User talk:WGFinley/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Image tagging / my RFA

Thank you for your comments at my RFA, I will look at all of the images that I have uploaded and re-assess each of the fair use claims. I shall try to be more careful with this in future. --TimPope 10:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting me in my RFA. --TimPope 14:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

um, vandalism?

what do you think you're doing? you've been registered since 2004? that means the "clueless" newbie card won't cut it. stop your vandalism

Your marking of template:User GWB for speedy, while possibly not vandalism, comes close. Please stop. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Spam on unrelated articles?

don't do that either, also, you made about 5 different reverts on that mess, shouldn't you be blocked by now?--63.22.76.119 06:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

AMA request - biblical criticism

Hiya, thanks for answering.

Perhaps the first thing to point out if you are not familiar with Biblical studies is that the term "Biblical criticism" means the academic study of the bible as an historic document, and does not mean "attacking the Bible". Now onto the main problem:

There seems to be a great resistance amongst many sections of Wikipedia to including information from rigourously academic sources. Many editors, predominantly Jayjg, Jdwolff, Codex Sinaiticus, and Izak, seem to prefer articles to contain only the views of religious individuals whose theology and literalism (i.e. that the bible is fundamentally and entirely true) dictate their interpretations, rather than allowing articles to contain any reasonable measure of academic studies.

For example, a major bone of contention is the documentary hypothesis, which is a theory concerning how the torah (first 5 books of the bible) came about, and it is supported by over 90% of bible scholars. As it affects the composition of the torah intricately, so it affects each story in the torah, and has a lot to say about their original composition. However, Jdwolff and company refuse to allow it to enter articles, and are particularly resistant to allowing it to enter more obviously important subjects such as Ten Commandments.

Academic bible studies don't automatically assume the bible is 100% true, and conclude the same, that would, essentially, be defeating the point of studying it. Hence it is not uncommon that major theories are put forward in the field, often gaining majority support, which are critical of the accuracy that religious groups believe the text has. Likewise it is frequently the case that many stories demand, in academic eyes, strong re-interpretation.

This resistance to academia seems to be part of a general anti-intellectual trend in the subject throughout wikipedia;

for example User:Yoninah today caused an article (A wife confused for a sister) to be put up for deletion because in his/her view "it is based entirely on Biblical criticism", i.e. entirely based on academic treatment of the subject rather than pious guessing, which somehow Yoninah views as a situation which is bad.

Yoninah then went around several editors known for their clear and obvious pro-Jewish religious bias (Izak, Jdwolff, Jayjg) complaining that the article was based on biblical criticism, i.e. effectively tried to create a wrecking mob.

What I am after from the AMA is simply some direct support in asserting that NPOV requires academic views to be represented as well as the pious literalist religious ones. In particular, as the religious ones are predominantly (for obvious reasons) based on religious motivation, the academic views are the ones which should be regarded as the more reliable. The collective academic views are inherently NPOV as they are simply the views of people analysing the text without making pre-suppositions. Not every academic view criticises the bible, and many are apologetic.

It would be helpful if the AMA were able to somehow persuade these religiously biased editors (Izak, Jdwolff, Jayjg, Codex Sinaiticus) that the inclusion of major academic views is required in all the articles owing to the principle of NPOV.

Maybe its wishful thinking, but it would be even more helpful if the AMA were able to pursuade them to themselves find and include the academic views on the subject they are so clearly interested in, whether or not it agrees with their own personal opinion.

--User talk:FDuffy 20:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

Part of the problem is that they are notable, and the reason they are notable is precisely due to their editing behaviour. They have achieved notability without managing to comprehend NPOV.

Only today (the 3rd), User:PinchasC, went around the talk pages of users he felt would be sympathetic to his bias in order to round up votes to swing the balance back to his side. Each of the voters he collected voted delete immediately, stating that they might change their mind if sources were given, somehow completely neglecting to see that sources were given several times in the AFD itself, and on the article. I.e. they voted without even investigating the topic - sheep bias-based votes.

One of them stated that it was based on outdated 19th century research, completely neglecting the fact that 1992, 1983, and 2002 (the dates of 4 of the major references) are nowhere near 19th century, and that the references are from extremely well respected scholars (Richard Elliott Friedman, Robin Lane Fox, Israel Finkelstein). --User talk:FDuffy 02:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Greetings, Wgfinley! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. While you voted oppose, I still hope you'll be content with the way I use my newly granted WikiPowers. If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 07:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Query

Hi Guy, I've left a question for you on your nomination page: bottom of the page in case you don't see it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Don't worry: the wrangling over images hasn't crept into it at all. In fact, I had posted my query to you before I saw you had posted to the image page. But anyway, I don't shift goalposts. I'm minded to ask you another question to try to pin you down a bit more, but I don't want to overdo it, so I may not. Will give it some more thought. Thank you very much for your response so far. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Hello Guy. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. Good luck on yours. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

AMA

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. Izehar 22:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Can I e-mail you please regarding an AMA matter? my e-mail is ChazzWiki@aol.com

Thanks

Many thanks for your support on my request for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. And thanks for checking every edit ;) you must know how bad my typing is sometimes now ;) --Alf ^melmac 10:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Pgk's RFA

---

Thanks for your contribution to my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (80/3/0), so I am now an administrator. I was flattered by the level of support and the comments. I hope that I can prove myself worthy of the Admin facilities and your concerns as to my suitability dissipate, however if you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as an admin then please leave me a note --pgk^(talk) 12:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You're a sysop!

Hi, Wgfinley, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=

Please also add your name to WP:LA =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!

Congratulations on your shiny new buttons! Use them boldly and use them with pride! Kelly Martin (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Mika Tan (Deleted image

Yes, I know it had to go, but it was a pity--a very nice image. :D Justin Eiler 08:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Article ban

Thanks for taking the action. I sincerely hope that more editors will pay their attention to the matter, and contribute their views and ideas. This is not the first time I explicitly request for it. :-\ — Instantnood 18:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternative AMA proposal

Hey Guy, long time no see. Would you do me a favor and check out the alternative proposal I left on the AMA talk page? It'd be great to know what you think. Wally 19:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My mistake

I'd just made some improvements to char siu, but I'd promptly reverted myself when I discovered [1]. I thought I'd be automatically blocked from editing the articles on the restriction list, and I didn't recognise, at the time of the edits to char siu, that there's no such automatic block. I hope you'll take my apology into consideration, but I'll fully respect your ultimate decision. Thanks for your attention. — Instantnood 19:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that you've to do so in your position, and I do appreciate your efforts in helping Wikipedia to get the trouble settled. :-D — Instantnood 20:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A 2nd opinion

Wgfinley, with respect, I think your instant block for the above offense is a bit rough. Certainly IN's attitude seems ok - the edit was inadvertant and he cleaned it up of his own accord. I think that hitting him with a 24th block is a bit unneccessary - he knows to check the talk page now and having a block like this seems very punitive (but for what purpose?). My 2 cents. novacatz 01:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Additional ban

Thank you. Please take a look at my response at WP:AN/I. — Instantnood 19:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC/KM

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|^(talk) 04:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: List of cities in China

Thank you. As I've already said, it's more important to appeal to the community and request for their involvements. Merely banning wouldn't help much. :-\ — Instantnood 20:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Barbecue pork with rice

I noticed your ban of only Huaiwei from that article and went to take a look. In the last week, Huaiwei has only edited the talk page of that article. Based on only that, no matter what he's said on the talk page (which is tl;dr and full of the same crap as everything else), his actions on the article can't be inappropriate and worthy of a probationary ban.

