User talk:Before My Ken/archives 12 June 2009

ARCHIVE PAGE 12: JUNE 2009

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Lady Vanishes 1938 cast.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Lady Vanishes 1938 cast.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► hemicycle ─╢ 06:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Added more detailed FUR, removed speedy. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI
→ lol Literally and not in an offensive way or as a way of saying "fuck off". MuZemike 07:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was meant as a bit of a joke. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment/Action per your request
You are a stupid asshole. Lycurgus (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that's what I call the true spirit of Wikipedia collegiality! Have a great day!! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Barrage_(tidal)
Hi Ed, noticed your revert, and was about to revert again, but checked your profile just to make sure we weren't going to have a revert "war". Looks like a quick chat might be better.

I was just curious to why you were adding 250px tags to images like the one on the Tidal Barrage page.

Wikipedia isn't a fixed width site, so adding width tags, especially to thumbnail images doesn't work the same as it would for a fixed-width size like CNN.com or BBC News.

On top of that, as a registered user you can control the default widths for thumbnail images in your preferences control panel.

An an unregistered user, the default is already 250px.

If you want examples check out River Thames or Microsoft and search in the Wikicode for Image: - note their are no sizes for any images. The only exceptions are panoramas which are much wider than standard thumbnail images.

Sorry for the length of this - I just wanted to come across completely transparent, as some of the other people on your talk page don't seem to be quite as civil. Regards, Jamsta (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Jamsta: Thanks so much for the consideration, and the transparency, I appreciate it. "An an unregistered user, the default is already 250px." I believe this is incorrect. Any unregistered user will see unsized thumbs at 180px.  You can verify this by logging out and comparing a unspecified thumb with one spec'd at 180px.  (Or, as I just did, using previewing to compare the same image unfixed and at 180px.) The problem is that we need to present the best possible visual image to our readers, both registered and unregistered and, frankly, the proscription against fixing image sizes is totally incompatible with that.  With the proliferation of infoboxes, navboxes, listening boxes and the like, we need to carefully control the visual layout of our articles, because unless we do these fixed size elements will conflict with images to create blocks of whitespace which, frankly, makes us look amateurish and unprofessional. I totally understand the impulse behind user-control of thumbnails, but it's an idea whose time has passed, frankly. We are no longer a small project used primarily by the people involved in putting it together, we have become the de facto first source of information on the web.  As such, we need to insure that we have the best possible information for our readers, and that we present it cleanly and professionally. There's a box at the top of this talk page with a link to where I have some more thoughts on the subject.  If you haven't read it already, please do so.  Right now I've got the flu and I'm not in the best possible mental state for making cohesive arguments, so apologies for this feeble response. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Zester
Hi Ed. Your recent edits and edit summaries on Zester suggest a rather high level of frustration. Remember the article is a stub. Layout "problems" you see now are likely to resolve themselves. Cheers. --Una Smith (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah, I was just mildly frustrated at not finding the solution I was looking for, and was having a bit of fun (with myself, really) in the edit summaries. Thanks, though! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edits
You seem to think because you have been a long contributor to wikipedia that you somehow are immune to its policies and guidlines such as AGF. You know nothing on the subject you have become involved in, and as you have suddenly become emotional, your opinion means absolute nada and has no relevance. I do not need to convince you and do not wish to. Nor do I need provide evidence, wheres the evidence for Kransky's made up word to label my people? You are biased and have chosen a side without any concrete evidence or basis in doing so. I will never try to convince someone or something when they have already chosen to go against me. I have nothing to prove to a complete random who has no clue on what he is opening his mouth about. It's like a tennis player telling a professional soccer player how to play his sport, with a random spectator on the sidelines reading 1 or 2 sentences about soccer thinking he can tell the soccer player he does not know how to play his sport. LatinoAussie (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts. I offered you my advice, but you have apparently rejected it, as is your right.  Let's see what develops. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, since LatinoAussie has removed it from his talk page (with the edit summary: "I've never liked clowns... they used to give me nightmares"), here is the comment he is replying to: "Your edits I've looked at your edits, and what I see is disturbing. I do not see the edits of someone who wants to improve Wikipedia, I see the edits of a person who came to Wikipedia with a mission to make certain changes, whether or not they meet with consensus or are supported by evidence -- in other words, a 'Point of View warrior'. I hope that I am wrong in my evaluation, because if you are a PoV pusher, you're going to find editing Wikipedia to be a disappointing experience. We try our best to work from a neutral point of view, and when we see someone, as you appear to be, whose edits disclose a strong bias, we tend to work very hard to undo that person's efforts and to keep Wikipedia free of bias. On the specific issue that you are pushing, as I said earlier on Talk:Latin Australian, this is a topic that is completely new to me, about which I know almost nothing, which is a tremendous opportunity for someone to influence me through the use of evidence. Show me reliable sources that refer to the small number of Australians who have Latin American heritages as 'Latino Australians', and you'll have a convert. But, whining and complaining and hectoring and wagging your finger isn't going to convince anyone of anything -- without some evidence, you're dead in the water. So, please go get some evidence, and if you can't find any, you must stop your edits changing things to 'Latino American' -- if you don't, I think it quite likely that you will be blocked from editing. Good luck. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)"

