User talk:Dante Alighieri/Archive 3

Archived talk: Clovis et al., AE/BE issues (french fries), Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5.

192.197.71.189
hi, this is 192.197.71.189 using a different computer. Can you please tell me why you banned me yesterday?


 * The IP address and User 192.197.71.189 were banned on account of goatse.cx vandalism on the main page via the featured article. You know this already. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:51, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * LIke I was trying to say yesterday before I was banned, someone created an account with the name 192.197.71.189 and that person was the one doing all that.


 * It appears you were unconvincing. If it was an error, I apologize. In any event, your current IP is not blocked from anything and will remain unblocked assuming that it isn't associated with any vandalism. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:58, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * I can prove it. Look at the sandbox history.  When you click on a logged in user in the list, it takes you to the user page, but when you click on an anonymous user, you go to the contributions page.  Notice that all of the vandalizing edits were made by the logged in user.  In any event, I am just asking that my IP address be unblocked.


 * I'll look into it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:04, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you.


 * It's not conclusive, because I do not have developer access. Nevertheless, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and have unblocked the IP address. If any further vandalism APPEARS to be associated with that IP address, it will be blocked again, and I suggest you use your current IP address to discuss the situation with me. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:13, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * YAY! Thank you.  If I register for an account, this whole mess can't happen again, right? 192.197.71.189 21:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, technically I suppose it could if someone figured out your IP address and made a user name with that IP address as the name, but I doubt it. Registering is always a good idea. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:16, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * But I can put anything (appropriate) I want in the sandbox right? 192.197.71.189 21:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You can do (almost) anything in the sandbox. In light of recent situations, I wouldn't skirt the edge too much though. Try to stay away from anything that will likely get people ticked off. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:23, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

FYI: New temporary ArbCom order
New temporary order:

3) Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

--mav 20:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

192 anon incident
Thanks for notifying me, I was just off to get some sleep, but I took the time to write back, see Talk:Main Page. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 21:58, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Anal to Oral
Anal to Oral sounds a lot better than ass to mouth, that's for sure, but I have some concerns here. No one calls it "anal to oral," in fact, no one seems to talk about it except porn stars and individuals with rather "interesting" sex lives. I am wary about inventing terminology here; our purpose here is to documate, not create. While anal to oral might be acceptable -- after all, I don't like how vulgar the present title is -- I am completely opposed to including "contamination" in the title. This sexual practice certainly has its health risks, but if proper percautions are taken (enemas, for instance), then it is not that dangerous. For more information on this, see rimming.

Arbitration Elections
You may remember that I coordinated the previous two elections, for the board, and for the arbitration committee. I am willing to coordinate this election as well, and have asked Elian to assist. However, we would like to have the support of the candidates to do this. Do you support us coordinating the election? My policy is to be entirely neutral, and to ensure this, I will not be voting myself (I didn't vote in previous elections either). All results will be announced following the final count. Please answer on my talk page. Danny 01:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

a2m, anilingus merger
Please take a look at the comments on oral-anal contact. You were right to merge the articles, but I think the article doesn't flow very well, logically or thematically anymore. It needs a rewrite.

Cain + Abel
Looks good. Have you seen WikiProject Jesus ? Its currently dominated by fundamentalists. CheeseDreams 23:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom
Dante, I'm currently considering whether or not to endorse you for ArbCom. I note that you're a mediator (though inactive at the moment.) Could you provide me with several references of people who you have mediated between? Thanks,   – Quadell (talk) (help)   04:37, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Pit bull photos
I really hate this legal cr--er, stuff. I never interpreted "contact photographer for commercial use" to mean "noncommercial use only". And I've read through the licensing and copyright stuff over and over, and I have to deal with it constantly in the technical writing work that I do, and it's STILL never clearly stated. But, anyway, I'm obviously not interpreting things the same way you are. Which doesn't mean I'm right. But, for example, the complete license at Stock Xchg says to the photographers "You may not now, or at any time in the future, demand money or income from Stock.XCHNG or its owners or proprietors or those using images found on this site for the use of said images. " All they can do is request that they be contacted if the photo is used for commercial use. Elf | Talk 03:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, nonono, let's have an edit war. I get a chance to do that so seldom! Other than that, I have only to add this: "huh."  Elf | Talk 01:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pictures
Hey, I didn't mean to cause you trouble by changing the licensing banners on your images. The reason is because the one you used is primarily for use with the User namespace. If a user wants to mulit-licensee all of their regular edits into that license, they put that template on their user page. It also includes the appropriate categories to allow us to track which users use which license for their regular edits. Now, there are a separate set of templates for the Image namespace. These are what I used when I replaced the old template. They also contain categories, but this time the categories represent those images that are released under that license, to allow us to track which images are released under which license. Also, it isn't really a problem to have more banners than one on the image page, as that page is mainly for an image description and licensing information. -- Ram-Man 02:21, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

