User talk:Shaundakulbara

[edit] Warn

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I made an edit. You reverted it twice. This warning applies to you, not to me. Shaundakulbara 00:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd be very much interested in where you construed I made four reverts? I count three, all perfectly legit to comply with wiki policies. I count three I've made and three from you. Thus I have not violated the 3RR. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

Hi, I've just noticed the edit war going on at Joachim (Star Trek)‎. In my opinion the problem stems from the fact that the images used in that article are by definition copyright images. Some limited use of such images is permitted by fair use (see WP:FAIR). However, each photo used must be necessary in the context of all the photos in the article. You already have a photo of each actor who has played the character. In addition you show the character's death, which is justifiable on the basis that this illustrates a significant event. However given the fourth photo you plan to introduce is just another photo of Joachim alive, I don't think fair use justifies it. WjBscribe 00:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• The photo shows this character's exile on Ceti Alpha V and his fellow augments. Both these subjects are discussed throughout the article. While I will try to assume good faith, I am concerned because User:MatthewFenton has expressed anger at my role in having several dozen articles deleted for copyright violation. User:MatthewFenton has made no other edits to this article than to revert my edits. Shaundakulbara 01:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, well feel free to argue that the photo is necessary but I'm not convinced a photo of his exile is needed for the reader's understanding and as such fair use doesn't seem to apply. As a side note, fair use images can't be used in your userspace. That includes drafts of articles. I've accordingly changed the photos in User:Shaundakulbara/Sandbox to links. Sorry the fair use stuff is spoiling things for you a little. Best of luck with everything. WjBscribe 02:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• I like you, WJBscribe. You follow rules but I think you also have a sense that much of what goes on here isn’t what it seems to be. The image you mentioned in my sandbox was in a draft of an article and it's not needed anymore. A note was left on User talk:Shaundakulbara/Sandbox rather than here, which was confusing as I use that as an alternate sandbox. No, it's not spoiling things for me. My complaints have always been in favor of following policy, not bucking it. But I notice sharply that the people who are dogging me now are those who were on the losing end of AfD debates earlier this month (I don't mean you, WJBscribe). How many registered users does Wikipedia have? Still, it must be a coincidence. Worse, I find myself starting to engage in the same sort of icky-wikipolitics that I despise i.e. be sickenly polite while fucking people over, gathering allies to come to one's aid, etc. THAT is spoiling things for me. BTW, WJBscribe, remember regarding the RfC debate in which you, after checking around, assured me that 1 editor making the request plus one editor who certified equals the needed 2? That was totally brushed aside, the matter was dropped as not having been certified and inquiries made regarding this went unanswered. Wikipedia...nice. Shaundakulbara 02:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I tempt you this delicious looking WikiCookie? WjBscribe

• • Sigh, internal politics tend to be aggravating in any context. To address a few of your points:
    1. People take their contributions to article very personally despite the opposite dictates of WP:OWN and lets face it no one likes to loose arguments, much less repeatedly. And loosing an AfD about an article you want to keep is more personal than loosing one about one you want to keep. E.g. I'm not sure an article about Joachim is needed and worry a little about the precedent in other fan areas, especially as it looks to me like a way to get round the fact that Memory Alpha does not accept that the two actors played the same character. But its not going to keep me up at night! All you can do is play by the rules, if your edits are in line with policy no one can disagree with them. Fair use pics are the easiest targets at the moment after a recent comment by the Wikimedia Trustees.
    2. As to running into the same editors all the time. Its interesting because on the one hand it really does happen by coincidence. Or sometimes we are troubled by something an editor does and look into their edits to see if its part of a wider problem. Sometimes that's done in good faith and sometimes its hard to see that what we're really doing is holding a grudge. At the extreme end, if the same user continually aggressively edits articles in an area(s) they have never been involved in before and the only connection is that you edit them, that is wikistalking. That practice is totally unacceptable and should reported but needs a sustained pattern of the same thing happening to prove.
    3. Don't worry about the sandbox thing- I was pretty sure it was just an old draft but thought I'd better let you know what I'd done seeing as I regard making change in people's userspace without prior request (as I did) rather on the rude side.
    4. As to your RfC. You may be interested to know see this post [1] and its reply [2]. I didn't take it any further because I don't think the RfC would ever have gone anywhere, but I am not happy with the deletion.
  • I think everyone goes through phases where issues with editors start to niggle. Generally I think the best way to get through them is to start contributing in an unrelated area or if really necessary take a short break from Wikipedia and see how you feel later. I certainly hope you won't be going anywhere and include this WikiCookie to cheer you up... WjBscribe 03:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your sweet cookie. As for this heinous non-reply, it's remarkable this admin almost put in writing that my complaint was dumped despite policy "just because". Whereas indeed. Apparently one needs 2 certifiers, or 3 if the boss admin doesn't like what you have to say. This fellow needs to bone up on his Aesop, however. Sour grapes are for those who suffered disappointment. The side I advocated won the Speedy Deletion debate and the subsequent AfD too. When you say the RfC was going nowhere, however, you're absolutely right. After referring (not calling...his name wasn't even mentioned anywhere nearby) to someone with a naughty name that became a main focus of all subsequent talks. I have big Valentine's Day plans so I won't be back for day or two.

Ben, I know you monitor this page vigilantly. If something I've written here prompts you to write yet another chapter about my inequities and your hope for my eventual redemption, please just pop it into my archive where our last exchange now rests. Thanks. Shaundakulbara 05:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case, enjoy Valantine's day. My only plans for the eve are helping a mate move into a new flat. Sad, eh? WjBscribe 05:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goof with image

I mis-clicked earlier and consequently got this notice on my talk page about an image, when probably it should have landed on yours. Erm. Yes. --EEMeltonIV 02:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I can never have too many notices telling me of what a bane I am to the Wikipedia community. It was, however, TenaciousT who updating that image, not I. Shaundakulbara 03:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, oops (yet again). I just saw your name closer to the top and scooted over here. Well, then. Enjoy bane-ing! --EEMeltonIV 03:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I get for being atop a list of Wikipedia badgirls. Shaundakulbara 03:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)