User talk:Oicumayberight/Archive 3

Motion Graphics
Thanks for your suggestion on the Motion Graphic/Motion Graphics page duplication. Who do I direct the request to? Scaatt (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just follow the WP:AFD procedures. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
That's all :)

What is the photo you have up? Dndn1011 23:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for what? BTW, photo is Rush Oicumayberight 05:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User Design
A tag has been placed on Template:User Design requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Creative license redirect
I do not think that Creative license should redirect to creative director - would you mind explaining to me why it should? I believe a more logical redirect would be to creative commons license - thanks for reading this message, please respond in my talk page.--Kiyarr lls ton 04:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Software development process
Assume good faith. First read, discuss and if that doesn't work refert. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to experiment, use the WP:Sandbox. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Again you make no sense. I am just improving the articles.


 * I would ask you to comment on the talk pages instead of starting an editwar. Deliberate engagement in edit warring instead of discussion is a breach of Wikiquette and may cause user blocks from editing. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I already commented on the talk page. You could have used the WP:Sandbox to make your point. Your the one who started the edit war. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Making one remark on a talk page doesn't give you the right to start an edit war. I have explained myself on the talk pages of the two articles and so far you haven't even considered what I said. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, start acting like that instead of your blind referts. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You've made it difficult for me to assume good faith. I've made several remarks on the talk pages and with every edit in the comments. I already stated why your edits were unacceptable. You have yet to dispute anything I've said with anything that resembles logic. And you have yet to get any buy-in for your megabytes of changes and removal of content that was well accepted as it was on wikipedia for years. It's you who's unwilling to discuss. I know exactly what you are doing. Your edits lack WP:NPOV and over-simplify a broad multidisciplinary subject to technology, making it difficult for the less technically skilled to feel qualified to even have an opinion on the subject. I know your type. I've worked with them. You are not fooling me. It simply your way of trying to monopolize the terminology and make the field of software development an exclusive club where software engineers have the final say if not the only say. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * After blindly referting my work, you start a personal attack. This doesn't help. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're not even disputing what I said about your intentions. This is beyond personal. This is professionals. This is your attack on other legitimate profession. And you've said nothing to disprove or even dispute it. You're just gaming the system by trying to appear diplomatic, but you haven't considered the validity of a single thing that I've said. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Typefaces and fonts
(Continuing thread here from Talk:Typeface) The case should have been made to Apple, Microsoft, and other software makers 20+ years ago. If it was, they ignored it. So we've had the ubiquitous Font menu in nearly every word-processing app (and lots of other apps) on the planet. This has turned "font" into a household word and blurred its meaning even among the rest of us. Regarding your point about electronic display, you could be right but I suspect it's more the origins of a given document than the media we view it on that counts. In any case, your original point is well taken, and as long verifiable sources make the distinction, WP should make it too. Cheers, Rivertorch (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

mos icon
There is no harm but it also is not an accurate description of this manual of style. Garion96 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * May I ask: What is inaccurate about it? Oicumayberight (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For starters wp:npov really was a bad edit summary. . Plus it softens the point of this guideline, which is to stop overflagging. (or overiconing if that's a word). Garion96 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV is very relevant in this case. Especially when there's a dispute and you use judgmental words like "bad" without saying why.
 * The summary itself is not enough of a reason to revert the change.
 * Softening the point, was the point. It's unfair to overuse a guide to prevent overuse of icons.
 * There is no reason to suppress important facts in this case. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Arts
Just wanted to let you know that there is a WikiProject Arts. Feel free to join and contribute! Voyaging(talk) 16:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invite. I just might do that when my current struggles end on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons). Most of the members on the WikiProject Graphic design are MIA. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

3rr warning on Manual of Style (icons)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Aspects (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Report it then, and stop pretending to be an Admin. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not pretending to be an Admin. Putting a 3rr warning on a user's talk page that might not be aware of the policy or aware that they have had three reverts in a 24 hour period is just that, a warning to make the user aware of the rule and they could be blocked if they revert again in that 24 hour period.  Since you responded here shows that you know the policy and since you have decided to revert the page again seven minutes later,, shows that you do not care about this policy.  So per your request above, I will report you. Aspects (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Look again. I was merely fulfilling a request. Try reading the comments for those edits. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to the 3rr discussion if you would like to respond, Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Aspects (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You've proved nothing. Your haste to warn and report doesn't prove that I don't care about this policy. It proves that you don't understand either the situation or the policy. This just appears to be an attempt to smear my reputation via my talk page. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who may be curious as to why I suggested that this user report what appeared to be a violation of the 3rr, I'd hoped that what was being called reverts would have been made obvious to the user as a false flag on his/her attempts to report. In hindsight, I should have just explained why it was a case of mistaken identity. I'm not going to speculate on how much the user or the Admin was paying attention to details. But a simple investigation would have proven that it was not a violation of 3rr. At worse, 2 of the 4 cited reverts could have been considered edit warring. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

Your block has expired, so I have untranscluded the template to remove it from the category. J.delanoy gabs adds 12:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagging my discussion
You're welcome to respond to what I say on talk pages, but don't stick your tags into my text. —Michael Z. 2009-02-05 21:50 z 


 * Sorry. I just thought your point was to point out POV. I was showing how POV works both ways in this matter. Thanks for proving that the guide is WP:CREEP. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Name dropping Ad hominem
Can you refrain from using me in your arguments such as Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2009_Victorian_bushfires and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons). I have changed the guideline very little and even if I carried out major changes the WP:CON supports it, your issue is with the guideline not the person who edited it Gnevin (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right about part of it. My issue is with the guide. The guide is poorly worded with a strong bias and is a vague substitute for policy. The way you use the guide as a false badge of authority to enforce your own personal taste is evidence of what's wrong with the guide. So like it or not, what you did is a classic example of why the guide is faulty. Oicumayberight (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've heard your argument about the guideline at least 3 dozen times. Can you please refrain from using Ad hominem about me and instead argue with the guideline in general and stop using my name on flag related discussion. Your issue are with the guideline not me . Gnevin (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've heard your argument as to why you think your actions are not relevant to the problems with the guide. And I've explained why I see your actions as relevant proof of WP:CREEP. You or any weak consensus ignoring my concerns will not close the case. You obviously have not denounced those actions, so I'm forced to repeat them as examples of why the guide is faulty every time you fail to address my concerns with the guide objectively. Just as it's fair for you to use examples of bad icon usage to legitimize the guide, it's fair for me to use examples of your mishandling the guide to scrutinize its legitimacy.  Oicumayberight (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop using my name in the middle of arguments where it does not apply. You could and should of made your point at Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2009_Victorian_bushfires and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons) with mentioning me. I will consider any future random references to me where it was not necessary as uncivil Gnevin (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have mention you if you weren't involved in either dispute. But since you were, I mentioned your name to draw attention to your misuse and biased actions as examples of unfair involvement in both cases. The only other way to do that is to link to your actions as examples, which would also draw attention to your name. If you didn't want to be mentioned in the dispute resolution process, you should have never made yourself part of the dispute by editing and invoking the guide while removing icons for personal taste reasons. I would have never heard of the guide if you had just built your consensus to remove my icons without invoking it. But you were overreaching in your attempt to edit an use the guide as a false badge of authority to enforce your own personal taste. It's your involvement that has poisoned the guide and ruined it's status as a fair and neutral guide. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your icon where rejected by nearly every user who commented on them .If you have a problem with my edits provide a link the particular edit, don't just talk in a general vague sense or drop my name in. Do you think accusing a user of  poisoned ,false badge of authority to enforce ,biased  are civil comments ?
 * As I've said I've had enough of this. Leave my name out of discussion were it does not belong, if you have a problem with my edits provide a link to the edit Gnevin (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already pointed to several links as evidence of your mishandling. You chose to archive that information before the dispute was resolved. Poisoned, false badge of authority to enforce personal taste, and biased  are what you've shown. I could probably find several more links as evidence. If I have to dig up more links, it will be for the administrators notice board, not just for your own refusal to accept constructive criticism. And you want to talk about vagueness, most of your reasons for removing icons are vague if not a complete matter of personal taste. You should have just dealt with them on a case-by-case basis, and there would have been no misconduct in your method of achieving consensus. You could have continued your crusade against ugly distracting icons armed simply with WP:CON. All you had to do was keep the MOS guide out of it, but instead you brought the MOS guide into it and put yourself into the MOS guide, making the guide problematic and making your misuse of the guide the proof of that problem. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change Template:VG-Action
Thanks for participating in the discussion about this template. I have now made a proposal, looking to establish consensus to change it, and I'd be grateful if you could express your approval or disapproval, in WT:WikiProject_Video_games.

Thanks, --  Chzz  ►  23:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)