your edits to power strip
Thanks for your capitalisation work and your new image. However it appears you didn't notice that specific images had been placed with the catagorys they applied to. I've put your image (rotated to horizontal) with the control section as it has a switch on it. Plugwash 14:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I did NOT realize that they were section appropriate. Oops. ;) Oh well. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:58, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I see you turned the rotated power strip image through 180 degrees it appears upside down to me now is this the way up they are normally placed in the usa? Plugwash 19:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. In the US we commonly think of the two vertical prongs as being "up" and the ground being "down". This is the way they are in 99% (give or take) of wall sockets here. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:56, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Email this user
Dante, do you know -- if I blocked an email from Reithy, would that block all emails arriving to me from the Wikipedia email function? Or only those from Reithy? I'm not experienced enough to know, I guess. :-) Good luck, by the way, in your run for the AC -- you have my vote!  Best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 19:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it would depend on HOW you blocked the email. Unless you were careful about it, you could well block all emails from the Wikipedia email function. My guess is we don't have to worry about it anymore anyway, Reithy got what he wanted... a ban. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:11, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

putting this link here
Putting this link here will undoubtably attract Slrubenstein and Sam Spade and company to the link destination. Nethertheless, would you like to comment?

Vandalism in progress/CheeseDreams controversy

NB: the above comment was written by CheeseDreams
 * Well, the only section that I would really be qualified to comment on would be the section about you adding all those category tags to articles. If you'd like me to comment on that issue I certainly will. Also, should you end up in arbitration, let me know and I'll make certain to comment on that. While your actions were perhaps provocative, I don't personally believe that they rise to the level that would require sanctioning. You were new to Wikipedia and seem to have "learned a lesson" about the process here. Besides, if being less than completely civil were a bannable offense, most of the major contributors would be banned. ;) In any event, you've certainly made valuable contributions to many of the religion articles. I certainly don't think you can be justifiably called a troll. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:24, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Paul Paquette and CSD
Umm... why did you delete this? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you decided to respond on the anon's page as I wouldn't normally check this! But anyway, in no way is criteria 4 of the CSD is not fulfilled by the content of these pages. I've restored. I'm going to leave the VfDs for a few days and then cut it short, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That's why I placed it on VfD, and only for a short period of time. If someone can verify it, they will, and shortly. I'll give it another 48 hours and then look at consensus. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee
You have my vote; good luck User:Vincent_Gray

The appeal/veto option
My reaction is that I think Jimbo is unlikely to overturn a decision in this case or any other, for a variety of reasons, unless widespread outrage over a blatant miscarriage of justice forces him to do so. And while I think the current proposal is a mistake, I doubt that it will reach this level. The flaws in the temporary injunction have already been brought up on his talk page, with no intervention. Also if, as you noted, the problem is as much with the stated reasons as the end result, I think from his perspective it will seem pragmatic just to let the result stand. If you consider the justification separately from the outcome, the justification alone might not be worth overturning the decision, and I think he'd view the variation between bans of a week or two versus a couple months as a matter of the Arbitration Committee's legitimate discretion.

In the bigger picture of delegating authority to the community, the act of intervening would disrupt a system that helps give the arbitration process its authority. People would view arbitration decisions as less final, and be more inclined to flout them or go over the arbitrators' heads to Jimbo in the first place. The result would be untenable - these days I don't know that Jimbo has the time to really focus on the details of more than one case at a time enough to be sure of getting it right. He wants this system to succeed, and generally trusts the arbitrators to take care of the job.

In the meantime, I'll hold out hope that the arbitrators may still step back from the brink on this one. If not, well, I don't think it will be the end of this story by any means, but the manner in which it continues has already gone far past my ability to control it. --Michael Snow 00:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project
Hi. You've helped with the WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

RFC pages on VfD
Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that ANY page can be listed on VfD. In fact, VfD has been listed on itself in the past. I see no reason RfC pages can't be listed there. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:36, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Cool :-) It looks like they won't be deleted in any case. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Images
Sorry about taking off the cc licence to your picture of a CD-ROM. I was mistaken and should have requested permission. I was just trying to be helpful to the community. I am also sorry about spamming your talk page. Again, just trying to help the community. I don't understand why you are so angry that you are threatening to sue me though.


 * Above comment left by TimMony. Response on his talk page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:35, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Libel?
I don't think I did libel you. If you will point out what you feel is untrue, I will remove the comment. People are a bit too keen in my opinion to use the word "libel", because to commit one I would have to damage your reputation, and whether anything that is said here can do that here is rather disputable. However, I believe that civility is the oil for Wikipedia's wheels, so I'll happily make right what you feel is wrong.~


 * Funny, I'd say that when you accuse someone of being an administrator with no respect for community consensus that that would damage their reputation and constitute libel. But, I suppose it could be hyperbole... I'd gladly retract my claim of libel if it was clear that you weren't being serious.


