User talk:Zeng8r/Archives/2010/November

Possible derivative uploads by User:83d40m
I am receiving no direction regarding how to proceed in order to prevent the deletion of my images that qualify as Florida public documents and you participated in the discussion at Possibly unfree files/2010 August 23. I suspect that these images will be deleted today even though I was told that I had two weeks to respond.

May I open those image files, insert the correct template in the license window, delete the notice, and get on with life? One of my images already has been deleted. How do I make correction to that so that it may be restored? Any help you can give me would be most appreciated? 83d40m (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you're experiencing the all-too-common small-minded behavior that regularly drives valuable editors away from this project. Clearly, there's no copyright issue with your photos or others released by the state of Florida. The problem is that the "possibly unfree files" page is frequented mostly by users who are obsessive about deleting photos which they feel are "unfree", whether or not they actually are. As you can see, most of them don't even bother to consider opposing viewpoints, no matter how well supported by facts.


 * I'd suggest finding a reasonable administrator to take a look. User:Athaenara is usually pretty good about either helping or directing you to someone who can help. Zeng8r (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't know if this page or any of the "possibly unfree images" pages are still on your watchlist, but do you ever look over those "discussions"? I wandered back over there following a link from a friend's talk page - he took a photo of a national monument and the copyright obsessed deleted it for completely bogus reasons. Poking around through more examples, it becomes obvious that virtually every image that ends up on those pages gets deleted, no matter how logical the arguments to keep and how nonsensical the arguments to delete. It's laughably pathetic, imo, and just another reason why I've been spending much less time working on wikipedia articles. Zeng8r (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

2009 SEC championship game
I'm not in any edit war whatsoever. 3rr says reversion of blanking/vandalism does not count toward being blocked for exceeding 3rr. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop playing dumb - you know very well that you're not reverting "vandalism". You keep putting in the same opinion-laced paragraph and several other editors keep removing it. That's an edit war, and while you haven't technically violated the 3 revert rule, you're violating its spirit. Seriously, the silly college rivalry games need to stop. There are plenty of websites for that, but wikipedia is not one of them. Zeng8r (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I am reverting vandalism, the blanked text that I am restoring includes the sentence stating that Alabama won XX-XX (again, as a Georgia fan I don't care but it is fact). I.e. blanking the result of the game, in the article about the game. If that's not vandalism then I don't know what is. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Tebow crying is documented fact, not mere opinion. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * BS. The score is already mentioned several times in the article, and that's not what you've been reverting. You do realize that articles have an edit log, right? It shows that you keep re-inserting the exact same opinion-based statement about crying. Other editors (not just me, notice) keep reverting it instead of tweaking it because it's unsourced and worded in an obviously biased manner by an editor who seems to be playing games. Zeng8r (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the score is indeed what I have been reverting. removes the score,  I restore it.  Score is removed a 2nd time,  I restore it again. That's 2 reverts if they counted toward 3rr, which these don't. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Yes, the first sentence in that two sentence paragraph mentions the final score. However, as you well know, the score is already mentioned multiple times in the article, so it really isn't needed. As you also well know, it's the second sentence of that little addition that I'm referring to.
 * This conversation reminds me of times when I catch one of my (10 y/o) students doing something that they shouldn't and they leap into amusingly contorted verbal and logical gymnastics to try to explain their actions. "No, I wasn't eating in the computer lab; the pretzel just fell in my mouth and I started chewing it so I didn't choke..."  or "I wasn't (again) trying to tease a rival's player; I was just putting in the score of the game. What's wrong with that?..." lol Zeng8r (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The score is not mentioned "multiple times in the article", especially not in the main text body. Aside from the text restored by 96.32.... the score only appears in the infobox and in the table of how the points were scored. So the anon was right to restore the score to the actual text. The second sentence of that addition isn't opinion either, it is verified fact that Tebow was crying. And again, this is not UGA vs UF this game was UA vs UF, so us UGA fans don't really care who won or who did what, just that the article is factual. --70.33.79.99 (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

fyi, there's relevant discussion on the article's talk page if you actually want to discuss this seriously. Zeng8r (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)