User talk:TheGreenFaerae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Chloe Sullivan:Other Media, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Contents

[edit] Image:Chloeinpolitcalmachine.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Chloeinpolitcalmachine.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. -- GreenReaper 22:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Machine Chloe Sullivan

How did you get the screenshot? I looked for a few hours and couldn't find a way to do it. -TheGreenFaerae

Printscreen button on the keyboard. Takes a screenshot, puts it in the clipboard. True for all of Windows (alt+PrintScreen does just the current window). Open Paint Shop Pro (or Microsoft Paint), paste, save as PNG. Done.
By the way, you can do ~~~~ to get a signature, or ~~~ if you don't want the time. GreenReaper 03:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
FYI, PrintKey 2000 also lets you selectively take screenshots of specific portions of the screen using hair trigger selection and then save it in many different formats. CMD+SHIFT+4 in MacOS X allows you to do the same without external software installed. - Debuskjt 22:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfM

I think you are confused about what mediation is. You keep saying that we are bound by mediation to cease editing Chloe Sullivan. That is not true. Mediation is neither compulsory or binding, and we could withdraw at any time. Nothing in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a Request for Mediation or in the RfM states that users who agree to mediation must cease editing the article in question. - Debuskjt 22:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You must not move or remove any content under any circumstances. Content removal is restricted to members of the Mediation Committee.
That is one of the primary rules for the request for mediation process. Try reading something a little more carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreenFaerae (talk • contribs)
That rule is in regard to the RfM itself, not the article. - Debuskjt 23:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
where does ti say that? that seems like your own intepretation to me. TheGreenFaerae 00:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Since you won't believe me, I asked for you: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation. Armedblowfish is a member of the Mediation Committee, and stated "Yes, it is definately only referring to the RfM page." You can also look at current pages that have been accepted for mediation, such as Google bomb, where members involved in mediation haven't stopped editing. - Debuskjt 03:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

well then technically, uo broke the rules for mediation by removing the additional issues to be mediated, didn't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.152.229 (talk • contribs)

No. I did not. I restored an edit by User:Guanaco, who is an active mediator within his rights to remove material. - Debuskjt 03:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OWN

I do admit I aggressively edit and look over the Doctor Who articles, and occasionally that rubs people the wrong way. That being said, people are free to argue against me and bring it up with the rest of the WikiProject or solicit third opinions and otherwise and I have never, ever, refused to follow consensus when an edit is concerned where consensus is reached on those points (case in point, the An Unearthly Child article naming debate). I do not believe that violates WP:OWN in any way. Unless the reasons are patently obvious (vandalism, speculation, et al.) I usually explain my edits in the edit summary and people are always welcome to discuss the reasons behind them. (In particular, editing of the plot synopses is rather radical at times because for a synopsis to flow properly and be readable, it has to be edited as a whole rather than piecemeal.) All in all, I am relatively confident that my edits contribute to making sure that the articles are up to certain standards. I'm just more focussed on the Doctor Who articles than most, but I've never claimed ownership, nor that no-one else can edit. I'm just making sure it conforms to Wikipedia standards. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't remove the "human optional" bit: I incorporated it into the paragraph immediately below in a more relevant context (the idea of Time Lords changing species across regenerations mentioned and implied in other stories), that's why I didn't feel the edit summary was necessary. As for other areas of the project, I have nearly 5,000 pages on my watchlist. I don't police all of them as rigourously, of course, but surely I can choose which pages I pay attention to. There are plenty of admins out there. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree. There's nothing that says an administrator (or editor for that matter) can't focus his energies on Wiki on anything he wants. If you feel that my edits are not an improvement, or that I'm in violation of Wikipedia policies, you're always free to bring it up to the rest of the project, or through the usual dispute resolution channels. I don't own the articles, but at the same time I don't see any reason why I should not be as hands-on as any other editor can be. I don't believe my status as an admin makes any difference to that. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I'll try to bear that perception in mind. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

I try to help settle situations I come across as an admin. I hope this doesn't upset you too much. ViridaeTalk 09:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

{{unblock|Trodel lied and said he personally unb;locked me, but I found that I was still unable to edit. I believe him to have been lying about the unblocking in an attempt to get my request removed. I Do not deserve to be blocked jsut because he does not like me. As you might see from his "syummary" I have been forbidden to discuss it with him, which is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia's rules. Rest assured that a RfC will be filed, but I need unblocking first.}}

