User talk:Herbythyme/Arc2

Thanks - I appreciate it. Sorry you've been bothered by this fiasco... --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip!

What a nice surprise!

Thank you for thinking of me. It was very kind of you, and I hope you have a lovely day. Maralia 19:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Ping: Licensing

Btw, love the photograph in your archive box ;o) --Iamunknown 23:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

\b

Re: Whitelist

AN

Its been requested meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Adsense_spammer--Hu12 (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrha News block

Spam-blacklist

Placed back on the Meta blacklist a while back, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disease-pictures.blogspot spammer

69.31.147.93

No problem to explain it as I see it (& nothing to do with the criticism aspect either). The ip was listed on here as being an open proxy. Equally I found evidence here that it is likely still one. It is against policy to edit from Open proxies so I blocked it. As to the edit I reverted, I understand where you are coming from to a point. I sort of took it as a vandal edit I guess, had it been an appeal of a block then I would have left it for someone else to deal with. I hope that answers your queries but if not do get back to me, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it, I didn't even know that there was an open proxy detection system in place, there is so many pages in the Wikipeida:xyz space that I don't think I'll ever be able know of them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.42.99.201 (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PanchoHardy on commons, againhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PanchoHardy I hate having to keep bringing this up but it seems nobody bothered at all with both my request, and your re-request and he had since uploaded more blatantly copyvio images. This is taken from the internet and was taken in the eighties, inside a ring, inside a ring, television screenshot. To top it all off at the same time as he's uploaded thiese images he's had the gall to nominate some other images for deletion as copyright violations showing he is aware of what copyright is.[1] [2] [3]

This user knows what copyright is, and yet every upload of his that isn't a transwiki is a copyright violation that he has taken from someone else. This really needs to be taken care of. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the user for clarification. If the answers are not sufficient we should probably block him, he has had enough warnings. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, much appreciated - Re: your comment on 'Alan Miles not being a major part of the LevellersHi Herby,

Thanks for your help, much appreciated - Re: your comment on 'Alan Miles not being a major part of the Levellers because you have been to quite a few of their gigs over the years' --> Alan Miles' co-writing of their first Gold selling LP and performing on the recording, being a part of the era when they were creating the seminal sound that they have stuck to ever since, as well as co-writing the 'Liberty Song' on their second Platinum LP is certainly considered quite major to me and a vast oversight on your part I believe.

I do, however, agree with your comment on 'conflict of interest', I can see why this is crucial to the Wiki system

Thanks for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commonviper (talk • contribs) 15:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blacklist entry

Please don't let me screw up on my first dayThanks for all your support in my RfA! I couldn't have and probably wouldn't have without your encouragement.

Now I have my first questions; I struggle to understand copyright and I know you know a lot about this from your Commons work.

Here's a photo from Commons of a Japanese stuffed animal: Image:Domokun.jpg; Domo-kun is the mascot for a Japanese TV station. According to the image description file, this image is free content and the image's creator has made it freely available per the terms of a free license. Here's my question: I'm guessing the underlying mascot is proprietary to the TV station -- so does that mean it's really fair use in this case?

Here's another one: Image:Godzilla （04）.jpg: Godzilla, probably very proprietary/tradmarked/copyrighted/whatever, as a sculpture on a Japanese street. My thinking is that whatever claim the Godzilla movie owners held on this image, they licensed to the sculptor and the sculpture owner. But is its use in Wikipedia limited to fair use in a discussion of just that statue (and perhaps its surroundings and the sculptor)? Do we have an obligation to the movie studio here? What about the sculptor and/or sculpture owner? Then there's this deletion discussion that I don't really understand: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Godzilla hibiya japan 2006 9.jpg

I was going to leave this tasteless RfA thank you note (click on its corner link to open it) but the last thing I need to do is spam fair use images across 86 user talk pages.

