User talk:Nagualdesign

Last updated: 19 January 2018

Sketch-up

Thanks you for your response on the help desk. Can you please send me any links or insights as to how it works? I am a stranger to this so any help would be appreciated.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@NadirAli: I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but since the you've mentioned SketchUp and the notification I received linked to an older copy of the help desk discussion (which has since been archived) you may not have noticed that I made a few more posts after that. In fact I made you your very own Ecosia userbox! See here for more details.

Editing the userbox should be fairly straightforward, but feel free to ask me for help if you need any. Please be aware though that the image I uploaded for you, which is used in the infobox, may yet be deleted. It was added by a bot to Commons:User:Magog the Ogre/PD ineligible/2018 January 1-3. I've asked Magog the Ogre himself if he intends to delete it (see the discussion here) but I'm not really sure what's going to happen. My advice would be to carry on regardless. If the image gets deleted we can always replace it with something else. nagualdesign 00:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

...Okay, I think I've sorted that out now and the images will not be deleted. It turns out that I was responsible for flagging them accidentally in the first place! nagualdesign 03:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@NadirAli: Uh-oh.. I spoke too soon. The images are being considered for deletion. I wouldn't worry about it though. nagualdesign 03:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Charming

"Or maybe I was just being charming to get you on my side": I don't think you tried to get me on your side in the picture discussion. But you apologized, showing some social grace, which gives me hope for the discussion. I have to correct a misinterpretation of Wikipedia:Canvassing, though: Whether you know if I'm partisan on a given issue is only one of a number of conditions each of which suffices. The only reason why I wrote "borderline" was because in the "Scale" criterion, you were still in the yellow range. On a practical note, I disagree with "the more the merrier": Usually I find that discussions between two reasonable people get more complicated by the addition of others, and all the people involved would be far more productive doing something else. Just think about how often people in a work environment complain that meetings keep them from their work. — Sebastian 01:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth I really appreciate having my work constructively critiqued by well-reasoned editors like The Gnome, as I find it much more fruitful, generally, than people simply agreeing with me. That's why I genuinely welcomed any and all feedback at the RfC. I'm one of those people who thinks that the real winner of a debate is often the one that loses the argument (provided that it's dialectic) because we learn much more quickly by making mistakes. I am mindful of canvassing though, and I'll try to be more careful in future so that my intentions aren't taken the wrong way. I won't be letting The Gnome know just how much I appreciate his input until after the RfC is closed because I don't want him to think I'm trying to sweet-talk him. And I've nominated one of my images for Featured Picture status, which I'm dying to tell a certain editor about, but I won't be mentioning it to him until the voting closes. I appreciate you taking the time to post here, Sebastian, and I take your point about a good one-on-one being more constructive sometimes. Maybe I'll see you around. nagualdesign 02:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice words. I very much see things the way you do. I honor that you're working on yourself, and I think Wikipedia is a great place to do that. From the little I've seen I get the impression that you might even be trying a bit too hard; so you might find the book Trying not to Try by Edward Slingerland interesting. — Sebastian 08:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, Sebastian. I have been giving some thought to what you posted here though. I'm not sure exactly what you meant by "trying a bit too hard" but I certainly feel like I may have bitten off more than I can chew from time to time! I see it a bit like walking in the countryside; sometimes it's an uphill struggle or even a steep scramble, but there will be times and places when you can rest and recuperate, and the view from the peaks makes it all worthwhile, and the extra effort gives a feeling of accomplishment. nagualdesign 00:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries, as long as you use MENTION, you can take as long as you want with your replies. By "trying a bit too hard", I was thinking in the direction of the title of this section and simply meant that your replies came across as maybe a bit accommodating. With the "walk in the countryside", do you refer to contributing to Wikimedia, or to dealing with people in general? The former is a plausible simile, especially for one who works primarily on images, like you do. With people, the analogy doesn't resonate with me, since the countryside doesn't react to the path I choose, it simply is what it is. Or can one see people see in the same way, that we don't create their reactions, but simply discover them, just like we can discover a view in the countryside when we turn around a corner? I'll think about that. — Sebastian 11:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking about contributing to Wikipedia and dealing with other editors, since I kind of assumed that you were too. I've been making much more of an effort at that RfC than I anticipated would be necessary, that's for sure! So you think I'm being a little too accommodating, eh? Fair point. That's actually quite flattering in a way. Thankfully I find that sort of thing comes quite easily. Although I made a joke about it I'm never deliberately 'charming', meaning I don't set out to intentionally beguile anyone (although my girlfriend says I'm terribly flirtatious). I just find it easier to be genuine, and as my mother says, manners maketh man. I used to joke with an old friend of mine that I was studying him, or what I called "evil lessons" (he knew how to be a selfish prick when he wanted to be, and it seemed to work for him). In reality I was just gently trying to show him what I saw as the error of his ways. He never learned anything much from me though, and I'm happy to say I never learned anything from him. The older I get the more I feel able to accommodate people, and it's a personal challenge to try to push myself further in that direction, but I assure you that if I'm talking to an a-hole who I'm certain I've gotten the measure of I'll segue into handing out rope (but I even do that with a smile on my face). nagualdesign 11:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If you're indeed speaking about dealing with people and possibly even changing them, then I still don't see how that fits your image of the countryside. Of course, real change in people is rare, but we affect people more than the countryside (so I thought about my question from Monday): People usually respond to us, while a quiet and considerate hiker, who takes his garbage home, may not create any effect other than accidentally stepping on an insect or disturbing a deer.