However, if you look back even two weeks or three an incredible 40%!! of the edits are Instantnood reverting. If there is to be a ban on the page it shouldn't be one sided, but indeed, Huaiwei's non-action for the last week on the actual page shows restraint - even if he may have intended to revert, he hasn't.

The last week has been Instantnood and Alanmak. Instantnood has been playing the revert games just as equally with him as he does with Huaiwei across dozens of articles.

I'm not arguing for either of them to be banned, but the basis you've given for banning Huaiwei on that page doesn't hold up. SchmuckyTheCat 07:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Language mis-understanding

I think there may be a case of language mis-understanding between you and Huaiwei that is escalating the issue a little. When he says "your advocacy" he means "your client", Instantnood. Not "your advocacy" meaning the job you did/do. On these edits [2], I don't think he meant for you to take it personally. I'm going to ask him to assume you misunderstood his unclear language, just as I'd ask you to assume he didn't mean for you to take it personally.

He's trying to tell you that Instantnood is going to articles purposefully to make contentious edits and start fights. Which is true and well documented. On any days of his reverts, most are of recent vintage, but then he'll go back several months and reignite a revert war he previously lost. There does need to be a solution to that. Appeals to the community have failed, partly because Instantnood is just too prolific and blatantly partisan edits DO need to be countered. SchmuckyTheCat 10:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think you're being one-sided, except in that one article. If Huaiwei has stayed away from editing the article itself talk page comments just can't be considered disruptive.

And I've tried to stay out of it with Instantnood. I have reverted some of the more egregious problems where I know that nobody else is going to do it or after several days where nobody else has. In those cases I have been very specific on talk pages what I'm doing and the reason for doing it. I don't believe "the community" is enough to reign him in. He makes too many edits in a day, and he has a documented will to start edit fights in the first place.

I'd hope Huaiwei can learn to stay out of it a little bit more, document more, and wait a little longer before jumping in. I think he does see it the way that I do though, that relying strictly on the community at large isn't enough. Historically, Huaiwei also was the first to encounter Instantnood when he still edited as an IP address. There is a strong tradition there of 'nood making POV changes that Huaiwei sees first - and 'nood making the edits despite any concensus by others to the contrary. He does have a point that there isn't any check and balance to 'nood without him. SchmuckyTheCat 19:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Queensway

You banned 'nood from editing the Queensway dab page. I am making you aware of some edits I did to the pages related to that, and that Instantnood is reverting them.

I went through the HK related ones and performed a merge. The Queensway, Hong Kong article consisted of a one sentence stub. That road is part of a larger road Queen's Road, so I moved the sentence there and made sure the location of that section of the road was clear. I then redirected the other article, and fixed redirects in other articles. I was very clear in all edit summaries.

Instantnood is systematically undoing those edits. I am going to revert him, and I'm letting you know before doing so if you wish to pay attention for edit warring. SchmuckyTheCat 21:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Also, I would caution you from getting in a revert war with Alanmak on Queensway," I'm not even editing that article with Alanmak, did you mean somewhere else? He and I often agree - at least where we edit in common, so this would surprise me. SchmuckyTheCat 02:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As expected.

• [3] revert, no edit summary. no talk.
• [4], revert, recycled edit summary, no talk. SchmuckyTheCat 08:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

List_of_airlines

Would you have a look at the behaviour of Instantnood + Huaiwei on the above page to see if it warrants action. I think they are warring again. novacatz 01:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

oops - another one Lists_of_country-related_topics looks like it is their next target. The edit summary history reads pretty funny already...... novacatz 06:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

Hi there, I noticed you unprotected BBQ pork with rice but did not update the list of [pages]. Would you kindly do so in the future. novacatz 07:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Transportation in China

Hello, Wgfinley. Thank you for your effort on solving the edit dispute. I was not intending to accuse you of making comments on whether that was the right version. The comment that I made about "some anti-China Wikipedians are pushing their POV" is not pointing to you. I pointed that out in the edit summary, just because some Wikipedians from Hong Kong have been demonstrating their high degree of anti-China sentiments in their edits, and have been trying their best to separate Hong Kong from all articles about China. In some situations, I agree that Hong Kong should have a separate article from the same topic for China. But this practice is not really necessary in ALL situation. Again, Thank you for your effort on solving the edit dispute. - Alanmak 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't making any comments on whether that was the right version, all I know is that Instantnood was stirring up an old debate with that edit. I reverted the edit and banned him from editing that category. What is done from there is up to people who are not on probation. --Wgfinley 19:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Arbitration Notice

I am contemplating joining you to the arbcom case as well, considering your open display of vested interests in the disputes at hand, and your unwillingness in accepting your biasness in handling this dispute.--Huaiwei 02:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Far be it for me to stop you from appearing ridiculous. --Wgfinley 03:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

medcabal

Hi there -- I saw that you were listed as a medcabal member; as a fellow medcabalist, I thought I'd drop you a line to say that there are a number of new cases that have been added recently and there seem to be too many for the "regulars" to handle. I suggest giving it a shot! (If you forgot you signed up for the cabal, and want off, sorry to bother you!) Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 19:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

AMA

I hope you understand that I truley think that AMA is sorely in need of repair. If you are, in fact, interested in doing that repair, then my actions today have been mostly wasted, as I would strongly support someone who wants to solve the wikilawyering problem and has a history with the institution over someone who just wants to solve the problem. I just can't tell what you think on the issue, however. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Medcab

Hello. As a co-founder of the mediation cabal, I need your help. Please contact me per irc ASAP. Kim Bruning 00:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Blocked unnecessarily.

Hi! I am a fairly new contributer to Wikipedia. However, I do not understand why I am being blocked again (not the first time) when I did not vandalise any pages! My IP address changes sometimes and my current IP address is 165.21.154.112. It seems that this address is being blocked until 31 January 2006 20:26. This address is also shared by Huaiwei. I feel that it is unfair that I am being blocked together with this user. I hope that you will rectify this problem soon. I hope to hear from you as soon as possible. This is not the first time! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Protecting the Kelly Martin election talk page

Hello, please don't take this the wrong way, but I feel that your action in protecting this page is not only unnecessary and somewhat heavyhanded, but also inappropriate. As I understand, talk pages should only be protected in the case of extreme vandalism. It could be said that the most recent comments were a bit off-topic, and that perhaps it was acceptable to delete them (although, personally, I disagree strongly with that alone), but protecting the page seems to be going a bit too far, as you effectively silence any discussion regarding the topic at all, including possible opposition to your own actions. It does not really matter that the election is over; relevant discussion has no time limit that I'm aware of. Please note that my only involvement on the talk page is regarding a wholly unrelated topic a long while back when the election was ongoing. My concern is based on a desire for fairness. Cheers. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 08:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wheel war?