Flatiron Building
I got what i put on there from the Skyscrapers book. It is the truth. Oh, and i'll try to find a source later if i can, and if the book is not okay. Ryanbstevens (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries
You might want to consider leaving something in the edit summary when you do that, even if it's just "see rationale on my user page" - all I saw was that an unfamiliar (to me) editor had renamed the section from the usual Wiki name with no explanation. There's been a fair bit of sneaky vandalism on Australian articles recently so I'm twitchy about unfamiliar editors making unexplained changes. --GenericBob (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that -- good suggestion! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Poisoning the well
This was really inappropriate. Please consider not doing it again. Thanks. --John (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it was. I'll remove it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems I can't really remove it, because instead of ignoring it, and asking me to remove it, you responded to it. Tell you what, I'll remove both. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which I've done. in the future, if you have a problem with something I've posted, it might be best to actually ask me about it.  I'm more than likely to remove a comments that's hurt someone's feelings, regardless of whether I disagree with their reasoning. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --John (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

vikki oru vIn
vikki oru vIn. ithil pozuthai kazikkaathIr. ingkE vElai illaathavar mattumE atmin vElai cheyvar. ithil irukkum katturaikaL anaiththum thavaraanavai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.22.159 (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

your revert of my edit to Philip K. Dick
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/ is not a valid source according to how I interpret Reliable sources.


 * Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.


 * Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

This webpage doesn't say what the author's qualifications are or even where the material came from. The main purpose of the webpage seems to be links to Amazon.com.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You should have said something like that on your edit summary. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy your comment to the article's talk page, where I've initiated a discussion about this. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A google search turned up over 300 wikipedia articles that have links to pages on this website. I have begun removing them but this is a big job. I posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam but it is just a drop in the bucket there.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the purpose of the website is to build a calendar of author bios, it makes sense that it would be included in a lot of articles. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has the purpose of building a comprehensive list of author bios. The site in question seems to me to have the purpose of making money by driving hits to Amazon. Do you have some kind of inside information on the purpose of the site? I see that you have been reverting all my edits on other pages. I certainly did not intend to upset you. I don't understand your reactions such as the inflammatory remarks you made at the talk page for Philip K. Dick.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you read what I posted about the site. Then, do some research of your own.  Investigate the site, just don't work off your prejudices. I'm not upset, I;m annoyed. Saying "SPAM" to some people is like waving a red flag in front of a bull -- don't do it unless you're pretty damn sure.  I'm not. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Immature behavior
Going down my list of edits and screwing with them in retaliation for me questioning your graphics expertise is shockingly immature behavior. If I have to file a complaint of harassment, you've left a trail of evidence.--Hugh Manatee (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My friend, you should take a closer look, I don't believe I have undone anything whatsoever that you've done. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hyatt Regency Hotel Lexington

 * I understand what you're trying to say, but i just thought that since it was a high-rise building or a building that's tall enough to see in the skyline, it should have an article. I'll try to expand the article if i am given some time, although that it might be to no avail. By the way, i do know that not every hotel unit should have an article. However, i do believe that if it's a high-rise building (or tall enough), it should have an article. Anyway, i get your point. I'll try to expand the article if that's okay. Ryanbstevens (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Taking Pelham 123 Shaw.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Taking Pelham 123 Shaw.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Tag removed. The images is being used in the article about the film to identify the actor and the character he plays. (The tag would be appropriate if the image were being used in the article on Robert Shaw. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Which it was! I've removed it from the infobox for Robert Shaw. Off to look for a new image. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