Thanks again for the big stuff and now this little question. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right - copyright is not my thing. Equally the problem is that en wp can have material that Commons cannot. Godzilla is definitely not hostable on Commons and has been deleted (ALE!'s summary is quite clear). The stuffed animal I would have thought was not hostable on Commons either. BUT I have no idea whether "free use" would be applicable to either. Now if it were about proxies, blocks, links....! Try Fair use and VP as other sources? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On en.wikipedia, the policies (rightly) discourage fair use as much as possible. Fair use images are not allowed on user talk pages. Better safe than sorry -- I will look for alternate images. Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 15:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, really bad Haiku from a new adminSetting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

So far, so good. No copyright vios with this one.

And thanks so much, as always. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Open proxy

Yeah you know more about this than I do. If you think it's appropriate, go ahead and apply the 3 year block. If I come across similar IPs, I'll refer to you in the future or this guy who seems to be familiar with this stuff. Also, I don't mind you tweaking my blocks/administrative actions. It's just common sense :) Thanks. Spellcast (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the great lesson!

		The Special Barnstar
		For a very special lesson you've given to me, which made my way at Wikipedia much easier —--Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Important message about recall

Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I and others first developed this category over a year ago, we visualized it as a low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would trust, in fact a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for the community and bad for the admin. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process. I have in my User:Lar/Accountability page, given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. it is not needed to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want, rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived change. Further I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. Put it in this table: Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria for the benefit of all. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and are entirely up to you. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should happen to be recalled. Thanks for your time and consideration and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek

++Lar: t/c 00:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

To me it would be sensible to adopt an approach that covers as many as are willing to be involved. As such my gut feeling is to "adopt" your process/page - do I steal it or link to it? I can't see anything obvious that would mean I would wish to change it. Many thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legistorm.comThank you. I do understand that. I'm trying to be civil.

I'm an admin myself, but I'd prefer not to remove the site because I'm honestly not familiar with this area of the project. Before this happened, I didn't even know we had such a list. It seems that a handful of users maintain it almost exclusively, and I didn't want to step on any toes. Would it be unwise for me to remove the link myself? Do people ever run an RfC on this issue? It seems like a waste to me, but I'm very frustrated with how this is going. Cool Hand Luke 09:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that I very much appreciate what you do around here, Herby, and so tactfully, too.

I think in the interest of encyclopedia-building it's worth considering some sort of controlled removal of the legistorm.com links from the blacklist. I don't think that should be discussed, however, while folks are still riled up and sticking sticks in your and Hu12's eyes.
--A. B. ^(talk) 18:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with removal in some shape/size/form/timescale. However the linkage is excessive. I can find a whole bundle of things to do with me time than play the games I left en wp to avoid so it will have to be nice & calm for me to come up with anything constructive I think. Thanks for your help A. B. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well stick around -- we really need you on en.wikipedia. Close your eyes, take a deep breath and visualize whirled peas.
--A. B. ^(talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: whitelist

Cheers, I've tested it and it seemed happy with the link. Thanks again, Waggers (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pygmalion Books

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#pygmalionbooks.org --Hu12 (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12, I had already added the link to the spam page in my message above. I'm not sure what the purpose is in posting redundant information here? 205.200.244.98 (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Can't say I've used it recently but I think I did try one just before Christmas which seemed ok. Is Eagle around/active at present? Or toolserver issue? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Havent seen him, did a search on cafepellicola.com (one you just discussed on whitelist), only the request shows up, not the archive..hmmm--Hu12 (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately that one was logged - the problem would be far worse with unlogged entries. I've just removed another on Meta because there is not info on the rationale. I notice B added one and despite my request it is not logged. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Zombies!Hi, Herbythyme! I use an automated tool (i.e. no human intervention) that runs 24/7 to detect whenever an XRumer spambot creates new pages. Whenever it finds such a page, it will delete it and block the IP that created it, as XRumer operates only either from botnets (in which case they should be blocked) or the spammer's computer (which should probably be blocked too). I know DerHexer handles XRumer a lot on the smaller wikis, maybe you should get in touch with him? Just get back to me on my talk page if you need my tool or anything else. All the best, east.718 at 21:00, December 27, 2007