I noticed the issue on WP:AN where some people expressed concern with how this was done. Thus, there has been consideration. While those comments are indeed inappropriate or at least pointless, it only aggravates the situation to remove them. With the possible exception of WP:RPA, we should not remove comments from talk pages, especially if they're at least tangentially related. If people want to talk about it, they will. Radiant_>|< 13:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Lame is not an attack, but refers to Lame Edit Wars, of which Kelly's RFC talk is now an example. Consideration refers to the fact that I thought about the issue and weighed the possibilities before acting, which I'm sure you did too, and since we're both considering the issue this is not a wheel war. I generally assume admins read the admin noticeboard, and I generally find it more convenient to discuss issues in a central place than in several places. Radiant_>|< 13:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Again!

Hello again! I am being blocked again unnecessarily. This time my IP addresss is 165.21.154.113. I believe I am experiencing an autoblock again. I hope you can solve this problem soon. Thank You! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image for deletion

Thanks for the notification. I have replaced it with these two images Image:Noordin Mohammed Top.jpg and Image:Azahari Husin.jpg. These came from a government source for finding wanted people. (Actually the Indonesian government distributed thousands of copies over Jakarta and Bali.) These should qualify for fairuse if not public domain. The ifd-tagged Image:Azahari Husin and Noordin Mohammed Top.jpg can be deleted, I guess. --Vsion 08:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh please stop it. Whose copyright interests are you protecting? --Vsion 08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Has the policy changed recently regarding fairuse? I'm not aware of it, can you provide me a pointer? Also .... good luck with all the fairuse images in Category:Fair use in... images --Vsion 08:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, is there a change in policy I'm not aware of? --Vsion 08:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, just to let you know. I brought up this issue before in Wikipedia talk:Fair use. You can find that discussion at [5]. If you feel that a clarification is necessary, I would suggest you bring this up in Wikipedia talk:Fair use again. --Vsion 08:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

ViP additions

I notice you are adding notes to ViP noting you have blocked. Since this is a page for assisting users unable to block could you consider adding directly to archive or something, as I am currently moving a few there uncommented. Thanks! Ian¹³_ID:540053 17:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand it to also be that. But I think we are trying to prevent a backlog, and that the archive is used for such purposes, thanks! Ian¹³_ID:540053 18:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm

I'm looking at User:Hipocrite/AMAs, and pondering.

Kim Bruning 04:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Again!

Hello! I am being blocked again unnecessarily. This time my IP address is 165.21.154.117. I believe I am experiencing an autoblock again. I hope you can solve this problem soon. By the way, thank you for helping me out on two previous occasions regarding the same problem. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR

Yeah, I think it needs to be in there somewhere, purely because of the risk of idiots doing whatever they like and then screaming 'IAR! IAR!'. Definitely agree that the shorter version is so much better. --Nick Boalch ^?!? 19:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom case against Instantnood

Are there any repercussions for me if I make a third party comment on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3? I've been following the saga of Instantnood and Huaiwei for a while and I would like to say a couple of things. enochlau (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Again

Hello! I am being blocked again. This time my IP address is 165.21.154.113. I am experiencing an autoblock again. I hope you can solve this problem soon. Thank You. One with Her 13:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

DeMolay logo

Are you sure we can use it? The download page explicitly stated "no commercial use", and my emails to the DeMolay webmaster were ignored.--SarekOfVulcan 22:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. Don't suppose you'd like to replace it with the downloadable emblem instead of the logo? :-)--SarekOfVulcan 01:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Broken link in Instantnood RFAr

Hi, FYI - in your evidence section there is a broken link for this section --

Huaiweii goes to the July way-back machine to revisit another "mainland China" to "PRC" debate in this 11 Dec edit [42]

the supplied link doesn't work on my browser (Firefox 1.5) -- perhaps you should have a look? Thanks, novacatz 07:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This was caused by the category being deleted per a CfD. I restored the category to preserve the evidence there until the case is concluded, the link will work now. --Wgfinley 13:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood

Case #1

Not that I am bothered about "wikistalking" your former client as you claimed, but a recent edit appearing on my watchlist is certainly rather disturbing. In Universitas 21, he has again ignited an old debate and continued to do revert edits [6], fresh out of a 7-day ban. I am not going to check through the rest of his editing history, but I would just like to know if you have anything to say about this behavior, and if you are going to consider acting on it?--Huaiwei 08:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

On a narrow reading of the probation order at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Remedies, a ban should not be imposed on Instantnood regarding Universitas 21, because it is not an article-related to China. However much I personally disagree with the edit, I would just like to say I think would be inappropriate for an admin to ban/block over this edit. Cheers. enochlau (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The ban was extended to any article. [7] SchmuckyTheCat 13:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't see that. Thanks for the link, I revoke my previous statement. enochlau (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The article itself may not be perculiar to China, but the edit warring in question clearly is, even before the Arbcom has been extended to all edits.--Huaiwei 20:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Case #2

I would like to put it on the record, that User:Instantnood has reverted [8] List of economics consultancies and think tanks, with no valid explaination and no entry in its discussion page. This was done despite clear instructions against such disruptive behavior as per the relevant Arbcom cases.--Huaiwei 20:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Case #3

Reverts by instantnood in [9] and [10] leaves me wondering if he is serious about heeding your call to cease revert warring.--Huaiwei 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Meta-templates

In reference to this edit... there aren't any guidelines for meta-template usage. There was a page which claimed that meta-templates should be avoided because they cause significant server load problems, but the lead developer has declared that to be inaccurate. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 20:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Return of Instantnood

• Stanley [11]
• Queen's Road [12]
• Queensway, Hong Kong [13]
• Category:Cinema of Hong Kong [14]
• Category:Macau newspapers [15]
• Category:Hong Kong newspapers [16]

So, he returns and systematically returns to revert warring. I'm not going to go through the rest of the days edits, I'm sure this revert fest will continue for hours and half a dozen more will be made just while I write this. He's got a weeks worth to catch up on after all.

The newspaper ones are particularly galling. They category was renamed on CfD to be more inclusive, he is:

1. blindly reverting to text that points at the old category, ignoring that it was renamed. Proof positive he's just reverting without paying attention.
2. somehow claiming that my creation of a separate sub-category for Shanghai is a conspiracy against Hong Kong

even ignoring the paranoid delusion of my conspiring, hello, WP:FAITH??

1. making edits that have no basis on reality (Hong Kong is part of the PRC, fact check all you want), because he thinks some bureaucratic Wikipedia process was overlooked.

