User talk:Dionyseus/Archive 3

Tag-teaming
You don't get to tag-team with other participants in a reversion dispute to avoid violating the 3RR. Once your 3 hour block expires, come to Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) and Talk:Number Three and work with me, DrBat, and Matthew as we develop a consensus. — Philwelch t 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's ridiculous, I only made one revert on those articles, you are clearly violating the block policy. Dionyseus 02:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what tag-teaming is. You have three or four people reverting so they can all revert once and none of them breaks 3RR. Are you going to be confrontational or are you going to be productive? — Philwelch t 02:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't make redirects when you don't have concensus, you should put up a poll or see what the other editors think about such a move. You have violated 3RR twice tonight.  .  Instead of blocking me, you should have warned me instead of treating me as if I was a vandal.  Dionyseus 02:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Boldness is encouraged on Wikipedia, but so is discussion. If you agree to leave things as-is and join the discussion, I'll unblock you immediately. We had moved on from confrontation to collaboration when you tried to pull us back down into the pit again. That's why you were blocked. And I do believe my actions reflect consensus when you consider the wider community standards that we have for fictional entries—it's just that most of the more serious editors have more important things to edit about so these pages are infrequently patrolled. — Philwelch t 02:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the block - Philwelch, I feel it's highly inappropriate to block someone you are in direct 3RR-violating edit-war conflict with. FCYTravis 03:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks FCYTravis. I'm very upset over this completely unwarranted block, but I'm glad it was resolved quickly.  I will submit Philwelch's actions for review.  Dionyseus 03:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Kpjas' RFA
Hi Dionyseus!

On Kpjas' RFA, you have voted oppose based on his apparent lack of experience, per Thatcher ("under 200 edits in Wikipedia space, no edits to the administrative noticeboard or intervention against vandalism, and fewer than 10 edits to AfD"). In fact, Kpjas is already an admin on the Polish Wikipedia, and has 37,000 edits there, including 2,600 to WP space over there. You have opposed based on inexperience, but these facts clearly indicate plenty of experience in the required areas. Dionyseus, you want an experienced editor for admin. Kpjas is clearly experienced. Without badgering you, I urge you to reconsider your vote in this particular RfA. Happy editing! :) -- Firsfron of Ronchester 23:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Firsfron, I will review the evidence you have provided. Dionyseus 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dionyseus. I appreciate your review. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester  23:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the evidence and have decided to change my vote to neutral as per Thatcher131. Dionyseus 00:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you looking into the matter. Thanks, Dionyseus. -- Firsfron of Ronchester 01:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar

 * Thanks Addhoc :) Dionyseus 19:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A question about off-topic requests in article talk pages
As a general rule I think it's a bad idea to remove any talk page comments that aren't obvious vandalism. Removal can be construed in too many negative ways. &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 15:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into it Laura. Dionyseus 19:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Haddad revisited
Dionyseus, I've removed your PROD on Gibril Haddad, but won't take offense if you decide to AFD it. As I discuss on the talk page, notability is a close call, but I think Haddad is notable, mostly because most contemporary Islamic thought seems to be happening on the internet or in the Islamic press, not in the academic press, and the searches I can run seem to indicate that Haddad is influential and notable in those areas. I wasn't able to find an Islam project to ask for comment, but would have liked to -- I'm not confident in our ability to assess the notability of an Islamic religious writer without a better understanding of contemporary Islamic thought. Thanks, and I'd love to hear your thoughts, TheronJ 18:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Theron. I have now posted some helpful comments at the talk page.  Dionyseus 20:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus
This arbitration case is close and the final decision has been posted at the link above. It is recommended by the Committee that you consider carefully the suggestions of others regarding punctuation and other matters you are not familiar with. It is no use arguing about well established punctuation conventions.

It is recommended that Veselin Topalov be edited in accord with the guidelines at Biographies_of_living_persons. Special attention is drawn to Biographies_of_living_persons and Three-revert_rule making removal of poorly sourced negative information from the biography of a living person an exception to the three revert rule (3RR).

