Skyerise

This is a note to let you know that I have mentioned you here. I am not calling for any action to be taken against you. I am merely expressing my concerns over the thread that transpired here. I just thought I should tell you that you have been mentioned, nothing more. Bus stop (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did not change much. Only reason why i did any thing is because i saw it needed changes and the actual categories them self say they need changes. It did not affect anything really. I wont do it no more.Program Death (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

This file File:Hopper Rider.jpg that you commented on at FfD has been re-listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 28#File:Hopper Rider.jpg Please see the discussion to see why this is. Skier Dude (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yworo, how are you? You have helped me with several issues (few time ago), now recently I had an unexpected problem, may ask you for some help again, guidance and advice in this list of doubts?

1- An article in Wikipedia can be written using famous paintings (under public domain) as essential and most part of it? I mean the subject it is not directly about painting but they have implicated relations. So, may I use them not only for article’s illustration but also as a massive and important part of it? If yes, an editor can immediately (without any discussion) remove these images (and esthetically wrecking the article) if he has another point of view? (vandalism?)

Images in the public domain may be used anywhere. However, that usage must conform to our image use policies. In short, typically only the lead image and images with details such as maps or writing may be enlarged. In general, images should not be manually-sized, even art. The reader can always click on the image to see more detail. Other violations of the image use policy include excessive use of images in an article (we are an encyclopedia, not a coffee-table book), placing images on both the right and the left such that the text is squeezed between them, using left-placed images such that they indent a major heading, etc.

2- An editor can immediately (without any previous discussion) remove parts (script) of an article if he has another point of view over some (referenced) sentence? (vandalism?)

If the editor is acting in good faith, yes. We only count obvious defacement as vandalism. Content disputes are not vandalism.

3- When an editor claims that didn’t find a reference (even if it near exists in the article), he can immediately remove the paragraph without first asking for it? (vandalism?)

All references should be in footnotes directly following the sentence or paragraph asserting the facts. Another editor should not have to hunt for them. And yes, any editor may remove material he believes in good faith are not supported by references. The burden of proof is on the editor adding the facts.

4- A text (supposed with neutral point of view) with a statement made in a valid reference can simply be removed because the editor has another personal interpretation for it? (vandalism?)

Not usually. If there are multiple interpretations for something, all major viewpoints should be included and supported by references. If a POV is supported, another editor should be adding the differing point-of-view, not replacing it.

5- A non-English reference is it a valid reference? If yes, an editor can immediately remove a paragraph if didn’t find an English reference? (vandalism?)

A non-English reference is valid, provided it is a reliable source, but the editor who adds it is expected to provide an English translation in the footnote of the pertinent text. If an editor cannot easily verify that a statement is support, they can remove text. They are not to be expected to read a foreign-language source to find and verify the supporting text.

6- Any editor can judge and decide (according to his personal believes and grade of knowledge) what is related (or not) to an article and immediately remove without first discussing the question? (vandalism?)

Again, content disputes are never vandalism. Yes, they can do this, but if you then restore the text, they should not be removing it a second time without discussion. See WP:BRD.

7- An editor can remove parts (with multiple references) of an article leaving other parts with orphaned references? (vandalism?)

Again, it the orphaning of references is not intentional, it's not vandalism. They made a mistake which should be pointed out to them. They should ensure that the orphaned references are fixed. There is a bot that sometimes fixes these things, eventually...

8- If a reference (of another part) was misplaced in a sentence, an editor can immediately erase the paragraph without first asking for a revision? (vandalism?)

An editor need not ask for anything. Anyone can remove any text at any time. However, if they do this repeatedly, it is considered tendentious editing.

9- Is it usual a steady Wikipedia’s article (constantly improved by numerous users and created many months or years ago) suddenly (in one only day, probably by same person with more than one username) be flooded with impolite demands and amputated like described here?

If an editor is using more than one username, they may be violating our policy against sock puppets.