SchmuckyTheCat 22:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood block

I understand that in all due procedures, your 2 week block of Instantnood was correct. However, I do not believe that it is the best way forward. Firstly, it inhibits the ability of the arbitration committee to do its job if Instantnood cannot participate; of course, time is not a factor and the ArbCom can wait, but it is best if this is resolved quickly. Secondly, Instantnood makes some good edits; without him, we lose many good edits on Hong Kong related articles. I would like to suggest that we place Instantnood under Wikipedia:Mentorship with you or I (or both) as mentors. If he agrees to it, I suggest the following terms:

• He is only allowed to edit when a mentor is logged on and available - that'll require some coordination. This is necessary to make sure nothing he does sparks an edit war.
• Mentors will try and scrutinise every edit as soon as humanly and practically possible. If he does something which is objectionable and without concensus on the accompanying talk page, revert it immediately and tell him what's wrong with it and how to go about it properly. Instantnood must agree to accept our opinions on these matters.
• Only if he repeats what we told him not to do will we block him, because evidently then mentorship is not working.

Through supervised community interaction, I think Instantnood can learn how to participate constructively on Wikipedia. Blocking him for two weeks is only going to exacerbate whatever problems there are by making him want more to make those bad edits. Mentorship can do wonders, as you can see from those currently being mentored, and I think it is worth a try. Regards, enochlau (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Locke Cole block

Could you please cite the edit(s) that constitute(s) "blatant user page harassment"? Thanks! —David Levy 06:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, this is not Locke Cole's second block in 24 hours. The user's last block was two months ago (3 December). —David Levy 06:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage looking at the background on this, that's what I put in his block but this is actually garbage that has been going on all day in this little row. First of all, he's reverted another user's page 3 times in 24 hours, if there's an issue with him violating policy he can notify an admin, not take it into his own hands. That really isn't the point though because why he's there is not to enforce Fair Use rules, it's to harass Neto.

The whole reason why he is there reverting Neto's page has to do with the edit warring on:

• Template:Infobox
• AUM

And elsewhere. Additionally Neto has provided some pretty clear eveidence that Locke is wikistalking him on AN/I.

Finally, this is his 2nd block in 24 hours (was blocked yesterday for violating 3RR, edit warring) and before that was blocked for harassment. He's earned a timeout I think.

--Wgfinley 06:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Most of Locke Cole's edits to Netoholic's user page were entirely appropriate.

2. I'm aware of the dispute between these two users, but Netoholic is as much to blame (if not more so).

3. Monitoring (and following up on) another user's edits is a perfectly permissible act. Actual harassment is not, and I eagerly await the pertinent diff links.

4. As I said, you're mistaken about the last block (which was on 3 December). —David Levy 07:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There is abundant discussion on this at AN/I which is where any administrator should check in about pending issues on blocks and whatnot. I don't want to repost things that are posted on AN/I thoroughly discussing this so maybe you should go visit? --Wgfinley 07:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I'm in the process of typing a reply there. —David Levy 07:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Before defining "valid defenses" of wikistalking you might want to go and put it into a historical context. First, it is a clearly defined section of the harassment policy. Second, there's a an Arbcom decision that makes it very clear. In looking at Locke's edits and reverts of Neto on various articles it is quite clear there is some intent to cause a disruption. Disruption is the key between following someone around who's making the same mistake and wikistalking. If you looked at Locke's contributions all day you would see a pretty clear intent to engage in wikistalking.

I'm not saying that Neto is right in all of this and I'm dealing with that, however, I have found Neto's mode of discourse to remain polite if insistent on his position where the discourse of Locke has been anything but. Then, making an issue of an image that has been on Neto's page for months (I have seen it before and it predates the Foundation decisions of fair use images outside of article space) after fighting with him all day on articles couldn't be a clearer case of wikistalking. You'll also find that Skyring erected an elaborate defense justifying his reasons for following another user around, it sounds remarkably similar -- the Arbcom unanimously rejected his argument. --Wgfinley 08:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, when did I use the quoted phrase "valid defenses"?

Secondly, please refer me to the edits (on the part of Locke Cole) that unfairly targeted Netoholic. I'm not saying that they don't exist, but I would sincerely appreciate some diff links.

Thirdly, "making an issue" is not a fair description, given the fact that two different admins removed the fair use images a total of three times last month (and one of them posted two explanatory messages on Netoholic's talk page). I assume that Locke noticed this (and rightfully followed up). —David Levy 08:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

See the forest through the trees

Here, it's as simple as this. He and Neto have been at it all day today on Template:Infobox and AUM. I'm not providing diffs, go to the histories at either one and it's very plain, Then, after all this warring, he removes the image not once, not twice, but three times from Neto's page. The issue is not whether the image should be there, that's plain, it doesn't. What the issue is that he was not there to do Wikipedia a service, he was there because he's been warring with Neto all day and wanted to make sure he got another shot in somewhere else. Finally, I reviewed the requests to have Neto remove it and frankly, didn't find them to be polite nor did I find a request for him to remove it himself. Astonishingly I put a polite request on his talk page and the image hasn't shown back up. Works wonders. To summarize, even if Neto is wrong nothing justifies the edit warring on his user page, there are other avenues available. --Wgfinley 08:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

1. I've requested diff links because I want to know if there are specific edits (unrelated to the main dispute) of which I'm unaware. In other words, did the main dispute spill over to other pages, or did Locke Cole randomly revert Netoholic's edits as a means of harassing him?

2. Please explain how this exchange (from last month) is less polite or less thorough than yours. You've claimed that Netoholic merely wanted an explanation, but it's clear that he already had received several (and simply ignored them).

3. Why are you condemning Locke's repeated removal of the images (per policy) and excusing Netoholic's repeated reinsertion of the images (in deliberate breach of policy)? It takes more than one user to edit war, and Netoholic was in the wrong.

You seem rather certain that Locke was acting purely out of spite. That certainly is possible, but I see no strong evidence to support such a contention. I see an editor who realized that another editor was displaying a pattern of inappropriate conduct, and decided to investigate the user's other edits. Upon doing so, last month's fair use image issue came to light.

Why do I view the situation in this manner? Because I've assumed good faith where such an assumption is warranted. You, conversely, have opted to disregard compelling evidence of bad faith on the part of Netoholic. —David Levy 09:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've unblocked Locke; pleas see WP:ANI. >Radiant< 10:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

MedCab Request

Thanks for reviewing the request and for offering to help. You're right, though, that it is really a matter of POV-pushing that the RfC will be better able to resolve. So, I'd be happy to cancel the mediation request. How can I do so? The Rod 16:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by having several IP addresses.

Hello! Very sorry for troubling you but I have a problem which other admins can't fix. My IP address is being blocked again and to make matters worse, I seem to be having 3 different IP addresses. These are the figures:

My IP address is 165.21.154.117: IP address is 165.21.154.109: IP address is 165.21.154.111: The reason given for this block is stated: You were blocked by Wgfinley. Reason given:Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Huaiwei". The reason given for Huaiwei's block is: "Continued edit warring and disruption in violation of parole after prior blocks".

I feel the best place for me to go to is you. I hope you can fix this problem as soon as possible. And thank you for the help with the same problem before. (I hope Huaiwei stops this edit warring. The blocks you gave to this user is affecting me as well.) --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 11:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Image deleteion

Do you have any reason for deleting Image:Lexie karlsen.jpg and Image:Adele Stevens.jpg. I believed Alsayid made a good faith effort to solve the issues with the images, but he says you deleted them anyway, which is not a good thing as they were your nominations and stirred up some controversy. If you still had issues with the images, you probably should have run them through the IFD process again. -Thanks, Nv8200p talk 15:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Your rationale was added only after you deleted them. There is no clear copyright violation, and the images were kept after you put them up for IFD on the 31st of January. You did not make a compelling case to remove them during the IFD process, and when the decision was made to keep, you deleted the images anyway. This is not acceptable. --Alsayid 18:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The terms and conditions of all the websites we get fair use images from say preety much the same thing as you posted in the discussion pages for these images, that is why fair use is a defense. -Nv8200p talk 19:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no defense by just saying "fair use" -- the rationale must be provided to use unlicensed images. In the case of the Stuff image we're explicitly violating the license. both of them fail all of the fair use tests[17]:

1. Transformative factor -- the images do nothing for the article except show who the person is. It is not a transformation of the work in any way, it's blatant stealing of the image.
2. Nature of the work -- these are both professional commercial images that are marketed and sold by the owners of the copyright and the creators (photographers) of the works. They are creative works by professional photographer artists.
3. Amount & Substantiality of the Portion Taken -- we're taking the entirety of both the images. Reducing the size of the images does not automatically bypass the de minimis defense, the images are clearly identifiable and clearly identifiable as professional commercial images (Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc. 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997).
4. Effect on the market -- While Wikipedia is a nonprofit we still license our content for commercial use, this deprives the copyright owners from profiting from such commercial use and therefore impairs their ability to profit from the use of the image.

The Stuff image is a blatant and obvious copyvio and didn't need further explanation but I provided it when asked. The Danni image is in violation of Wikipedia's policy on use of "with permission" images no longer being accepted. I put these in IFD as a courtesy to provide a defense for keeping hem, the defense is nonexistent so I deleted them. --Wgfinley 22:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

First, the Adele Stevens image did not use the Permission template, it used the accepted CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat template. Please note the difference.

Second, you can't decide on your own that a given fair use rationale (such as for the Lexie Karlsen image) was not satisfactory. The image survived the IFD process, and the reasons given were deemed satisfactory.

Finally, images are never placed on IFD as a mere courtesy. Listing images you think should be deleted on IFD is policy, with good reason, and the proper procedures should be respected. Just because you are a moderator does not give you the right to decide unilaterally that an image should be deleted without notice, or that an IFD decision to keep an image should be ignored. Make your argument against an image when it is up for review at IFD, don't assume your opinion needs no explanation, and pay attention to the Instructions for administrators. Don't just go in behind everyone and quietly delete images several days or a month after they were kept when you disagree. I think this much should be clear now, as has been pointed out to you by other administrators, but if it still isn't, I believe we'll need to take the next step in trying to settle the issue. --Alsayid 01:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion out of process and false fair use claims

Listen, I appreciate you wanting to remove photos that are falsely labeled fair use, but you recently not only removed Image:Angel Long.jpg from Angel Long claiming that it didn't fall under fair use guidelines while ignoring the discussion on the talk page of the Fair use article itself that specifically dealt with this. Furthermore, you deleted the image itself outright without going through IFD, which, when you did try, that image and several others were specifically kept because they DID meet fair use guidelines.

If you felt that the image was not appropriately used, what you SHOULD have done, was either add a small part to the article referencing the fact that video (or software, I forget what it was exactly) was something she did, and then it would clearly fit the fair use policy with no ambiguity whatsoever or take the image to the deletion process and see if others agreed with you. You can't simply take it upon yourself to make a decision and go ahead and do it even knowing that you are opposed on it. We've had extensive discussions on the use of video covers for porn stars, and since the videos are a substantial part of the information in the article, it's clear that they can and do fit. It's what they do, unlike, say, a photo of Ronald Reagan on a magazine cover.

Furthermore, on your talk page you crow about the fact that you tried to get permission from the copyright owners of some images... all well and good, but you didn;t bother in these cases, and it's all but certain that they would agree (it's free publicity for them, the covers are used in promotional catalogs and everywhere specifically so people see them).

Quite simply, your actions here are not at all within line with fair use laws or accepted Wikipedia protocol. I have had classes on communication law specifically dealing with these topics and you are apparently out of your element. But you don't just prevail in a dispute by taking it upon yourself to use admin powers to do what you want to do without gaining consensus.

I would suggest that you immediately undelete Image:Angel Long.jpg because that image was NOT deleted when it was put up for deletion and you are clearly going against the process. I believe you were the one who nominated tons of similar images at the same time, and you deleted any of those which did not get deleted as part of the process, it would behoove yoiu to restore them immediately. I would also suggest you start following Wikipedia policy and not take it upon yourself to play maverick, no matter how well-intentioned you think you are. DreamGuy 17:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page, while I hazard to dignify an insult-laden statement with a reply, here goes. What I did with AP has nothing to do with these images. I frankly don't see the corrolation between Pulitzer winning photos and those of "babes". What I do respect is each photographer's right to make a living off of those images and have no snobbishness there. First, the permission process for those images predates the current one, the AP photos wouldn't be there under the current process save a fair use defense. We're using the permission and compliance with their citation requests to avoid a lawsuit with AP which they have threatened. Jimmy thinks we have a fair use claim, Foundation legal thinks they could make an argument but no on really would know until it went to court.

So, getting permission is right out (the fact that someone wants to use the wrong image tag is immaterial). Unlicensed images that are to be used under fair use need their rationale explained and I saw no rationale other than "it's small" and, as I pointed out, de minimis is not a defense in and of itself. If you still object to the deletion then, by all means, take it to Requested copyright examinations.

Finally, I'm unable to add a section to the article about the DVD cover that was used, sadly, I haven't seen this immense cinematic contribution. --Wgfinley 05:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Very strange... You respond here, and also copy my post tomy talk page and respond with different text there, and then go ahead and respond a second time with more text... Why have three different conversations at once?

I *do* respect photographer's rights to make a living off their work, but the images in question are used for promotional purposes for people who WANT them to be used. That's what they were ALREADY paid for. Getting permission certainly is NOT "right out" and in fact is completely unnecessary in these cases anyway.

As I said, I have had the classes and read the books about this issue, and have been active on policy pages discussing fair use and copyright, explaining things to people. This is not a case of some guy just wanting to come up with any excuse for some image I uploaded, because I did not upload these images, I just started watching when you added a hige long obnoxious string of images to IFD for which your claims of why they needed to be deleted were completely spurious. I only added the article in question to my watchlist because I knew you had a history of making radical edits and image removals to try to fit your rather wacky view of how fair use works. Instead of puffing up your chest and claiming that you are right regardless of what policy and other editors and admins say, you should start paying attention. Encyclopedias are supposed to be educational, and you might actually learn something if you were willing to.

Adding a section about the DVD is EASY. You see the DVD cover there. It has the name on it. You can add a line saying that she was in that DVD, among others, DONE, no more possible Fair Use problems, even by your more strict definition of the rules.

