User talk:Ejfetters/Archive 2

Warning
You are now in violation of the 3 revert rule, as you have reverted the image 3 times on the Simon Cowell page. If you continue to revert this page, an administrator will be informed. Tratare 06:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The edits were in good faith to bring the article up to standards and conform to policies laid out. Ejfetters 10:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

3 times blanking your page
This is the 4th time you have blanked information off your talk page. You're telling me about wikipedia policy and how you understand it while you're breaking rules. Hypocritical Tratare 07:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You told me in your edit summary to show you where it says that you are not allowed to blank your talk pages, and find you that policy after boasting to me of how you understand wikipedia policy on my page. I took out time from my day to get you this policy so that you understand that you are not allowed to blank your page.

[] It says *Archive &mdash; don't delete: When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is no longer being discussed, don't delete the content &mdash; archive it. See How to archive a talk page for details on why and how to.


 * Thanks for that, I was wondering how to archive my talk page, it helps a lot. Hope the policy I gave you helps too, because I was struck down with it before when I did what you did, just trying to give you heads up on it.  I am going to figure this archiving thing out, much help, thank you :) Ejfetters 07:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Policies
Hey Ej, You Wrote: ''*Thanks for that, I was wondering how to archive my talk page, it helps a lot. Hope the policy I gave you helps too, because I was struck down with it before when I did what you did, just trying to give you heads up on it. I am going to figure this archiving thing out, much help, thank you :) Ejfetters 07:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)''

Hey, I am sorry if I have been a little strong in dealing with you. And your welcome about finding you the policy. Feel free to show all those other users who are blanking their pages that policy and report them if they continue. Now about this image business; The rule you gave me is very poorly written. I understand you didn't write it but someone else wrote it very badly and it doesn't make much sense if you want to explain it to me. :) Tratare 07:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That can't be right. before I ever started editing the Judge Judy page (I started at the beginning of August or so), when it looekd really crappy, there was an iamge of Sheindlin on the bench taken by the show, used in the info box. The image had been there for years according the pages history and several administrators visited the page and the image page with no problem with it. I think you may have been dealing with a couple of slick idiots who wanted the page there way and so said a bunch of things that sounded smart, but didn't really mean anything. As you said, mumbo jumbo would be the correct term. :) Tratare 07:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

poor Ej hahahahaha :D because frankly, I dont see what the problem is here. You were NOT doing anything wrong at all, at least from what I heard. You have a screenshot. You provide it's source on the image page. You provide the name of the article where it came from along with the website. You give a fair use rationale, and the little tag and it should be usable. Hmmm! Well, let's not try to get anymore attention from administrators. After are heated argument on the one page, they will be flocking to us like flies and we'll have to tell them we've made up. lol! Anyway, can you give me a link to the page of those discussions and perhaps find me the Star Treck image you used. If it's too much work, don't bother and just have your way with the image I added there, and erase it. :( Tratare 07:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see that much, but I didn't break any of those rules:

Number 1. was: ''Did the image have a copyright tag? On Wikipedia, all images have to have a valid copyright tag. This lets us know whether you made the image or not, what its copyright status is, etc. Wikipedia:Image copyright tags will tell you all you need to know about these tags. If your image didn't have a copyright tag, just reupload it with a correct tag. I'd be glad to help you with this if need be.''

I provided the copyright tag on the image

Number 2. was: ''Was the image "fair-use replaceable"? On Wikipedia, an image is "non-free" if it's copyrighted and not explicitly released under a free license. (Almost all the images you find on the Web are non-free.) We can only use non-free images under a strict set of criteria. The first of these is, if a free image exists or could be created that could replace this image, then we can't use the non-free image. For example, a non-free photo of a living celebrity or a particular model of car would probably be replaceable, since the subject of the photo still exists and could be photographed by a Wikipedian. These images wouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. However, if the subject is no longer available (because the person depicted is dead, for example), then the image might be allowed.''

