Gmaxwell

I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If I post on your talk page, I will notice any replies posted there. Unless you request otherwise, I will reply here to comments made here. I will usually post a brief note on your talk page to let you know that I have replied, unless your talk page instructs me otherwise. If you write a reply to me here, I may decide to move your text back to your talk page in an effort to keep the thread in one place. If you are just pointing out something written to me elsewhere, edit here. Such pointers are useful if you've written to a comment I made many days ago. I refactor my talk page, so To see older messages please view the history.

To my loyal fans!

The word has made it around to me that I now have a number of eager fans. They say that imitation is the highest form of flattery. Or maybe it was immolation, no.. thats just what I got when I was under the mistaken impression that people took this junk seriously and that there were some good folks around here. BWHAH, I know, retarded.. but we all make mistakes.

Now, I suspect that all you eager beavers are eagerly awaiting my next huge hit... Well, I'm not going to let you down, but first I want to provide an update to my last classic. I'd pop it into the old location but I figure one of you fine chaps wouldn't mind taking care of that little detail before the next time you rock and roll. You'll recognize the song, it's got that same progressive order.. Though if more than one of you is gonna sing it, you might find a canon a little more effective. I've cut out a couple of the words that the hordes took issue with, although I haven't paid it much attention, I figure it's about time that some of them did a little work sorting things out. So... Without further ado:

• User:Gmaxwell/long list is here Moved here. Gah! El_C 05:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks!--Gmaxwell 05:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

So now its that time again. Fly my prettys fly! (and for heavensake, remember that only the links in the list directly above should be blanked!)--Gmaxwell 03:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You have angered some of the most prominent and dedicated members of the Wikipedia community. You have been warned about your actions, and were told to discontinue editing user pages of Wikipedians. I asked you to respond above, and to my chagrin you have dared to talk about doing this even more. I don't believe that you have actually added a list of anticipated vandalism, and call us "eager...fans." I am NOT playing with you. I am asking you to stop, we are all asking you to stop vandalizing pages, I ask you to please stop angering Wikipedians. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I can believe that you're looking at a list of pages which potentially endanger the project and violate the law, and yet you're busy howling me because some freeking myspaceuserspace pages got blanked for a few minutes. ... I can believe it, but it still makes me sad. As far as my fans, I'm not talking about you, obviously. --Gmaxwell 04:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

GNASH!!! I EAT USER PAGES

Greg, I tried to add this nice free image to your userpage, however some people had a humour bypass. Cheers Arniep 04:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Odd. It would appear to be an accurate badge at least by the all important metric of majority view. I'm a bit puzzled why someone would decide that I'm suddenly deserving of respect and support now. In any case, it's a delightful image. You have my blessing. Thanks. --Gmaxwell 04:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sweet merciful kittens, that's a lot of scrolling! Can we have the list in table format? El_C 04:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It would make your browser render it even slower. Perhaps if I were unblocked I'd add them all to a category "Wikipedians who refuse to follow copyright law" or something like that... :) It wouldn't be fair, however, since I'm sure there are some mistakes in there. --Gmaxwell 04:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no, sure. My browser dosen't mind. El_C 04:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why have it at all, the list is clearly showing his intentions of vandalism in the near future...I say we block him and protect the pages. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Woot. Yea. Protect all copyvio. That'll show those people who expect this project to contain free content!--Gmaxwell 04:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

How about you find a better way of going about this that doesn't anger us. Like actually going and making notes of the images in violation in the talk pages, rather than delete the entire pages--ZeWrestler ^Talk 04:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Man, I've been laboring under the misperception that there was something serious and respectable going on here for months. I've been treated like shit, and unsupported by most of the people who I regarded as my friends. I've finally realized my mistake, and I've never felt better. Now... I've spent a *lot* of work, cleaning up these pages acting kindly and respectfully in almost all cases. I'm tired now. I gave you a polite notice, the blanking is easly undone and the images can be fixed. I'm tired of doing all the work, now it's your turn. And I, frankly, don't care what you or anyone else thinks about it.. If I'm going to be treated like crap, at least I can have a blast in the process.--Gmaxwell 05:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A blast from the past, even! El_C 05:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've checked my talk archieves. I have received no warning from you in the past. In fact, the only thing that I've found from you so far is the imagefriendly logo i had problems with a while ago. Other than that, there is nothing from you. If you would have asked me, i would have come up with something. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying this to be incivil, but seriously I am saying this sincerely - seek help. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on! you can't call me crazy without screwing up and calling a Foundation board member crazy too.. you just can't! I demand it. Call Jimbo crazy or something, it's a moral imperative.--Gmaxwell 04:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's slow down. There's really no need to question my sanity at this stage (unless...!). Yes, I'm prepared to block him for having us scroll so much. I'm mosuewheeling, mousehwheeling, mousewheeling, I take a breather to pet the cat, mousewheeling, still... mousewheeling, but for how long? As for protecting all those pages, that's a sweet proposition! ;) El_C 04:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I love you, Gmaxwell! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