Your block has expired already. Kusma (討論) 07:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Then why am I unable to edit?
Perhaps you have been hit by somebody else's Autoblock or your IP address is blocked. The "you are blocked" screen that you get when you attempt to edit should tell you whether you or your IP address have been blocked. Kusma (討論) 07:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It says That I was blocked, says my suername, and says that Trodel was the blocker. It is possible he banned my ip address alongside my username, but it does nto change the fact that I am still blocked and still for illegitimate reasons.
There was an autoblock on your IP address still active. I have tried to clear it - can you try again? Kusma (討論) 08:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
That worked great. Thank you so much. TheGreenFaerae 08:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thnks for the barnstar :-) I was just doing my job... Kusma (討論) 08:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well i appreciated you doing a great job of your job.TheGreenFaerae 08:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:BinSL.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BinSL.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --- RockMFR 01:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much trivia

Hi, you seem to be deleting a lot of "toomuchtrivia" tags from a lot of articles on the basis that it was an IP who added the tag, and that it was being done to disrupt Wikipedia. IP's are free to edit, you know and rather than just undo everything that has been done, have you looked at the articles to see if the tag is justified? It's a Wonderful Life has one of the longest trivia sections you are likely to see, and I think the tag is well and truly justified. The aim is to reduce and eventually eliminate the trivia sections throughout Wikipedia and tagging them helps isolate them for editors who may wish to work on these articles. I've only looked at a few of these articles (Dolly Parton, Margaret Hamilton and It's a Wonderful Life, but I completely disagree with you and have reinstated the tags. Could you please look at the article before you revert any more and only revert the ones where the tag has been added to create mischief, and leave the genuine ones alone. Thanks Rossrs 12:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Ditto. I've only reverted the ones on articles that I have some interest in, but almost every tag I saw was totally justified.Cop 633 15:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Might want to have a look at WP:TRIVIA. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Many of the tags were added to pages that had only three or four trivia notes. I'm sorry I did not have the time to look over and review each one individually, but I believed, as I was right, that other editors such as yourselves would reinstate if the tag did indeed make sense. However, when this ip address had more than a hundred edits all with the same tag, and all within a couple of minutes of each other, how can it be anything but disruptive. I'm not saying they were all out of place, but a good number were.TheGreenFaerae 23:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
But if a registered user had added them, you wouldn't think them disruptive? It's true that we sometimes think of IP users in a little harsher light, but the edits should stand on their own merit--they're as valid (or invalid) whether an IP user or Jimbo Wales adds them. At any rate, the one that I saw you remove was borderline--the thing is, we really don't want any trivia at all, unless we're providing analysis and it's important. But, then it isn't really trivia, and would be elsewhere in the article. See WP:TRIV. Anyway, I'm sure you meant well, but don't judge the edits just because they're made by an IP user. So were we all, once. --Sopoforic 23:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion that there should be no trivia is just that, an opinion. An attempt to act on that opinion without much discussion is a not ok, and disrupts Wikipedia. My issue was not merely that it was an IP address, but that the edit history for said IP address was NOTHING but toomuchtrivia tags, and one of the tags was added on an average of two or three minutes apart. These tags were not added after careful consideration, but rather a broad stroke made to the project as a whole. Look at each of the hundred or so edits and tell me they were all of merit. Page like the Bullshit! Page, which had only four trivia bits were not merited to have that tag added. It is true that some pages probably had merit. but that's like saying if you arrest a hundred people a few of them will have done something arrest able. Enough additions and a few of them are likely to be of merit, but as a whole, it was not done with careful consideration and actual reading, but rather it seemed to have been added to any page the user was on. I'm not going to revert it if other users put those tags on, but for an entire edit history to be full of those tags, to have more than a hundred tags in a single day all the same tag, at an average of three minutes apart? There is simply no way that could have been done in the true spirit of the project. If an ip address made a bunch of random edits and some of them were those tags, I wouldn't think twice. But there were no edits made but the addition of a toomuchtrivia tag, many times unwarranted.TheGreenFaerae 00:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, no; actually, my 'opinion that there should be no trivia' is a condensed version of WP:TRIV, which is a guideline. That's why I linked to it. My point was that anything that is too trivial to work into the article text directly doesn't belong in the article at all, which is pretty much what WP:TRIV says. And as for making a lot of the same edits and nothing else: you're right that you have cause to be suspicious, but you shouldn't just assume that they're all nonsense. If you look at my contribs, you'll find a set of 30 edits or so from a few hours ago, about a minute apart, all doing pretty much the same thing. Does that mean that they are vandalism? No, it just means that I picked a particular sort of edit to make and went at it. IP users can do this too. The reason I contacted you was that you left an edit summary "It's rather clear these toomuchtrivia tags were merely an attmept to disrupt wikipedia, as it is an anon ip and nothing but toomuch trivia and no history but today" when you removed one. It was the "clear that these...were merely an attempt to disrupt wikipedia, as it is an anon ip..." that concerned me, and I wanted to leave you a note reminding you not to judge users based on whether they are registered. That's all. --Sopoforic 01:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:TRIV does not say that trivia should not be on wikipedia, just that it should not be in greater focus than the article as a whole. And the difference between the editing you described and the anon edits I reverted was that the anon tag additions were the sole basis of his edit history. You have a varied edit history. Also, the tag was put on articles that it clearly did not belong on, such as articles with relevant trivia in