That was him in that studio. Only they could get those kinds of images of Cowell from the front.

''Was the image "non-commercial only"? Wikipedia is non-commercial, so it might seem that we can use images that say they are free to use for non-commercial purposes only. But this is not the case. Wikipedia is a "free" encyclopedia, so it's important to us that anyone (even commercial companies) be able to reuse all our content. For this reason, we can only use an image if another website could also use the image, even for commercial purposes.''

There was nothing about saying, you can only use it for non-commercial purposes. I'm sorry, but I still don't understand why you erased my image and if you really dont understand either, should you really have erased it. Tratare 08:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not trying to be a jerk. But I feel like you're acting like the people who were being jerks to you, TO ME. And we're borderlien friends lol Tratare 08:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

EJ, as friends, if you make a revert and express a policy, you have to know that policy yourself. Don't you think that's reasonable. Take me for instance. I kept telling you to stop blanking your page and I was able to back it up. You keep telling me not to add certain images and you really don't get why. If I didn't understand a policy, I wouldn't just start enforcing it because I couldn't back it up for a person to believe me. And you even say that you might be wrong. Tratare 08:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

oh! I see, I see. Wow, wikipedia is pretty messed up, huh? lol! But yea, thank you for helping me out with that. I think in this whole confusion, we actually both ended up helping out each other. Who we really should be mad at are these folks who run wikipedia, with about a million rules that they have in forms where they have on pages where they aren't stated clearly and just confusing as hell. Tratare 08:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your Preaching Policies Without Even Knowing Them Yourself
Grrr! Just leave me alone. I went back and erase all that garbage on the image pages my self. You said you were going to and it looks like you took an attitude and stopped talking to me, made a couple more edits and left. I think it was inappropriate of you to tell me to follow a rule without even knowing what exactly you were telling me yourself. It took me all night of dealing with you to figure out what you were talking about, only for you to have to learn about it yourself. Know wikipedia policy yourself before you start preaching it to others and being a moderator around here, then you won't have to archive your pages and hide discussions Tratare 09:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I provided links and quotations for all policies. Listed guidelines, gave interpreations.  When user still argued I politely said to request a admin intervention, and even gave him a user that seems to be well versed in the subject.  He never contacted the admin, continued to argue with me.  Then blanked 2 complete sections from Images and media for deletion because I didnt blank it.  Informed user the discussions aren't supposed to be erased, and are archived after an admin closes the discussion.  The user also was upset because I wouldnt blank the tags from the images and captions, placed there under guidelines, I also informed him of the guidelines, and stated they should stay in place until an admin closes the discussion on the Images for deletion page.  User claims I don't know the policy but it is clear he doesn't know the policy for listing media for deletion, as he blanked the discussion page and was mad at me because I didnt blank it. Ejfetters 09:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Ooh! You're being so bitchy. lol! :) Why won't you answer me, guy. Tratare 08:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)" I didn't appreciate the vulgarity that was used. Ejfetters 09:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * User also placed this comment on my talk page and then erased it