After all that you've said here? ... If I may quote you seek help.--Gmaxwell 04:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate that, I was trying to see if you'd fall for it...I was right. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this particular exchage has gone nowehere fast, and now it should stop. And why am I still scrolling? I strongly protest this! El_C 05:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, El C. I like to fair...and seeing that my comments are pretty much like bullets, I can't shoot a man down that is clearly armed with blanks. In other words, he is in the wrong, cannot make himself right, so he goes on taunting me with his sarcasm...but it does not change the underlying fact that he did something wrong. Alright, I apologize...I wish I could say I didn't mean what I said, but that would be a lie. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell, I can see that your passionate against fair use images. If you want to do this so it doesn't get reverted. Simply list the offending user pages on WP:MFD. Better yet, leave a note to the author kindly asking them to remove the fairuse images.--God of War 05:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU, THAT IS ALL I WAS SAYING IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that with over 16,000 deleted images under my belt that I'd know how things work... Fact of the matter is that user pages are guarded by howling users who think that the the ability to decorate or spread hate speech on their user page is more important than the project. You guys inserted the copyvio, it's your turn to clean it up. I've tried saying please and being nice. It hasn't gotten me squat... at the end of the day: nothing gets done here except by force. --Gmaxwell 05:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well if you knew how things work you wouldn't have been blocked for a day, nor would you have a whole bunch of fingers pointed at you. Saying being nice doesn't work is ridiculous, as what I have seen today proves to me that you haven't given it the chance. But, hey, I stopped being nice about an hour back! I am sorry to have upset you, but you upset me very deeply as well. I will pray for you. !εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Like I give a crap about being blocked, it doesn't even inhibit me from editing. I was actually first blocked for editing someones lovely userboxes. Being nice simply doesn't work, not if you go against the whim of the angry mobs. --Gmaxwell 05:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I would love to go at this battle of wits with you for another hour, but you are clearly unarmed. Good night. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you've taken my advice niceness being useless to heart! Hmm.. wait... you weren't nice earlier either... Inconsistent niceness, very tricky! The student surpasses the master. In just about no time you'll be running bots for me.... Know python? --Gmaxwell 05:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