 * It's teasing, Dante. No call for any great upset.


 * Fair enough. Surely you realize, however, that *teasing* isn't always obvious. I'll take you at your word though.


 * Well, I don't really think you're the devil, if that helps.

My belief is that if a page is listed on VfD, its lister has made the decision that it does not fit the speedy deletion criteria and has asked the community to decide on its deletion. An admin who then deletes it before the process has finished has disregarded the lister's decision, and in effect said that he or she does not accept that the community should be permitted to decide. In sum, the admin is saying that their judgement is superior to that of the community. I doubt that you do feel that, but it is how your behaviour comes across to me.


 * While it is true that someone who has listed a page on VfD has likely decided against asking for it to be SD'd, it is NOT true that summarily SDing it is perforce a disregarding of the lister's decision.


 * Erm. Sorry, but yes it is!


 * No, it's not. To take your stance would imply that all that is necessary to avoid something being SD'd is to list it on VfD.


 * No. Because if it has been tagged as a speedy, there is a process for contesting that. In any case, Dante, the presumption is always to keep. It doesn't hurt that there must be a process. No one is trying to avoid things being SD'd! The only person I can think that would want to list something they think is likely to be SD'd on VfD is the article's creator. That's easily rectified. I don't think you'd find a single voice speaking out against speedying articles that fit the criteria but are listed for deletion by their own creators. I don't think you'd even get complaints if the listing were by an anon, or a user with no history, so long as the article clearly fit the bill. The whole point I'm making here, Dante, is that there is no harm to the process if there is a dispute about whether the article fits the criteria.Dr Zen 04:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just as the lister made a decision, so did I. To insist that I *not* SD an article that I judge to merit SD would be to disregard *my* decision. It's not a matter of me versus the community, it's my opinion "versus" the lister's opinion. They are not, inherently mutually exclusive. And, by the way, I didn't remove the VfD listing, thus allowing that process to proceed.


 * Your argument is entirely bogus. My point was that even you and the lister were not consensual! You don't even give the community the chance to have any say in it! And no, you do not allow the process to proceed. Nonadmins cannot decide on the content of the article, because you have removed it. Besides, you have already determined the end of the process. That's like the Queen appointing someone PM before anyone's counted the votes and her saying, oh yes, but I'll respect the outcome of the election!


 * Not the same thing at all. The two processes can proceed in concert. The text is available for most of the SDs in the deletion log. Any others can be posted in toto if they were too long for the comment field. It's not a matter of deciding before hand, that would be deleting the article with a justification of "consensus on VfD" for deletion. I'd utilizing an entirely different path.


 * There is no "process" to an admin's speedy deleting an article! You just do it. And yes it is a matter of deciding beforehand. You did delete the articles, and you must presume that there is consensus, since you surely are only deleting articles that meet the criteria laid out in the policy that represents the consensus.

Where you delete pages that do not fit the criteria, but no one has noticed, I don't think much harm is done, and you'll note that I never challenge these deletions. I would, of course, if you deleted something that I believed should be kept (by listing it on VfU).


 * Anything you list on VfU will be subject to undeletion immediately (by an Admin who agrees with you that it was improperly deleted) or eventually (if community consensus is that it should be undeleted). I have a long standing policy of not revert/delete warring. If the pages are undeleted, I'm not going to delete them again. In fact, if you are truly concerned about my interpretation of the SD criteria on any specific articles, I'd be happy to undelete them MYSELF and leave them on VfD.


 * Then I request that you undelete the articles in question. I also request that you do not speedy delete any more articles that are on VfD.


 * I'll gladly undelete the articles in question. I will not agree to a blanket "hands-off" approach to articles in VfD. If they should be SD'd, I will SD them. If you have an issue with *specific* articles, I'll always be happy to discuss it. I'm just not comfortable with such a broad generalization.


 * I will be contesting every article I see you do it to on VfD. I will support the opinion of the lister in every occasion. I'm asking you to avoid conflict by not doing it. At the very least, allow the original lister to change their mind, and then do it if the voters appear to agree. What's your hurry to rid us of articles?


 * I don't make a habit of deleting articles when people think they shouldn't be (trolls and involved parties aside, of course).

Why do I bother with the minutiae of policy when common sense dictates that the articles you deleted have no place here? Because "common sense" is not so common, and once the principle is established that just anything can be deleted if someone feels it has no place, who knows what content will follow? Dr Zen 01:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a straight slippery slope argument, which is fine.


 * Yes, it is. I think of it more as an "if you open the door, who knows what will walk through" argument. I feel the concern is merited, though, because there are some people very determined to rid Wikipedia of a great deal of its content.


