User talk:Aether22

Welcome!

Hello, Aether22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Neo-Jay 07:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urination photo[edit]

Photo you added to Urination#Female_urination seems a bit much. How does it add to the quality of the article? Recommend you discuss at Talk:Urination. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:JzG, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You restored content on User talk:JzG that he had archived or removed, or made other changes to talk edits not your own. That's improper. If you have a comment to make to JzG, you should make it directly; you can also refer to prior content using a reference to the topic from an historical page. If you need assistance, ask for help, I'd help if I have time, but what you did could result in a block. Please respect the right of editors to control content on their own Talk page. Abd (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have lost me, entirely. The only thing i am aware of having done is to make the following comment: This is quite disgusting to see such blatant abuse of power go on, clearly he has obtained permission and clearly the articles are worthy of access. You know very well this is not why blacklists were created.Aether22 (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I may be in breach of civility but that's the onlt change i have consciously made. Aether22 (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 1 week[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the "Help Desk". You can also leave a message on my talk page.

I have blocked you for 1 week because your repeated insertion of clearly copyrighted material, and because you are repeatedly edit warring on multiple articles in order to do so. If you, or your sockpuppets, continue this behavior, the next block will be for a substantially longer period of time. Nandesuka (talk) 06:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It IS NOT copyrighted! It is my own image, you will never find this image online of off except for on Wikipedia. I have also not had any sockpuppets upload or revert this image besides sometime mistakenly reverting when i was not logged in, however I did not hide my identity and was not aware of the 3RR at the time.