3R violation on Lenin
Hi, mate, I am reporting you for 3R violation on Lenin. Have a good day DR2006kl (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have fun, although you're probably going to be disappointed, since I've only edited the article 3 times in the past 24 hours, and to violate 3RR who have to edit more than 3 times; and one of my 3 edits was totally unrelated to the other two; and the final edit was to add a reference. Somehow, I don't think it's going to fly - but knock yourself out!  Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It can still be edit-warring :-) ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 22:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It can be, but it wasn't. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The 3r rule is flexible, 2 can be edit warring. There does seem to be some kind of problem here..perhaps Ed could do with taking a couple of steps back, you are all over this board like a rash. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC))
 * This board? This board is my achived talk page.  What are you talking about? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 12:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankenstein GAR notice
Frankenstein has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Don't add spammy links in Henna Page
I noticed that you have added spammy link to the article about Henna. Please do not repeat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.33.184 (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I examined the web page before I restored it to the article the first time, and I have re-examined it now. It does not appear to me to be spam.  Please do not remove it from the article again without first bringing your arguments against it to the article's talk page. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

BS
I notice BS has been temporarily blocked, so that should cool things down for a short while. It's too much to expect any kind of discussion so it's good that you copied the image deletion discussion onto the talk page. It's a shame you had to do it, but it exposes the lie with complete clarity. Rossrs (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm really not much for turning people in for stuff - I was called a "stupid asshole" just a week or so ago, and never reported it - but something about BS's editing just gets under my skin. Thanks for pointing out that the PD portrait image should be in the infobox (which is where we had it before). I've restored it, and juggled the images around a bit. I removed the picture of Brooks with Pabst because you really can't see her in it, and it's not particularly interesting as a photo.  if anyone want to restore it, though, I won't beef about it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean.  When there's a history, it can be less offensive than a stronger outburst from someone else, but more annoying.  Rossrs (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Image placement
Right, it was the Pandora's Box image that was position directly under the section title on the left. I moved the Canary Murders image to balance it out a little bit more, instead of them all being on the right. There is a policy or guideline somewhere about placing images under titles. I can try to find it if you'd like to see it, but offhand, I can't recall where it is. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an MOS guideline for layouts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You should find it at Layout. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See your talk page (crossed comments). Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it works fine, except why is the image forced to a large size than the default? That does interfere with placement on some browsers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All the images on the page have their sized specified, as it is impossible to make a coherent visual layout with unsized thumbs. It's great that WP early on thought it was a good idea to let people set their thumbnail size in preferences, but the problem is that we are now the primary source of quick information for the web, which means that the vast majority of people who come here to find something out are not registered, and do not have accounts, and what they see when they look at an article with unsized images is not a good visual presentation of the information we have to offer, it's text with postage stamps stuck to the edges. My primary editing philosophy is Wikipedia needs good information, well presented, because the presentation is sometimes just as important as the content. But it is really not possible to insure that the visual presentation is coherent and appealing without controlling the elements within it. Unsized thumbnails is an idea whose time has passed - you can see a more thorough explication here. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not questioning so much why the size is coded as I'm questioning why it is coded to a size much larger than the normal default setting of 180px or at least in that neighborhood (which is currently 250px for that image). That setting enlarges the image to a size greater than the section it is in. In this case, when I viewed the article from a browser with no preference settings specified (Opera in this case and I checked it against a cache purged Firefox while signed out), it appears larger than the section, which makes it bleed into the next section. Even in your essay, it says "If an image is included on a page, it should be shown at the minimum size necessary to make it visually comprehensible without overwhelming the text. In short, it should enhance the text, and neither pull focus nor appear to be an afterthought." In this case, I had changed the image size because it does tend to overwhelm the section. If it is preferable to set the size coding, then it shouldn't outsize where it is placed, should it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, for misinterpreting what you meant. The image had been 225 and I thought it looked at little cramped so I bumped it up, but, frankly, I didn't spend a lot of time examining it after that.  I'll take a look at it now. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, the problem is that the section is so short that the image would have to be smaller than 120px to fit entirely within the section (the caption wraps over and extends it past the section end even then). I did drop it down to 237px, because 225 still looked cramped to me. I have to say I've never been bothered by images wrapping into the next section on the right side -- that's what all those "stacked" images do, after all, they usually cross several boundaries, and ultimately images do not illustrate a section they illustrate the article. But in any case, I don't believe that even 250 "overwhelms" the text at all. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

