User talk:Alexia Death: Difference between revisions

User talk:Alexia Death/Archive1

Hello Alexia! I'm a research student currently working on the power structure of Wikipedia. It looks like you have a very critical view on how the things have been done, and your point is interesting me. Could we talk together about that in a time? All Best, Sylvain

Hey, could you upload some of your pics to Commons? Right now, Sõrve säär picture can't be used in other wikis. Avjoska (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mindflayer.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comments here I have redacted your post to Jimbo's talkpage. I have noted Newyorkbrad's request at the ArbCom page that participants to the matter should refrain from acting without due consideration to the sensitive nature of the matter, and it is my belief that your question to Jimbo fails that test. Your comment remains in the history, so Jimbo is easily able to review it and decide to answer if he chooses - but it is my belief that he will not do so under the circumstances. I strongly suggest that you constrain yourself to commenting on this matter only on the ArbCom pages relating to it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was posted in good faith that such an important issue needs his attention. I do not agree with your rationale that he should be somehow protected from this nor do I accept your authority to make such a decision. However I will not restore the comment, because it would be quite pointless. --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My "authority" is that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - I have no authority other than that. I am however experienced enough to know that Jimbo is generally aware of matters involving ArbCom and I am fairly certain he is aware of this specific issue. If indeed I was protecting anyone with my action, that person is you. The ArbCom have specifically requested that concerned individuals be very circumspect with regard to their actions or comments relating to this matter, and my actions were generally in relation to that request. I would again confirm that I have no other authority than my desire to serve as I see the best interests of the project, and in closing I would express my gratitude that you took no action in respect of mine (other than to voice your disagreement.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piotrus/ArbCom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• User:Piotrus resigned the administrator tools during the case proceedings and may only seek to regain adminship by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
• User:Piotrus is banned for three months. At the conclusion of his ban, a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed, shall take effect.
• User:Digwuren is banned for one year. He is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account, and advise the Arbitration Committee of the name of the account that he will use. Should he not advise the committee by the end of the one year ban, he will remain indefinitely banned until a single account is chosen.
• User:Digwuren is placed on a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed. This shall take effect following the expiration of both above mentioned bans.
• The following users are topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year:

• User:Biruitorul, User:Dc76, User:Martintg, User:Miacek, User:Radeksz, User:Vecrumba, User:Tymek

• User:Jacurek is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months.
• User:Tymek is strongly admonished for having shared his account password. He is directed to keep his account for his own exclusive use, and not to allow any other person to use it under any circumstance.
• The editors sanctioned above (Piotrus, Digwuren, Martintg, Tymek, Jacurek, Radeksz, Dc76, Vecrumba, Biruitorul, Miacek) are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.
• All the participants to the mailing list are strongly admonished against coordinating on-wiki behavior off-wiki and directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public. All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Wikipedia itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 17:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - Discuss this[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page User talk:Jehochman has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. -- Matthew Glennon (^T/_C\^D) 20:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Estonian Centre Party. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. -- Matthew Glennon (^T/_C\^D) 20:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Estonian ID card. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. -- Matthew Glennon (^T/_C\^D) 20:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the deal here? This isn't the way to get your voice heard. -- Matthew Glennon (^T/_C\^D) 20:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to get your voice heard. you cant even talk to people on a >curseword< private mail list these days. So Im getting my ban by doing what what people AKA ArbCom assume people, even constructive editors do.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There. Now please make that ban LONGER. Seriously. If ArbCom treats people that bother with this project as rabid loons to be kept away, Id like to be looked OUTSIDE the asylum please.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, for the same reason as on Commons. Protesting is not a legitimate reason for vandalism. Adambro (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That was so pointless and sad I want to punch this guy in the noes. If he wanted to get banned, why not just leave and never come back? What the heck? -- Matthew Glennon (^T/_C\^D) 20:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left. About a year ago. Didnt come back until people started considering my private communication with other people public matter to be discussed in ArbCom. And now Im pissed. Reason took a break. Its probaly not back by 25. please make it longer.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please point me to a correct venue for wiki equivalent of a picket. Wait... There isnt one.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure there is. You are given the chance to argue at the ArbCom. Either way, this isn't life, it's a project. If a cool off period is what is prescribed, then take a break (again) and come back with a fresh start. I didn't see the logs, and I don't know the whole story. I can only trust that what was decided was accurate. Even if it wasn't (which I doubt) take a break, take a breath, and come back and write following the guidelines and procedures the editors here have built, or just don't come back. We want you to stay, but if you're going to be like this all the time, I don't want you. -- Matthew Glennon (^T/_C\^D) 20:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you say at ArbCom is just blabber, nobody cares. Ive been part of two different ones. Same. That trust of yours is misplaced. And why the fuck would I actually bother to edit anything here? Theres this little thing called motivation. Its gone. this little rampage was all that was left of giving a damn. May be pathetic and hey theres fresh blood always incoming to be abused so none of you give a damn but... Some day you might feel the same way... or not. Some people like stress and abuse. Have a nice wikilife while it lasts.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]