Aether22, that block was certainly excessive and out-of-policy, you are clearly a naive editor and hadn't been warned. If you wish to challenge it, follow the instructions you get when you are notified that you are blocked. You should have been given instructions on how to appeal your block with the block message from Nandesuka. I'll get them and come back. By the way, the warning I gave above was based on my incorrect assumption that this editor had deliberately refactored Talk page comment. Almost certainly, it was the result of a naive edit of a permanent copy of the page, the user having followed a link to it elsewhere. Definitely, there are some problems with this user and s/he will need some help. But we don't start with blocks. --Abd (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down, Aether. Don't use reverts unless you expect consensus to back you up, which if you've already been reverted, and more than once, isn't reasonable. Don't push your own position with reverts, i.e., restoral of previously removed content, instead, seek consensus. If you have consensus, others will make the edits, you don't have to be the Lone Ranger, that's part of how it works. You royally screwed up with the logout, hitting 5RR, before. The sock puppetry allegations were not proper, if you did indeed acknowledge that you were the IP editor; however, then, you were properly sanctioned for edit warring. 3RR is a bright-line rule, and you appear to have continued the behavior if at lower intensity (edit warring is blockable regardless of the actual number of reverts). If you own the copyright, you can assert that, but through proper process, it's often not instant. People who want your image out of here will find any excuse, and you'll have to deal with them one at a time, if you can. Not by edit warring, but by seeking and finding consensus. I see that you did discuss the image in Talk, but you took it upon yourself to assert the consensus, which you can't properly do since you are involved. Wikipedia "rough consensus" doesn't necessarily follow majority rule; decisions are made by someone neutral reading the arguments and deciding, not only what argument is the most "popular," but what arguments are cogent. Inserting your own image, yourself, is also Conflict of Interest. It's fine if nobody objects. But there was objection. Use Talk pages, suggest it, don't insist on it, prove consensus by waiting for someone else to come to the conclusion and make the edit. Good luck, but the block, even if a tad excessive, is close enough to proper that it's not worth appealing, in my opinion. --Abd (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, Thank you for your time and consideration, I obviously would like the block lifted but I am being philosophical about it, Wikipedia was absorbing a fair bit of time and I hope that in my absence the image will find more support that I may have scared off by being too lone rangery. (indeed tryptofish has restored it) Aether22 (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you might read WP:DGAF. Sage advice. Now, back to your block. It isn't disruptive to put up an unblock request, you did it before. It will be seen by pretty much a random administrator who will make a judgment. Given your attitude above, I see no reason why you should continue to be blocked if you apologize for whatever incivility you can recognize in hindsight and show that you understand that edit warring isn't the way to do things here; essentially, you show that you understand what was right about your blocks. That doesn't mean that everything was right: you should have been warned before the second block, I'd say. Regardless, understand that once you have been blocked, it's much easier to get blocked again, behavior that you might have gotten away with before will be perceived with a more jaundiced eye, whether or not the prior blocks were fair. It's just how the place works. I'd advise against a block request that isn't brief and clear, and if you make excuses for yourself, even if you have dozens, or claim that others did something wrong, even if they did, it will be seen as evidence that you "don't get it" and the request will be denied. So, quite simply, "get it." And say so. If you only pretend to get it, all you will gain is a few days of editing more, maybe, over just waiting, and an indefinite block, eventually. --Abd (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aether22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I have been blocked for a second time for: Abusing multiple accounts: Sock puppetry, copyright violation, and disruption. I was also blocked before this for sockpuppetry although the accusation was not warranted although I did very likely breach the 3RR which I was not aware of at the time. That accusation is still IMO false this time. I have been accused of copyright violation for an image which at this moment is in use in a Wikipedia article, Nandesuka assumes it is copyrighted, I assert that I created it. (his claims are baseless) As for disruption I am guilty of causing an edit war over the aforementioned image which I and the majority of those who have commented 14 .vs 5 by my count either supports or doesn't object to, however there are a number of editors who have removed it without any discussion also. I have been a bit green about all of this and this latest block seems to have been that though I didn't get even near to breaking the 3RR Nandesuka seemed to take offense at me reverting his removal of the image and so he blocked me and removed it again, only to have another editor undo him anyway. I have also been guilty of making a joke about a critic of the image that others found offensive, though I did not expect offense to be taken or even understand that it was it was even by those supporting the image, I do realise I must be far more careful about saying something that could be seen as uncivil. I have learnt my lesson about reverting too many times even if not near 3 reverts, and I have learnt my lesson about being in any way even marginally uncivil. I would have in all cases appreciated notification that I was doing something 'wrong' first but I so far seem to be learning through recieving ban's, I do not intend to continue this trend. Thank you for your consideration. Aether22 (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You continue to log out of your main account and use an anonymous IP address to give additional "votes" to your side in a discussion, which is definately a Bad Idea. Please do not continue to do this when the block expires, or you may be reblocked for even longer. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jayron32, were the IP edits before the block? Aether22 had already acknowledged those errors. I didn't research them before because on the face, his explanation seemed acceptable. Was there evidence that he intended to make support appear wider? I'd guess that this was with reference to Talk:Urination. I see no evidence of attempt to inflate !votes. Is there any post-block IP socking? Were there other examples? I didn't see anything obvious, but I might have overlooked them. For convenience, [Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Aether22] shows no attempt of true sock puppetry, and is consistent with what he claims, simply not being logged in. Happens to me maybe once a month or so, autologout does it to me; sometimes I don't notice it until later; of course, I always go back and sign if I see it. --Abd (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried. Aether22, you shot yourself in the foot. You made excuses for yourself. You wrote far too much. You pointed to possible errors of other editors or administrators. Now, if you aren't the IP editor, say so. If you are, say so and promise not to do that again. Using IP edits to evade a block can result in an indefinite block or a ban. Sure, you might still be able to get in as IP, but if edits that look like yours pop up from IP, they can be removed on sight without any fuss at all, and sometimes your entire IP block can be blocked, a nuisance for those who share it. If you create a new account, and you aren't very careful, and you show any of your typical interests, the new account would be blocked and, again, a ban becomes a possibility. Don't go there. As I said, slow down, be careful. If you don't disclose the truth on the IP matter, you could be blocked for sock puppetry, and a checkuser can usually tell if it was you, unless you are very sophisticated, which I'd guess you aren't. (No blame in that!) --Abd (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to follow your advice but I didn't want to admit to things that I had not done either, I could have agreed to the vague apperance of IP sock puppetry but not the intent (as I signed many of the IP posts as aether22) but I didn't want to take up the space. I could not have agreed to copyright violation however as the image would have been removed . I did admit to disruption. There does seem to be a bit of shoot first, ask and answer questions later. I honestly don't mind being blocked all that much (except the irritating quality of having noticed errors in a few pages and being unable to correct then) because WP was becoming a bit of an obsession (I liked WP:DGAF), however what I do not want is the bad reputation I will be getting for this. Aether22 (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aether22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please excuse me for making another unblock request for the same block, I don't know if this is against any rules.