TeePee and LatinoAussie
I did have my suspicions that the two handles might be the same user, however I am reluctant to pursue the matter. There is no definitive evidence that would satisfy me (or a reasonable administrator) beyond a shadow of doubt that LatinoAussie is a sock puppet. Let his behaviour today determine how he will be treated - I would even be happy for TeePee to return if he has a more mature and less aggressive attitude. Kransky (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Louise Brooks image
I don't see how it was adding anything to the article. It seems fairly expendable to me. You can't really see her face all that well and it is of far less quality than the ones that are on the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's pretty much what I thought too. Unless Ross disagrees, I'll just let the bots take it away. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Scanners screenshot.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Scanners screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. J Milburn (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Images
Hi Ed. I don't see a problem with the removal of the Louise Brooks image. We've got a few images on the page that are very good, so I don't think they need to be supplemented by one that is not very good. The danger too is that if the article is seen as overloaded with unfree images, someone with a bit of zeal may try to delete them all - good or bad. With only two unfree images, the article is less likely to attract that sort of action. I'm very unsure about the Scanners image. I can understand your intention. The best I could manage would be a very weak keep, but I'm not even sure about that. I considered just giving you my thoughts here, rather than on the deletion page, but I reconsidered that perhaps someone else may see what I've written and perhaps it may have some impact on any comment they might care to make. Rossrs (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - you know I always appreciate your honest evaluation. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well thank you too! You're always welcome.  Rossrs (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

your incivilty and personal attack
For my one uncivil question to you at [] I apologize. I asked if you had inside information on the purpose of the site.

Regarding the discussion at []; I have already stopped making edits that you objected to. I have the right to participate in the discussion. I have done so Civilly. you have not. Just because I disagree with you does not give you the right to harass me or make [personal attacks]. Saying that I have a personal agenda and that I want to blast someone to the stone age is an attack.

Please stop [engaging in incivility]. Please [assume good faith] as I assure you that I am only trying to improve the articles I have worked on and prevent corporate influences from creeping into Wikipedia. If I made some mistakes and was overzealous in my edits then I can learn from that and move on.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, you stop trying to get the kirjasto site removed, we've got no problem. My "incivility" (which was not, BTW - sarcasm does not qualify) was provoked by your proceeding even when it was clear that you were wrong. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and you forgot to mention your following me around to undo completely unrelated edits I'd made. It was that, more than anything, which stepped things up. I work diligently on my editing, and I object to you coming in as a drive-by and undoing my hard work simply because you're annoyed at me.  I'll accept your apology for that anytime you feel like it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

fyi [Wikiquette alerts] -Crunchy Numbers (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You really do have a problem letting go, don't you? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Your note
Thanks for your good wishes. I have Eales disease, but contrary to the WP article, one does not need to be a healthy young male nor from the Indian subcontinent. One can be a middle aged Caucasian woman with other lesser issues. I've been dealing with laser surgery to try and contain it but so far, it's mostly just been stubborn. I appreciate your thoughts! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WQA
Ed, when I spend 7/8 of my reply to the situation against the complainant, and a mere 1/8 discussing you, you should take that as a good measure and back away... ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You really do have a problem letting go, don't you?
Boy, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. Still going down my list of edits and making meaningless changes to them just to be annoying? OK, you're annoying. Happy? Now get a life and leave me out of it.--Hugh Manatee (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hugh, I have never made a trivial edit to the pages you've contributed to. I told you that I liked the images that you've been uploading, and I like to see that they're properly presented in the articles they live in.  Simple.  Nothing for you to worry, about, I'm not out to get you or trying to annoy you, despite your rudeness to me.  Perhaps if you could see past your "former professional graphics editor" hateur, you could see that.  Here's hoping. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 14:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hatnotes
Please read WP:HAT as an example of improper use of hatnotes. Those "Pelham" articles are each disambiguated by (YEAR film) or by (novel). They are, therefore, not ambiguous and should *not* have hatnotes. Any ambiguous titles Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, for instance, should be redirecting to the disambiguation page anyway making these hatnotes unnecessary across the board. If you find any ambiguous titles redirecting to a disambiguated one, you should redirect them to the disambiguation page.128.151.71.16 (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The hatnote on Pelham is useful, and it should stay. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 14:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reported to ANI Ed Fitzgerald t / c 14:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Military of the ROC
Hi! Left you a response here. Jafeluv (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Answered there. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

S J Presgod
Ed,

can you explain why you removed his title and a referenced comment on his portrait? I have seen lots of references to images and names with titles in caption boxes .... is there a new policy? Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any policy change - I just thought the title looked wierd in the ibox, but if you say that it's what's usually done...  I've reverted my change.  Sorry about that. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

thx Ed... I appreciate your openness. I thought you might have removed it cos it looked like a joke title. Winston Churchill is an example of a title in an infobox Victuallers (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Pascal and El Cid
Funny thing you editing those consecutively like that.

