User talk:Reisio/Archive3

Unspecified source for Image:Flag of Venezuela 1930-2006.svg
Thanks for uploading Image:Flag of Venezuela 1930-2006.svg.[... etc...] Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 18:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's marked as public domain (a "copyright tag"), so it doesn't matter who created it - you'd have to have some evidence of it not being public domain to do something about it. One of the reasons for putting something into the public domain is so people don't have to bother with attribution.
 * That said, this file is attributed (even though it doesn't need to be), you had but to read the page to see it:
 * From Flag of Venezuela.svg
 * Please do your job a little better. I'm sorry if that reads as snotty, but I can't think of a nicer way to put it. People have put time and effort into this legitimate upload for the betterment of all the wikis, the least you can do is read.
 * ¦ Reisio 03:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, your reactions are comprehensible, but there is still a problem: Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 05:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Even for "public domain" material, a source is needed. Either the picture was made by you (and it is specifically a PD-Self), or it was made by someone else, who owns the rights, and who has to confirm that it is PD. Coat of Arms and flags are not PD by themeselves: the definition is, but not the realisation, when there is artistic creativity in its drawing. (NB: be it not for the coat of arms, the flag itself would be PD-ineligible, OK).
 * I saw the source, indeed, but where did the archived flag came from in the first place? This source is useless as long as copyright status is concerned.
 * The warning is a standard subst: model, I am not responsible for the wording. People put time and effort to insure Commons and the wikis stay legal, you may want to respect that job as well.

---
 * Copyright status isn't concerned - it's public domain - copyright is waived, as stated even in the template. I know some of you guys are gung-ho about licensing, but you can't make public domain something it isn't - it is not a license that requires attribution, or a license at all. You can trace the origin of the image via the history on the Image:Flag of Venezuela.svg page, if you're interested. ¦ Reisio 06:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what the PD-Flag model recals:
 * Representations of national flags are subject to copyright as original works of art and do not fall under Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation's purview as they are not representations of two-dimensional works of art.

... and the archive picture has no history nor copyright tag: its origin is unclear. Now, if YOU created the flag, just say so and state that YOU wave the rights, otherwise you can't wave rights that you don't own. Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 06:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The venezelian flag has no coat on arm on it, and this is the problem: who drew it, where does it come from? OK, I understand that you are not the author of the picture, and that you can't identify its author, so that the file has to be deleted for copyright violation. Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 07:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Aparently, the CoA comes from http://www.vexilla-mundi.com/venezuela.htm, which is not a free site, so the corresponding copyrights must be respected. Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 07:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry
I am sorry that we butted heads tonight. I don't usually do that. You put a great deal of work into that image, that's beautiful, and once I saw it I realized we just somehow got wires crossed. I'm not that guy, I promise. Thank you so much, I appreciate your hard work on it. Chris (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't give it a second thought, really. :) Reisio (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If ever there's anything you need support for or backup on, let me know. I seriously owe you. Chris (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Western Sahara
Western Sahara is an area under dispute with Morocco and SADR.

The flag u are trying to make is the SADR flag, WS don't have flag.

The Flag must be the flag of UN or deleted.

see: Flag of Western Sahara Vispec (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What's cool about you now officially being a sockpuppet is that I don't even have to go through the motions of "discussion" with you anymore, I can just say this: Whatever, sockpuppet. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I feel sorry for you setting all day there for years to RV edits of honest poeple User:Wikima User:A Jalil User:FayssalF want to clarify the truth of Western Sahara and Moroccan-Polisario Conflect without propaganda; you are lucky because the admins don't know the detailes of the conflect so they can stop your lies immediately, if u think Morocco is colonizing WS then write to clarify the truth and not inventing lies, sooner or later your propaganda will be deleted, lies don't last forever; + get a life! Vispec (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * R. O. F. L. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

About Italian flag (again...)
Hi Reisio! I'm writing to you about your image:Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg. I know you already discussed about the Italian flag before, but I want to underline that, simply, there is not a Pantone colour, for cotton, like an RGB white (i.e. R=255 G=255 B=255), so the embarrassment. It is stupid using a colour for cotton in a monitor. F l a n k e r (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC) (I can speak Italian)

Ditto.--Frank87 (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's stupid to think a color you're seeing on a monitor is a color for cotton. ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you Italian? No. Do you know Italian legislation? No. Then, why do you spent every time about Italian flag? Do you know that's trolling? Edit-war? Or not? --82.53.15.10 (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Yes, What?, No, Yes, Hrmm? ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

