User talk:PassionoftheDamon/Archive 2

Mary Ann Glendon
Both you and TheCondor24 need to stop with the revert-warring at Mary Ann Glendon. The two of you are clearly engaged in a content dispute; edit summaries of "rv vandalism" are neither accurate nor helpful. Please take your dispute to the talk page, at the very least. Thanks. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos
As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on June 1 2009 to Club for Growth
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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Re the socks - they aren't really relevant; all the recent reverting has been between you two. You want to be unblocked? You can be. You have to promise to owrk within WP:3RR in future and leave the article along for the length of your block. Please, in future, look towards WP:DR rather than just endless reverts William M. Connolley (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My interest in reporting the socks was not so much to exonerate my own actions and have the 24 hour block lifted ahead of time (although I have re-read WP:3RR and can promise you that I will both work within the policy in the future, as I have throughout my prior editing history, and leave the article alone for the duration of the block), but to expose a delinquent editor with the hope that appropriate action will be taken to stem their malfeasance. I do thank you for looking into the matter and appreciate the way you've handled the whole affair. -PassionoftheDamon (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is something of a token, but I've unblocked you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am going to my cold and silent wikipedia grave: my wikipedia lamp of life is nearly extinguished: my race is run: the wikipedia grave opens to receive me, and I sink into its bosom! I have but one request to ask at my departure from this wikipedia world--it is the charity of its silence! Let no man write my epitaph: for as no man who knows my motives dare now vindicate them. let not prejudice or ignorance asperse them. Let them and me repose in obscurity and peace, and my wikipedia tomb remain uninscribed, until other times, and other men, can do justice to my character; when my country takes her place among the nations of the earth, then, and not till then, let my epitaph be written. I have done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCondor24 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sammy Gavrano
I've added back what I can see re his involvement in the murder of Nicholas Scibetta. You might like to throw an eye over it. I'll get back to the other areas you mention asap - it'll take a while to work through them. Trilobyte fossil (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Re "How he rose to consegliere" - the article doesn't really say. There are a few murders mentioned but nothing I can see that fits the role of a consegliere.  Any suggestions? Trilobyte fossil (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can dig up some sources on this. There's bound to be something useful.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good stuff! The article is really improving Trilobyte fossil (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate it. Hopefully, I'll be able to get the whole thing done within a week or so.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Pedro Espada
Interesting. I didn't know someone could do that, I guess. I'm not sure of the policy if someone violates the principles of standard language with their own name. E. E. Cummings, for example, is capitalized. It's hard to say... Qqqqqq (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

John Gotti
Hi. Would you please take a look a John Gotti's page. There is an editor who obviously has strong negative personal feelings regarding Gotti who keeps skewing the article and replacing the photo. There seems to be a consensus that the close to death photo of Gotti is inappropriate, but this user keeps reverting. It seems this user is either a sock or his entire purpose is to vandalize the Gotti article. If you could provide some assistance. Thanks! Meishern (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I restored your last version and left a message on his talk page. It's pretty obvious from his user name and page that he's here to agenda push.  I'll help you keep an eye on the article.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I am not a big fan of Gotti, but I just hate when people try to rewrite history because of their own biases. I hate Stalin, he murdered a lot of my family, that's why I don't touch those sections with my editing pen. This Gotti editor is just out of order. One should never edit pages that one has deep emotional connection with.


 * If in the future you want me to look at something and give my 5cents, I will be neutral, but will always take my time to think deeply regarding your requests. Meishern (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know what you mean. Whether we abhor the subject or not, we still have to give a fair representation and let the facts speak for themselves.  In doing so, the reader will usually come to the inevitable conclusion himself.  In this case, I think it's a pretty easy call on the inappropriateness of the photo of a dying Gotti in the infobox.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Sports logos
You insist that the logos in the various "rivalry" articles meet WP:NFCC. Could you please try to convince me why instead of just reverting over and over? I could be missing something, but I fail to see how the images meet the criteria, in particular 8. Simply put, they are not necessary, and your first job is to convince me they are. (Some have argued that the images violate criterion 3 as well, but I don't necessarily agree.) The images also currently violate criterion 10, as they don't have a fair use rationale for any of the rivalry articles. Therefore, even if I'm wrong about criterion 8 you'll have to write a rationale if you insist on re-adding. As a final point, you're coming dangerously close to violating the three-revert rule, which I see you have done before in these types of articles. szyslak ( t ) 22:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My "job" is not to convince you of anything, regardless of your rather imperious attitude on this matter. You are not the final arbiter of anything; your opinion holds no more weight than mine or any other.  You should also heed your own warning, since you are actually closer at this point to violating 3RR than I am.  Finally, don't try and distort the criteria through sleight of hand: the standard is significance, not necessity.  The images are used for purposes of identification, which is an expressly authorized use for sports logos under WP:Non-free content.  If you can find an official policy to support your position, I'll be happy to defer.  Absent that, you're merely interpreting and your asserted rationales lack both authority and persuasiveness.  As for criterion 10, you are correct on that point and I will take the necessary steps to remedy that deficiency when I have the time later today or tomorrow.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with my or your "opinion". WP:NFCC is POLICY. If you disagree with it, you're free to go to WT:NFCC or WP:Village pump (policy) and propose a change. If your arguments have consensus, the page will change, and I'll stop removing the images. My goal is to help protect Wikipedia from legal harm and ensure that our policies are followed, not to boss you around just so I feel big and important.
 * There's no "sleight of hand" here. You have no right to call me a liar.
 * I'll elaborate on the point that the images are not necessary. They're not necessary because they fail the significance test. Do they "significantly increase readers' understanding" of sports rivalries? No. For example, in Yankees-Mets rivalry I don't need to see a Yankees or Mets logo to understand any part of the article. Remember that the topic here is the rivalries, not the teams. Besides, if I come to any of these articles not knowing what the logos look like, and I happen to be curious, I can take the 0.2 seconds to click on the helpful links to the articles New York Mets, New York Yankees, etc. Would their omission be "detrimental to that understanding"? Again, no. Their omission does not harm the articles in any way.
 * 3RR does not apply to the removal of copyrighted material.
 * szyslak ( t ) 01:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That is your opinion. WP:Non-free content is policy, and it clearly authorizes use of sports logos for identification purposes.  Your position that the use of sports logos on rivalry pages fails WP:NFCC #8 is just that: an opinion.  You've cited no official policy that supports your interpretation.
 * It is a sleight of hand when you claim the standard is necessity (which you did) rather than what it is — significance. Nevertheless, the first typing of the word "liar" in this discussion came at your fingertips.
 * Once again, the standard is significance, not necessity, no matter how many times you try and recast it in circular terms. WP:Non-free content authorizes the use of logos for identification purposes.  Rivalry articles necessarily involve multiple participants and the use of logos to identify those participants is a significant aid for the reader.  Hence, their use is appropriate.  As a note, your given rationale again seems to be analyzing the issue under the rubric of necessity (whether the logos are essential to the articles - "I don't need a Yankees or Mets logo to understand any part of the article") rather than significance: under your proffered reasoning, use of logos would not even be permissible in the main franchise articles.
 * 3RR does apply to the removal of content that is proper.
 * PassionoftheDamon (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you're wikilawyering. Getting picky over whether I'm addressing the "necessity" or "significance" of the images is just that. And when you accuse me of misrepresenting policy, you're calling me a liar, whether or not you use the word. HOW DARE YOU make such accusations against me. szyslak  ( t ) 03:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not nitpicking: there's a substantial difference between standards of "necessity" and "significance" - indeed, a difference that is likely dispositive on the issue.  As for your accusation that I called you a "liar," that is, once again, simply not true.  You were the first in the discussion to type the word "liar."  I merely said you were distorting the standard through "sleight of hand," which is open-ended enough to encompass both good and bad faith; if you've opted to infer me accusing of you of the latter, that's your problem.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Now I'm taking this to WP:3O. Clearly we're getting nowhere on this issue, and I think another opinion would be helpful. Please don't take this as me "telling on" you, because that's not my intention. szyslak  ( t ) 03:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not at all. I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in an edit war, so anything that can help bring some clarity to this issue is welcomed.PassionoftheDamon (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, third opinion on offer here. Firstly I must agree that WP:NFCC #8 is the tricky bit here - the 'significance' (not necessity - agreed) issue relates to reader understanding, not public significance of the images themselves, and the argument that a reader's understanding about team rivalry is unimpaired by a lack of logos seems to be a reasonable one. However, when going to the use guidelines Non-free_content and scooting down to Acceptable Use we find "2. Team and corporate logos: For identification. See Wikipedia:Logos." - what is particularly noteworthy is that virtually all the other 7 items require the image to be the subject of critical commentary within the article - but not for this one, identification is enough. In a somewhat unhelpful bit of circularity, though, following the WP:Logos link tells us that "their use must conform to the guidelines for non-free content and, specifically, the non-free content criteria" !! So we're back to stumbling over WP:NFCC #8... I can't find it now, but I did come across a page somewhere in my meanderings which explained how portraits of actors significantly assist readers, and I think there was mention of logos there too. I wish I could find it again! I think that page probably holds the key to all this - if it is accepted that logos significantly assist the reader, then problem solved, the images can stay (assuming the other stuff re: #10 is taken care of). I presume the logos are used on the other relevant pages? I'm sure those familiar with the teams discussed in the rivalries page would obtain a fair bit of benefit from having the logos on the rivalry page, even though someone unfamiliar with the teams and/or logos would not. Hope that helps!! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sammy Gavrano