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tony. I'm very satisfied with the arbitration process.  Dionyseus 21:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I know how 3rr works. I have started a thread if you'd like to discuss. Marskell 08:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just making sure you're aware that you're up to 3 reverts now in less than 24 hours on that article. Dionyseus 08:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't usually go there, but I'm concerned that the discussion is being arbitrarily cut-off. As I said in the last edit summary, the largest discussion on the matter includes more than two dozen people noting merge. Marskell 08:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Deville's RfA
Congrats on your successful RFA, Deville. Dionyseus 03:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your "photograph deletion" mission
Hi, I think your time would be better spent trying to properly license images rather than simply tagging them for deletion. Dionyseus 16:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Dionyseus. Don't worry about my time, thanks. By the way, do you consider "This image will only be used for the Keira Knightley article" a valid fair use rationale for the image Image:KeiraKnightley PridePrejudice.jpg on the top of the Keira Knightley article? Awaiting, --Abu Badali 16:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Abu. Yes, I consider it a valid rationale.  Dionyseus 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, this is not a sufficient rationale. Please see the section on fair-use rationales at Help:Image page for more information.  --Yamla 16:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR
This is a friendly warning. You are in danger of violating the 3RR policy on Image:KeiraKnightley PridePrejudice.jpg. I think you know about 3RR and almost certainly are watching yourself just to make sure you don't violate it but I thought I'd point it out to you in case you had forgotten. --Yamla 16:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know, Yamla. Dionyseus 18:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Check out the result, now fair use rationale is added at the article... Kreca 19:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Abu badali & unspecified sources
Thanks for writing to User:Abu badali and supporting these images staying on Wikipedia; it's greatly appreciated - Ivan Kricancic 09:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:NedLamont listed for deletion. What can I do?
and I wasn't even the one who uploaded the image. I just uploaded a new version of it and used the source that was already listed on the page. Now it's up for deletion. Is there a way to stop it? mirageinred 17:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A humble request for your opinion
Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  06:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Midnight Syndicate
Per your suggestion I added the dispute templates to Midnight Syndicate without changing or removing the content that the unsigned users keep reverting to, and it was immediately reverted again by unsigned user User:162.40.19.208 to remove the templates. I even attempted to locate more specific clean up templates, but everything I am doing is being reverted. This topic is obviously disputed, and not just by me, I am only one of many. Could you please look into this? I have requested page protection for my earlier edits, which I attempted to keep NPOV, and have requested other help, but am getting no replies. Honestly, the more I try to write from a NPOV the more I become absolutely convinced that the multiple reverts are being done by this band for self-promotional purposes. I have tried to open a discussion dialog but they do not reply. Oroboros 1 04:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, you seem to be very emotionally involved in this case, I'd suggest you take a deep breath, we're talking about a band here, it's not like we're at the end of the world. If I get time, I'll read the discussion on the talk page, and I'll see if we can work out something with the other editors. Dionyseus 07:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am not emotionally involved but I would like to write a factual article. The fact that this band keeps replacing factual content (ie: early development and the references I have gathered) and replacing it with self-promotion and completely removing all of my edits and refernces smacks to me of an attempt to alter history. It is something they have been accused of doing and I see now it's really what they have been doing (for years, it seems)... I tested this theory before going forward, with some very slight edits (rearranging dates to be consecutive rather than what offers the best promotion, correcting the dates that members joined and what they are credited with doing, and listing upcoming projects instead of the sales pitch that currently resides there). Those edits I made are factual, based on older articles (pre-dating one very significant member leaving the band), album booklets, articles that the band's material appeared in, and even a copyright search. The band (I am assuming) is now attempting to hide all this history while promoting itself and a deceptive version of history. I ask that you look into it in more depth and consider even the comments they have left in the edit summaries. They appear very personal. A few seem to indicate that the unsigned users think my edits and a few others are some "disgruntled business partner," but that's not the case. I'd been sent a cd by this band for review, and was considering doing an interview, until I started doing this research. As a contributing journalist for two fanzines, I find it deplorable that stuff like this can happen. Also, I will be much more careful in the future I do band interviews. Anyway, it's been a little frustrating that my request for dispute negotiation has thus far been ignored, except from you. I just figured that was due to the templates being removed. Oroboros 1 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

New comment for you
Hi Dionyseus, I left a new comment for you here, and also below that. Your opinion is welcome. Oroboros 1 10:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Dionyseus. I believe the latest edits I made to Midnight Syndicate are indeed notable and verifiable. I did not intend to use any misleading edit summary but if that is your reason for reverting I will be happy to be more specific in the edit summary. Your reversion of the Midnight Syndicate page is unwarrented, and the text you reverted to is proven to be untrue and misleading. I stated the matter in a concise manner and presented both sides of the arguement. The fact that you seem to be a game fan leads me to believe that you are too close to this matter to look at it with a neutral pov. I doubt you have taken time to look at the references I have noted and the corresponding Panic! at the disco article which I based my decision. You have to realize now that it is the band editing their own article and I cannot believe you can support that! Wiki is supposed to be a place of historical fact, not a slanted view of history and certainly not a promotional platform for bands. Oroboros 1 14:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

D: You have mistakenly and I believe maliciously posted a 3RR warning on my talk page. I did not revert any content. I have been adding content all along, and it is all verifiable. I'll ask you to double check, look at my references and the content added (which includes the content my opposition added while the matter was under discussion), and remove the warning on my page. I will also request that you note how my opposition refuses to enter into any discussion, refuses to acknowledge anything, and though I have tried to make concessions to work through our differences, they have made none whatsoever. What is your role in this. Are you attempting to help mediate or have you already chosen a side? I believe you are biased given your affiliations. Pleas show me you can mediate without just reverting my valid contributions. Oroboros 1 22:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 10:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Congrats Jusjih. Dionyseus 19:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Dionyseus! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it works. Dionyseus 05:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalize? wtf are you talking about??
For one i have not vandalized a single word in the PS3 article, I am going to buy a ps3 (hopefully) in March-Feb. Alright? With that beeing said I don't want to even THINK about accusing me EVER again, IS that UNDERSTOOD boy? Zabrak 05:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

HAHAH personal attacks? Wow don't tell me you have NOTHING on me so you are trying to ban me for ludacris things as "personal attacks" Seriously, show me how I attacked you buddy. :D Zabrak 05:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Tell me how I am vandalizing the PS3 article
Really, I have done NOTHING to it, now you got 10 hours to respond or I will concact somebody who CAN help me out on this, IS THAT UNDERSTOOD? Zabrak 06:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

VGCharts
As stated on the talk page, VGCharts is, has never been, and never will be an appropriate source for this list. A consensus has been found on this. Please revert, thank you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To start, Polling is evil.
 * To end, there was a consensus gathered at WP:CVG's discussion page as well. All in all, including you, it is 8 to 2. An 80% consensus is a significant number. Additionally, according to the discussion on WP:CVG, the owner of VGCharts specifies not to be used as a source for sales information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Human "Test"
I wasn't performing a test on the human article; I was editing it. Why do you think this was a test? BugEyedMonster 21:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dinohippus.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dinohippus.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles 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 fair use images 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 04:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Cats project newsletter
Hello. Please find here a copy of the first Cats WikiProject newsletter. Please feel free to make any comments, suggestions, etc., here or at the project page itself. Thank you. Badbilltucker 16:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Hi Dionyseus, I am very thankful to you for supporting and comments on my succesful RfA. Shyam ( T / C ) 06:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR report
I would enjoy it if you actually explained why one unrelated revert has anything to do with three other reverts. That, or remove your report if you are unable to. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a revert, I'd suggest you read WP:3RR for a clear definition of what a revert is. Dionyseus 06:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So if I reverted an edit to Kid Icarus, an edit to Henry Fonda, an edit to April, and an edit to L, would I have violated 3RR? No, because those are unrelated. Just like how there's no relation between removing VGCharts' numbers and reverting your blanking of the article. And I would love to hear why a manual edit, removing stuff that was being reverted several days ago, which also included edits to game links. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hell, I even had a reason to it - the one who initially started the debate said he doesn't care. The edit war over VGCharts' numbers ended the day that they were being reverted back and forth. They do not carry over to another day. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3RR is per single article, it does not accumulate accross articles. You yourself admitted ("Just because I reverted two things on the same page") that it was a revert.  Dionyseus 06:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If I reverted an edit on the same day as the edit was reverted, then yes. How can one participate in an ended edit war? It's like saying "I participated in WWII because I played Wolfenstein once". The edit war was over. It does not count. What if someone removed your AfD thing from the page, would it violate 3RR for me to put it back up? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One need not participate in an edit war for an edit to be a revert. As for the AfD notification, restoring it would simply be reverting vandalism, but when you've already violated or are close to violating 3RR it is advisable to allow another editor to revert the vandalism.  Once again this is all explained at WP:3RR.  Dionyseus 06:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If 3RR is cut and dry enough to say that a revert of something several days old can add on to a completely different edit war, then 3RR should apply to any reversion.
 * Hell, I state my reverts were justified - you made no prior discussion towards blanking the majority of the article, and there is no policy or guideline that supports wiping out the article to remove sourceless content. That is borderline vandalism - met with undeniable proof that VGCharts is unverifiable, you threaten to AfD it (which would imply that VGCharts staying would prevent you from putting it on the AfD), you blank the page with no justification, and then you put it on the AfD after you can't revert anymore. No matter how much I have to, this is a borderline bad faith case. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have always argued that a game should be sourced, by removing VGCharts you have effectively made almost 100% of the entire article unsourced and thus the AfD is completely justified. If someone manages to provide a verifiable source for the majority of the entries I would gladly withdraw my nomination.  Dionyseus 06:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So explain to me how blanking the page will help the page be sourced. You are damaging the article by blanking it, and if you cared about the article being sourced, you wouldn't remove the contents. That does nothing for the quality of the article. And are you quite sane? You are saying "if you don't find sources for hundreds of games, the article will be deleted". You are unable to prove that the article is unverifiable. That alone invalidates your AfD. And the fact that you have a good cover argument doesn't mean it's nto a bad faith nom. You only cared about deleting the article when VGCharts couldn't be linked to. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:Verifiability says that any material that is likely to be challenged needs a reliable source which should be cited in the article. I think the majority of the entries can not be verifiably sourced and have thus nominated the article for deletion.  The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, not the one who challenges the material.  Dionyseus 07:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So to convenience the editors, you blank the article and try to prevent it from being sourced? The fact that you refused to allow the unsourced content be on the article does not show that you have any interest whatsoever in the article being sourced. You responded to VGCharts' removal with an AfD threat. Not because it's unsourcable. And I did not add or restored the material, dozens of editors created it. And in all likelyhood, it'll be those same editors who rebuild the article. Immediately blanking and AfDing an article does not create an opportunity to replace the sources. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I am still waiting for you to show I have violated 3RR. The 3RR policy does not apply to reverting three day old content, just like it doesn't apply to me reverting someone three times, and then reverting an edit to the article which replaced the contents of the article with the word "penis". - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that I nominated the article for deletion shows that I want the article to be improved. If I could improve it I would, unfortunately I do not believe it is possible.  As for 3RR, I've told you several times the policy is sufficiently explained at WP:3RR.
 * So you admit that you are abusing the AfD? AfD is meant to get an article deleted, not to force people to improve it.
 * And, I fail to see in 3RR where it says "any four reverts on one page in one day violates 3RR". - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * AfD is a process by which we determine whether an article merits inclusion. In this case I believe the article does not merit inclusion because it is original research and I don't think it is possible to provide verifiable sources for the majority of the entries.  You are of course encouraged to improve the article during the AfD process, and we're free to change our votes and opinions in response to improvements on the state of the article.  Dionyseus 07:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not origianl research. Those games were put up because of VGCharts, not peoples' own guesses. They remain up because blanking them makes it impossible for someone to go to this article and source them without knowing that the games are in the history. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)