There's a report page set up here which you may find more useful. east.718 at 11:20, December 28, 2007

I'd rather identify and block zombie proxies - hopefully I can get more stewards to watch my report page to help stop spam on small wikis. It's really no effort for me to do this at all. east.718 at 12:07, January 3, 2008

I'm watching it now. But I've not written a script yet to block these spambots on smaller projects. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sneaky work around of blacklistre: [4] Appears a new attempt by easy-forex.com, to subvert the blacklist by using freewebs. see freewebs.com/tradeforeignexchange. Any chance this can be added to the global also?.. Ive already added this to the archive on meta, so logging the link above is already done. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done (bit later today tho) cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another from same (IP 196.217.155.53) directoryforex.com ...frickin persistant--Hu12 (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be a long drawn out issue...easyforexforum.com... ugh--Hu12 (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done them, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks..--Hu12 (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hum

TwinkleHi Herby,

I'm wanting to check to see if it was you granting me access to use twinkle since i've post the message on WikiProjectSpam if it was you granting me access to use twinkle thanks, and yes the message was the truth my old account got closed down by me, and i've created this one, mainly because some users previously was annoying me and got fed up and decided to create this account. →Yun-Yuuzhan→ 19:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more about CAT:AOTR

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "F"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "G"s, and "H"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

PS that was the OFFICIAL message for the G's and H's :) ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Dear friend, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Eve, and that 2008 is your best year yet! ~ Riana ⁂ 02:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks!

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Thanks you are doing a great job in blocking him. He keeps coming with his dynamic ip. How long can we keep blocking his ip and his redirection?. I think banning all ip with range of 78.148.XXX.XXX would do the trick but i guess doing that would cause people with that range being blocked aswell. Any more ideas herby?. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see but what is meant by COI?. This is the first time iam seeing such a spam. I never knew things would get so messy and this guy just keep spamming with his redirection technique. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equilibrium Web Design spam and page rank

Quick like cobra!

Electrojets.com

RFA"Too long" is not a valid reason if it's a spam-link. The blatant hoax Brahmanical See existed for nearly 3½ years before it was deleted. (See User:Shii/Hoaxes)

It's clear the original uploader was link-farming when you look at their contribs. Also, I don't know how to use any anti-spam bots. If you do, would you know of any way to track how many times it's been added and removed, or if any other anonymous IPs have add the same link to Wikipedia before? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is just my opinion. To me the blacklist is not a form of censorship but a method of preventing current disruption. If you disagree then the blacklist page is the place to air your views - others may agree. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That does not appear to answer my questions. I do not know how to use anti-spam tools. Is it possible to look into the edit history surrounding that link to find if it has been added, removed, and re-added several times? It was originally added as linkfarming. If it was removed, then re-added multiple times, this would be "disruption," and removing it would not be "censorship." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Asia/SOap

Back at WP

On Edmund CrispinHi, and thanks for your message. There isn't a lot to say really. Some years ago I read The Moving Toyshop and found it boring and confusing. Last December I found two more Crispin novels in a second-hand book shop and read them. As far as I'm concerned, they are much better, especially Love Lies Bleeding. As there hadn't been any articles on those other novels, I started them. I'm still working on an expansion of The Case of the Gilded Fly—I'd like to give a plot summary (without giving away the solution) and explain some of the literary allusions in the text.

Generally, I set out about ten years ago to read up on all those Golden Age detective novels I had missed, and now I'm trying to see to it that each author is represented in Wikipedia with at least one article on an individual novel. This doesn't only include the cosy whodunnit variety. Over the years I've contributed articles on novels by Gilbert Adair, Eric Ambler, Anthony Berkeley, Freeman Wills Crofts, Carl Hiaasen, Jonathan Latimer, Raymond Postgate, and some more.