Warning
Who are you talking to? And besides, you're the one who violated the 3 revert rule and should be blocked for that right now. Thing is I haven't reported you and you're still taking an attitude with me rather than thanking me. You even instructed me to follow a wikipedia policy, without knowing anything about the policy you were telling me about. The proof is on my talk page where you say some legal mumbo jumbo you don't know anything about. In fact, you boasted of knowing about wikipedia policy and telling me about this policy that number 1. you didn't know anything about and number 2. you don't even know that you're not supposed to blank your talk page, like you did 4 times. Even after I told you each time, you continually blanked your page and I was nice enought to go get the policy and teach you, when you didn't seem to know. When I asked you what you were talking about, you didn't know, and after a couple hours, you finally went and learned about it yourself. This user archived a full page of image erros he had and complaints from other users who had issues with him about the same subject. He also libeled me, by reporting me as a vandal for reverting, when I didn't even violate the 3 revert rule like he did Tratare 10:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This user did give me the policy on how to archive my talk page and I thanked him kindly for it, then archived my page. I instructed him as to the policies that I knew of, and when he requested more information I researched it and gave it to him, which he initially thanked me for it.  He is correct, I don't know everything about the policies, and he is also correct, I researched the policies when I didn't quite know a lot about them. I thank him for pointing out that I took time and effort to research more policies and expanded my knowledge more.  I please request now that he stop attacking me on my talk page.  I have requested an intervention from an admin about the disputed policies, as I thought more people involved could help shed more light on the subject.  The majority of the images I have nominated were found to be in violation and deleted, after other users in fact challenged the nomination, which is what the nomination page is for, to discuss why the image was nominated.  Several image nominations are challenged, and then decided by an admin.  The images that were not erased after I nominated were then kept, and the discussion ended.  Hopefully this will shed more light on the subject, until the admin I requested an intervention from has the time to take out of his life to do so, as he is likely not online right now. Ejfetters 10:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok! I understand! I'll leave it alone Tratare 10:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Deceptive edit summary
I reverted your star trek image because your edit summary was deceptive and wasn't a good enough reason for changing the image. You said that their had been a discussion on the subject, and there wasn't. One user merely commented he thought the image was kind of unflattering and you went there, (several months later), and wrote agreed. The last image was better anyway Tratare 23:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to get the drill here because you've already went to the article and put back that new image. You see, the image that was already there, that was NOT adequately voted out, stays until it has been voted OUT by consesus. One person going on a talk page and stating an opinion about the image looking unflattering, followed by you running in there and saying agreed, does not count as a consesus or much of a discussion on the topic. There's a specific way to go about doing it, and you did it incorrectly. Further, if you thought a consesus had been reached, you would have wrote, consensus reached under that information and discussion closed in the way you're supposed to do it. Please see []. You made it look as if there was a huge discussion on the topic in your edit summary. For this, I am reverting back the image. Tratare 01:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Never made it seem there was a huge discussion, drew attention to the talk page to have other users go there and see the discussion. It was proposed, no one objected in 2 months, so it was changed.  Changes can be made if no one opposes them.  The image was not removed either, it was moved into the article so that both images are present and users at the WikiProject Star Trek page could see what was being proposed, and give them perspective to what I was proposing, leaving both images in the page so they dont get speedily deleted due to being orphans.  If the revert war continues I will make sure to list it for protection. Ejfetters 01:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the user has been invited to participate in the discussion on the talk page, but he declines to participate, and has started an edit war instead. The edits made are in good faith, but are getting reverted. Ejfetters 01:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, please see Consensus, the discussion is proper and appropriate. Ejfetters 01:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please be civil and respectful and speak as if were talking to each other, not informing other people on each other to try to make the other look bad. Its borderline incivility. This is a discussion between you and I, to try to come to a solution for the best of wikipedia. This is not a deal where we're trying to make the other look bad. This is obvious in your use of "the user", as if you're telling on me. Anyway, you may go request protection of the page, but it wont happen because, you're not allowed to change the image until the end of the vote. And the reason no one responded to you, was because the topic of that was main picture. There wasnt anything on request removal or anything else. No one was adequately informed by one user stating an opinion and you running in there saying agreed. Tratare 01:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Only saying "user" because I don't want to offend you by saying "he" or "she" because I don't know what pronoun would be more proper. Trying to be civil in every way, I have invited you to the discussion, thanked you for your contributions.  I never removed the picture, I moved it down following the discussion that had been had.  You didn't seem to like my edit so I started another discussion properly as laid out in Consensus for another change as we don't seem to agree, but you haven't commented in that discussion, that already has another comment besides mine.  I haven't changed any images, and I can't delete images, only admins can.  If there is anything else I have done to offend you I humbly apologize, and please let me know what it is that offends you and I will try to be more polite.  Sorry for any offending I have done, however non-intentional.  Thank you again for bringing this to my attention. Ejfetters 01:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Using 'he' or 'she' would also sound as if you're not talking to me, but rather informing on me. The way you address a person when you talk directly to them is by saying there name. For instance 'Ej, I think you should know stuff like this', not 'the user should know stuff like this. He acts like he doesn't.' It's as if you're trying to tell someone on me. Anyway, I no longer can remove the image as I would be violating the three-revert rule. By the way, you're the last person that should tell me about that in your edit summary as I am the one who informed you of that because you violated it yesterday. Anyway, I thank you for your apology. Please try to work on your way of deleting images as well. It comes across as attacking. For instance, the first time you didn't even know why you were doing it, so we argued all night. I am also not going to fall into the apology trap, because you tend to turn around and do the same things whenever I accept your apologies. Tratare 02:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Discussion closed on my end, posts here will go unanswered for fear of fueling uncivility. Feel free to place more comments though, I just don't wish to discuss anything here on this matter anymore. Ejfetters 02:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I will just comment on text here, discussing in a neutral point-of-view, without addressing anyone what is being said. Ejfetters 02:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to ignore each other. I just feel like I am dealing with two people here. There's this passive/aggressive thing you're doing to me, being very nice to me while also being a jerk. It's confusing. Like you will say something very very sweet, but then do something totally the opposite. Like you said something real nice the other day, and when I responded back friendly, I saw you made a couple more edits and started ignoring me. You told me, you can't answer right away. But when I looked at your edit history. There were several more edits that were not there several minutes after I said that, then you left. Various comments on this page looks like you're hoping an admin will come later and check it out so I can be blocked or banned (the user). You said something else nice yesterday, I said ok, I understand'. A day later, there's this deal with the Coral Smith image; why couldn't you come to my page and say, 'hey man, your coral smith image... I don't think that can be use that' No, I get on my computer and see this, your image has been deleted without a clear reason why, and you tell me to go visit it on the deletions page. That really hurt, EJ :( Tratare 02:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption.
 * Wikistalking