Handing out rope was a long learning process for me. What helped me was the realization that in general we have no right to point out others' errors of their ways, as a wise man in Palestine pithily remarked 2000 years ago. Nowadays, I do that only either if I'm invited or, much more often, if I feel that someone is harming others who I care for. ("Harm" for me does not include such selfish actions as rudely refusing a favor.) On Wikipedia, that harm most often consists in confusing or otherwise encumbering readers or in keeping fellow editors from constructive work. As explained earlier, that's why I spoke up about the perceived cross-posting.

Does your girlfriend say you're flirtatious with her or with others? If the former, good for you two! If the latter, then it can be good, too: It can enrich others' lives as long as you're not hurting or deceiving anyone. For me, the demarcation line between charming and beguiling is whether there is guile (or, more exactly, manipulation) involved. — Sebastian 10:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to change anybody on Wikipedia. It would be pretty futile to try, using nothing but a few typed comments here and there. All I meant is that contributing to Wikipedia and dealing with other editors is sometimes an uphill struggle. It's just a metaphor though, meaning it can be difficult, but (like walking in the countryside) it isn't always an uphill struggle and the extra effort brings its own rewards – you don't have to get hung up wondering how the rocks and the sky translate through the metaphor! In answer to your question, being a flirtatious person is not the same as (deliberately) flirting with someone. nagualdesign 20:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I overstretched the metaphor. Now I see what you mean. But I have to admit, I've always had problems with that metaphor, ever since I learned that Till Eulenspiegel once said that walking downhill made him sad, because it meant he would have to go uphill again, and vice versa. More to the point: In all endeavors, we want to come out higher up, but we shun the effort of climbing. In your hiking metaphor, it's impossible to have one without the other, but in real life, it is often possible, which is at the heart of man's desire to improve his life. When I hike, I enjoy the uphill portion. You, too? And if so, does that help you enjoy the uphill part in other endeavors, as well? — Sebastian 11:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The template barnstar

		The Template Barnstar
		For creating the Ecosia userbox. Even if it gets deleted, thank you for trying. You have gaining my respect. Well done sir.-NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not much of a fan of userboxes these days, and when I first read your post at the help desk I didn't think it was worth making much of an effort, but having looked into it I find the ethics of Ecosia quite laudable, so I was happy to help out. I hope that someone from Google looks at Ecosia's working practices and, in the spirit of their motto, "Don't Be Evil", adopts some similar practices. They are making an effort regarding the environment at least. nagualdesign 21:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Totally my reason for wanting to create it. :-) I also don't think Google should have a sole monopoly over the Internet, although they have made the best effort to provide the best of facilities to their users. Thanks to you, it is possible.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

PS you are free change the title of the template to your name if you wish. It was you who created it, not me. But it's entirely up to you.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. If anyone wants to discuss the template they can address their questions to you. Although WP:OWNERSHIP is frowned upon you may consider it a gift. Give it a year or so then check Special:WhatLinksHere/User:NadirAli/Userbox/Ecosia to see who else is using it. nagualdesign 01:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to say this at my talk page

But I would dearly love it if you uploaded a copy of your efforts at re-colorizing that image and documented whatever you did differently than I outlined in my guide. Even if you don't think you got very good results.

