User talk:Renamed user 995577823Xyn

Sigh ...
Thanks for trying, We hope. Unfortunately the you approached has demonstrated in the past that any attack made on me is acceptable - this was despite it being known the IP was a  who was crowing and admitting to it off-wiki. I note that the instruction is that you are expected to be apologizing to him (the other user) for the (your) comments, yet the other user is not even reprimanded let alone expected to apologise. This is simply an encouragement for the user to continue with his behaviour - but I guess that is now the way of Wikipedia? SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sagaciousphil, We hope: If you want to talk about this and discuss your thoughts and input with me, my door is completely open and I would like to do so and try and help in any way. Just start a new discussion on my talk page - let's talk.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually thought one of my main points was made above? The last time I tried to discuss on your talk page it was pointless, wasn't it? Why is this any likely to be different? Still nothing done regarding the other user? No, I thought not. Thanks but I have content to write, which no doubt after I've spent a lot of time, money and effort to produce a drive-by will arrive to insist an IB be added. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 09:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's done. I will "apologize" to the editor when Hades freezes over and all his deceased friends and relatives pop up and begin ice skating. I participated in the conversation with him AFTER his "hypocrisy" and "attack dog against me whilst Cassianto's on his best behaviour".removed attacks on OTHERS asked admin help. Then I was told replying to him at AN re: an earlier issue was "stalking" him, trying to "pull a stunt" to "silence the opposition" by the PA removals. The "attack dog" question brought the following response from him The reply was a personal attack that focused on the contributor (me), rather than the substance of my arguments, but you knew that." I responded to this with "BULLSHIT!", When he remarked, my reply was "Merely following your lead." The discussion stopped being civil when his "attack dog" remarks were made. I am not the one who began the PAs, so there's nothing to apologize for.


 * I went into this trying to stop the abuse and it happens every time User:Cassianto participates in a box discussion. The other editor "magically" appears and participates in this way. It's happened more times than coincidence allows. He accuses others of pulling stunts and gaslighting against the opposition, but apparently it's perfectly fine with him to pop up and begin insulting on a regular basis in those discuaaions. I have no further content to create-text or visual because I won't continue working here. We hope (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to see this has driven you away, We hope, but can understand and share your frustration. It's interesting to note that in this comment while discussing PAs etc the is admitting to being selective as to who should be reprimanded - I guess that's again endorsing he feels I can be targeted?  SagaciousPhil  - Chat 06:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The admin help was closed saying the help desired wasn't noted. ;) I certainly would have rather spent my time doing something else, but did not like the PAs coming from this editor; they were no surprise given past discussions. I now find that my time is better spent away from Wikipedia. Let's see-70%+ of your time here is spent in mainspace, Close to 80% of my time here was spent on content creation. The editor who called you an "attack dog" has spent just under 33% of his time in mainspace editing.  It can't be the amount of time you spend here or where you spend it that's the deciding factor here. Let's try again for an explanation since you continue to work here. user:Oshwah We hope (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I just saw that you pinged me in your response here. How can I help? Also, to briefly try and explain: The edit I looked into was this one that made that you removed part of the content from. I also noted and commented on the responses you made in return. I didn't comment on your follow-up messages to imply that I wasn't going to help you further, but you must understand that when you start responding to personal attacks and incivility with the same thing back that it only makes the situation worse, never better. I understand that you were frustrated - I really do, but I have to make sure that when looking into issues that I address all problematic edits and behaviors, not just the ones that the reporting user mentions. I didn't get farther than this due to your reply on my talk page. What would you like to do? What would you like me to do?  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   17:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps user:Sagaciousphil has some requests since he/she was called an "attack dog". I was only told I was stalking the editor, "pulling a stunt" to try to "silence the opposition" and "gaslighting", who didn't decide he'd received a PA until AFTER the removal of his PA and my request for help. Bringing user: Cassianto into this for his thoughts because it seems to me that every time he's discussing infoboxes, he's promptly "joined" by the editor in question. We hope (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Your user page
Hi We hope. I noticed your user page. I do not think it conforms with Wikipedia:ARBINFOBOX; I think it is perfectly fine to have reasoned opposition to the universal use of infoboxes but I think this is taking it too far. Would you mind changing it? --John (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes-it's been that way since 2016, so funny you're concerned about it now. I want it as is. We hope (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's unfortunate. What would you like to do next? John (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Leave after ArbCom is done; not naive enough to put any more work into this place. We hope (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well of course you are welcome to leave any time. In the meantime though I don't think you can have this on your user page. --John (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that Callenecc was wrong when he protected it in September 2016? We hope (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've no idea. I'd prefer if you removed it. If you won't remove it, I will. If I remove it and you restore it, I'll take it to the community and see if there is a consensus for sanctions under ARBINFOBOX. See what you think. --John (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * John, there's nothing wrong with that user page and if you edit it against the wishes of the user, I will revert you myself. WP:ARBINFOBOX pertains to article space info boxes. fish &amp;karate  12:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked for 24 hours, as explained at the WP:AN discussion. Fram (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Contest toolkit image
Hi, can you or make me an image of a toolbox and some sort of contest theme all in one as a sort of logo to go in the top right of Contests/Toolkit?♦  Dr. Blofeld  13:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Renee Harris (producer)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Renee Harris (producer), We hope!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"A very comprehensive article, but rather overladen with unnecessary detail. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)"