I give you a wicked huge chubber, don't I?

Ekwos (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. Nothing in the least coincidental here.  You have a habit of removing perfectly reasonable popular culture material from articles under false grounds, and I keep an eye on your edits to try and keep the damage you do to a minimum.  Add to that your willingness to attack other editors using IP sockpuppets, and I'd say you're an editor who can't be trusted. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974 film)
I have taken pains to make sure that no ambiguous articles point to The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974 film), meaning that there is no reason for the hatnote. WP:NAMB clearly indicates that in the case of an unambiguous title (such as the article in question), a hatnote should not be used. If I am missing a viable reason why that hatnote should stay that does not violate WP:HAT, please let me know. Otherwise, without a good reason to keep the hatnote, I will remove it in a couple of days. Rhindle The Red (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Another dogmatist (*sigh*). Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to the article talk page, where it should have been to start with. Please take it there. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Lightfoot
I never realized until this week that Gordon Lightfoot's famous ballad was about you. Cheers.--Hugh Manatee (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm Edward the wreck was Edmund. Sorry, a clear miss, and I'm afraid no points for originality either. Happy motoring! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good song, though. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record
You are a classic abuser, almost a textbook example, except that you're a bit more literate (although your words are usually at odds with your actions -- for example, instigating a fight and then telling the pissed-off victim to "let it go.") Essentially, you are a bully, and enjoy playing the policeman/punisher with other users. None of your edits amount to much, and you press save three or four times on each page to inflate your edit count, hoping to impress by quantity rather than quality. You aren't writing the great articles or contributing the great images, just wandering around looking for fights on some minor pretext or other, then burying the evidence in your user page archives, hoping that someday all of us are deceived enough to think you worthy of being an administrator. Whatever talent you have, you waste in pettiness.

I've read other entries by users you've abused, and it's a consistent theme. And I know enough about psychology to realize that you are displacing self-hatred. I feel sorry for your wife, or rather second wife, who has to put up with you. She must be an admirable woman to tolerate you scrounging, sitting around day after day tippling while you pretend to be doing something meaningful on the computer, but in reality degrading Wikipedia into online bar brawls. Maybe you actually do some good once in awhile, but it isn't worth the hard feelings you cause. People here are honestly trying to make the world a better place, not be disillusioned by trolls in stealth mode.--Hugh Manatee (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I've tried to explain, now I'm done with you. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

