when sincere, should stand by themselves, without caveat.
 * Oh, and by the way, I am not an administrator. Have a nice day. :)  a s e nine  say what?  06:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed you said in my editor review that I violated []. Which one?  a s e nine  say what?  17:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. The following Talk_page_guidelines:
 * "Do not misrepresent other people: ..."
 * a. "...The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context (emphasis addded)... "When describing other people's contributions or edits, use Help:Diffs." In your first post to my talk page, you said "Please at least look at what you are tagging. . Yet, if you had looked at the diff of the edit I made to the page in question, the entirety of the article was:
 * "Bruce Barclay was a Cumberland County Commissioner (Pennsylvania, USA) that was invested for male rape.[1] He was later found to have "built a hidden video system in his home and recorded as many as 500 sexual episodes with unknowing men." [2] Barclay has resigned. Later, one of the alleged rape victim was charged with filing a false police report when the tapes were reviewed".
 * The version you referred to (see the diff, as indicated in the history by the comment you made when you changed the page in question by deleting the db-attack tag, is significantly different. So, by either ignoring or failing to reference the history and diffs of that page, your first post failed to show the right context. In context of what I tagged, the page is only negative. In the updated page, following my tag, the page began to add balance. All of this is good, as our goal as editors should be good articles. However, your comments on my talk page, being in the wrong context, misrepresent my actions.
 * b. No personal attacks "A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. ... No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks...". Accusing me of not looking' at a page prior to tagging is unambiguously an insult, as I have previously described in a prior reply to you. To quote, "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.". In this case, you ignored evidence (the diffs), instead 'attacking' me by asserting that I had the characteristic'' of not reading articles prior to tagging them.
 * Given I have explained these facts in some detail in my prior replies, I question why you are reopening this issue. As I noted in a prior comment to an entry, I find this whole affair both tiring and disheartening. I suspect the only reason you have done so is because I documented my concenrn in your Editor Review, in which I believe it indicates several areas of improvement for you.
 * 2. I will also add that you also failed to follow Talk page guidelines by editing your own comments. Moreover, and unfortunate for us both, you did so after I had already read them, as I was online, editing, and you did save them. I do appreciate your explantion for your doing so due to your Asperbergers, but I note that a fundamental element of editing here is to preview your edits prior to posting - I strongly suggest you carefully do so in te future before posting to peoples talk pages, at least. You edited your second reply twice. You could have more easily previewed your comments, and never posted your second comment "I apologise if you believe I acted in bad faith, but I noticed that this is not the first time that you have been notified of a false CSD" (which I consider to also be a personal attack and to be Talk_page_guidelines by again failing to give evidence or note context - I also, as previously noted in a reply to you, feel it is demonstrably untrue).
 * 3. I also note that you personally deleted my db-attack tage from the page in question. As you are not an Admin, is this correct behavior? By CSD process, which I already have outlined, should you have not instead posted to the pages talk page on this topic? I am not taking the time to research this now, but I did not understand that, as an editor, you had the right to delete such tags on your own say-so. If any editor has such right, I will stand corrected. If not, I admonish you to follow the rules henceforth.
 * I had hoped that this regrettable incident was behind us. I look forward to the day when I can return to devoting energies I reserve for Wikipedia to improving and authoring articles, and not discussing Wiki eitiquette. Regardless, if you are still disatisfied with my comments to what, in my belief, are issue you casued by your less than well chosen actions, I will continue discouse. Best regards --Joe Sperrazza
 * I find it interesting that you have already archived this discussion from your talk page, yet, by your continued dialogue, it seems to still be active. Also, your own talk pages notes your preference that replies to your posts to others' talk pages be added here, to your talk page. I also feel uncomfortable editing your archive pages. So, to 'maintain the context', and for the record, I am pasting the entire discusion here. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Editors do indeed have the right to remove CSDs from articles which blatantly do not meet the criteria. Perhaps it was not blatant, but if so my mistake and I apologise.


 * I already have enough going on in my life without trying to sustain an argument with another editor where I have already attempted to reconcile our differences. I admit my phrasing of the original comment was terrible, and that was not what I intended to convey. I do so hope that we can put aside this problem and leave the problem with good feelings on both sides. I notice that you say that I have reopened the argument, and if so that was also not intentional. If we can end it here, I believe it would be better for all. I never intended to offend you, and would not intend to offend you, and as such I am sorry.  a s e nine  say what?  21:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done (offers virtual handshake)

unfree image
''An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:CheNuevara navbar.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. asenine say what? 23:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC) --asenine say what? 23:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)''


 * Thanks, I'll fix it to be GFDL compliant. I'll take the cap on a page with no FU content and I'll crop out the copyrightable portions of the browser. The Wikipedia logo itself is an interesting issue -- although it's technically not GFDL, it's re-used in modified form scores of times on Wikipedia. What's your opinion on that? - Revolving Bugbear  16:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)