Some authors such as Elizabeth Daly or Elizabeth Ferrars do not even have their own articles yet, so basically my interest in Crispin will be fleeting as I'm likely to move on to other authors. Do you have any particular reason?

Best wishes, <KF> 17:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Placement of External LinksI think I understand the External Links policy along with the Conflict of Interest policy as well. I truly believe the links at Imag091307 and Backdoor.Win32.IRCBot are genuine links that contribute to the quality of the article as stated

Under the External Links policy

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

I also feel that a lot of Wikipedian readers have benefited from that link. HOWEVER I will not revert the edit if you still feel that you are correct. I am just showing my side of the story and hope you see where I am coming from.

Sincerely, augrunt (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask you to quote the rules I seem to infringe on the COI policy. Regards, augrunt (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it seemed like self promotion, I was only trying to help the users that happened to need assistance with those articles. augrunt (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Again

thoughts?

Riana's request for bureaucratship

Dear Herby, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelist

Why are you rude to me and accuse me of spamming?Hi from Watchet in West Somerset. As a local resident I try to add items to the "watchet" page of local interest, but today you have again accused me of spamming or advertising. I do NOT do this. The two links added are/were valuable information about the town of Watchet and ongoing redevelopment. How can they be spam? The other site is the town's own information site. There is no interest in search engine links - JUST to provide all visitors with information that will be useful. Please be kind enough to explain why you sent such a rude message. Or contact me direct on .

MR Richards

Hi from Watchet in West Somerset. As a local resident I try to add items to the "watchet" page of local interest, but today you have again accused me of spamming or advertising. I do NOT do this. The two links added are/were valuable information about the town of Watchet and ongoing redevelopment. How can they be spam? The other site is the town's own information site. There is no interest in search engine links - JUST to provide all visitors with information that will be useful. Please be kind enough to explain why you sent such a rude message.

MR Richards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.154.134 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note that this appears dealt with on IP talk page, thanks to those involved --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons account

• A nudge would be helpful. Nothing seems to be happening. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar

IP Block

The message says "Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Herbythyme. The reason given is this:

Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Stalker IP range pending consensus. You may contact Herbythyme or one of the other administrators to discuss the block." So I try to contact Herbtythyme or one of the other administrators and get exactly the same message. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you cancel the link toshe-j radio? It is not a commercial radio, it is a website where people can listen to minimal techno tracks released under a creative commons license. There is absolutely NO advertising on the site, nor we promote anything. I don't understand why a link to "minimal techno podcast" is accepted, but you don't accept a non-profit site dedicated to this kind of music. I think it is a good resource for people to get to know free music of this genre. I am against any kind of spamming and advertising, I really think it is an appropriate link here. Why has it been deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amber sunshower (talk • contribs) 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it could have been useful to give an example of this kind of music. But, you're right, the world can go on even without those links. And even without many other information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amber sunshower (talk • contribs) 08:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: CommonsThanks for your message, although someone appears not to have understood the sentence "If you were not personally involved in the deletion of the image, please do not take the following comments personally." (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ABF#Removal_of_image_from_.22Permian.E2.80.93Triassic_extinction_event.22)

What do you suggest would be an effective way to "have a go at the system"? The current system for managing images needs to be critiqued because it is at present a collection of obstacles and hidden traps, as shown by the deleted image. Wikipedia is trying to get and retain knowledgeable editors, and IMO user-unfriendly features are about as big a deterrent as as vandals, flamers and POV-pushers but it's less easy to see how to deal with user-unfriendly features.

PS the fact that at present only admins have universal log-ins is itself a user-unfriendly feature, since en.wikipedia editors get messages and other "inputs" from people with universal accounts and find it difficult to respond. (I've had a such a message on my Talk page; once I found that my en.wikipedia id was not valid for responding to it, I simply dropped the matter except for watching that no undesirable action was taken). Philcha (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your prompt reply.