WHOA!
Stop that now, please, and discuss. Where's the consensus for all those changes at once?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your "WHOA!"
I'm simply restoring the state of these articles after the torrent of changes made last night by User:Jenuk1985. Please look at his or her contribution list from last night, I'll hold in my restoring of them until you get back to me. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Checking now, but you're hitting articles I didn't see edited last night. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They're all on my watch list, and all were edited by Jenuk. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see now. Hmmm.
 * Incidentally, I hadn't planned on reverting all of those edits -- there are far too many for me to do by hand -- just the ones on my watch list and a few other articles. I've got no desire to start an edit war with this person, who was completely unknown to me before now, despite the fact that he or she clearly went right down my contribution list to make their changes. (Just start at "Amen" on their contrib last and oompare it to my edits last night.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Layout, it's not incorrect either way. Why don't you discuss it somewhere, instead of just switching it?SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know it's not incorrect either way, which means that Jenuk's edits, in many cases undoing long-standing status quo, are a problem. Considering that I've just been the (rather obvious) object of a rather aggresive editing-attack, I feel a bit odd just walking up to this person and saying "Thanks for pummeling me, can we talk about it?".  Would you consider mediating? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, I have been restoring articles back to the Notes/References situation before you embarked on your mass change programme over the past month. You really should get consensus before making such large scale changes. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  01:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)I'm a better enforcer than a mediator. If you feel you've been attacked, maybe you should ask at WP:AN/I if other people agree that it's something that should be acted on. That might not be the correct venue, but someone would definitely be able to point you that way. (Also, at the moment, I'm supposed to be cooking, not Wikipedi-ing...)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And BTW, 3 wrongs don't make a right... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't intending to ask you to mediate anything, just bringing the full situation to your attention, rather than a once sided discussion :). All I have done is reverted large scale changes made without any consensus to make the, on a seemingly random subset of articles. I have no intention of taking this further unless the large scale changes continue! Jenuk1985  |  Talk  01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Cite, it should be "Notes", though the Guide to Layout says it can be either. (And the "mediator" comment was a response to Ed, not you.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But we do however have a general accepted way of using "References" as the heading, which is used on the majority of articles. To go randomly making all these changes without starting a discussion first is massively inappropriate, and many of the cases I discovered had already been reverted. I didn't revert the articles which used the format ==References== followed by ====Notes==== and ====Bibliography==== as that seems perfectly acceptable. As I keep emphasising, if Ed would like to make mass changes in this way, the only sensible thing to do is to find an appropriate place, and discuss it there first. And making these edits without using an edit summary was also a terrible move, and throw in some MoS violations, its all a mess really. But yes, I'll stop hijacking your talk page now! Jenuk1985  |  Talk  01:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarek: There have been no "large scale" changes - you can check my contribution list for that. What he did last night was a large scale change.  What I do is edit articles. OK, so, he's undoing the edits I've just did.  Some of these articles I wrote from scratch, some of them I've done major reconsitructions on, which means they've had "Notes" in them for quite a long time.  Clearly, this person is, for whatever reason, bent on attacking me, undoing my edits (including image work, which I spend a lot of time on getting right), and apparently admins can't do anything about it but ask me to bend over so that he can get better aim.  The behavioral evidence is clear (compare those contrib lists, there's not an article I didn't work on), and yet this kind of aggresive anti-social behavior goes untouched.  Meanwhile in the last month I've been attacked on numerous occasions on my talk page, and never raised a stink about it.  I've had one editor calling me a "stupid asshole" and another telling me I'm a mental case, but because I'm here to edit and not to play stupid games, I let this stuff go.  But when my edits are hit, that's another matter: if I can't edit, there's no particualr purpose in my being here. Look, I'm sure you mean well, but what's called for here is the hammer, not the velvet glove.  Since that doesn't seem to be coming, I'm going to take a break for a while.  I've got a surgical procedure scheduled for Monday which was going to force a short Wikibreak anyway, I'll just start it now. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said bend over. I just don't have enough of my attention here to review this properly. As I said, my dinner is cooking...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record.. its she, not he. I'd appreciate it if you'd get that right. I have no issues in admitting I went through your contributions list to weed out all the changes you made so they could be reverted, allowing you then to start a discussion on where to go from here. I always check the contributions of editors who make controversial edits, to weed out the other controversial edits they have made. I still need to go through and fix all the image changes you made to conform with the WP:MOS, I'm gonna have a long few nights ahead of me! One question, if as it has been pointed above, it can be done either way, why are you randomly changing articles to your preferred version? I don't understand how you managed to get to a village article in the UK and do this (the one which alerted me to what you were doing). Maybe an ANI thread would be a good idea afterall. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  01:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * She, he doesn't matter. An asshole is an asshole. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And a blocked editor is a blocked editor.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.


 * Unfortunately, this is quite typical of the way Wikipedia works. I'm attacked, my edits are reverted without explanation, and I'm the one who's blocked.  Way to go, folks.  Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts
I have filed a Wikiquette alert regarding your recent comments at Wikiquette_alerts. Jenuk1985 |  Talk  01:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you have. Enjoy! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your changes
You made WP:BOLD changes, renaming the References section on a large batch of articles to Notes, without adequate discussion first. They have now been reverted as part of the WP:BRD process and now its your turn to start a discussion in an appropriate place detailing the changes you wish to make, and generate consensus for it. If you continue to make these changes without first seeking consensus, then I shall be forced to start a thread at WP:ANI regarding your actions.

The other issue you seem to have is regarding various WP:MOS issues, which I suggest you take up at MOS:IMAGES if you wish to change the guideline, rather than editing articles to fit your personal preferences. Jenuk1985 |  Talk  03:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Another WP:WQA
There has been another complaint filed at WQA regarding you. It is an upshot from Jenuk's complaint, which has been marked "resolved." I just wanted to let you know of its existence. Unitanode 16:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Ramona
I have conducted a reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps process and have de-listed it as there are a number of issues which need attention. Details may be found at Talk:Ramona/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Jenuk1985 |  Talk  01:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)