very small amounts, and pages that were explicitly labeled as trivia. WP:TRIV says to be cautionary with trivia, not to remove it entirely. And if you interpret it otherwise, that is an issue to debate. The anon disrupted WP to possibly prove the point that trivia does not belong in wp, which is explicitly forbidden. Now, I did not judge him solely because he was anon, but because of the massive amounts of editing done by an anon in a short period of time, without any variation whatsoever. No, being anon is not enough to condemn him. Neither is a specific edit to a lot of pages. It is the fact that he is anon, AN?D doing a massive amount of edits AND said edits are not fully constructive. The toomuchtrivia tag is only to be used when trivia is so numerous as to unbalance an article. Some of the pages, like the Bullshit! article had very little trivia, and the trivia it had was rather constructive. Also, there were some pages explicitly labeled as trivia pages that got the tag. This tag was abused in this case. On the individual articles, should editors feel that the tag was useful, as was seen on the Wonderful Life, Kill Bill, and Dolly Parton pages, I will respect that. TheGreenFaerae 02:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right on the money there. The pages labelled as "trivia" should not have had the tag. It's hard to know what motivated the IP : good but misguided intentions or deliberate mischief? But yes, I agree with you in that regard. Rossrs 09:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
As I read it, WP:TRIV means that the trivia sections are basically things that ought to be integrated into the article, but haven't been integrated yet. Perhaps you disagree, and that's fine. I'm not saying that you were wrong for removing the tags when you felt they should be removed--that's fine; in fact, it's exactly what I would hope that you would do. I was only pointing out that the fact that it was an IP user should really have figured into your consideration much, if at all. After all, I've made edits from an IP occasionally (library computers that keep logging me out come to mind), and some people don't create accounts, and have dynamic IPs, so their contribution history might not reflect anything but the most recent edits they've made. Again: I don't think you've done anything wrong, I just wanted to give you a little reminder not to bias yourself against IP users. I am sorry if I came across as accusing or such; I considered not posting at all since others had left notes already, and I didn't want you to feel as though you were being attacked by an angry mob, or something. At any rate, I'm sure you've gotten my point by now, so I'll bow out before I make too much of a nuisance of myself. --Sopoforic 02:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I don't see that any harm has been done either by the IP adding tags all over the place, or by you removing them. Who knows what the IP's motives were? It could be someone who agrees with the notion that trivia should be removed, and decided to go on a quest. It doesn't automatically follow that it was meant to be disruptive. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Who knows? As you noted, other editors are adding the tag back where appropriate. I think there is probably disagreement over what is "appropriate". I think any trivia at all should be tagged, as the guideline suggests that trivia sections should be phased out/merged/deleted ... whatever. By that reckoning, even one item under the heading "trivia", is too much. I think your viewpoint is different as you've specifically given Chicken Run as an example where the tag shouldn't have been applied. I don't understand why it shouldn't have been. It has 9 points. The significant ones should be merged into the article, the others should be deleted, and I think the tag helps in that aim. The tag is just a way of highlighting the articles so that people can work on them, and is not meant to reflect badly on the article. In any case, tackling the issue of trivia in our articles is a big job, and this is a little drop in a big ocean, whichever way you look at it. Cheers. Rossrs 09:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with a tag on that article based on the grounds of how many trivia points it has. I reverted that because the argument that I was defying WP:AGF did not nessicerrily apply. Also, many of you guys are saying that policy says that trivia should be phased out/merged/deleted, etc, but that is not mentioned anywhere in wp trivia policy. wp trivia policy is that should happen where applicable, but when some notes just don’t fit into the article at any place, and fulfill the qualifier of being interesting but not notable, then they are perfectly acceptable in a trivia section. Nowhere in official policy does it state that trivia should be phased out altogether.TheGreenFaerae 12:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, to be accurate, there is no "official policy" on this thing. WP:Trivia, which is an essay and not a guideline, does not advocate the complete removal of trivia, that's true. Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles#Guidance, which is a guideline, takes a stronger line - ie remove the trivia and when more trivia is introduced into the article, remove it too. The "Trivia" section is regarded as a kind of holding pen for information that has to be either sorted into the article or sorted out of the article. If anything doesn't fit into the article, there's usually a good reason - it doesn't belong there. When the holding pen is empty it gets removed. When it gets added again, the process starts again. The guideline is not ambiguous. It has one aim, and that is to remove trivia. This is what I was referring to, but I should have been more specific. Because WP:Trivia is an essay only, I haven't objected to the use of the word "interesting" in describing information, but it's vague and subject to POV. Even the most obscure trivia is there because someone finds it interesting. Rossrs 12:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Considering that the Guideline goes back and cites WP:TRIVIA as an essay, I would say WP:Trivia should be seriously considered as important and relevant. Until there is an official policy, the idea that all trivia should be removed is rather controversial. Now, that debate is not what the issue with these tag additions was. The tags used were explicitly created for articles that have such a large trivia section as to unbalance the article. The anon ip's misuse of these tags on any and all trivia sections, especially articles explicitly labeled as trivia or miscellany, was disruptive, and as such, I felt it necessary to revise these edits. Whether a trivia section is really too big is a debate for individual articles, and when applicable other editors have replaced the tags. But a good number of them were left off, mostly because the tags were not desirable, and not even applicable. The misuse of tags is disruptive, flat and simple. TheGreenFaerae 22:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
After reading this discussion, my belated apologies for invoking WP:AGF in my revert of your tag removal. Cheers. --Plek 10:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bartman Ball