 * I agree that the concern is merited, as I state below. :)


 * I share you concerns in general. If you look at the list of articles on Candidates for Speedy Deletion there are many there that I've consciously NOT deleted, the same is true for several on VfD. That is because I don't believe that they meet the criteria for SD. The ones that I *have* chosen to delete are those that I feel *do* meet those criteria. So, it's a matter of interpretation of the existing criteria, not a matter of ignoring policy in favor of "common sense". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:50, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, and of course I accept that that is what's at stake here. I do feel though that you ought not to impose your "interpretation" once the process is under way. Dr Zen 02:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, two different processes. I'm not imposing my interpretation on VfD, I'm interpreting the SD criteria. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:11, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * It boils down to the same thing. Articles are listed on VfD because they don't fit the speedy criteria. It's got to be clearcut that they do for them to be speedied. I thought we all agreed on that. Dr Zen 04:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we understand each other fairly well at this point, I'll just add this last thing (before I leave for the evening). Just because something is on VfD does NOT mean that it can not LEGITIMATELY be SD'd. Again, if that were the case, it would be a defense against SD to VfD something. So, the only alternative is that SOMETIMES an article which has been listed at VfD, CAN be SD'd. That's my point. I'll agree with you that MOST things on VfD are there because they shouldn't be SD'd, but I'd ask that YOU respect MY judgement when I SD something listed on VfD and not *out of hand* object to it. I'd ask that you only object to it when you honestly disagree that it's subject to SD. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 04:30, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I wasn't clear and I think that's fair. If it is absolutely clear that it should have been speedied and the lister has simply made a mistake, I wouldn't oppose that. However, this can only really be the case where the lister is not an experienced editor and doesn't have a good understanding of the criteria. Dr Zen 06:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No legal threats
I think you need to read the above page, and desist from making legal threats through talk pages. It is entirely inappropriate behaviour. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * 


 * There is a world of difference between a claim of copyright infringement, and a threat to sue. I accept you are being defensive about your action, for which you later apologised, but it remains my opinion that you considerably overstepped the mark. I raised the issue with you, in part, because of the libel discussion, above ... I'm concerned that you may be reaching for big legal sticks rather too often. Perhaps that is not the case. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * I didn't threaten to sue anyone, I asserted my intent to pursue legal action to defend my copyright as I am entitled to do. I didn't apologize for my actions, because they weren't inappropriate. I don't apologize for things that are appropriate. You are entitled to your opinion that I overstepped the mark, but realize that it's not *my* opinion. This has absolutely nothing to do with the libel discussion above, and I don't understand why you're bringing it up here. If you are concerned that I'm "reaching for big legal sticks rather too often" then you can lay your mind at rest because it is not the case... as you had opined was a possibility. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:25, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, indeed, you are right. You did not threaten to sue anyone. You said "Keep it up and I'll pursue legal action." Perhaps I'm mistaken in thinking that was a legal threat. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * It's an statement of intent to pursue my copyright and secure it against infringement which is NOT the sort of legal threat that No legal threats is talking about, as I stated above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:32, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. You can state that you own the copyright without threatening legal action. Dr Zen 02:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning does not support your statement. In other words, "you disagree" (I can only assume that you mean that you disagree with my post directly above yours) and the reason you disagree is because "You can state that you own the copyright without threatening legal action". The fact that it is *possible* to assert ones copyright in various ways is irrelevant to my right to assert my intent to *pursue* my copyright. See the difference? Copyright is meaningless unless defended. In any event, *informing* him that I was the copyright holder would have been pointless as it is patently obvious that that is the case on the image pages, seeing as how I'm listed as the author. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 03:07, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Here is the bottom line. Wikipedia policy is that you do not make legal threats through talk pages. You admitted making a legal threat on TimMony's page, viz: "The reason I got so upset and threatened legal action", albeit qualifying your admission of threat with the somewhat inpenetrable "(not to sue you, per se)". Given your unprompted admission on the 12th December, it is nigh on impossible to accept any of the tortuous logic, above, which seeks to explain that a threat is not a threat, but merely an assertion of your intent to pursue your copyright. You may live in some sort of Alice in Wonderland world; the rest of us - not least those on the end of your non-threats - do not. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * You are entitled to whatever warped view of the situation you'd like to pursue. I explained precisely what my "threat" entailed and also how WP policy specifically allows defense against copyright infringement. I clearly can't convince you using logic or reason. This discussion is over. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:55, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Dogs and tail-wagging
Why did you remove my edits about tail-wagging? MDesigner 21:46, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, you're revising the whole article..no problem. I just felt that "does not necessarily mean the dog is happy" sort of implies that it COULD mean the dog is happy..but not necessarily.  A wagging tail never means the dog is happy.  Excited/anxious, yes..but happy/content, no. MDesigner 22:05, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)