I made an unblock request but gave little time to the IP sock puppetry accusation because I believed it to be obviously weak. (I have not been accused of regular sock puppetry AFAIK)

The only thing I am guilty of is being logged out and editing the urination page, I was blocked for this once and I assumed I was being accused of using it to get around the 3RR which I was not aware of at the time. (I switch between 3 browsers so staying logged in can be a pain)

Now it seems that I am meant to be using it to make support seem greater in Talk:Urinationaccording to Jayron32. According to him I had not 'learnt my lesson' after the last block.

However I believe there is only one posting I made with an IP since then at talk:Urination and that is the following:

"The reduction in size seems to have been reasonable and not lessened it's usefulness. (although I doubt much more reduction could take place without doing so) I do not believe that removing colour would be fair however changing the urine to clear (or clearer) would be easy if that would lessen objections (Geradw?) and urine can be clear if you drink enough water (and don't take B vitamins or consume beetroot etc) although it would be less typical. note: it's Aether22 and this and other edits by me are not an attempt at sock puppetry as was claimed, I just failed to realize I am not logged in. 121.98.130.163 (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)"

In it I state who I am (added 2 minutes after posting it) and so this can not be considered sock puppetry, in it I don't even make an argument in support of the image. Excuse my boldness but this appears to be an unfair reason to dismiss my request.

Aether22 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a decline or accept reason.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Quote abd "Now, if you aren't the IP editor, say so. If you are, say so and promise not to do that again. Using IP edits to evade a block can result in an indefinite block or a ban. Sure, you might still be able to get in as IP, but if edits that look like yours pop up from IP, they can be removed on sight without any fuss at all, and sometimes your entire IP block can be blocked, a nuisance for those who share it. -snip- If you don't disclose the truth on the IP matter, you could be blocked for sock puppetry, and a checkuser can usually tell if it was you, unless you are very sophisticated, which I'd guess you aren't. (No blame in that!) --Abd (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)"

I have not used my IP address to get around any ban, in fact both times my IP was banned, the first time the whole range and this time I believe only my own I believe. (I would note that clearly my IP is static and there is no need to block a range) As I have said in the above block request the only comment I have left after being blocked the first time is one that I did sign anyway only 2 minutes later, as soon as I realized my error. I do not have any IP addresses besides 121.98.130.163 or access to any other IP addresses and I am not aware of anyone accusing me of using any other IP address although that would make sense of Jayron32's statement. I would note that if there are other IP addresses that I am suspected of using that it might be a good idea to check which country it seems to come from, I am in New Zealand and my IP address reflects that, small chance any of the other IP edits come from there not that I have noticed any comments from any IP's anyway in this thread any time recently. (Indeed having now checked I can say there are none) Aether22 (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: While checking other things I had edited I recalled something I had forgotten about completely. I added an image to the pubic hair article as I had become interested in the subject area over the urination issue and thought that an image that depicted public hair of another colour besides dark brown/black would be a nice addition, I used one that was on commons I added the image to the article under this account and Nadesuka reverted it, I see that I started putting the image in the gallery under this account I finished adding it under my IP and I reverted it under IP also. I did not consider this to be a very contraversal image, I did not think for a moment that it would attract the IP sock puppet claim and since I only made a single revert and have only made a single comment and no one else has commented or reverted and clearly I had no real motive for any kind of IP sock puppetry (except for perhaps some belated privacy which is AFAIK not against rules) in this non edit war and non discussion. (and if there were any it would fail since I already knew Nadsuka from the Urination thread so I knew he knew my IP, and I switched to my IP before there was any opposition to the image at all and I didn't expect there to be even an iota since it has no genital exposure and is clearly not "copy vio." and is in focus)

I think that would make a very weak case for IP sock puppetry and I can only imagine that if everyone was blocked for IP sock puppetry every time they innocently made any comment or change to a page when not logged in that they had also contributed when logged in there would be many many more blocked users.

I'm going to look in settings to see if there is any way to have my IP address show up along with my username, that should stop these claims. Aether22 (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Now have my IP address included when I sign my post when logged in, as such I can't be accused of IP sock puppetry for anything in the future since logged in our not my IP will still show! Aether22 IP 121.98.130.163 (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aether22, I tried to avoid a demonstration of how you can screw up being right. I did not suggest that you admit to anything you had not done. I agree that the IP editing wasn't technically sock puppetry, but you presented an appearance that it was an attempt to avoid violating the 3RR rule, so all you needed to say on it was something like "I did not intend to conceal my identity by editing IP, as the edit history shows; however, I will be careful, in the future, to be logged in when I edit."