Right now (though not to pat myself on the back), as far as I can tell, my guide is the most comprehensive and expertise-filled tutorial on colorization on the entire internet. But (and here's how you can tell that wasn't my ego talking) it's still woefully inadequate to actually nailing the process down as a distinct school of art. So anything that can be added to it would be great. I'd love to get it to the point where I had to break it off into a couple of pages, and then try to get it copied to somewhere more visible. I've always found colorization to be very rewarding, and to produce results that can be very impressive (even though I'm far from a master of it).

So if you find any part of it that doesn't work for you, or if you come up with anything that produces better results than anything I've colorized, or if you simply notice something worth noting that I never mentioned, I'd dearly love to add it to the guide. Even if you don't come up with anything, it's possible that I or someone else (possibly Hohum) might notice an element that we feel you did better than us. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do that. I'll take periodic snapshots (SHIFT+CTRL+ALT+E) as I'm working and Group them, and I'll email you the finished PSD file if you like. That's assuming I can get beyond step 1! As I said, this won't be my first attempt and I've never gotten very far. Without wishing to blow smoke up Uranus, your guide is certainly the most comprehensive tutorial that I've ever read, and I've read a few. I do actually feel fairly confident that I'll get beyond step 1, thanks to your input, I just don't want to make any promises. Quibik once explained to me how he does FFT filtering but could I do it? Could I fft! nagualdesign 20:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

tbh; I had to look up what an fft is, even though I'd heard of fast Fourier transforms before (I didn't make the connection until after I read the fourth or fifth google result). I had no idea they were useful in image manipulation. And my day job is as a programmer. And I've co-written a peer-reviewed physics paper with plenty of maths in it. So don't you try to out-idiot me! I'm the king idiot. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure I could give you a run for your money on some days! For examples of FFT filtering see File:Sabinin. St George the Hagiorite.jpg and File:Nietzsche187c.jpg, to name but two. Quibik is our resident expert when it comes to FFT filtering and continues to contribute regularly. As you can imagine, there's no better way to remove moiré patterns, and in most cases it's the only way. For more information on how he does this see the explanation he kindly provided here, and I wish you the greatest luck in trying to replicate his results – you'll need it! (By that I mean that he's highly competent, not that you're incompetent, of course! FFT filtering is Hard with a capital H.) nagualdesign 23:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, while you're working on colorizing, I'm going to start experimenting with the steps Quibik gave you. If I get any good results, I'll document them all and share. This is a little premature, but we might possibly start a new MOS section or Wikiproject consisting of tutorials for editing images for WP. The discussion at Talk:NOR seems like it's heading to a loose consensus on how to treat this stuff policy-wise (you, me and Masem are explicitly on the same page, and I'm fairly certain one or two others who've commented are, as well). Even The Gnome's ultra-conservative ideas about image editing could prove useful if we put together something like that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful stuff – you've pretty much read my mind. I've had similar ideas over the years about penning some useful guidelines for consideration, but the thought of doing it on my own against great opposition makes me shudder. Give me another month and then I'd be happy to focus on that. I just have a few things ongoing to contend with at the moment. In the meantime I'll try to gather my thoughts. nagualdesign 00:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Doing a little searching I found a number of extant resources that we might want to consider. I've provided some of my musings here to give you some food for thought. I don't really want you to address them just yet, only to bear them in mind regarding how we might proceed, but feel free to post here anything that you'd like me to think about also:

• There are already a number of pages about policy (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Uploading images, etc.) and it may be wise to focus our efforts on producing a primary resource for this. The problem at the moment, as I see it, is that they're not very succinct or well organized. There's little point in trying to re-write the book but producing an additional guide, like Wikipedia:Images, and having it rubber-stamped and made more widely available may be helpful.
• There's already a Wikiproject – Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media – that links to many available resources, such as Wikipedia:How to improve image quality among many others, but it's inactive and I'm guessing it isn't widely used. We might want to consider breathing life into that, rather than starting from scratch.
• We could write an essay, or several essays, regarding image editing and related WP policies. Editing in particular, such as how-to guides on colourization, FFT filtering and the like, may be more suited to essays since they are guides rather than guidelines.
• All of the above represent my admittedly unorganized thoughts, some of which may be beyond the scope of what you had in mind. It might be wise for us to focus on simply tightening up the MOS, with the help of other experienced editors, to clarify things and provide an overview of Wikipedia's working practices, then work on a few how-to guides, tackling them one at a time.