Furthermore, you can't say that *I* should have to go through hoops to protedst your action when you unilaterally decided to take it upon yourself to delete images that PASSED all IFD criteria already.

You need to stop your behavior and start paying attention to other people who understand policy and applicable laws better than you do. DreamGuy 18:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use and admins

It is not acceptable to speedy-delete images except under the clear criteria for speedy deletion. If you believe that an image is wrongly labelled or has been wrongly up-loaded, then it needs to be put through the correct relevant process. As images can't be undeleted this is even more important than the out-of-process deletion of articles. Please go through the correct channels in future. Admins have mops and buckets, not gavels and black caps, much less scaffolds and axes. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're deleting fair use that isn't? Typically a jolly good show, but for wiki-political-type reasons (ICK!) , could you drop me a line? Kim Bruning 19:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that this is not an attack on your behaviour. Actual legally required policy on this is said to be "if in doubt, zap it", contrary to common wiki-wisdom. However, unfortunately I am not getting any backup on this. So possibly we shouldn't do it. Kim Bruning 19:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, he's deleting anything and everything HE declares as not fair use, despite what people who actually understand the law try to tell him. I'm all for getting rid of false fair use claims, but that's not what he's doing. He's removing perfectly acceptable images that can be and were being used in articles perfectly legally. You people need to stop playing cowboy and start basing your decisions on fair and competent understandings of applicable policies.

If your argument is that the policies are wrong, work on CHANGING the policies, don't just ignore them to do whatever you want to do. Procedures are there for a reason, and one of those reasons is so people with more ego than wisdom don't go running around screwing things up on a whim. DreamGuy 06:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, the foundation interprets the policies differently than we do. Fru fru fru fru frustrating! Kim Bruning 09:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ping!

IRC! :-) Kim Bruning 09:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to drop you a line to remind you that other people see the hard work you do here. Although some people will treat you harshly because your priorities are not the same as theirs, there are many others who respect and appreciate your efforts even if we are sometimes too lost in our own concerns to step up and remind people that we agree with you. ... and thank you for taking the time to write reasoned arguments to unreasonably people, it can be frustrating when it appears to be just the same circular argument but there are countless other people watching. I'm sure some have been enlightened. --Gmaxwell 13:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Short version: We missed you! :-) Kim Bruning 13:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar award

I hereby grant you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your contributions to Wikipedia and helping me immensely for the autoblocks I received and giving blocks to users who deserve it. Congratulations! Siva1979 05:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel that you deserve this second barnstar for ALL the hard work you have been doing in Wikipedia. Although sometimes your decisions were unpopular among fellow Wikipedians, I feel that you have always acted in good faith for Wikipedia. Congratulations and do not let the actions of some Wikipediands make you feel disheartened. --Siva1979^{Talk to me}05:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for your response on my Talk page. A few people seem to have jumped on this issue as a peg on which to hang other agendas; I'm more than happy to accept your courteous explanation of the situation, and hope that the whole business now dies away. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a cabalist now!

Hello again! After I had thought it very well, I had joined into the Mediation Cabal as aspiring cabalist. I'll try to do my best and see if to be part of it brings out to be more productive as to be in the AMA. Have you any suggestion (excepting those already put on the Suggestions page) for me? --Neigel von Teighen 22:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

About Huaiwei's block (Formal letter)

Dear sir.It has come to my knowledge that you have blocked Huaiwei over edit wars.However, this is his testimonial that he gave me.(On MSN Messenger, as of 10:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC))

Huaiwei stated:

• Arbcom rulings were only related to his disputes over China-related content with Instantnood.
• It has nothing to do with how he conducts myself with others or on other topics. He find it ridiculous to be banned over even the most legitimage edits just because he chose to write long commmentaries in the edit summary.

I hope you can look into this matter and consider the block.Thank you. Tdxiang10:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Supreme court

Thanks for stepping in. I cannot quite understand they refuse to surrender all our edits related to the dispute that we've made to that article, and let the uninvolved third parties to decide. — Instantnood 16:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: List of airlines

I'm afraid that's not the case. What should be said have been said, but the reverts simply keep happening - a natural consequence when some people never give up to satisfy their point of view. — Instantnood 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Clock tower

Thank you. But please let me know if there's anything we can do to solve the matter, instead of delaying it and creating more unnecessary troubles. — Instantnood 18:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Singapore Science Centre

I am not the only person contesting the claim, no proof from (a) recognised institution(s) has yet been provided to justify the claim. Further, I've only made one revert there [18] [19].. may I know in what way is it blatant and obvious edit warring? Thanks. — Instantnood 18:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: More Category Bans

Thanks again. But I don't think that would actually help anything. They simply wants their very own point of view prevails. Things would keep happening anyways if you cannot make them stop themselves, and understand and recognise the reality. — Instantnood 18:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Lists of country-related topics

May I ask if this ban is gonna help anything? Thanks. — Instantnood 18:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: 7-day block

Rather than imposing blocks, I suppose there're some other far more constructive measures that we can do to get the matter towards resolution. — Instantnood 18:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Friendly warning

If one has taken a quick glance at the edit history [20] of the article, she/he can probably tell user:Dmn was at the same time trying to fix the extra square bracket [21]. What I did was meant to restore the format which user:Dmn might have mistaken as a typo. That's hardly reigniting an old edit warring. — Instantnood 20:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: New block, two weeks

Rather than exacerbating, I would say a block would simply be delaying what's going to happen. What I was doing was to preserve the status quo before those contentious edits (including those of mine that might look contentious to them). It's pretty apparent that it was because of three particular users on Wikipedia, namely user:Alanmak, user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat, who're not happy with the previous status quo, and are keeping on trying to enforce their point of view across Wikipedia, that is detaining everybody in the deadlock. Enoch, you can probably recall the stalemale with kung hei fat choi; and Guy, I guess you still remember how something was "re-sparked" at Guangshen Railway [22].

As mentioned a few times before, Wikipedia is a reflection of facts and the reality. If they refuse to accept this, it's not anybody else's problem to keep an eye on their edits. I am not the only person to have reverted their problematic edits, some other Wikipedians who're related to Hong Kong have been doing more or less the same thing, just that they may not have aware.

I sincerely appreciate Enoch's intention to get this out through the mentorship mechanism, but, IMHO, that's far from practical. Nevertheless, I'm most willing to refrain from possibly contentious reverts, as long as you can keep an eye on those edits as far as possible, and undo them whenever necessary. Thanks again for all your precious efforts. — Instantnood 06:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"as long as you can keep an eye on those edits as far as possible, and undo them whenever necessary" So, you won't be mentored unless your mentors agree to be your meatpuppets? SchmuckyTheCat 16:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the key issue which must be sought out. There's little initiative for anybody to continue to contribute to a project that allows defects to be preserved, and punishs those who're countering the people introducing the defects. I'm always happy to work with the community, and, what I can promise is that - if you can make sure the three people will stop spreading the troubles, revert all those they themselves have introduced, and show everybody their sincerity to actually cool down and talk - I won't, anymore, get into any troublesome, time-killing and unnecessary reverts. (Nevertheless SchmuckyTheCat doesn't seem to bother with the rationale on why is it good to restore things as according to what they were like before all our edits. [23] He simply insists what he and his fellows have been doing is right, and the point(s) of view of the other party/ies is/are entirely wrong.) — Instantnood 18:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And the "defects" are apparantly all those corrections that has been made to what instantnood adds, or what has already existed. That at this point in time, instantnood still refers to them all as defects, and to demand that all of them be removed before he would sit at the negotation table speaks volumes on his deep-seated unwillingness to accept mutiple views from the community, hardly a reflection of someone willing to work with it as he boldly claims. I suppose it has never occured to him, that to others, it is also equally demoralising to know wikipedia allows pre-existing "defects" to exist, and that it punishes those who attempt to correct people who continue to spread the "defects"?