I'm afraid I didn't understand "For SUL stuff Meta is the place to look" - could you please explain in terms that are intelligble to someone who knows next to nothing about Wikipedia internals.

The actual deletion was apparently on the grounds that no category was specified, which is pure bureacratic obnoxiousness ("fill in all the boxes or we'll treat your tax return as invalid and slap a fine on you"). The fact that commons has different "fair use" rules was apparently not relevant in this particular case, although it is yet another factor that makes Wikipedia a leaky abstraction (a well-known cause of trouble in computer systems). There are other respects in which Wikipedia is significantly less editor-friendly than it needs to be, and I'm still not sure where is the best place to raise such issues (the Village Pump looks more like a black hole than a source of refreshment). I think lack of editor-friendliness is an actual threat to the quality of Wikipedia, because the people most willing to find ways of handling the internal obstacles will include a large proportion of POV-pushers, advertisers, PR staff, etc. ("the best lack all conviction, the worst are full of passionate intensity") Philcha (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you're having a pleasant, relaxing Saturday!? Thanks for the info about Met and SUL.

I dunno why the image was actually deleted, but the edit summary at the article's history page says "Deleted because Image stayed in w:commons:Category:Unknown as of 12 April 2008 and its missing information was not fixed", and you can see how I interpreted that.

I can't remember whether I have a commons user id, and I don't want to have to log into another system or check another watchlist or Talk page. The Wikipedia-commons combination looks like a badly designed client-server system, since the server (commons) does not do as the client (en.wikipedia) tells it and the client does not inform the user of important actions done by the server (trust me, I'm a retired computer consultant) - more simply, the client and server are not singing from the same songbook.

As a matter of interest, why do you "find Commons an easier place to work collaboratively" and on what sorts of work? Philcha (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we approach the whole thing from different points of view. You appear to find all kinds of work on Commons interesting in it own right; it would probably drive me nuts. I find something on the Web that I think would be useful for a Wikipedia article; or I search for something, Google sends me to a Wikipedia article and I think "I could improve that fairly easily" - in either case I simply want to edit articles. For all I know you might find that an uncomfortably haphazard style of working. Philcha (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Universe

RfB Comments

Rfb participation thanksHello, Herby.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. As you felt the need to oppose my candidacy, I would appreciate any particular thoughts or advice you may have as to what flaws in my candidacy you perceived and how you feel they may be addressed. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thatsqingdao spam

I tend to keep a look out for some behaviour both good (thanks for the work) and "other" :)

If you do find it cross wiki (use Eagle's tool here]) then go back to Meta. If it is cross wiki & I am around I'd list it probably (away until Wednesday next week :)) - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link flag queryHi Herby,

I notice I have been flagged for adding inappropriate links to various driving pages of Wikipedia. I'm hoping you might reconsider this flag as I really feel the content on drivingfast.net is relevant and informative for the driving pages. It isn't a commercially driven site, and I feel it's one of the best independent sources of information on driving techniques. The average visitor I get from Wikipedia remains on the site for over six minutes which must say something on the relevance of the content and I feel the flash animations are more informative than static images can be. Really appreciate if you could take the time to reconsider the decision.

Many thanks

Jonnogibbo (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

1. Effectively your only contribution to Wikipedia it to add external links
2. You blank your talk page to remove warnings & details of the sites you place links to
3. Given your comment above you would appear to be associated with at least one of the sites and so in breach of conflict of interest policy

I would not add further links now or you may well be blocked & find the sites blacklisted. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I assumed my talk page was for my purposes only - I have taken on board the message so decided to remove it but will leave it now. I don't intend on adding more links, but think it's a shame to remove relvent content. Have you had a look at the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnogibbo (talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a Spam / advertising-only account--Hu12 (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks - it was tempting me :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Herbythyme/Arc2&oldid=1089163670"