DFTT. Say: what? --82.53.15.10 (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Responses to all of your questions. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bandiera_della_Repubblica_Italiana_PMS_20060414.svg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svg, has been listed at Commons:Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Blackcat it (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't like to waste time with people that won't listen to criticism and objections. Blackcat it (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits in Flag of Italy
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. --Angelo (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems you don't really care about WP:CONSENSUS. I've fully protected the article also due to your behaviour, if you really want that flag into it please build a consensus. And please respect policies and etiquette when you're dealing with other users. Consider this as a penultimate warning (the final one is going to happen in case you keep on failing to follow the rules). Thank you. --Angelo (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Show me a consensus and I'll show you some caring. I've not deviated from Wikipedia policy, so your threats are fairly meaningless to me. ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You want to include an alternate version of the Italian flag with no consensus. That's a fact, I have nothing more to say. --Angelo (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I did include a depiction of an Italian flag which was already described in the page, with no lack of consensus. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

But some other users (notably, the ones who reverted your edits and opened a related discussion in the talkpage) argue your depiction is actually wrong. That's the main issue. I have no position on the issue, but your version is legitimated to be featured in the article only if you can convince the rest of the community you are right. Wikipedia is based on consensus, don't forget it. --Angelo (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, something more to say after all? :p Notably the reverters? Who else did?  User:Minartih merely made a claim, which I exposed as inaccurate, and he acknowledged was inaccurate.  He then proceeded to use more inaccurate and then irrelevant claims.  I know what consensus is, and there is not a consensus against the inclusion of that image. ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely there's no consensus in support of its inclusion, and personally I think the consensus is clearly leaning against of it. Good night. --Angelo (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't need consensus to add legitimate content; nothing would ever get done if that weren't the case. We even have a guideline promoting such action. ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's that legitimate if people keeps on removing it, and you're the only supporter. You look more like WP:POINT than WP:BOLD. --Angelo (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are incredibly naïve — I could link you all day long to diffs of people removing legitimate content over and over and over for years, diffs that were always immediately reverted by regular users and admins alike. I can also show you diffs that people are no longer bothering to revert, but that are unquestionably inaccurate or non-NPOV.  Anyways, as I said, I'll respect a consensus if there ever is one. ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones
i am warning you to seize your assttempts to override consensus or else you couadld cause a edit war. i do not mind figting edit wars. Smith Jones (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attacks on Talk:Flag of Italy
This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This is the diff of your personal attack:. Some people might not like being defined a joke. --Angelo (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And you been blocked. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Montenegrin Scout badge
Take a look at http://cgi.ebay.ca/Boy-Scout-MONTENEGRO-Crne-Gore-national-patch-badge_W0QQitemZ180225680891QQihZ008QQcategoryZ103977QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem, it looks like an identical copy off your artwork, which was a unique interpretation based on that small postage stamp. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd call it more extrapolation or mere enlargement — I was trying to duplicate the postage stamp as accurately as possible; consequently, any other fairly accurate duplications would look quite similar. The outline of the state doesn't match all that well to mine… which I s'pose could be explained by processing, but still, I'm not entirely convinced.  eBay is of course inherently lame and people shouldn't have to pay $15 for a badge they can download for free, but I'm not sure I'm the entity legally entitled or behooved to curtail incidents such as this, at least at this time. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Peregrine Falcon
I have responded to your message on the talk page. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  08:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus
Roughly 60 people voted three times in three years. Is it not presumptuous to think that one person can have his own way without any discussion at all? --JimWae (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If by my own way you mean my application of the MoS (which I don't recall ever editing) versus your unexplained revert followed by something about a consensus I wasn't part of? :p Think of it this way, if you like: 60 people couldn't agree on something, some were for one thing, some for another, etc. — add me in and one party is obviously increased in representation. ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The most recent discussion is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#Use_of_BC.2FAD_and_BCE.2FCE. Please revert yourself. The compromise is what keeps edit wars from breaking out --JimWae (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's old, and I wasn't a part of it, and clearly it doesn't keep edit wars from breaking out. ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

2 weeks is old?!? "It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." You are wasting everyone's time. Not everything is about YOU --JimWae (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It does say it's archived, not that it would matter if I wasn't a part of it. The MoS favors one system over two, and the article first used BC & AD (for starters).  …and, obviously, you do not speak for everyone. ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not the case that majority rules at wikipedia. If it did, the article would have been CE only --JimWae (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That actually is exactly the case. ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As the talk page (2 weeks ago) points out - the MoS intends that the two notations not be alternated, but be consistently the same. --JimWae (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I already explained, I'm not bound by conclusions made in this discussion I wasn't involved in, and that is not what the MoS states. ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone at wikipedia is BOUND to work together. It is a co-operative project & your only methodology so far is to edit-war. You have also unwittingly changed the titles of books --JimWae (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Part of that cooperation is adhering to the MoS, wouldn't you say? If I've edit warred, you have equally.  What about titles of books, now? ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Style is subservient to content & to not edit-warring. Did you read anything you changed? Did you read the talk page at all? I recommend WP:BRD to you--JimWae (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hrmm? Why should I read the talk page?  We seem to be at the discussion part of WP:BRD, though it seems you would have preferred I had skipped B and R. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In WP:BRD the bold person initiates the discussion & waits before making further reverts --JimWae (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Uhhh, there is actually a diagram on that page with 'Make an edit' next to 'Bold change'… I'm not sure if you could be more wrong. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with JimWae here. Could you examine the diagram a little more closer? You came along a made a bold change edit, the article was then further edited in the form of a revert. You disagree with the revert... so according to the diagram... what would be your next course of action? Restoring the bold edit by means of a revert (what you did, twice) or taking it to the talk page for discussion? As I often say, it is NEVER appropriate to revert back to a controversial, new bold edit without consensus. At this point, I would urge you strongly not to revert any more (or risk WP:3RR violation). If you want to pursue this topic further, you should start a discussion thread on the talk page. But as a personal note, I would simply say "why do you care so much about a couple silly letters after dates? this article needs major work in various areas if we ever want to to reach FA status. Last time it was up for FA, the era notations was not mentioned as an article issue by any of the reviewers. Therefore, if you really want to help the article, why not focus on improving content and sources and working towards FA status, instead of trying to drag up a dead horse of a debate over some silly stinking letters". It appears you favor BC/AD. But what do you dislike more, having both or could you settle to have BCE/CE only? Just something to think about. Good luck to you.-Andrew c [talk] 16:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If he'd made any logical claim at any point during any of this, it might have gone differently, but we'll never know. I don't see it as controversial, and Wikipedia policy says I can revert three times in 24 hours, and potentially infinite more times after that.  I care about everything illogical, incongruous, imperfect, inaccurate, otherwise I wouldn't even bother with Wikipedia; I'm not sure how you (particularly as an admin) have trouble grasping this.  Why should I care?  Why should he care?  Why should you?  Why should any of us care about anything?  These are silly questions.  If your only contribution to a discussion such as this is "Hey guys, let's not do anything right or wrong, wouldn't that be great!" then I suggest you just not participate next time, because it's not a contribution at all. ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

2009-01-11 reversion on Gentoo Linux
Do not revert my edits without giving a full justification. Regarding the partial justification you gave in your edit summary:
 * I don't see which part of Template:Fact you are referring to. Please specify.
 * Even if you were right that I could clarify the text as anyone, this does not change the fact that the text needs to be clarified.

--Chealer (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Next time I revert an edit of yours at Gentoo Linux, I'll be initiating an RfC on you. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Reversions on Gentoo Linux
See Revert only when necessary. If you continue reverting my edits on Gentoo Linux without justifying, I'll report your behavior to the administration. --Chealer (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

February 2009
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  21:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Assumption requires a lack of proof — In my encounters with Chealer, I have acquired proof that he is not operating in good faith, and therefore cannot assume otherwise. FAITH is also a mere guideline, not policy, and is therefore that much more irrelevant.  ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This kind of behaviour is absolutly dispicable and people who engage im it should not be editing Wikipedia. Overcome by anger you accused someone of not being happy untill Wikipedia has only three articles; this is understandable becuase of your recent disagreements, a "heat of the moment" type thing; but then to justify that behaviour after you have calmed down by calling basic civility and respect, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, "irrelevant" is appalling. Guidelines are what Wikipedia is built on: try writing a featured article that doesn't comply with the manual of style. I suggest you keep away from Chealer in future.-- Patton t / c 22:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, Chealer shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. :p Was calm the whole time, and I did not define what policies and guidelines are, nor the policies and guidelines themselves — if you have a problem with those definitions, my talk page isn't the place.  I suggest Chealer keep away from myself and any articles I have spent time on (and more) in the future. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You have 'reasons for a belief', not 'proof'. Please don't confuse the two. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  23:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Semantics aside, no, I have proof. When WP:FAITH says my understanding of good faith actions is established by a committee (and when it's policy), then your opinion will matter to my proof. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have proof, I think we'd all be glad to see it. Ginbot86 (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It'd be nice if you all saw it. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So do you have proof or not? Ginbot86 (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe what you're looking for is here. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Squawk. Some proof that is. Ginbot86 (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Refs


Just FFR, do please try to avoid outright deletion of named refs that are likely relied upon elsewhere in an article, as happened in this edit. Already fixed it, so just FYI. :) ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * While I'm sure you were believing yourself to be helpful in suggesting I don't remove references that are used multiple times in the article, surely you appreciate that the link no longer actually contained the information that was being used as a source? Or did you not check this before filing your complaint on my talk page?  No, it's okay, you don't need to answer that.  We both know you didn't, given that you re-added the link in spite of it quite clearly NOT CONTAINING THE INFORMATION contained in the article.   Warren -talk- 04:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It sure was nice talkin' with you, Warren. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)