The simple reason why I would personally reject the call for "restoring articles to what they were like before our edits", was because it gives instantnood little incentive to then sit down and negotiate when that happens. He could very well pat his backside and walk away, with nothing to loose. Instantnood basically asks for articles to be reverted to the point whereby a HK entry is first added. This gives an unfair advantage to whoever manages to add HK-related content first, which most of time, of coz, is instantnood. We have stressed time and again that first is not neccesarily better. Instantnood still needs some basic education on why this is so. Most of the points under contention is with the way HK is presented in articles. That would mean if one wishes to revert all edits to reach a nuetral point before negotation begins, than it is actually to delete the HK entry entirely, and not to the first addition of the said offending content. If Instantnood wishes to demand that all articles be "restored" as a pre-negotiation criterion, may I than also demand that all HK-related content be deleted from these articles until concensus can be reached on how these entries are presented?

Hence, as with the way a previous attempt for negotiation has broken down, instantnood's continued insistance on the "display of sincerity" by his opponents based on his criteria treatens to undermine any future negotiation process. If fairness is to prevail, can his opponents similarly impose various criteria and "display of sincerity" on the part of instantnood, and to sit at the negotiation table only when he complies? Where does this end? I do believe that apparantly, Instantnood either needs a really patient group of individuals who are able to talk some basic sense into him, or he just needs time to grow up.--Huaiwei 20:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Responded at user talk:Huaiwei. — Instantnood 09:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents:

• Instantnood, although you make corrections and so forth, I do notice that many of your "fixes" are somewhat controversial edits involving the presentation of Hong Kong related material. I hope you are able to differentiate between what is controversial and what is not.
• I think your intention to stay away from controversy is a great idea but we will have to see if that is indeed the case.
• Huaiwei, deleting controversial content is not the way to do it. If ordering is an issue, then you all may wish to consider a neutral ordering scheme, such as alphabetical order or chronological order, and stick to it. If you're concerned that Instantnood's additions bias certain articles in favour of Hong Kong related treatment, then the way to correct that is by adding perspectives from the places that you do know about, not by deleting Hong Kong related content.
• Huaiwei, although you may feel that you've been hard done by, sometimes the wording of your comments make you sound belligerent. It may be language differences, but it will help you if you soften the tone of your comments (which you've done to an extent already).

enochlau (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Image Tagging Image:USS Theodore Roosevelt observed by KNM Utvær.jpg

The image was taken by the crew of the Utvær and was released through a Norwegian newspaper, [24]. Since there was no image copyright information on the website, I thought it was PD. κаллэмакс 11:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood Rfar

Both Fred Bauder and I have updated various pages with proposed findings, etc. I put my proposals here, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3/Workshop, Fred put his directly here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3/Proposed decision, and I've commented on the talk page. You may want to add some pennies worth of thoughts in either. SchmuckyTheCat 20:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood.

Get your pet under control. He's getting hyper-agressive in following me and reversing edits. I don't care when he does it because he disagrees with me, but now he's doing it just to do it - when he doesn't disagree with me. [25].

He's also reverting me on a policy/guideline page from FIVE months ago with the outright lie that the change is undiscussed [26]. That last one is interesting, because he uses the removed policy to argue here [27], then he is told that isn't a policy here [28] so he re-inserts his argument back into the policy. Further, his edit summary says this change was undiscussed, seemingly ignoring a discussion he participated in [29]. So not only an inappropriate edit to outright manipulate a policy discussion, but his edit summary contains a lie against me, which I take offense too.

Here are some more pages from the last day where his inappropriate editing needs some attention:

• [30], revert of an admin (Curps), who came to the revert war to try and make sense of it.
• [31], reverting to months old versions simply because alanmak made the last changes
• [32], a major edit and revert, marked as a minor edit, with no edit summary.
• [33] potentially controversial change from the name China, no edit summary (I don't agree or disagree with this change, but others might, and it's why he should use edit summaries)
• [34] a totally controversial change and revert from edits made on december 10, NO EDIT SUMMARY.

He still hasn't made a comment on the ArbCom case, and considering that Fred Bauders proposal could ban him indefinitely, he should - and he should figure it out that these kinds of edits aren't helping him. Even I think indefinite global banning might be overly punitive, but if Instantnood refuses to recognize his edit warring style is causing problems maybe it's a solution. SchmuckyTheCat 17:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Guy, please kindly read SchmuckyTheCat's words with great care. He's simply being dishonest. For instance, he actually modified the naming conventions before he started the thread at the talk page. He knew there's no consensus being reached at the talk page, but still he's pretending there is, and is trying to justify his changes. Read also Jiang's comment to the thread SchmuckyTheCat started [35]. As for the revert to the move by user:Curps, it was explained at Curps' user talk page (I make links at my user talk page and it's pretty easy to follow, don't think SchmuckyTheCat would be able to miss it if he really wants to present it as evidence to accuse me of anything). I don't think I have to disagree with the position of somebody to revert her/his edit(s). As long as the edits are inappropriately conducted, anybody has the responsibility to revert such edits, especially made by those who has a record. — Instantnood 18:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming Conventions (Chinese)

WHAT? I specifically DID NOT war on this page, I put it back ONCE, and then asked Jiang to resolve it. SchmuckyTheCat 02:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The user SchmuckyTheCat constantly vandalizes pages, and ignores warnings --please block him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.103.116 (talk • contribs) 03:20, March 4, 2006 (UTC).