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol (RCP) and WikiProject Spam. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them. Ejfetters 03:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And as far as the Coral Smith article goes, I was not stalking, look above here, you will see another user notified me of an apparent violation of policy (which i have stated numerous times) and I followed the guidelines. The text placed on your page was following the procedure by clicking "notify" on the images for deletion page - the text is an official wikipedia template which I in no way created and was totally automated by Wikipedia, and required per the steps laid forth in nominating the image, giving due notice.  I will not be provoked into further debates where I am attacked personally.  The talk pages are for discussing the subject at hand, not myself or other talk pages.  Also, the nominations for deletion are to discuss the image's nomination and interpretaion of the policy, not about the user posting it there.  Case closed, any further correspondance will be through official Wikipedia policies set forth for mediation and harassment.  Nothing further will be posted by me on my talk page about this by me, feel free to ramble on on my page if you feel you need to. Ejfetters 03:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And lastly, if you look at the protection request, you will see that I was fine with whatever version got protected, as long as it could get protected for the time being. Furthermore, the template itself says it in no way endorses the current version.  Leaving messages on talk pages is not the proper procedure for requesting unprotection or modifications to a protected article, I will not cite them, I will let you look them up as I have cited several sources for you. Ejfetters 03:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No one cares so you keep annoying everybody
No one cares, so rather than letting them decide you keep annoying everybody. I think you felt like the Simon Cowell image was a loss against me. I got what I wanted. You didn't get what you wanted. In the same day, you decide to start complaining about Anne Robinson again. I am not going to let you turn this into a competition so you can say 'hey, I got what I want this time around' No! Not at all! I have erased the image from the page. Stop annoying everybody. No one cares about it as you can see with the Simon Cowell issue. I am ending any further communications with you because you're a troll, an obnoxious constantly annoying troll that has been irritating the hell out of me since I met you Tratare 08:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * User uses personal attacks and profanity again. I haven't talked to him in quite some time, and don't intend to anymore.  Let him talk Ejfetters 08:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)