nagualdesign 05:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Health and safety gone mad

I lolled. Masters and Johnson were right after all. Beware the wrath of the Gagemeister. 23:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I hope that phrase springs to mind if you ever find yourself clutching a pair of maracas. nagualdesign 23:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'll try to remember next time I'm in La Belle France. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

off tangent fishing question

Completely off topic but perhaps you might know, is there a sort of sidebar 'Random article' link for /wiki/ content? I'm sure I would find useful stuff. Thanks for your help. Gabriel syme (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, in the sidebar where it says Random page. Clicking on that link will take you to a random page (Special:Random). nagualdesign 07:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant specifically for interwiki content like policy and essays. Gabriel syme (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. Sorry. nagualdesign 07:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Precious

design metaphers

Thank you for quality images such as Percival Lowell observing Venus, for teaching to improve them, for redirects, moves and precise references, for knowing "that contributing to Wikipedia and dealing with other editors is sometimes an uphill struggle", for offering tea to the department of fun, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That's the most specifically tailored/least generic bit of praise I think I've ever received on Wikipedia! Thank you for taking a genuine interest in my contributions and, of course, you're very welcome. nagualdesign 10:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfit editors are still readers

I agree with User:Gerda Arendt that you are an awesome Wikipedian, as evidenced once more by the fact that you especially appreciate her specificity. I also like that you're adding some humor here. That said, please forgive me for bringing up some criticism: I just noticed your reply at the Help desk, which is humorous, but at the expense of someone who came there asking for help. Obviously that user is far from fit to be an editor, but I'd like you to see them from a different angle: The user is one of our readers, one of the people for whom were're doing this whole shebang. This reader has a problem that deserves attention: What they read counters some of their most preciously held beliefs. Many readers probably feel that way, but here we have one who took up the courage to ask about it. If we react by ridiculing them, it will only trigger a spiral of frustration, and, depending on the circumstances, even violence. (I know what I'm talking about; ask me for details.) I will be busy for the next 20 hours, maybe you'll find a better idea for a reply in the mean time. If not, I'll be happy to discuss this further with you then. — Sebastian 12:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That user accused Beyond My Ken of "hate and racism", then came to the help desk asking silly questions ("who is that person?!.. is he more powerful than me?") and so got a silly answer from me. I'm a staunch anti-racist, and an equally staunch opponent of unfounded accusations of racism, but sometimes it's better just to laugh in the face of stupidity. Don't worry, someone was soon there to provide a more sensible answer. nagualdesign 12:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Be very careful, humour is a weapon not tolerated here ;) - I said in an edit summary that I was amused, and four editors left Wikipedia for a year. - The prize (above) comes from the cabal of the outcasts, DYK? The wonderful potato is one of us. - I worked on Kafka which prepared me for absurdity, - it really helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I never truly realized what it means to have (or not have) a sense of humour until I began editing Wikipedia. It isn't just about being not-so-easily amused – some people seem literally unable to sense humour in the same way that a blind person can't sense light! To quote B. A. Baracus, I pity the fools. I'm a bit concerned about our quixotic friend, too, after reading through his talk page. He may be a potato but he's also a good egg, and it'll be a sad loss if he doesn't return. The whole idea of having your sentence increased unless you apply for parole stinks, but I hope he's willing to suck it up. nagualdesign 18:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I confess that I didn't watch the whole thing. Can't add him to the ones I praise here without at least looking, but I'm on vacation, really not in the mood for WP:Great Dismal Swamp. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Gerda, you might just as well say the English language is not tolerated here. I wrote something in English one day and someone didn't like it. Language and humour depend on what you do with it. Ridiculing a simple-minded person does not mark a humorous, let alone a right-minded person. — Sebastian 23:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I don' ridicule a person, at least not intentionally. When a situation gets absurd, you can weep or smile, - I tend to smile. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Gerda, I realize I was a bit too harsh, and I didn't mean you, anyway. Please disregard the last sentence. — Sebastian 15:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Nagualdesign, I've seen the accusation. Do you feel it invalidates my point? — Sebastian 23:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying that your point was invalid, only that I have my own ideas on conduct. A week or so ago you thought I might be trying a bit too hard and being too accommodating, and I explained that if I'm talking to an a-hole who I'm certain I've gotten the measure of I'll segue into handing out rope (with a smile on my face). Well, there we have it. I'm not sure that we're talking about a "simple-minded" person though, or that being simple-minded is any excuse for behaving like an a-hole. That's not one of the people who I'm volunteering here for, but I do think that reader has a problem that deserves attention though, which is why I drew attention to it. nagualdesign 18:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You're accommodating to those you respect – there's nothing special about that. What really makes a difference is one's conduct towards those that are less fortunate, as I had hoped to show you by offering to share my experience. But it wasn't meant to be.