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions closed
An arbitration case regarding civility in infobox discussions has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * 1) Any uninvolved administrator may apply infobox probation as a discretionary sanction.  See the full decision for details of infobox probation.
 * 2) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes.
 * 3) Cassianto is indefinitely placed on infobox probation.
 * 4) The Arbitration Committee recommends that well-publicized community discussions be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article and how those factors should be weighted.
 * 5) All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
 * 6) For canvassing editors to this case, Volvlogia (talk · contribs) is admonished. They are warned that any further instances of canvassing related to arbitration processes will likely result in sanctions.


 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments

 * User:Alex Shih
 * User:BU Rob13
 * User:DGG
 * User:Doug Weller
 * User:Mkdw
 * User:Newyorkbrad
 * User:Opabinia regalis
 * User:Premeditated Chaos


 * User:RickinBaltimore
 * User:Worm That Turned
 * User:Callanecc
 * User:DeltaQuad
 * User:Euryalus
 * User:KrakatoaKatie
 * User:Ks0stm

After repeated harassment by an editor who brought a complaint to the Committee, I hid my e-mail and asked for an I-Ban. When it appeared I would have no official help with the problem, I realized the solution to this harassment was to leave. I made the edit linked in the previous sentence and signed out on 25 January.

The 25 January edit was my last time on site until now. It's surprising to see a case I was never notified about was ended. My talk page history shows no notice of the case given, so as a party to the case, I was never notified that there would be one.

The case I was party to but never notified of placed Cassianto under infobox probation. While there is language providing for the addition of an infobox, there are no provisions to allow the editor to deal with the unwanted addition of an infobox on articles he/she has created/improved/expanded. This holds true for anyone who may be placed under this restriction.

Discretionary sanctions have been added; this has brought out the "Wild Wild West" in some people perhaps  selectively applying the templates. Some of the dust seems to have settled with one of the editors becoming inactive thereafter.

All of this can lead to some possible scenarios. One is the idea that if an editor doesn't write or improve articles, no one can then demand a box be placed on them. Many editors have spent considerable time and effort on given articles, especially those which have been taken to FA or GA status. If an editor is hounded repeatedly about a box, the editor may decide to say to hell with article X. This editor may stop curating or maintaining these articles, doing necessary work like fixing dead links, etc. Given time and inattention, the article's quality may degrade and in the case of GA and FA works, may lead to their delisting. The editor may opt to end the frustration by leaving Wikipedia. None of these philosophies improve the encyclopedia by any means, but they do keep the peace that appears to be so sought after.

I also see that Dr. Blofeld has retired as a result of a declined case request which began here as "Dr. Blofeld's old copyright violations".

