User talk:Terrillja/Archives/01/2011

SVGs
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow

Misuse of WP:BRD at Julian Assange
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow You just missed violating the 3 reversion rule by deleting the same material within about 26 hours. You based your repeated deletions on WP:BRD, but a careful reading of the policy might be helpful here:

BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus. It is a way for editors who have a good grasp of a subject to more rapidly engage discussion and make changes that are probably good, in articles where a "discuss first" method of consensus is unlikely to lead to quick progress.

BRD is not a substitute for prior research which would support the initial edit or a reversion of it. Researching first, then citing sources, may reduce the likelihood of a reversion or, if one takes place, help keep the resulting discussion constructive.

BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.

BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. Try an edit summary of "Let's talk about this; I'll start the discussion with a list of my objections" rather than "Undo. I thought BRD requires you to start the discussion" (because BRD requires no such thing). The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

You didn't even participate in the discussion until after your second deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julian_Assange#Death_threats.

You might also want to review the policy at WP:NPOV which has been cited in the discussion: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

Thank you for your cooperation. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you looking at? 3RR is exceeding 3 reverts (that would be >=4) in 24 hours. I have yet to exceed 2 reverts in 24 hours. 2<3<4. BRD is a valid reason to revert someone who refuses to get the point and use the talkpage, which is what you were doing. WP:TEND, which you love to cite coincidentally, is pretty clearly against your actions, such as continually claiming that you have been wronged and that everyone is out to get you. And I never used an edit summary with anything like what you supposedly quote above. And NPOV does not require including all viewpoints (as much as you may claim that it does), rather it states that significant viewpoints and information are included. Significance is determined by consensus. That involves the talkpage. So, as I actually said "You made a bold edit, it was reverted, use the talkpage as there is already a discussion open. You should know how this works by now." Find that consensus for what is significant and what is not on the talkpage. And be more careful when quoting my edit summaries so as to not make yourself look foolish/like a liar. -- Terrillja talk  04:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You've completely deleted the material in question, an entire, well-referenced section of the article, three times. The first time at 18:43, 31 December 2010 and the last time at 21:26, 1 January 2011. Here are the diffs:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=405200350&oldid=405166746
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=405372842&oldid=405371255
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=405380671&oldid=405379640 Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also from WP:NPOV: ""Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."
 * And there's more there: "Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So no more than 2 deletions in a 24 hour period. Just as I said. So no, i never got even close to breaking 3rr. So you can check your accusatory tone at the door. The problem is that your interpretations of policy do not match those of anyone else pretty much. If you took the woe is me and comments on editors down a notch, you might actually have some collaboration. WP:TEND. Refusal to get the point. That is all.-- Terrillja talk  19:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You came within 3 hours of breaking the 3 reversions rule, which I would call "very close". But more importantly, BRD does not support your deletions.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (I have removed your repetition of things you have said before) And no, I never came close to breaking anything, because 3RR is be more than 3 reverts (that means 4 or more) in a 24 hour period. I had 2 in 24h. No even close to 4. whole numbers are pretty simple, they go from 2 to 3 to 4. 2!=4. Again, check your accusatory tone at the door.-- Terrillja talk  14:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to undelete my comment - it's important. Sorry about misunderstanding the 3RR rule - you are obviously more familiar with it than I am. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sade.JPG
I uploaded a picture that turned out to be non-free. Whoever put it on Flickr uploaded it as a free image, which I found not to be when I saw it on Sades official site. Can you take it off for me please? Thanks. FotoPhest (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

1994 Fifa image
Why did you change back the image? --Colejohnson66 (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The quality was horrible. The letters were all distorted and the curves weren't smooth.-- Terrillja talk  03:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply on Sockpuppetry case
Dear User, dont make judgement who reflects fake; if you have any questions feel free to discuss on my talk page. -- USLeaks  t/c 16:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)