Good work on this Article! Trilobyte fossil (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Still got a little bit more work to do there, though.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mike Lupica
I purposely explained each removal at Mike Lupica. Your response is just "restored"? Wknight94 talk  17:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You wholesale blanked material that is properly cited to reliable sources (ESPN, YahooSports.com, The New York Times, The New York Post). And neither naked assertions of "bias" towards two popular writers for reliable mainstream sources (Lietch, Simmons), nor mislabeling a business column from another mainstream source a "gossip column" in an effort to dismiss it,  qualifies as a "purposeful explanation," let alone a persuasive one.  Such behavior is indicative of whitewashing.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A few people made the connection between his book and his stance on steroids, and you use that to justify "adopting a morally indignant attitude toward steroid use"? What kind of lawyering is that?  And using sources like this?  That's an advice columnist (whose web site doesn't even work) using one anonymous source to confirm a story reported on an independent blog site.  Even the source says "apparently because Lupica, dashing for a private plane to fly him and his kids back East, said he was doing a similar story about the Scottish-born kicker".  Apparently?!  That's your source (actually the source of your source)?  Why not throw in one of the other quotes there, "He's like a mafia don", or "He's like the spoiled kid who is enabled by his parents"?  Is that too far?  Get real.   Wknight94  talk  18:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, you resort to disingenuous claims to support your spurious reasoning. No, Keith J. Kelly isn't an "advice columnist" — he's a business columnist, and he writes for The New York Post, which is certainly a reliable source.  Someone who is supposedly an administrator here should surely know better.  As for your claim that his "web site doesn't even work," who cares?  What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?  Whether his blog is in working order is hardly germane; the column in question was just that—a column, not a blog post, and it is freely available online .  As for the significance of Kelly's use of the word "apparently," get a clue: words like apparently, reportedly, and allegedly are used all the time in newspaper sources.  They only become a problem when the incident in question is not reported as such on Wikipedia.  Reports, allegations, and charges all may be included as long as there is a reliable source and they are couched in such qualified wording.  The statement that you have excised in your bizarre, continuing zeal to whitewash all criticism of Lupica certainly meets that standard and does not misrepresent the source: "In 2008, Lupica was reportedly responsible for Daily News colleague Lisa Olson quitting the paper after he appropriated her assigned topic at the NFC Championship Game, causing her to miss her deadline and be passed over for an assignment to Super Bowl XLII."  You're only embarrassing yourself with your weak, futile, POV-tinged attempts at censorship.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * After filtering out all the propaganda verbiage, you've said nothing. Here is your version with your own additions and assumptions:
 * Lupica was reportedly responsible for Daily News colleague Lisa Olson quitting the paper after he appropriated her assigned topic at the NFC Championship Game, causing her to miss her deadline and be passed over for an assignment to Super Bowl XLII
 * Here is what I get out of the same "reliable source":
 * An individual business columnist, Keith J. Kelly, writing for a competing newspaper using anonymous 'insiders' as sources, reported that Lisa Olson quit after her superiors pulled her off a single story in favor of Lupica, 'apparently' because Lupica was already doing a similar story. Olson could not recover from the miscommunication and missed her deadline and was subsequently not issued press credentials by the Daily News (or 'The Snooze' as the consummate professional, Kelly, calls his competitor).
 * Should I go on? Same source, different interpretation.  You clearly gleaned only the worst possible picture of Lupica from that.  I gleaned that there's no end to how low people will go when they are jealous of a reputable and powerful co-worker, especially when they are cloaked in anonymity.  I see it every day in real life, so of course it's worse in the cutthroat journalism industry.  From that story, how do you know it wasn't Olson's own fault that she and Lupica were writing about the same subject at the same time?  How do you know that led to her not going to the Super Bowl?  Maybe she missed 20 deadlines that year.  Maybe someone got wind of her Tynes angle and hated it, and Lupica saved the day by covering her ass and writing a quick story inside the deadline.  Hell, even the anonymous sources can't agree on why she was yanked from the Super Bowl: "One source close to the News said it might have been her stormy past that kept her away from the big game between the Giants and the Patriots."  Your "Lupica was reportedly responsible" is totally off-base even from the words in Kelly's own column.   Wknight94  talk  01:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:UMiamiHelmet.gif)
 Thanks for uploading File:UMiamiHelmet.gif. 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)