See above. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this guy got his ban shortened. He has not shown any regret or willingness to work with other people while following process. I am sure that when he comes back he will do exactly what he was doing before. Too many people have waisted far too much time with this nonsense.--God of War 05:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Man. You think I've stopped because I'm blocked? Please! Blocking doesn't actually stop anyone but twits! --Gmaxwell 05:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You have just made my point for me.--God of War 05:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What, your argument that I'm evil or something? I never disagreed: [1]. You're still wrong about me being blocked accomplishing *anything*, since I can still edit whenever I please... in fact, being blocked gives me far less incentive to be nice about it, in so far as there can be far less than nearly none at all. --Gmaxwell 05:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion does carry certain consequences, however. Unless it's done incognito, then we don't know that it's you, thereby placing you in the clear. El_C 05:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• (collapse indent) Well right now it appears that there are other users happy to carry out my agenda so there is no need... but overall there is no incentive for me to hide any future evasion, becuase at this point there is little chance of me returning with any respect what so ever (and I'm sure you're aware from the threads above that I thought the respect I had was worthless, thus nearly zero interest on my part)... Ultimately, my greatest risk would be some kind of asinine legal threat, which would look rather silly when my oh-so-evil act is ... removing copyright violations. ;) It's still good advice, I suppose, but ultimately it won't help because other users will be classfied as me, and theres is really nothing that I could do to prevent it. --Gmaxwell 06:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I wasn't aware of those threads above. Will read them now. El_C 06:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• • ... and the threats of blocking me, and the discussion of evil intent really amuse me, since if I was actually evil, I could do a lot more damage then even what a couple of copyvio blankings is being made out to be... Really this is the best I've felt about my involvement in Wikipedia for weeks if not more. --Gmaxwell 06:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ... and the threats of blocking me, and the discussion of evil intent really amuse me, since if I was actually evil, I could do a lot more damage then even what a couple of copyvio blankings is being made out to be... Really this is the best I've felt about my involvement in Wikipedia for weeks if not more. --Gmaxwell 06:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, we all could do a lot of damage, some of us more than others, but the less wpbeans the better. Okay, I read that (and sorta drifeted off there for a while). I'm a bit surprised you would simply blank a page with a {{copyvio}} tag. Because that not only fails to help the user identify which item/s are the issue, but it also comes across as invasive and aggressive (i.e. if only the copyvio items are pulled, they become clearly visible while the page remains intact). How pressing is this? I'm not sure. What I do know is: if there isn't time for a propper educational campaign, the less diplomatic measures come at a cost. In both scenerios, though, the formula needs to be worked out collaboratively, dialogically. El_C 07:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you have really lost it. If blanking user pages is making you feel good, you need to take a wikivacation, get some perspective. Most people aren't even aware of any changes in fair-use policy, and why would they be? It wasn't announced in any way that would reach large numbers of editors. Now your blankings have all been reverted, mostly before the affected people even saw anything happening to their galleries, and so in the end you did nothing to help the project. Stan 06:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel great because I can still do what I want, and I don't have to worry what rude jerks think about me. Nor do I need to waste tons of time doing other peoples work for them, or overtly kissing ass so someone will not be mad that I've corrected their mistake. And nothing accomplished? actually ~75 of the pages which had fair use images this morning do no longer. As far as I'm concerned, thats great.. I've suffered zero bruised feelings today, yet caused 75ish pages to get fixed. I can't think of anything better than that, and whats more since you're never going to think highly of me again I can continue to do whatever I think is right without the burden of explaining myself to a shreaking mass of people. --Gmaxwell 07:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not invite people to work out (for e.g.) standardized notices via pertinent policy channels? El_C 07:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're banned, you're not going to have any effect in the future at all - statements like "I can continue to do whatever I think is right" is enough for me to support a permanent exclusion. BTW, two of the pages you're taking credit for are mine, but I had already determined to change them on the basis of mailing list discussion. Stan 14:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I support your cause in principle, but not in its execution. I can see where your frustration comes from, though. —Nightstallion (?) 08:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And for the record: I don't know which images on my note-taking page are non-free; I suspect it's only the program logos at the very bottom, de verdad? If you tell me which ones are non-PD, I'll remove them. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 08:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The following are tagged as fair use:

• User:Nightstallion/currencies - Image:Efta_logo.png
• User:Nightstallion/currencies - Image:Gcclogo.gif
• User:Nightstallion/currencies - Image:NAFTA-Emblem.gif
• User:Nightstallion/currencies - Image:SAARC.JPG
• User:Nightstallion/federal_subjects_of_Russia - Image:Flag_of_Moscow.jpg
• User:Nightstallion/notes - Image:Gcclogo.gif
• User:Nightstallion/notes - Image:Google_earth.gif
• User:Nightstallion/notes - Image:Logo_ESA.png
• User:Nightstallion/notes - Image:Logo_en.gif
• User:Nightstallion/notes - Image:SAARC.JPG
• User:Nightstallion/notes - Image:Seamonkey96.png
• User:Nightstallion/userboxes - Image:Striped_apple_logo.png

Wow, I thought I recognized your name when it came up on ANI, and turns out you were the developer's voice of reason on Category_talk:Living people. Sorry to hear you've had a break with the project; too much of that going around right now. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I would like to thank you for "kindly and respectfully" deleting my user subpage. Just so you know, fair use images in namespace is not a copyright violation, it is a wikipedia policy violation. This means that you vandalizing my page is just as bad as me having images there. Also, the article you vandalized is a temporary page holding an article revision. It only had fair use images for a day or so, and I predict they will be moved off tonight. Temporary article pages, while not part of the article namespace, have not typically fallen under the fair use image policy as they are both temporary and beneficial to the project. How dare you accuse me of harming the project when you go around deleting people's pages without so much as a warning? You need to rethink why you are a part of this project. We, the Wikipedia community, will not let vandalism go on unchecked. -- Chris 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of fair use tagged images in the user namespace are copyright violations as well as policy violations. I suggest you learn the difference between blanking an a deletion. --Gmaxwell 03:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Soultion Ideas

