User talk:Pebs96/Archive-2 WikiWar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Metros232 00:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you refering to? I've never personally attacked anybody! The only thing that I've been doing is defending myself and the contents that I have copyright to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebs96 (talk • contribs)
These are clearly personal attacks:
"Either way, you "ASSUMED" which makes you the "first 3 letters from that word." "It is not up to you to decide what makes it look "encyclopaedic". Oh yeah, I guess you don't know everything because you can't even spell the word correctly."
By the way, please see the article on encyclopaedia. It is a properly accepted form of the word. Metros232 01:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken. If you read what he had said, you can see that he misspelled the word... see below...
"that entries that use said pictures will look more encyclopediac. Fethers 00:19, 24 December 2006"
I had commented on him misspelling the word.
But on the other notation, it's ok for him to attack me by calling me a "dumbass, dummy, etc., etc. and not only me, but on countless occassions, this user Fethers have been doing it for quite some time now and NOBODY has reprimanded nor have they banned him for his abusive remarks and behaviour. Not that I am perfect, but I did not come right out and say it to his face like he has been doing to me and constantly attacking me to no end. And not just by the name calling, but by through his actions as well. Also, he hides his comments along with the many complaints that he has been getting for his rude behaviour.--Webmistress Diva 01:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
"NOBODY has reprimanded...for his abusive remarks and behaviour." I warned him several days ago and he hasn't committed a personal attack since then. Metros232 01:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
What about the other attacks before then? He/she is not going to stop and will continue because that's the type of person they are. He/She has done it before as proven in his history records..... which he/she hid from everyone to see it. He may not be calling me names right this moment, but his actions are still considered a "personal" attack --Webmistress Diva 01:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindent)But administrative action on Wikipedia is meant to be preventative, not punishment. I warned him. He stopped. Therefore, the behavior has been corrected. If he starts attacking again, that means it's possible that he hasn't learned, therefore, further action will have to be taken to prevent further attacks. Metros232 01:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Same Notation from the Bloodless Bullfighting article

All of the disruptions on this article, photos, and any other articles that I contribute to (especially relating to the bullfights stuff) really needs to come to a halt. I mean this is ridiculous.
I can relate to Montana and anyone else who is TRYING to express that the article needs to be wikified and so on. But the recent vandalism and removal of the photos is just obscene! It is also being documented as a "personal" attack towards me.
Here are the culprits and I will add to this list as I see them popping up:

Signed,--Webmistress Diva 01:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your concerns about my deletion of links to your businesses

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.

Hi, Pebs96 (Webmistress Diva), I deleted the link to the ranch you own. It does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. Please see these Wikipedia policies and guidelines; they apply to all Wikipedia articles:

  • External Links Guideline -- in particular the text: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked."
    • I notice your businesses' links appears on other article pages. I will begin removing them as well.
  • Conflict of Interest -- you are never supposed to add links to or promote yourself or your business
  • Spam Guideline
  • Ownership of Articles Policy -- no one editor controls or "owns" an article
  • Copyrights Policy: About 4 or 5 rows above the "Save page" button, you'll see a sentence that reads "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." In editing Wikipedia, like all the rest of us, you have surrendered any claim of copyright to the material you add or modify.

I think that after reading these, you'll better understand why a link to your business just isn't appropriate here. We appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, but they do not give you the right to promote your business any more than my own work gives me any rights to promote my own business.

So please, do not add any links to:

If you see others' links that are inappropriate, by all means, please delete them.

I notice that you have been asked/warned 4 times already[1][2][3][4] to stop adding your links. I'm now asking you for the fifth time to stop. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing and your domains added to the spam blacklist. --A. B. (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If continue to believe that you are being wronged by various deletions, you may ask for a second, neutral opinion by posting a request on the talk page for WikiProject Spam. The editors there are very experienced and will give your situation a fair and informed assessment of the material you are adding that others are deleting. --A. B. (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I just got the e-mail you sent me and I also saw you left me a long message on my talk page. I will look at these when I can. --A. B. (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quiver (Lusitano horse) article flagged for speedy deletion

A tag has been placed on Quiver (Lusitano horse), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --A. B. (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More personal attacks

