User talk:Fetchcomms/Archive 24

Please use this to leave me a new message:

File tagged for deletion - Simone Sello 2011.jpg
Hi Fetchcomms I will provide a standard request for permissions to Simonex4ever for forwarding to the photographer, so that OTRS approval may be obtained. I will send the form, tomorrow; and I will add the OTRS pending flag to the file description page. I am quite sure that the owner of the photo is willing to release. That particular step was missed in the process. Thank you for flagging it. Doc2234 (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Third Spirit of Christmas, giving you a glimpse of Hell
Hi Echo (The Editor Formerly Known as Fetchcomms):

I quoted my quotation of your suggestion for an interaction ban again at my RfC.

Hypoeuphorically, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, hope you're having a fun time with the whole thing :). / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Fetchcomms!
 * I had enough sense to ignore two editors, and now it is a pity that I shall probably dismiss a 3rd, who had (on at least two occasions) corrected bone-head statements quickly after their wrongness became apparent (and on one occasion, did so freely, rather than as one in a series of apologies).
 * I had asked the critics to look at the context of my (offending) diffs, and to see whether my (perhaps uncivil?) diff was preceded by violations of AGF/NPA/civility by my accusers. I am happy to write that 28bytes did look. Cities have been spared on account of one honest man, we are told, so I am glad that Wikipedia has 28bytes.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi again,

I really think that you need to look at the RfC and either endorse the use of your name made by the accusers or suggest some caveats.

For example, it is suggested that you did not suggest an interaction ban, but only provided technical advice on how to ask for an interaction ban. (In reality, of course, you volunteered the suggestions of a 3-way interaction ban.)

Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ceasefire
Nice idea. Shame it didn't work out. I won't take it as an insult if it's me he's trying to exorcise - it just enhances my reputation :) :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Now he's just descending into insults. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * After Elen's "Planet Janet" jibe, about an emotionally disturbed teenage girl with conflicts with adult authority-figures (or a similar teenager with homicidal urges), "I am rubber and your glue" seemed to be over her head. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Language difficulty. I'm beginning to think that a lot of this is down to you not having the opportunity to make conversation in colloquial English. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Drop it, both of you, or I'll block the next person who triggers an orange bar due to this dispute. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, and thank you. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you can block me. Keifer is now dragging up long buried dispute in a petty atempt to gain sympathy. . KW is a troll, pure and simple. He's got away with calling editors all the names under the sun yet no-one takes action because he's a clever troll. So go on Fetchcomms - put you're money where you're mouth is and block me for violating WP:NPA. Pedro :  Chat  21:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to salute Pedro's recent statement to SandyGeorgia, which acknowledged that an outside person might be concerned with the form of an old statement, and I want to celebrate a reconciliation. For my part, I regret my failing to have stated that Pedro had no sexist intentions in writing something whose form seemed troublesome. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Cherry pie Dumb sleep-deprived header
You want my cherry? Take a look at User talk:SandyGeorgia and please block both of us for 2 days or more. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Was this metaphor really necessary? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. I am very sorry for a distracting, puerile, and disrespectful reference to an objectifying song. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You might want to try Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Logic. Or not. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Elen, hadn't you indicated that you would stop provocations? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And this was provocative how? You have decided to use the talkpage of a wikiproject to indulge in personal attacks on DGG. Is this really acceptable behaviour? I am asking for the opinion of a neutral admin as to whether this warrants administrative action. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Elen,
 * In your response there, you made two mis-statements, which I have asked you to correct.
 * I have legitimate concerns about DGG's statement, which he after days has failed to deny was written in 6 minutes (and which, he admitted honestly, largely comes from his personal essay). This would be irrelevant but a draft closing-summary picked up a chunk of DGG's essay, that I have been "rude to new editors", when I have not. This is grossly unfair, and a legitimate concern, because the RfC guide states that the summary is the most important part of the RfC.
 * I am also concerned that DGG has been calling a logical triviality grounds for taking stronger action (by which he most likely means an ArbComm case), and I asked for help assuring him and the others that my statement is justified.
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Since you insist on continuing to spread this round every single talk page you can possibly think of, instead of keeping it at the RfC/U itself, I will reply briefly here. There have been two suggested close statements by an uninvolved administrator. Both of them make mention of Fetchcomms' views. Both of them have been objected to by KW. Neither of them contains the text "rude to new editors", nor anything that means that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I quote TParis's suggested closings, with emboldening for Demiurge1000:
 * Round One: "DGG had some wise words about that when he said "With respect to younger editors ... I find that they respond very favorably to being treated as equals."  As much as Wikipedia needs established editors with strong content contributions, it also needs new editors who bring fresh breath and new ideas to the project." DGG's statement, which is endorsed as wise, explains the "rude to new editors" charge.
 * Round Two: "With respect to younger editors ... I find that they respond very favorably to being treated as equals." As much as Wikipedia needs established editors with strong content contributions, it also needs new editors who bring fresh breath and new ideas to the project . Incivility and rude behavior does not encourage new editors to participate. 
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 03:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, everyone can get off my talk page, now. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Not blocked yet
Yo, Fetchcomms. You've got that Orange bar. So - you're going to block the next person over this dispute. Nice reasoning. So - where's my block? Pedro : Chat  21:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Still not blocked. Pedro : Chat  21:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Still not blocked. Pedro : Chat  21:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Still not blocked. Pedro : Chat  21:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Still not blocked. Pedro : Chat  21:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Still not blocked. Pedro : Chat  21:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Still not blocked. Pedro : Chat  21:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Still not blocked. Getting bored now. Pedro : Chat  21:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Still not blocked. Pedro : Chat  21:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Still not blocked. Pedro : Chat  21:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm off for a ciggie. Kindly sort it out mate. Pedro : Chat  21:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Still not blocked. Pedro : Chat  21:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Still not blocked. Pedro : Chat  21:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Still not blocked. Pedro : Chat  21:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