Ok, i'm trying to dream up of a solution to fix my talk page. I'm woundering is there a way, I can use the gallery tags, and have a pd image displaied and when clicked it goes to the fair use image? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest you drop the non-free images out of the gallery and make a list of articles that you've helped illustrate. OR... In my case I just didn't mention them at all when I had a gallery of my works.. Another thing you could do is is put some placeholder FAIRUSE logo in the gallery, but in the description text have a link. I hope you find one of these ideas helpful. --Gmaxwell 05:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, my idea was close to the idea about the fairuse logo. What I would like to do though is, when the logo is clicked, it'll go straight to the fair use image. btw, i like the nigerian 419 letter you used in the comments. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hm. The pedant in me would even argue against linking directly to the images from a gallery ;) But I'm not quite that pedantic. Here is what you need to do, if you've yet to figure it out:

<gallery> Image:Red_copyright.svg|Created drawing of the [[:Image:007.svg|copyrighted 007 logo]]. </gallery> Sadily, I don't think we could do exactly what you want without CSS or js hacks.

some javascript maybe? hmm... guess i'll create a seperate table. meanwhile, its 1 am here and i have to be up by 7:30 for class. I'll work on reconstructing my page sometime this week, when schoolwork doesn't kill me. don't delete it for now, please. Night. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The challenge is that we don't normally allow users to redirect image links because of copyright reasons. Actually, you're making me think of an interesting mediawiki feature I might code: Some kind of flagging that makes images appear as a copyright logo except on certian labeled pages. I'll have to think more about that. Don't know if it would be adopted in the currently climate of "look it's pretty, you must let me keep it".--Gmaxwell 05:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yow!

Gmaxwell, what happened?! I missed the excitement, can you fill me in? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Heck if I know! ;) --Gmaxwell 03:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologizing

I am sorry for the above angry statements I made yesterday, it was late and I was tired - had insomnia so I was kind of grouchy...I understand that you were trying to do what was right, you just didn't do it the right way. Please forgive me for any taunting or incivil remarks - you sure brought out the worst in me! Anyway, take care. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 02:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It happens to the best of us. No worries. --Gmaxwell 03:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Links to User:Durin/Contributions

I periodically check to see "what links here" to various subpages of mine and saw your User:Gmaxwell/long list is here and User:Gmaxwell/user fairuse come up. I presume from the title of the latter that you take issue with my page because of perceived abuses of fair use claims. There was one icon that may have violated such terms, which I removed. I would welcome being corrected, but I do not believe any of the remaining images on that page are covered under any fair use claims. Images from the United States Government are in the public domain, and this covers the vast majority of the images on that page. The remainder of the images are photographs I took or images I created. --Durin 18:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You look good now. Thanks. --Gmaxwell 03:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Roomba didn't notify uploader

Hi. I noticed that an image I uploaded, Image:Trainz screenshot, track level view.jpg was marked by User:Roomba (which declares itself as a bot run by you) as a deletion candidate on January 12. The bot didn't place a note on my talk page to warn of an impending image deletion but relied on the edit history to inform interested parties. While I can agree with the criteria for deletion in this case, it seems a little sneaky to rely solely on the edit summaries to provide warnings to uploaders. Since the image wasn't on my watchlist at the time, I didn't see the warning. I've seen other bots that can find the uploader's account and put a warning on the user's talk page, and it seems to me that any bot action that could lead to an image deletion should follow this practice too. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 21:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

That's got its hazards too. I recently got bitched at because OrphanBot was warning someone about every single one of the dozens of unsourced images he'd uploaded. --Carnildo 07:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky? How about some WP:AGF here. Instead of notifying uploaders, I have in the past preserved a copy of the image. Given the number of images tagged, and the ratio of images which need to be saved to should be deleted, and the number of users who are confused because they uploaded both something.JPG and something.jpg .... I found it better not to notify. You may not agree with the decision, and I'd be glad to discuss it with you because I believe that my position is amply justifyable ... but please don't call it sneaky.--Gmaxwell 03:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Roomba IRC bott

Hi, where could I see the code for the roomba irc bot you used to run? I'd like to see the IRC related code. Please respond on my talk page. :) --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 23:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Links to videos

Since your name is mentioned on Wikipedia:Media#Video as being willing to offer advice, I wondered whether you can tell me whether there is a Wiki-syntax for creating a link to an (ogg/theora) video which rather than showing the (somewhat naff) default 'video' icon, uses a specified image instead? Something equivalent to <a href="vid.ogg"><img src="thumb.jpg"></a>. Thanks, cdv 20:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't have a way to do that, sadly. You could provide a thumb and then a link next to it.. but users might suffer some confusion. --Gmaxwell 03:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Fox hunting