Nearly all of what you have said above didn't need to be said, it was obvious to anyone who looks at your edit history. Arguments about the image are totally irrelevant. You weren't blocked for putting up the image, you were blocked the first time for edit warring and incivility, and the second time for an appearance of sock puppetry plus copyright violation and "disruption." As to presenting an argument from Jimbo, you should realize that admins have seen it all. Many times. The ideal presented by Jimbo must be applied, not by him, but by other editors and administrators, and practical realities cause us to deviate from the ideal. It is, under present conditions, unavoidable. In requesting unblock, to be effective, you must make it efficient, and complex arguments aren't.

Here is the basic mistake that you made, and you continue to make it: you assumed that you understood Wikipedia guidelines and policy better than other editors. You don't. So when you insist on your own interpretation, that you are "right," it is disruptive, so, if you are going to do this, your behavior had better be spotless, and you'd better be a quick study. There is a necessary balance between WP:BITE and the need to inhibit disruption, incivility, and edit warring, plus the fact that administrators are overworked and underpaid. Seriously underpaid! Only rarely will someone take the time to seriously investigate evidence in a case like this, even though they "should." Rather, often, they just look at the surface and make a quick judgment when they think they might have seen enough. You will note, above, that I made a comment that your second block appeared excessive at best. But then I looked further, and saw that it wasn't as bad as it first appeared, that your behavior had been worrisome. That doesn't mean that you intended harm, or actually violated copyright, etc. It just means that the situation wasn't as clear as it seemed to me at first; your errors and impatience with the community complicated it. You can be indef blocked for excessive unblock requests; you haven't gotten there yet, in my opinion, but if you are denied again and ask again, you could be. So: read that essay again, meditate on it, and demonstrate detachment (the most harmful attachment is to being right). I don't see any sign of administrative abuse here. The second block was at most an error, with a reasonable basis. (Admins get to make reasonable mistakes!) If I'd seen abuse, I'd probably have taken this to a noticeboard. Instead, because, indeed, I see you as effectively a newcomer, and you are being bitten, I've attempted to counsel you. Your best move now might be to simply sit on your hands and wait out the block, it's not that long. Do not edit Wikipedia during the block period, except maybe to request help on your talk page. You can also email me (see the link from my user or user talk page, in the "toolbox," and you can usually email any administrator even if blocked, unless you've abused this privilege. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales vision[edit]

Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elite, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny."

"Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other.

For example: rather than trust humans to identify "regulars" correctly, we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community for a very short period of time. The process should be virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have to do anything to start contributing to the community.

"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.

Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. A person with a complaint should be encouraged constantly to present problems in a constructive way in the open forum of the mailing list.

The above is all from Jimbo's user page, here are a few other Gem's of Wikipedia policy I have found:

Assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.

Assume good faith; in other words, try to consider the person on the other end of the discussion to be a thinking, rational being who is trying to positively contribute to Wikipedia. Even if you're convinced that they're evil reptilian kitten-eaters from another planet, still pretend they're acting in good faith.

Particularly, don't revert good faith edits. Reverting is a little too powerful sometimes, hence the three-revert rule. Don't succumb to the temptation, unless you're reverting very obvious vandalism (like "LALALALAL*&*@#@THIS_SUX0RZsammygoo", or someone changing "4+5=9" to "4+5=30"). If you really can't stand something, revert once, with an edit summary something like "(rv) I disagree strongly, I'll explain why in talk." and immediately take it to talk.

Ignore all rules - rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone. The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule.

If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.