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. This is in reference to your "external links" post where you call people like myself and Fethers trolls. Metros232 17:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you guilty?? Because neither one of your names were not mentioned.
  • I'll consider this message from you as a "personal attack" and not acting in "good faith" by jumping the gun and assuming that it was both of you that I am referring to.
  • The only disruption is from you and Fethers who "CONTINUE" to edit my items.
  • Let's move on from here so that we can have a normal functioning life. I do have a life outside of Wikipedia.--Webmistress Diva 17:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Your next line was "you know who you are". It is quite obviously a personal attack and quite obviously a personal attack towards me and Fethers. But, I'll assume good faith here and believe you that it wasn't against me or Fethers. But that still doesn't change the fact that it was a personal attack against SOMEONE. Metros232 17:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You are smart in having "good faith" because my comments are in general.
  • But if you continue to assume that it was on you and Fethers, then that's on you and I have nothing to do with how "guilty" you feel.
  • So next time, PLEASE refrain from writing "unnecessary" comments on my page.... because whether you or Fethers believe it or not, it is quite DISTURBING and DISRUPTIVE... while bordering ABUSIVE and HARASSING.
--Webmistress Diva 18:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Unnecessary comments? They were warning you about uncivil comments you've made. Warnings of such nature are appropriate in response to comments such as the ones you made. It's not abusive and harassing, it's appropriate per the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. Metros232 18:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Several tips

I'm taking a large glass of big-boy juice, here. I have several suggestions that I think will help you immensely. To start, I would highly recommend that you go to Special:Preferences, click on the Editing tab and uncheck "Mark all edits minor by default," then click Save. Marking all edits as minor by default is something that is often abused by serial spammers to avoid notice by making significant changes under the guise of a minor edit. Next, you should click on the User Profile tab and uncheck the Raw signature box. That will add a link to your Talk page so that people can add comments for you directly on your talk page, instead of forcing them to dig through a history page to find your Talk link.

There are several policies and guidelines you need to read up on. The most important one at this point is Wikipedia:Fair Use. The images I have removed from articles are ones that are being used incorrectly according to the Fair Use guidelines, namely that cover art can only be used to illustrate those works, whether they are magazines, books or albums. As an example, the Freddie Letuli article contained Image:FreddieLetuli.jpg, which is marked Fair Use using Template:Book_cover.

The GNU Free Document License is another one that you're misinterpreting. This is how each and every one of your textual contributions is licensed. In addition, you licensed several photos that you took using it. The GFDL, despite its name, applies to both text and media. Again, as an example, you uploaded Image:AntonioRibeiroTelles.jpg, which I later retouched and reuploaded. Your claim to copyright on that photo, though correct, is irrelevant. You released the photo under the GFDL, which allows anyone to do what they please with it, even sell it or modify it, provided they credit you (which remained on the image page) and that they distribute a copy of the GFDL along with the image.

I sincerely hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from. These licenses exist so that Wikipedia may truly be a free as in speech encyclopedia as well as free-as-in-beer. It makes it better. Fethers 18:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • "Preferences" is simply what the word means.... meaning if "I" prefer to do have my signature that way, then it is "my" preference to do so. If "Wiki" wanted a standard way of having "everyone" sign the posting, then there should not be a "preference" area for us. And in most cases, most people probably don't even go in that area..... at least I don't. I've only gone in there maybe once or twice in the beginning and didn't care much for it other than how I want my signature to be. Everything else must have been defaulted the way it is. I don't know and I don't care cause it's just a "preference" and does not really matter.
  • But I'll play your silly little "controlling" game, because that's how it sounds now. Because you are now discussing how my signature should be..... which does not fall under my "preference" anymore. It doesn't matter. So what if they have to dig to contact me.
  • And the whole blah-blah on the image licensing stuff. You are NOW trying to be the big boy by explaining it to me, when YOU should have been a big boy in the first place without having my images removed..... which you still have not acknowledged that you were wrong about.
  • Simple solution would have been for you to apologize and NOT have had the continued disruption that you and Metros232 have been doing. It sounds that both of you are one in the same.... or at least know each other, or you are on me because someone put you up to it. Either way, I don't appreciate all of the disruption caused by both of you. But both of you continue to disregard how I feel no matter how much I express it.
  • If you were being a real big boy, you would just stop this nonsense all together and move on like I've mentioned over and over again.
--Webmistress Diva 05:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC) (there... are you happy now? you can just click on my signature.... your request was petty just so you know)