What the hell is this all about? If you support fox hunting, make or find a userbox that says so and use it, dont vandalise a userbox just because you dont like it... - • Dussst • ^{T | C} 16:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

She looked like a hunted fox to me.. Support fox hunting? please. Every edit isn't about pushing a POV. --Gmaxwell 03:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Message from Frungi

You still haven’t replied to my reply to your reply to my question. —Frungi 23:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Becuase I didn't think it was worthy of my time. If you're going to call Jimbo a liar, I'd suggest you begin your own fork. Sorry. --Gmaxwell 04:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Your bot

can you tell me where you found it?Jakken 04:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Found what? My bot? I programmed it. --Gmaxwell 04:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

how did you program it? Jakken 23:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's written in the python programming language. There are good python tutorials on the python site [2]. It edits by talking to Wikipedia just like your webbrowser does. --Gmaxwell 23:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Where did you find it" is pretty high praise, in some quarters, Greg. ;-) Kim Bruning 23:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Roomba seems stuck in copyvio mode!

Whoa! I notice Roomba just tagged a bunch of images as {{copyvio}} with the regular "orphanded fair use" summary. I take it this is not quite what it's supposed to be doing, these will get picked up by the orphanded copyvio script and cause even further constipation on the copyright problem site rather than let us "smoothly" kill them off after 7 days of no use. --Sherool (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OH shoot! ... thanks. --Gmaxwell 04:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Error corrected. Pages rolled back. Tagging correctly now. What a pain. Thank you for catching my mistake... you save me quite a bit of work. --Gmaxwell 05:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, it was quite a lucky accident rely. I was just going to check my watchlist one last time before going to bed when I noticed a familiar image beeing tagged. I figured "dang, someone has replaced it with some 'better looking' but unsourced image again" (and sure enough they had), so on my way to remove the orphan tag after putting it back in the article I noticed the problem. Good thing the image name didn't start with Z I gesss ;) --Sherool (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you might explain what is going on, as I'm fairly new here. Surely I can upload images for use on my user page? I refer to this.—Laurence Boyce 15:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is a violation of US copyright law for us to distribute that image in the used context. There are some cases where we are permitted by US law to use the copyrighted works of others, but we only allow that use in articles (and not user pages). The caption contest looks fun, but you should find a free image]. This will avoid such problems in the future. More information about copyright and Wikipedia can be found at WP:FUC. Sorry for causing some confusion. --Gmaxwell 16:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Roomba web output

Hello again, I was wondering if you've managed to find the time to think about this yet? Cheers, Lupin|talk|popups 05:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

They took text access away from toolserver users. Roomba anti-vandalism stuff is dead until it's back. --Gmaxwell 05:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

:-( Lupin|talk|popups 23:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop your Roomba

It's added Category:Year of death missing to at least two articles with a valid death year. Nikola Vitov Gučetić and John Randolph Spears. Cheers CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote on your talk page (which you probably hadn't seen yet)... Bots dont read, so it is going to do this on incorrectly tagged articles. I'm following behind it, making corrections in these cases. No cause for panic. --Gmaxwell 19:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, because I see it's still tagging them and I had seen it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not going to stop. I'm checking all its edits behind it. There is no way the bot is going to figure out that a person is labled dead when the death date is incorrectly given as the birth, or the like. Thanks for letting me know you saw something odd though.. --Gmaxwell 19:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I caught one of them but I was editing at work and then got busy. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's all good. --Gmaxwell 20:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:InfrogmationSketch again

I have requested a fair use review for the image in question. Discussion at Image talk:InfrogmationSketch.JPG. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 01:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Bush

Hi,

I notice you added the living people category to Bush's article. He already has Category:Current national leaders, which is a subcat of that... and I don't know if we're generally adding both. -- Pakaran 06:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked Blair, and he has both... so maybe we are. It should be discussed, anyhow - eventually we'll have to move some living people to subcats. -- Pakaran 06:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Err! No, it's not a navigational category. Subcating it breaks the automated tools. Ugh. --Gmaxwell 13:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Iron_Man_riff.mp3

I tagged it fair use, this should clear up the problem. However, what would you have recorded? How would that recording be any different? Hyacinth 22:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I hadn't seen the bottom of the article.. I'd just glanced at it and assumed it was being used as a generic example of a 'riff' at the top. --Gmaxwell 22:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Dreamcatche image