Sadly, we've come around full circle. Just like I underestimated you in the beginning, I now realize I overestimated you. Arrogating credit for drawing attention to a user's problems, and even being so sure about it to emphasize that claim, just after it has been pointed out that that credit goes to the other user, is a blatant case of alternative facts that I did not expect. I now have to close the way we started, at the level of policies: Your opinion on conduct is tragically misguided: Here it is not defined by your own ideas, but by WP:CONDUCT. Calling someone (repeatedly) an "a-hole" is a gross violation of WP:Civility. Last not least, I urge you to honestly ask yourself whether your behavior at WP:HD (of all places!) follows the advice of WP:AGF to "try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem". — Sebastian 23:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I never claimed to be special! I'm accommodating to almost everyone within reason, and it's up to me to decide where I draw the line. I'm not sure what you mean by "less fortunate". Stupid behaviour doesn't garner any sympathy from me, and I'm not willing to assume that someone who behaves stupidly is actually stupid, so can't help themselves. If you'd like to share your experience feel free, but I don't relish the idea of reading a story about violence to be honest. And to be clear, I wasn't trying to take credit for helping, I was making a sideways remark (admittedly not very clearly) that that reader has a problem that deserves attention – the problem being that he makes unfounded accusations and silly comments, which I drew attention to by giving a silly response. (The italics denote that there may be more than meets the eye.) That's how I roll.

As to my conduct, I didn't call anybody an "a-hole" repeatedly, I only mentioned how I respond to people who behave like a-holes, and that there's no excuse for behaving like one. That's no more of a violation of WP:Civility than your repeatedly referring to that user as "unfit" (for editing), "simple-minded" and "less fortunate". I assure you that when I first saw the post at the help desk I did assume good faith and wanted to help, hence why I looked at the user's contributions, worked out what they were talking about and found the comment they left on Ken's talk page, at which point I no longer needed to make such assumptions.

To be honest, Sebastian, you seem to be going from one extreme to the other, taking each comment I've left here and running with it far beyond the scope that it was intended, or reading too deeply into things. I've tried to answer your questions honestly and ultimately this is about a joke I made. It's really not worth losing your sense of humour over. nagualdesign 01:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note that I reverted your removal of my comment at the help desk, now that I've spotted it. Editing or removing other user's comments is against WP guidelines (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments). If anyone has a problem with my comments I'm open to discussion, but I don't appreciate being censored. nagualdesign 02:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

HD

I did this, I hope you'll understand why. If not we can talk about it. Best, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"That guy can bench press" [1]

"check out #myhotwife" [2]

Not appropriate.

I don't care, but - either sort out your attitude, or bye bye. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments. Do NOT remove my comments. If you don't like what I post you can either discuss it like an adult or report me to one of the drama boards. Cheers. nagualdesign 21:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record: I would not have removed that comment, since it was more good-natured than the comment I removed, but it was off-topic and not helpful and thus can be removed per the section nagualdesign cites. — Sebastian 12:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I see that you've already been involved in a bit of drama today, and that you took the opportunity to try and drag me into the fray, even though that discussion had nothing to do with me. In future, if you're going to try that sort of mudslinging, I suggest you follow the notification at the top of that page: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so." nagualdesign 21:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for continued problems of conduct

Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.

I am sorry that it has come to this point. Your continued flouting of some of the most basic rules of WP:CONDUCT, and your recalcitrance to any level of admonishment leave no other choice.

Please take the time for some soul searching and for reading the policies and guidelines - not with the intention to justify your conduct, but to honestly see where your idea of conduct deviates from them. It would also help if you reread what has already been said above.

You might want to start with the very guideline that you like to cite so often, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, especially those parts of it that apply to non-article talk pages. "The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration." This is illustrated by the image of the pyramid in section Behavior that is unacceptable, which I am repeating here for your convenience. As you will see, your attack of user:86.20.193.222 in the previous section is on the lowest section there, "Ad hominem".