These are wonderful policy/rules however with my current experience of being blocked for a week because I failed to notice I was not logged in one or twice, uploaded a non copyright image that someone felt likely was and made a joke I didn't mean to be offensive has me wondering which admins have read these recently if at all. Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicate above, Aether22, you aren't serving yourself, nor the project, with this rumination. Admins are familiar with those principles. If not all of them, I'd be surprised. There are practical realities which you don't understand yet. And there are also burned-out, overworked administrators who've become impatient. It's not an easy problem to solve. Trust the community, and trust that administrators are usually right. Believe me, there are exceptions, and we are working on that. But one of the foundation policies was assume good faith, which you here cite as if it's a criticism of the administrators, though I haven't seen any accuse you of bad faith (beyond some idea that your IP editing was deliberately deceptive socking); whereas here you are essentially assuming incompetence; that's very low-level incivility, and unskillful, if you care about winning friends and influencing people! So when I do see what looks like administrative abuse, I still assume good faith, and I proceed as if it was merely an inadvertent error, or, alternatively, that it was fully justified and I just need some clarification. How the administrator responds then leads me to the next step. --Abd (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I think it's understandable that I am feeling a little miffed. And if I wasn't feeling that way before Jayron32 trashed my request with a bogus claim of new mysterious sock puppet comments I think you can understand why I feel that way now and when no other admin will even look to see just how flawed Jayron32's investigation was.

And I still didn't feel as bad as when I read Jimmy's vision for Wikipedia, clearly my action (which even Gerardw who I think initiated the first IP sockpuppet accusation said he did not believe was deliberate) does not come within many miles of being what Jim's view of activity worthy of any kind of access restriction.

I understand there are sometimes realities and practicalities but my not being logged in, being accidentally uncivil in a joke possibly etc... are not what should be met with this kind of action.

And maybe you are right, I may not be helping myself (not my intent, was I just to admit to things I had not done?) but what I am saying is true, that's not a reason for banning.

Also when it comes to Jayron32's dismissal of my request his reply could only be either a lie or a mistake, a mistake does not equal incompetence of course but still. But I did not mean that admins are incompetent, but sometimes people do forget why they are here. (or those who seek positions of power are often the types who abuse it)

When the philosophy of various admins is pro cabal, and openly jokingly aggressive to new members when that is the precise opposite of what I see at the founders tak page excuse me for thinking that some are going off the rails.

I find these rules sufficiently inspiring that when I am able to edit Wikipedia they are going on my user page, yes currently I could not help but observe the discrepancy but that is not my reason for putting them here. Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's understandable. And it also damages your cause, if you want to edit. I have some suggestions: develop some respect for the administrators who spend long hours doing what is mostly unpleasant, tedious janitorial work. It is an unfortunate reality that they often can't spare the time it takes to carefully investigate. We can jump up and down and fuss and complain, but they are volunteers themselves. We can't force them to do anything. An admin who makes a mistake is simply an admin who makes a mistake; unless there is a pattern, there is very little that can be done about it. There are procedures for appealing from a mistake like Jayron32's -- if it was a mistake -- but it is probably more fuss than it's worth, and you would simply be irritating more administrators! Unless it's very clear and simple. That's why I advised you to keep your unblock request very brief, and to avoid making excuses for yourself. It wasn't that you needed to admit to what you hadn't done. It was simply to recognize what you *had* done, and to promise not to do it again. Speculating about abuse of power when you are insufficiently familiar with the structure and how it actually works is, again, quite damaging to how you appear politically. If I went to the administrator's noticeboard, which I wouldn't have hesitated to do if there was clear admin abuse, with the situation, I'd get creamed. I'm a respected editor, and one reason is that I don't make a fuss when its (1) not important and (2) not crystal clear. I saw your page. Most blocked editors don't attract the attention of someone like me, quite simply, there aren't enough of us.

I detest that the atmosphere on Wikipedia sometimes bites newcomers. I'm trying to do something about it. But it is not easy, there are reasons why it is the way it is. When I saw the second block, I thought it looked like a bad block, you can see that I wrote a comment. However, when I investigated, your behavior looked worse and I struck the comment. Now, with even deeper investigation, you look a bit better, but very few editors would look deeper. That's the reality. You have to look good if you are going to get involved with conflict, as you did. Not merely 'be' good or right. Because that original investigation made you look bad, it's easy for me to assume good faith on the part of the admins involved. And so should you. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aether22, how you doin? Just wanted you to know that while I might not agree with the picture, I DO think that the week long block was way out of line. Just so you know, you're always welcome at my page too. (just no pics please ... LOL). Hope life it treating you well, even if some of the wiki-world isn't. Ched (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the company Ched, was getting a bit lonely, it was just Abd trying to help me and me screwing it up. I truly respect you because you are able to see beyond the fight, something I wish I was better at sometimes, you show uncommon integrity. The block is only active for a few more days and it has given me time for something other than wiki-fights (mainly wiki appeals ;)

I am reluctant to edit subjects I really care about, getting reverted would annoy too much.