I photoshopped and cropped this image Image:Dreamcatcher on Wall.jpg. That image is free to use so the derivative image is free to use also. Since I did the photoshopping and the cropping I released it under GDFL-self.--God of War 02:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 23

Please revert your edits on that page. Not only was it rude, but it was wrong: you have no way of knowing how "involved" anyone was. Whether or not people posted on a talk page does not invalidate their opinion, or give you the right to strike through their posts. Turnstep 03:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to be rude, nor to offend the people who walked into that vote off the street... but the fact of the matter is that there was already and ongoing discussion on the subject that is being completely subverted by the vote. What we need is understanding and discussion, and we can get that on the talk page.. but not there. I hope all the people whom I struck out come talk about it in the discussion and then if they feel the same unstrike their comments. --Gmaxwell 03:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You may want to comment on the CfD page, but you can't just strike out other peoples comments. -- User:Docu

I just did. If each user doesn't want to his stricken out, I welcome the chance to discuss it with him. --Gmaxwell 03:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Turnstep and Docu and Trödel, who suggested that this is a violation of WP:POINT [3]. I also agree that this RfD was a terrible idea at this time, but it's wrong for you to disrupt the process like this, especially with this method of yours for identifying the 'involved voters'. ×Meegs 03:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you object to about my method? I didn't strike anyone who'd been participating in the ongoing discussion. The result shifted the raw count away from my prefered outcome although the result is still the same. Voting is not a substitute for discussion. Is there anything I could improve in how I selected people?--Gmaxwell 03:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I must take objection. I spent 10 minutes reading through the discussion before voting. I had nothing to add - should I have trolled before voting ? I guess I should have. Megapixie 04:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Then unstrike yourself and sayso.. it's a wiki! I appreciate your effort to understand the issue first, but it was clear from comments made there that most people did not put in your effort. --Gmaxwell 04:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Guess it wasn't that clear, because I've spent way more than 10 minutes (no offense intended Megapixie) reading through all the discussions. Turnstep 04:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I never objected to people commenting.. Just the drivebys who don't participate! If you've got good ideas, share them! If you are misinformed, give others the chance to correct you. We're all in this togeather, well except for the people who use force (be it in the form of a carelessless given block, or drumming up a mob of uninformed 'voters'). ;) --Gmaxwell 04:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You have violated the three revert rule on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 23. You have been blocked for 31 hours. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, actually I have not. Not only did I not make four reverts, the reverts I made were restoring the comments I left in addition to the strikeouts which were mistakingly removed by other users. --Gmaxwell 04:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You didn't actually violate the 3RR, but as far as I'm concerned, you committed numerous acts of vandalism (and clearly intended to continue). Therefore, the block should remain in effect. mdash;David Levy 04:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats a high allegation when the people who didn't agree with me were just reverting without discussion. Yes, it's obvious that I'm bent on continuing my evil campaign of vandalism (see, much better if you use bold).. after all why else would I encourage users who took the time to comment here to unstrike their comments there? It's all a part of the evil plan. You know me so well! --Gmaxwell 04:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Flagrant vandalism can and should be reverted without prior discussion. You have no right to set specific terms under which users may revert your vandalism. —David Levy 04:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey O. Gustafson, I guess your intention is now to ignore me... but I must inform you that without a reply I see no reason to respect your block, and I'll just go on editing. --Gmaxwell 04:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Please don't unblock yourself. The block is being reviewed at WP:AN/I as we speak. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I won't (for lack of ability, and for the distaste for committing the one act forbidden ;) ). But I can just edit from another identity. Blocking doesn't stop the technically competent. I'm in no rush, however. I'm pleased that you aren't just ignoring me. Thank you very much for your reply. --Gmaxwell 04:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I could have sworn you were an admin (the old "I thought he was..." trope), thus my plea as I still haven't gotten over my Original Sin and didn't want to see anyone else do it. I obviously can't do anything about socks, but I ask nicely that other's comments remain unstriken. Thanks for your patience as the block is reviewed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your politeness. No worries, ... What I'd really like is for the users to unstrike themselves, and reply to the points made against their positions, rather than ignoring them. Alas... The mob tonight doesn't approve. :) --Gmaxwell 04:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Users needn't comply with your demands in order to have their opinions considered. —David Levy 04:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Come on

Can't you try to not piss people off? For me. I'll give you a cookie. if you're nice and don't use a sockpuppet because that's a really stupid thing to do. Now behave.--Sean Black (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)