Re: New article ban

Despite the title and the subject matter of the page, the dispute is not China-related at all. It was about user:SchmuckyTheCat's not following procedures. He modified an official guideline/policy without proposing and getting consensus before actually made those modifications. Anybody, no matter who, should revert such edits. — Instantnood 17:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• I did follow the procedure, and you can see the discussion on the talk page. Further, you're dispute is no longer with China related pages but was expanded to ANY ARTICLE [36], so don't try and think you've got free reign outside of Chinese topics. SchmuckyTheCat 18:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

'Cos it's something to do with one's behaviour on Wikipedia that everybody has the right and responsibility to act accordingly. That's beyond the previous content dispute. — Instantnood 18:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping it. But please note it's nothing to do with China this time. User:SchmuckyTheCat made a change to an official guideline without first proposing at the talk page, to gain community consensus. The subsequent discussion clearly shows there's no such consensus. Yet he refused to undo what he has done to the official guideline. — Instantnood 20:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have risen from the dead

Dear Wgfinley: After having taken a rather tempestuous break from Wikipedia, following my leaving in a fit of pique whilst in a less-than-sane state of mind, I have returned once more from the dead thus reversing my self-immolation. There is something marvellous about wikis in that respect in that one can commit suicide and resurrect oneself, which is a most truly marvellous utopian ideal. Anyway, well, I am thus here to ask whether or not you wish me to return to my old post as Coordinator of the Mediation Cabal or indeed whether you feel well-entrenched in your current position and do not wish to relinquish it. There is a point to be said in that I am not sure whether I am going to have a similar failure of my emotional control in the future (my depression is, alas, rather unpredictable, and I cannot be sure when and if the bubble shall burst once again) and it may thus be unwise to trust me with any sort of responsibility again. I can't quite relay how sorry I am that I ended up burdening you with the duty of looking after the medcab, and indeed that I placed Kim in the position of having to find a new coordinator so rapidly. If I do return, it probably would be wise if you remained as deputy coordinator perhaps in case the eventuality should arise that my state of mind collapses once again (which it most assuredly will) thus avoiding the necessity for a scramble to find a new coordinator should you have moved to some other Wikipedia capacity in the interim. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

p.s. I've recently started Wikipedia:Advocate Cabal, and I would be most grateful for your input on it. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:FergieP.jpg

Image:FergieP.jpg...umm....it was labeled as promotional...so, whats the problem?--Jaysscholar 01:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

http://black.eyed.peas.free.fr/photos/photos_fergie2_html_fergie128.jpg

I want to be a Mediation Cabaleer

Hello, Wgfinley. A while ago I was involved in a dispute with another editor over some political POV pushing, and asked for help at the official mediation committee. Unfortunately the other guy wouldn't come to the table and so my request was eventually rejected- all I really wanted was for someone to have a quick look and say what they thought. Then the dispute might not have escalated (it's at ArbCom now). Anyway, I want to do my bit to stop this sort of thing happening again. How do I join your Cabal? Thanks for your time. Reyk 05:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Unattributed Audio Transcript

You made a statement on the Richard Nixon Discussion page, under the Sub-section, "Disturbing Quotes," that you had deleted some quotes of the Nixon tapes, because those tapes were unattributed. Why did you not simply attribute the tapes and let them remain? I ask, because I am facing a similar situation on another page, and a Wikipedia editor has said that I should simply put copyright info on currently unattributed material if that is all that is wrong with them.

About 1997, a CBS news station broadcast an investigative report they created. Today, that station belongs to Fox News, the reporter who did the investigation is making TV documentories and a purported MP3-format audio transcript of the broadcast is offered on a personal Web page without specific attribution. Someone has linked these unattributed MP3 audio transcripts to a Wikipedia page, so that by clicking on the Wikipage link, the MP3 immediately opens. A few days ago, someone unknown to me deleted that section of the page, but a Wikipedia editor reverted them. I am informed that I won't be allowed to remove the material, either. What think ye? Pooua 23:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood mediation

Harlo, it's about Instantnood again. I've been asked to mediate between him an Alanmak. Are there any wise words that you could impart on me about mediation between these two? Thanks. enochlau (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I can: Neither of them is "right" in all of the disputes at the same time. Instantnood is "right", as far as one can be, in the disputes about {{HKG}} and {{MAC}}, but Alanmak is likely right in a number of other issues; and their conflict has been going on for quite some time, so I suspect mediation will be hard and long. I wish you the best of luck! —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 21:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Francis Schuckardt

We appear to have lost our mediatior. DanielPi has been doing some good work with myself and Athanasius303 on developing guidelines for this article. He has not added any input for a few weeks and I fear that he will not be returning. We did make good progress on the article and I believe with just a little mediation to give input on some policy type guidelines, the mediation can be closed. The topic is controversial and often Athanasius303 and myself do not see eye to eye, but we have both demonstrated restraint and a willingness to learn what is acceptable for a Wikipedia article. I am hopeful that just a little neutral third party view could go a long way to resolving our differences. I do not know the procedure for proceeding with the mediation since DanielPi never did formally remove himself. I have left a message on Turnbull's page also, but it appears he may be on a leave. Athanasius303 is now suggesting going to arbitration, but I think with a mediator to weigh in on a few points of contention and to serve as guiding a little dialog between Athanasius303 and myself, this could be avoided. Bernie Radecki 15:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cornwell

Hear you got involved with a dispute conc. an anon and Patricia Cornwell. Care to share how that went? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Typo?

Re [37] - Do you mean 4 Dec 2006 instead? :-D — Instantnood 13:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking for your assistance and mediation

Hi over there. Thank you for you assistance on Hwang Woo Suk images, (now this use was solved, although most images were deleted), anyways, i request your assistance on Hwacha article (a historical weapon), because i believe some users are deleting substantial information that was written on the article in aims of "having their personal and own professionalism".

• User:Wikimachine states that Hwacha article version as of 25 June 2006 was too confusing because got Repetitive contents., and here an excerpt: " The article is lengthening and repetitive. What bothers me the most is how there's a picture of Hwacha in real life & another in game..." and it got References to media&games, he said: "See Encyclopedia Britannica. See Encarta. See any encyclopedia. See if they have games. If you are obsessed with games, don't write here.. " . And he also said "...I am frustrated" (more about this: Talk:Hwacha)
• I believe those comments are offensive. I tried to reach to him or her, an agreement and a new version of the article was written within two days, [38], the new version, changed the style and added subsections and improved the format and deleted "sensitive contents" such as the origins of Hwacha (historical weapon), and added a pop culture section as many other articles have; such as "Trebuchet, and even the Piltdown man" . But some weeks later , User:Wikimachine changed and deleted all stating again that PROFESSIONAL, PLEASE, GAME MANIACS GO AWAY , in caps, and stating that sections like description and Role of hwacha in conflics were useless and bogus.
• He deleted the pop culture trivia also because said that:
  • "People just want to mention games. They get excited, don't they. Why don't they play games all their life and not edit in Wikipedia, then. I say delete it." and '"I repeat, to have a section dedicated to game and "popular culture" (bingrae) is idiocratic. Just because those other articles are ruined doesn't mean that you can justify your action with those examples." (more about this see: Talk:Hwacha)
  • I think the mentioned adove was out of place and was totally offensive.
• He or she, even called for a vote if the section should be taken out from the article. (which is still in progress), i am not sure how this vote-thing works at wikipedia but, on Wikipedia is not a democracy says that: Votes should be used with caution.
• My point is that, if we compare the current version of this article Hwacha to the version from a day ago [39], (that got a simmilar pattern used at many other historical guns and weapons articles), we can see the current version has deleted substantial information and i think the criteria used for delete it is totally wrong. I hope you can read this on time and take a look on. Thank you for reading this. Cheers, --HappyApple 21:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Flight 191

Looks good now. There is a minor debate on the issue of the various flight 191's and similar numbers. It's hard to say whether any of that really belongs, since it is based on coincidence and superstition. Wahkeenah 05:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)