Thanks Yworo, these are very important and determinant questions to me (and to many others editors, for sure). The affected article in question concerns the subject of ethereal entities (gods, spirits, angels, etc.), now seriously wrecked. Hour of Angels (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've replied interspersed above (which is technically considered bad form, but this is my talk page so.... ) Yworo (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I lack of experience in Wikipedia, so your answers were very useful and disappointed although expected. As long as I can manage some time perhaps I (try to) patch something of what left from that article, and next I am quitting Wikipedia forever (cheers). It is easy to see now that I do not belong here. I am old and certainly over past. I am from time when people had politeness, an outdated fashion (particularly inside Wikipedia). Honestly I believe Wikipedia it is finishing in bad way. Again Yworo, thanks for your time. Hour of Angels (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yworo, I saw that you helped me in an article again; it was nice. Now, about your last answers, I researched them and I think this time I can help you to expand your possibilities:

If an article can or not make massive use of images; actually if there is a good reason, you can. Sometimes follow too many rules can wrap you and cause loss of perspective (give a look on that: wk: loss of perpective).

The good reason: the images of this article complete it, are part of its subject (but sure there is a limit too). So, follow some technical rule to remove or leave very short images harms the encyclopedia because degrade the information. Trust me, all this argumentation already exist, read this: wk:rules and this: wk:There_is_no_common_sense.

See, there is no point in placing an image in an article if it has not good visibility. And yes, in cases like that actually you are free to enlarge the images until certain limits (see Image policy - display). An image cannot be extremely small, it has to have a certain size to be able of interesting the reader. Usually the standard size (thumb) is enough for most images, but not every time.

And please don’t get me wrong; I regard Wikipedia an awesome idea. I hope the best for it, but right now I think it lost the way. Why? Because without mention the impoliteness, all these prime guidelines that I cited above (and others ones), simply, many times have been ignored, (this does not help to improve Wikipedia). Hour of Angels (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just because you don't understand the common sense that is being supplied does not mean the guidelines are arbitrary. Not everyone in the world has high-speed internet. Many are still on dial-up. Some get charged for bandwidth. The reasons behind many of the guidelines concerning images have to do with not destroying the ability for those with low-bandwidth to use and benefit from Wikipedia. In addition, some of the image rules have to do with optimizing the ability for the blind to efficiently use screen-readers (some uses of images confuse or garble the order the text is read in), for people with mobile devices to more easily use Wikipedia (typically so that the text comes first rather than the image), and finally, Wikipedia is not designed for the web alone, but is expected to properly format for print as well.In addition, users have the ability to set their own default size for images: whether they need them larger for visual disability or smaller for low-bandwidth; but this only works if the images are NOT manually-sized. Since you seem to be completely unaware of all the considerations which lead to the current guidelines, it's kind of hard to take your criticism seriously. Please try be considerate to differently-abled people by not manually-sizing images for cosmetic reasons only. What you LIKE better may make Wikipedia unusable for others. Yworo (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yworo I didn’t have intention, and never will think in make an edit war with anybody. And only now I saw your answer in your talk page. You should take my words positively, as new options; I’m sorry if that upset you, wasn’t that my intention. When I spend time writing to someone it is because I think I can say something constructively. Until here I thought I had made a point and obtained a compromise with you about images. Obviously not.

Actually I liked very much your last answer. I really didn’t know those technological problems (I thought all was about personal taste).

So, may I ask you a little more of tolerance with my mistakes? I mean, if I make some edition with wrong style, would be possible you fix only that? Please don’t assume personal attack. I don’t act like this, it is something absolutely useless in my opinion. Remember, I asked your help. Hour of Angels (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

The kind of formatting and image size and position edits I do take quite a bit of time. They are much more painstaking and detail-oriented than simply adding text and references. I won't redo them. Please edit from the live article, not a copy. Yworo (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yworo you did an excellent work re-formatting conspiracy section. I really loved the results (much better than I had made earlier). It was nice, I have appreciated. Hour of Angels (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply