User:Beetstra/listing
people reacting on Delta[edit]
- Asterion
- Block of delta - (del/undel) 04:32, 16 June 2011 Asterion (talk | contribs | block) blocked Δ (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (Arbitration enforcement: Violation of community restriction, incivil behaviour and edit-warring.) (unblock | change block)
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive705#Questionable_block_of_.CE.94 - lifted after discussion as inappropriate, no incivility found.
- CBM
- Ceoil:
- Crossmr
- diff
- revid of full discussion
- Note here, Rd232 did not notice the lack of assuming good faith, nor the lack of civilty.
- revid other attempt of Crossmr to get a block
- Jheald
- only option: revert, otherwise I go to AN/I - which subsequently happened
- LessHeard VanU
- Pdfpdf
- "remove non-free content per WP:NFCC#9" - first removal by Delta, pretty clear
- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nford24&diff=435068834&oldid=435066539 "(Undid revision 434964091 by Δ (talk) - Not good enough Delta. As far as I can determine, they comply precisely with NFCC. If you disagree, please explain."
- "remove non-free content per WP:NFCC#9" by Delta - how clear must it be, WP:NFCC#9 clearly links to "Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)" - that clearly say 'only in articles' and 'only in article namespace'
- "(Undid revision 435076884 by Δ (talk) - Revert bad faith edit. You have been asked, politely, to explain yourself. Stop trying to start an edit war.)" - Delta clearly stated that the image is non-free and is NOT to be used outside of mainspace - how clear does it have to be. There is no bad faith there, that is a plain personal attack. Delta explained himself (what indeed has been asked politely), and '.. trying to start an edit war' is a plain assumption of bad faith from you - something you continue to say to Delta.
- What that lazy & rude Delta didn't explain is that NFCC says non-free images can only be used in the articlespace, not the user space. Oh well. Nathanael: You'll have to upload your own photos that you own the copyright for." - 'lazy & rude Delta' is a plain personal attack.
- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%CE%94&diff=prev&oldid=435078969 "Your infinite capacity to act in bad faith: new section" - how far can you push a personal attack 'infinite capacity to act in bad faith - Pdfpdf, if you call an edit that was performed clearly according to policy, an edit which removes an image which clearly violates a policy (with legal implications, no less) - I mean, it can not get any clearer than this, and it was in both edits cited above clearly indicated what it exactly violates a 'act(ion) in bad faith' - then you are the one acting in bad faith, Pdfpdf.
- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%CE%94&diff=435079624&oldid=435078969 Delta again explains it, in friendly wording "Removing non-compliant files is not being rude, nor is it bad faith."
- Masem also explains, that this is not rude, nor bad faith
- you think it is ..
- Ched Davis also does not think it is bad faith
- Hammersoft says "Pdfpdf; the title of this tread "Your infinite capacity to act in bad faith" is a direct personal attack. If you can't refrain from making such attacks here, then I encourage you to not post to this talk page at all." (you may not have seen these last messages, you did not (yet) reply to it)
- Delta explains to you that you can not use non-free material on userpages, and does point you to the possible effects of that
- "(Undid revision 435078317 by Δ (talk) - And if you continue to be rude, arrogant and act in bad faith, so will you" .. 'continue to be rude, arrogant and act in bad faith', the only person who is rude here, is you, Pdfpdf, the edits were explained in a friendly way, and there is no arrogancy (simple plain application of policy), nor 'bad faith' (you still have to fully explain that).
- "No personal attacks: new section" by 2over0, clearly states to you to stop personally attacking Delta, and to adapt your words .. however:
- "No personal attacks: Delta's ongoing and continued bad faith behaviour is not conducive of a harmonious editing environment. Please solve that problem before whinging here." - you repeat the personal attack '... continued bad faith behaviour ...'.
- It should be noted here that the image was not only a #9-violation.
- This is not the first encounter:
- diff (a revert of diff, template space, NFCC#9 applies. This shows that he knew that WP:NFCC#9 existed, still the above situation is pushed.
- Oh dear Delta! You should know better than that!! I think you're just being WP:POINTy for your own personal entertainment. ... - not really an assumption of good faith, is it. (there are several reverts here in a row).
- This is not the first encounter:
- (maybe more to follow)
- Sarek of Vulcan
- 13:53, 17 June 2011 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs | block) blocked Δ (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of the three-revert rule: User talk:Rd232) (unblock | change block)
- revid - block was already declined - again a case where Delta is totally right in his actions.
Edit warring editors[edit]
- Presidentman
- history
- Because they 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Presidentman&oldid=434157625#Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Idaho did not understand]'.
- Storye book
people reacting on me[edit]
- diff
- note that another editor makes a similar negative remark, now directed at Delta's subsequent removal: diff ..
- Sayerslle
- history of "Homage to Catalunya
- personal attack
- user ran into block.
- Footwiks
Some diffs regarding Hammersoft[edit]
- Mark Sublette
- JonBroxton
- Niteshift36
- Nightscream
- Removing idiotic message by newbie editor who thinks he's the class hall monitor
- warning
- "Removing pointless and non-construtive bullshit whining from lying hypocrite editor not interested in actually communicating or discussing accepted practices on Wikipedia."
- section - "I made the edit summary that I thought was appropriate, as I'm quite tired of obnoxious deletionists like Triangle who make false accusations and no attempt to communicate with others, as well as persistent liars like yourself who think repeatedly putting words in other people's mouths constitutes "discussion". If you don't like my edit summaries, then tough shit."
- Administrator got blocked for 48 hours for this incivility