BANG BANG - anyone home? Still not blocked. Pedro : Chat  21:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Still not blocked. Pedro : Chat  21:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Still not blocked. Pedro : Chat  21:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Have I made the point yet that blocking someone over the orange bar would be unbelievably unwise? Pedro : Chat  21:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, can we please stop?! Suffice it to say, but this is annoying everyone who has Fetchcomm's talk page watch-listed.  ~  Matthewrbowker   Say hi!  23:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, if Pedro wants to waste a few minutes of his life, it's not my fault. He also doesn't seem to understand that I was never actually serious in my "threat" above (is it really not that funny?), but he does a good job in demonstrating a disregard of WP:POINT and WP:HUMOR. I think the latter is what he should be blocked for, if at all.
 * WHAT? I was fearing for my life but enjoying malevolent thoughts. Don't tell Elen! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 03:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, Pedro, I concede: I will not attempt to talk reason into five-year-old because we all know that one has to be at least six-and-a-half to understand anything meaningful at all! / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Hi Fetchcomms. You participated in Village pump (policy), which was snowball closed. A subsection of the discussion has been created. Titled Village pump (policy), it pertains to Request close and Category:Requests for Close, which were created after a discussion at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78. I have posed several questions there and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Alchemyst- The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel alternative cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:The Alchemyst- The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel alternative cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hehe
Haven't been around for a while, nice to see that your userpage is still always changing. =) Res Mar 03:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice to have you back :) and yes, I don't have time to bother with a very fancy one anymore, but needed something interesting and relevant. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh great and illustrious Fetchcomms, I enjoyed seeing that Facebook photo of you in a miniskirt this morning. Res Mar 03:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Awwww, I'm flattered! / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, I have replied to your question at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Online_Status. Thank you for your opinion. Petrb (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure
Hi Fetchcomms, when you have a moment could I get your opinion about these files and editor. I tagged the files a while back because they seem to be non-free but the editor says that their his, I'm not sure if further steps are needed.


 * Edited out non-free files in user space First time Second time


 * User removed speedy tags File 1 File 2

Thanx for your anticipated input.

Mlpearc powwow  04:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Point them to OTRS . / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert Abbott
A while ago, you looked up whether or not Scientific American had renewed the copyright on a certain issue; would you mind saying something with regard to that here? Probably would be good to put something somewhere so that this stops being asked, but I'm not entirely sure what that would be. Anyhoo, thanks in advance. Hi 8 7 8  (Come shout at me!) 22:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is, who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009) and  (2010). The final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The Featured Article Award:, for his performance in round 2. matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
 * The Good Article Award:, for his performance in round 4.
 * The Featured List Award:, for his performance in round 4. matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
 * The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics):, for his performance in round 3.
 * The Did You Know Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The In the News Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews):, for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Free leftover halloween candy!
Dear Fetchcomms,

Now that I have your attention, (yes, I read your little guide up top), do you forsee having any time in the near future to hop onto the IRC and talk with me for... oh... ten minutes? I'd appreciate it if you could.

Sincerely,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  13:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. What's with the User:Echo thing?
 * Just messing with DISPLAYTITLE :). Yeah, I'll try to get on IRC soon. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  14:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I hear that I missed you. Apologies.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I missed you by a few hours this afternoon. Maybe you should just email me? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiCup participation


It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__