User talk:Clegs

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi Clegs,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Community input required: lowering delist bar at FPC
You are receiving this because of your current or past association with the Featured Pictures project. Following on from several cases where closers did not observe the prescribed minimum votes required for a delisting, there is now a motion to entirely dismiss the requirement for a minimum. Please participate in the discussion as wide-ranging changes may arise.

Link: Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Moving a page
For your future reference: When an entity changes its name, as happened with Northland Baptist Bible College, or when an article is created with a bad title, the proper way to change the name of the page is to use the "move" tab. This is important because it means that the page history and the talk page move to the new title. Copying the text to the new title is called a "cut and paste page move" and is to be avoided. See Help:How to move a page for more information. --Orlady (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/ The "New" Blue Marble
Hi, I've added an alternate version to the Featured Picture Candidate: The "New" Blue Marble. As you have already voted at the nomination (linked above), could you please give some feedback or show a preference between the original or the alt? Thank you for your time. Dusty777 (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hadji Ali
Hi Clegs, this is just to let you know that I have uploaded a restored version of the image nominated at Featured picture candidates/Hadji Ali. This notice is being delivered to you as you previously voted / commented at the nomination page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Majas
I noted that you struck your oppose at Featured picture candidates/Majas. Perhaps, for better clarity, you could state your current position at the nom page if possible? Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Clegs,
You mention on the featured picture thingy, "Also concerned about possible canvassing." is there anything I can do to help ? I hear it's bad stuff. Penyulap  ☏  12:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Hello Clegs, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, then don't use rollback and instead use a manual edit summary. For practice, you may wish to see New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 11:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Pachygrapsus marmoratus
I would like to know what extra information is conveyed by the image of the male crab at Pachygrapsus marmoratus. You seem to believe that it makes some special irreplaceable contribution to the reader's understanding of the subject, and I cannot tell what that unique contribution might be. Being a featured picture is not a guarantee of inclusion, and the additional image does not illustrate any of the text beyond that shown by the photo of the female. If there's some reason that isn't clear why this image has to be included in the article, please let me know, because the arguments presented so far have not made that case; compare WP:IRELEV: "Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful". --Stemonitis (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Stemonitis, thanks for the reply. We recently had this discussion at Featured Picture candidates when the picture in question came up for delisting because it was not in any articles. Consensus was that the difference in dorsal aspect was visible, and the picture should be kept and re-added to the article. An editor did so, but was quickly reverted by you. We attempted to address your concerns several different times in several different ways, and each time you reverted back to a semi-stable version that you seem to prefer. Maybe I jumped to a conclusion, but at the time, it seemed like a clear-cut case of WP:OWN. Can you think of any way your concern (too many pictures in too short an article) could be addressed? We've tried to lengthen the article, but none of us are carcinologists, and what we did write you reverted. I'm out of ideas, short of a request on a WP project page that I don't know about to help out. Clegs (engage in rational discourse) 07:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Aha, so that's the hidden agenda! WP:FPC wants to include the image to maintain its featured status, even though the image is not useful at the article. That is the wrong reason for including an image. Whoever it was that said the difference in dorsal aspect was significant is mistaken. You yourself said "To my uneducated eyes, they look the same"! As I have said elsewhere, if a second image were to be included (and I don't think it should be), then the image in question would not be the first choice by a long way. A ventral image would be more useful, or one of the animal in its habitat. (The main picture is very good photographically, but is somewhat artificial in its setting.) I haven't seen any worthwhile addition of text, so I don't know what you're referring to there: who are the "we" you mention? The only other reason suggested at is that "the partial camouflage here brings valuable EV". If that were so, then this would be the main image instead, and the same problem recurs with the current first image, and that would still ignore the fact that the camouflage is not mentioned in the text at all, so the image would not be illustrative.

I will reiterate that this has nothing to do with article ownership; I merely revert unhelpful edits, and I would hope that you would do the same. Additions of unreferenced text should not be accepted; additions of superfluous images should not be accepted. I am more than happy for any editor to make improvements to the article (it is hardly Wikipedia's finest work, although it's a fair enough start), but the edits that have been attempted so far do not improve the article. I am pursuing Wikipedia's core policies, while it is now clear that the addition of the second image is for all the wrong reasons – not exactly WP:POINT, but something similar. This is an unfortunate situation where there are two similar images of featured quality, and only place for one. If that means removing a little star on a behind-the-scenes page, then so be it. We do not edit articles just to give awards to photographers; images should be chosen for their encyclopaedic value first and foremost. I am now more convinced than ever that the inclusion of a second image is thoroughly unjustified. It is a terrible shame that the contributors to Featured Pictures place so much emphasis on the images that they forget how they are supposed to illustrate an article. This is an encyclopaedia, and the articles are what counts. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If you would read a little further down the nomination, you would see that I voted keep after the difference was pointed out. My statement still remains--current consensus is that the image makes a valuable contribution to the article, and your personal opinion in defiance of consensus is irrelevant. I can respect that you do not personally want the second image in the article; I cannot respect an edit war to keep it out. Clegs (engage in rational discourse) 08:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If the difference had to be pointed out before it was clear, then the image is useless. Any such difference is not mentioned in the article, and if it were, the ventral dimorphism would be a far better choice (and indeed an image of the important ventral sexual dimorphism in this species is used to illustrate the difference at crab – it is not a phenomenon unique to this species). Your "consensus" consists of about three in favour, and two against, and that from an audience biased towards Featured Pictures and their widespread inclusion (sometimes to the detriment of articles). I don't count that weak, misinformed, majority as a great consensus, and nor should you.

Contrary to your assertion, this is not a question of my personal tastes, but one of genuine encyclopaedic value. You should have noticed by now that I have added a second image to the article, against my better judgement. This one actually shows the animal's ecology in a good in situ image. I hope this will be enough to demonstrate what encyclopaedic value really is. The second image now shows the adult from a different angle, allowing a better understanding of the overall form (the dorso-ventral flattening, the position of the chelipeds in life, etc.). It also shows it engaging in feeding activity (probably), and thus also demonstrates its choice of prey. It may not be such a technically excellent picture, but for the purposes of illustrating the article, it is massively better than the second dorsal aspect. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

IP block exempt
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Clegs, I have just revoked your IP block exemption, because I don't think you need it any longer. If I am wrong, feel free to shoot me an e-mail or ask for an unblock on your talk page. Happy editing. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks for all your hard work. Clegs (engage in rational discourse) 22:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC WP:FPC
Hello, some time earlier, you commented/voted on Featured picture candidates/Pythagoras similar triangles proof. The file is renominated at Featured picture candidates/Pythagoras similar triangles proof simplified with many issues addressed. Your comments about the new version would be appreciated.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase
Hello. As a participant in Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)