Thanks for finishing the merge. One less thing on my to do list. Cheers.--Djrobgordon 08:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Futurama cleanup

No problem, I think the trivia has needed cleanup for quite some time but I have been hesitant to piss everyone off. Good work! My only concern is that the WikiProject Trivia Cleanup may think simply renaming it as "continuity" isn't sufficient but I don't much care what they think as this is definitely a step in the right direction. Keep up the good work. Stardust8212 17:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

TheGreenFaerae - I have left a warning to this user for the personal attack. --Spartaz Humbug! 16:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikignome

Then why are there suggestions on the Wikignome page as to how to list one's name? (which I have not done). You don't get to define who is what. We are defined by our actions. -- Noclevername 04:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Learning

Sorry - I took your comment the wrong way. I too apologize --Trödel 22:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

For god's sake please stay off Trodel's talk page. You don't have to have the last word and you will find yourself in trouble if you are seen to be needlessly continuing the dispute. --Spartaz Humbug! 21:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
In response to your reply on my talk, have you never been told that if you keep picking at a scab it will never heal? Stop now.--Spartaz Humbug! 21:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marvel

Can do.

I sacked it because it was just getting so ridiculous and seemed like nothing but fancruft every time it came up. TotalTommyTerror 13:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marvel alliance protection

He self reverted after finding out., so I gave him a reminder. If he edits it while its protected again, let the administrators incidents noticeboard know. --wL<speak·check> 02:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You fucktard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.60.31 (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Futurama Roll Call

Hello, you are currently listed as a member of Wikiproject Futurama though you may be inactive. This seems to be the case for many members so I am sending this message to help renew interest in working on these articles. If you are still interested in working on Futurama related tasks please visit the wikiproject page to see how you can help. If you have time please also join in the recent discussions on the talk page, in particular I would personally appreciate comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama#A new proposal for episode articles. Thank you for your time, hopefully I didn't annoy you too much. If you would not like to receive messages such as this in the future then consider removing yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject Futurama/List of participants. Happy editing. Stardust8212 01:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SupermanLoneranger.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SupermanLoneranger.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)