User talk:Seresin/Archive 31

Abuse of minor edits
re: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians&diff=next&oldid=342304737

From Help:Minor edit: "Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor."

"The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences to not display them. If there is any chance that another editor might dispute a change, it is best not to mark the edit as minor."

From the not list: "Adding or removing content in an article".

I hope this will help you edit better in the future. --Gwern (contribs) 19:12 6 February 2010 (GMT)
 * Your protest has been noted and given the consideration it deserves. ÷seresin 19:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The removal
Since you're an admin, I would not waste my time to revert or object to your removal of the comment made by Nvcvocalist. I know the comment is provocative and may be unfit to the purpose of the noticeboard, but I've seen Tony Sideaway have been blanking others' comments without permission as if he were a AN, AN/I, AN3 clerk, or admin/arbitrator. Often, I feel his removals or early archival conflict to his interests, and are inappropriate. So I reverted his blanking this time. -Caspian blue 02:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are times when removal is inappropriate, and I do not doubt that TS has done so before. But this time the removal was correct. ÷seresin 03:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, AN and AN/I are after all "complaint departments" for angry people who want to bring whatever they complain, so I don't see why it must be immediately deleted by a "non-admin".--Caspian blue 03:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * AN/I is not a complaint department. The notice was not designed to draw attention to a legitimate concern or generate serious discussion, it was a political notice trying to increase the visibility of his complaint against the ArbCom. It did not belong there. TS's status as a "non-admin" is irrelevant. ÷seresin 04:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a complaint department to draw attention to or resolve raised concerns that some may feel legitimate, but others many not. Many AN reports there are "politically motivated" to get more supports, so I don't see much difference from this one. TS's status as a non-admin is relevant since removing comments is usually not allowed to non-admins except blatant vandalism or harassment campaigns. Nvcvocalist was once accused of doing that even though he is not an admin. I feel irony over this.--Caspian blue 04:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Image deletions: File:Manta Mirage.png and File:Manta mirage side.png
Hi,

the two images Manta Mirage.png and Manta mirage side.png were deleted, based on the rational that they are 'easily replaced'. I would disagree, considering the car is no longer manufactured, and the images represent the definitive version of the car, as the manufacturer intended. Non-factory images from a more current time period would likely reflect modifications and changes to the original design, and thus be misleading.

The comment that 'These vehicles were produced in relatively low volumes, but they are not that rare: editors in New Zealand can buy one here' does not affect the underlying premise that the used vehicle (for sale in New Zealand) may, or may not be unmodified and original. It would seem to me the original factory images of this vehicle would be the most reliable, and published source on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idiotcountry (talk • contribs) 23:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus in the FfDs was that a factory image is not necessary—that an image of a car purchased now would be satisfactory. Since an image of a car purchased now is available, the image fails NFCC#1 and so Wikipedia will not host it. ÷seresin 00:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps the original copyright information on the images was incorrect. Seeing that they were published on a 2-page company flier, with no copyright notice, in either 1975 or 1976, both images are in the public domain. I am unable to see the original copyright notice on the unloaded images (I'm sure you can).

I am also a bit confused as to the potential deletion of the File:Manta gone 60.png image. Considering that owing to the distinct lack of imageages relating to this car on Wikipedia, NFCC8 as you note, becomes rather significant, yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idiotcountry (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning
Referring to me as a child while ostensibly warning me? Not on. Consider yourself warned. → ROUX   ₪  04:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mingi
Just a friendly heads up on Mingi. You declined a speedy on this a couple of years ago and prodded instead. The article was deleted, but has now been restored as a contested prod per a request at Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests. I've advised the requester to beef up the sources if s/he wants to avoid a trip to AfD; proceed as you see fit. Cheers! -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  22:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I never thanked you for this note — so thank you. ÷seresin 02:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

my talk; thanks ;)
Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. Let me know when you want it off. ÷seresin 22:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 'indefinite' is fine with me until I get around to getting my own mop. Thanks, Jack Merridew 22:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Same shite is occurring at User talk:Jack "Red Hood" Napier. See the threads I put on ANI, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for reverting vandalism and protecting my talk page. Looking through the history I can't help but laugh, as most of it seems more like joker fan mail than true vandalism. Anyway, thanks again. 23:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Let me know when you want it off. ÷seresin 00:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)