One rule that you particularly like to misuse for your own purposes is WP:TPO. Admittedly, that could be written more clearly. That section specifically applies to article talk pages, not WT:HD, for which you claim it. Those are covered in the lede with the guidance that "discussion should be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." But even WP:TPO, if one looks for its intent, contains much advice and other information that can be applied on other talk pages, such as "It is still common to simply delete [...] comments or discussion [that violate the rules]", which debunks your misinterpretation that you repeat in your edit summaries and your reply to user:86.20.193.222.

Again, I regret that this was necessary. I sincerely hope that you will take this as an opportunity to improve, since your continued contributions at WP:HD show that you do have a desire to help others and you certainly have skills that we value here at Wikipedia. — Sebastian 08:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific. Please provide diffs. nagualdesign 08:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Nagualdesign (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #20377 was submitted on Jan 19, 2018 08:50:07. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Another fun-packed day in store (sarcasm). Time for a nice long bath, I think... nagualdesign 08:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Since you also reverted the removal of one of my comments at the help desk, which I forgot to mention in my appeal, but (I assume) you haven't been blocked, could you please weigh in on the UTRS appeal? Cheers. nagualdesign 09:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• I’ve looked at (but not reserved) the UTRS appeal. I would prefer to see this appeal handled on-wiki as that would make it easier to have more back-and-forth with the blocking admin. I have to agree that diff would make it a lot easier to review the merits of this block. @SebastianHelm: could yo possibly provide examples of the conduct leading to the block? Beeblebrox (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher), but. I doubt that that will be possible I'm afraid, Beeblebrox, as there aren't any. Although the blocking admin suggests in their block notice that there were ad hominem attacks on the IP, all ND actually said was—in abridgement—not to refactor his posts and noted a previous ANI. The stuff about arseholes, etc, was already discussed of course. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zaphod: I'd prefer it if the UTRS appeal could be handled off-Wiki if you don't mind. Although the email I received from Yunshui says there is no private information associated with my appeal, if you've read it you will understand that there are parts which I feel would be unfair to make public. And I don't think Sebastian intends to reply to either of our messages. I hope you understand. nagualdesign 11:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Synopsis

Per request by nagualdesign and user:Beeblebrox, here's a synopsis of relevant diffs that led to the block. Sorry if my explanation wasn't clear enough.

1. 11:05, 16 January In reply to user:Kasra tcme's question at WP:HD, nagualdesign responds with an off-topic, unhelpful reply, ridiculing the user.
2. 12:11, 16 January: SebastianHelm addresses nagualdesign very politely, asking to reconsider the reply.
3. 12:32, 16 January: nagualdesign replies with further ridicule.
4. 23:37, 16 January: SebastianHelm removes the HD reply with edit summary "removing off-topic, unhelpful reply"
5. 02:06, 18 January: nagualdesign writes another off-topic comment.
6. 02:13, 18 January: nagualdesign repeats his initial comment.
7. 17:40, 18 January An IP user removes the second off-topic comment and informs nagualdesign about it.
8. 18:51, 18 January: nagualdesign further attacks user:Kasra tcme as "a-hole".
9. 21:54, 18 January: nagualdesign attacks the IP user ad hominem.

— Sebastian 12:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

In what way did I ridicule anybody, attack anybody or make an ad hominem?! nagualdesign 12:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think what it boils down to is that points 1-8 were already subject to discussion in this section, which is when any admiistrative action should have taken place. The only subsequent event—Diff#9—is so clearly not ad hom. that it's difficult see how it could be mistaken so. Calling a thing such does not make it so. The same goes for the suggested "ridicule," and as for "off-topic" remarks, if they were at all blockable (except when so persistent and unencyclopaeic that it becomes disrupive, clearly not the case here) then you'd have to block far more comprehensively—up to and including Jimmy Wales! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read the definition of "Ad hominem" in the picture. You did both of its defining acts: You attacked the characteristics and authority of user:86.20.193.222 . — Sebastian 12:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolute bullshit. I did nothing of the sort. nagualdesign 12:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's my version of events:

1. 11:05, 16 January: In reply to Kasra tcme's unfounded accusation and silly question nagualdesign responds with an joke (but also provides courtesy links for other users).
2. 12:12, 16 January: SebastianHelm says he found it "humorous", but asks nagualdesign to consider that Kasra tcme is "unfit to be an editor" and might turn violent if we don't pander to his needs.
3. 12:32, 16 January: nagualdesign explains that Kasra tcme had made an unfounded accusation of "hate and racism" against Beyond My Ken.
4. 23:37, 16 January: SebastianHelm removes the HD reply, contrary to WP:TPO.
5. 02:06, 18 January: nagualdesign makes an unrelated joke (and also links the section header to the article and informs editors that the images now face deletion).
6. 02:13, 18 January: nagualdesign reverts SebastianHelm's edit, restoring his initial comment.
7. 17:40, 18 January: IP user removes the second comment, contrary to WP:TPO.
8. 18:51, 18 January: nagualdesign disagrees with SebastianHelm about how he chose to deal with Kasra tcme, who SebastianHelm considers "simple-minded" (ie, with humour. Evidently Sebastian considers this as 'mocking the afflicted').
9. 21:54, 18 January: nagualdesign politely informs the IP user not to drag his name into unrelated drama.

nagualdesign 12:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for quietly correcting my error about the first user's name. It was indeed not an IP editor, but user:Kasra tcme. I will correct that in my list, as well. — Sebastian 12:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I should perhaps also point out, in case anyone missed it, that NeilN also reverted the IP's removal of the "Don't mess with Ken" comment, but since Sebastian isn't concerned with Neil's conduct he hasn't mentioned that bit, or maybe he didn't even notice. (Sorry to drag you into this, Neil, but I'm sure you understand why I've brought it up.) nagualdesign 12:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you really think it is wise to stress the fact that you have friends who help you avert WP:3RR? That I'm not concerned about that should have become clear by now, and I find it tedious to investigate such matters. But there might be others reading this who find it interesting. — Sebastian 13:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I could have reverted it myself without breaking WP:3RR but Neil got there before me. I didn't contact him about it (although I did thank him when I saw the edit). I think it's rather unfair of you to imply that Neil would behave anything less than impeccably. nagualdesign 13:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Since we're publically casting aspersions now and my off-Wiki UTRS appeal appears to have fallen on deaf ears, how about this take on things:

1. 23:54, 17 January: SebastianHelm gets upset that nagualdesign didn't ask him about his story, then takes the following day off.
2. 16:27, 18 January: In the meantime an IP user begins editing for the first time in several weeks, and rather brusquely so, leaving nagualdesign wondering whether the mild-mannered Sebastian wears glasses but is otherwise indistinguishable from the IP of steel (though the two are mysteriously never seen at the same time).
3. 02:23, 19 January: After some deliberation nagualdesign opens a new topic at HD about editing while logged out.
4. 07:26, 19 January: After some discussion at HD, including much input from the IP, nagualdesign ends the discussion.
5. 08:06, 19 January 2018: Sebastian returns and promptly blocks nagualdesign, claiming that he was uncivil towards the IP.

Honestly, I hope my suspicions are wrong, but considering your 180 degree shift in attitude over the last couple of days I'm sensing that you may have issues. nagualdesign 13:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm: I don't appreciate being characterized as "friend who help you avert WP:3RR" and would like an explanation of why you did this. In case you hadn't noticed, the IP removed more than Nagualdesign's comment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Time for pasta

Hello,

Here it is.

Since you have some free time right now, would you mind helping me clean a picture - namely this one? ->

It's called bigoli, but more importantly there's a grey line at the top (the ministudio's background, actually) that I can't just erase : I have no photoshopping skills whatsoever and if you look closely you will see there is a gradient. I have no idea how to fix this. Can you please help? I'm working on the List of pasta and this line simply looks weird in the table imho (the background also appears in the bucatini image, but as it is bigger it is much less problematic in terms of perspective). What do you think? Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 09:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I'm running a bath at the moment, which I'm about to jump in, but I'll get onto that as soon as I'm done. nagualdesign 09:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No rush, but thanks all the same. Enjoy the splash! Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 11:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I watched 2 more episodes of Star Trek: Discovery while I was in the bath. My third attempt. I watched the first 3 episodes a couple of months ago and, as a life-long Trekkie, I found it nauseating. A few weeks ago I thought I'd give it another shot and watched episodes 4 and 5. It's kind of simultaneously laughable and intensely annoying. I'm not sure why I bothered to watch episodes 6 and 7 just now, as it's so abysmal in so many ways, but I'm going to blame Sebastian for driving me to it. Okay, I'll do that image shortly... nagualdesign 11:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds worse than anything I wished for you. But I'm accepting that blame. — Sebastian 12:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done nagualdesign 12:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)