User talk:AnmaFinotera

User:Collectonian/talkheader

Good day. I had added the prime characters in MOS:QUOTE as further examples of what not to type because I had actually found several at Alan Grayson (and changed them). Did you revert my edit because (1) I don’t have the authority to make that change? I figured since nothing prevented me from doing it I would try it. Perhaps (2) the display of prime glyphs looked bad on your system? Or maybe (3) you actually disagreed with my edit for some reason. Or was I expected to (4) drum up some degree of consensus on the talk page first? I thought the prime characters were an obvious negative example that no one would object to. Could you explain what was wrong with my edit? (I’d prefer if you reply here, rather than on my talk page.) Thanks. MJ (t • c) 21:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With no response from you, I continue to guess at what the objection could have been: (5) improper use of red coloring, according to the guideline at Template:Xt? Or perhaps (6) you thought it was beans? (On considering this, I don’t think so myself.) Or maybe you just thought (7) it’s too trivial to clutter up MoS with? Whatever the reason, could you please do me the courtesy of explaining? I need to learn what I did wrong. MJ (t • c) 18:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to respond last night. Been a very long week. Changes to the MoS like that should be discussed on the talk page first, as it is a highly visible document that is applicable to every article on Wikipedia. While it may seem "obvious", it should be discussed to be sure that it is an appropriate addition, both to be sure it is accurate and that it is necessary as we also prefer to avoid instruction creep. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahha! Instruction creep – that’s the guideline I needed. I read about 20 policy essays yesterday but didn’t see that one. Now I understand it’s better to just fix rarely-occurring problems rather than add rules about them. Thanks very much for letting me know. MJ (t • c) 19:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob...just was sorry to see it turn into such a mess. Can't believe the stunts some people will pull online just because they are "anon" :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to continue this discussion. The last few days have been much busier than expected - I don't make comments like I made to you when I know I'm going to not be around for a while as I don't feel it's fair if I'm unable to respond to any questions and the like. As I say this time it was unexpected.

None of the examples I gave are "clear vandalism". The very first line of our vandalism policy clearly states "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." The important word there is deliberate. None of these edits were deliberate attempts. Yes, by introducing copyright material or going against consensus they may well "compromise the integrity of wikipedia" but they didn't do so deliberately and so are not vandalism. The recent posts on the talk page clearly show that this isn't deliberate but your failure to leave clear edit summaries or alternatively drop the editor a note explaining what they've done wrong has clearly confused editors and, in my opinion is biting new editors.

As for edit warring you're see that I said "without a reasonable explanation". Your explanation is perfectly reasonable and so I don't believe you are edit warring. However your repeated reversions for vandalism, when it clearly isn't vandalism, is a common sign of edit warring, hence my original post. If you'd left clearer edit summaries other editors such as my self wouldn't have been confused and this whole episode would have been avoided. Dpmuk (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave my response. Copyvio is clear vandalism and it is not my duty to explain the laws to people. I have also always left the appropriate messages when I have reverted. That said, per your statements, I am attempting to be more explicit when reverting to avoid any more mistaken ideas that I am somehow edit warring. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We obviously have very different views of what vandalism is. In my view inserting copyright material is nearly always not vandalism as it's normally done as a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopaedia. I think this needs a third opinion from somewhere. Is there anywhere in particular you'd like me to ask for one as there doesn't seem any completely appropriate forum (Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and WP:AN/I both seem totally over the top given the circumstances and WP:3O deals mainly with content disputes). Dpmuk (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the exceptions to the three-revert rule is reverting "Clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy." It's also noted that that exception is construed very narrowly. This is one of those places where longer edit summaries than the undo/Twinkle/revert standard description is a Good Thing.

IMO, If it's not an over-the-top copy/paste, I'll usually revert a second time; I'll also make sure the edit summary says I'm reverting a copyvio and where it's cribbed from, if space permits. If they add it again, I'll look for another editor to remove it if it's re-added again; I'll also go to the talk page and/or add an article message (if all else fails, a custom {{ambox}}). If they keep re-adding and refuse to discuss, however, then it's another matter (not to mention they've probably violated 3RR by that point). —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating here something I said to Dpmuk: Copyvio is not vandalism, but reverting it is not edit warring/a violation of the three-revert rule. However, the reverts should be explained with a combination of edit summaries, warnings/user talk messages to the infringing editor, and article talk discussion if the situation warrants it. Unexplained reverts of copyvio, even if it isn't edit warring by definition, looks an awful lot like it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of openness you may want to take a look at mine and C. Fred's user pages. I think you'll see why and hope you don't take any of it the wrong way. Dpmuk (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could take a look at the conversation here about the Heath Ledger template {{Heath Ledger}}? Any comments you have would be helpful. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it should be deleted, same as the rest...sent to TfD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we undid your edit at the same time Thank you for pointing out it was just Lively, I would have never thought of it $©@®©Ξ 04:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. You may want to get an admin to delete the original image, though, since its so different from the new one you uploaded (not sure if there are any non-free rules about that). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Collectonian, To add parameters, need to edit all related templates and docs, at the same time?