By no matter of means do the festivities end here. Another editor who requested deletion of a user page she began has it overruled by someone else; there is a marathon of moving it back and forth from user space to main space. When a previously non-controversial edit can earn one a talk page template and the constant concern of inadvertently being blocked or banned, your good faith text contributions can get you taken through the mud, when an editor's deletion requests are overruled by the self-appointed Wiki Police who were apparently watching your edits or there likely would have been no knowledge of your G-7, as well as the previous harassment and being a party but not notified there was a case to close, I can find no reason to continue trying to work here. I was here just short of eight years and have never been taken to either ANI or AN for my actions. I can live nicely without Wikipedia; I can't live with it given its present state. There appears to be the matter of a long-standing COI I am aware of but cannot post due to the possibility of outing. If the Committee has interest, I can e-mail the information as I see I will not need to re-open my e-mail to do so. We hope (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to a few key points. First, of course, you're welcome to email us to anything that may be relevant to the case (even after it's been closed). Second, if you didn't receive a notification about the case being opened, that was a key error. I will be asking the clerks what happened here and why no notification was given. Since you were listed as a party, my understanding is you should have received one. Third, I (and many other arbitrators) see the omission of any exception for articles an individual has personally created/worked on as a feature, not a bug. There has long been a misconception that creating an article gives you some form of additional say in whether it gets an infobox or not. This isn't true; see WP:OWN. If the community consensus is for an infobox on that specific article, then it should have an infobox, even if the creator does not agree (and likewise in the other direction, of course). Fourth, that particular G7 decline was entirely appropriate. Editors release their work under a free license when they contribute. If they later decide to leave for whatever reason, they don't get to take their ball and go home with it. The good work they did on Wikipedia remains. This is explicitly written into the G7 criterion, which specifies that only requests for deletion done in good faith are considered. It is not good faith to request a perfectly good article be deleted because you're annoyed with something that happened on Wikipedia. And lastly, this particular arbitration decision changed exactly nothing with respect to content policy on infoboxes. It addressed behavioral problems that may have previously prevented existing policy from being enforced. ~ Rob 13 Talk 13:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. With regards to the notifications not being received for the case; the clerks have looked into this and the notifications were sent using the WP:Mass message functionality. As your usertalk is tagged with the opt out template the message was not delivered. I can only apologise for this and advise that we will be looking to modify our procedures to try to ensure this doesn't happen again by either confirmation of the mass-message logs or a better solution if one presents it's self. Again apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused. Amortias (T)(C) 22:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for The Carpenters
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Tom Mix film posters
Hi We hope. I'm currently writing as much articles about actor Tom Mix and the movies in which they appeared as possible. But not all of his movies have a freely licensed film poster on Commons; some are uploaded as fair use on the English Wikipedia (example). I'd like to have all of them on Commons, not just those from before 1923 - and that is possible (example). As you uploaded most of them... perhaps you have an advice for me how to do that? Or could help me find the larger copies and move them to Commons? Trijnstel talk 20:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I now see you are practically inactive since early this year. Though I still hope you're around a bit (if not: can someone else help me?). Trijnstel talk 23:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Multiple accounts
I have blocked the account you were using intermittently over the past few months per WP:SOCK. Given the nature of the edits, I can see no legitimate use outside of evading scrutiny.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WMAQ logo 1971-1975.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:WMAQ logo 1971-1975.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Bob Burns with bazooka 1937.jpg
Hi We hope, thank you for uploading this. As you are experienced here and there, I would like to understand if there is a reason not to upload this file to Commons? If not, I would like to transfer it, or would you prefer to do it yourself? Cheers --SI 03:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kiss me kate stafford 1949.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kiss me kate stafford 1949.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Mistaken
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HAL333&diff=974350146&oldid=974344520

Gerda Arendt, you are mistaken. As stated |here 2+ years ago, "I am happier without that dirt." and only occasionally help friends with non-text projects. How amusing. :-D We hope (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You follow me closely, it seems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * ping Sinatra TP ping editor TP We hope (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Watermark
Hi, as I create more old-movie articles, I notice that you have uploaded press photos from ebay and were able to remove the watermark. I would love to be able to do that, but in the meantime I scrounge around for images that don't have a watermark. However, I came across this image that is very clear and that shows front and back. Would you be able to remove the watermark for me? If you prefer that I do the uploading first, please let me know. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Local copy of File:Wolf Dog.jpg
Hi. I am wondering why you marked File:Wolf Dog.jpg as needing a local copy. I do not see a reason to not have it linked between Commons and Wikipedia. Many other files that are definitely PD in their home country you have also not exported/specifically requested a local copy of to be kept — why? DemonDays64 (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Australian daybill poster The Next Corner.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Australian daybill poster The Next Corner.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Social Code Australian daybill poster.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Social Code Australian daybill poster.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)