But hey, it's hard not to be happy today, Bush is GONE. Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the kind words! I know what you mean about editing things you care about. I like to work on some of the malware and anti-virus stuff, and I tried to add stuff about how to get rid of it. Got reverted (Wikipedia is not a HOW To). Then got stuff blanked on talk because Wikipedia is not a Forum. Once I read the relevant rules, it was hard to argue - pretty much the editor that reverted me was just going by the policy and guidelines. I didn't like it, cause I'd rather post information that will help people, but ... really wasn't anything I could counter with either. Oh Well. Maybe take some time off the article you were involved with for a week or two. Edit some movies, music, or video games, or something that is just enjoyable to you, but not so much you get upset if someone else edits too. See ya back soon, and don't worry about the block (just take any future warnings seriously ... and don't argue with the admins - they've been here long enough to know the rules pretty well). And don't lose your passion about Wikipedia, there are a lot of good things that can be done here, but, just like real life, sometimes you have to go through the red-tape to get where you want to be. Take Care, talk to ya soon. Ched. Ched (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please copy to Urination Talk[edit]

Gerardw asks "why is default in?", here are my answers. 1: Because the image should based on WP policy be included as WP is not censored, and the image is quite informative with no alternative yet available, no WP policy has been identified that does not support the image. 2: Many more users have commented for it being kept than removed. 3: Because if the image is not present then how will the issue ever be resolved as without the image being present no one new can weigh in for or against the image, where as the images presence amply finds those for retaining it and for censoring it. Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to hold off on anything for a bit ... even when you come back. You've made your position pretty clear, and I'd hate to see you get too bad a rep for bickering on one particular page. There's 3 million other pages out there (just on Wikipedia) to work on. Relax a bit, let the community talk things out for a little while and see where it goes. You've already established the fact that you are a passionate editor, willing to go to great lengths to make your point understood. If you come back in fighting, it could turn people that respect you now, toward thinking that you lack maturity and the common sense to know when to sit back and listen to. Remember, communication works both ways ... you have to listen to others, in order to get them to truly listen to you. ;) ... Ched (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was considering taking your advice but I couldn't help but check to see if I was able to edit again, on finding I could IP edit I then felt I had better say everything I wanted to incase there is a rule against posting then blocked. However I can't find any such rule and suspect none exists. Though you did inspire me to propose everyone try to find a compromise. Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) , 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Singularly ... stupid. Sorry. Blocked is blocked. Now, if anyone could simply post while blocked, blocks would mean nothing. But people can post when blocked, unless their IP is blocked also. Yes, that you revealed who you are, etc., could be taken as a mitigating circumstance, but you really aren't getting it. Editors who don't get into conflicts can do pretty much what they want. But once you've been in a conflict and you have been blocked, your conduct must be spotless, or you are very likely to be blocked again. And, I see, you have been. Totally expected. Now, I must ask myself: you've been warned to be careful. You knew that you should "ask" because you were considering it. But you didn't ask, you went ahead. Checked to see if there is a rule against posting when blocked? Well, I'd assume that you read WP:BLOCK, for starters. There is a section there on block evasion.

Now, there is a question of what constitutes "blockable behavior." It is not merely editing while blocked. Had you merely posted a suggestion to Talk, you'd quite possibly not have been blocked again. However, you edit warred: i.e.,in spite of a request to discuss in talk before restoring an image, you went ahead and restored it, as the IP editor. Now, you may have thought that the edit would be rejected. But you immediately saw that it wasn't. Again, you could have protected yourself by simply reverting your own edit, immediately, showing that your intention wasn't to edit war, you were just testing, and, oops!, it worked.

There are now three possibilities which must be considered: (1) you aren't sincere, you've been jerking us around. I don't assume this and don't assert it, but when someone makes "mistake" after mistake after mistake, it's got to be considered, (2) you aren't capable of understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or (3) you've made a series of blunders that won't be repeated. With the first two, you'd be headed not for a mere block, but a ban. (Blocks aren't punitive, they are protective, and it really doesn't matter what your intention is, if your actions are disruptive.) With the third, given the circumstances, it's become almost impossible to argue for your unblock. You could try, but ... I would recommend finding something else to do for two weeks. Don't even look at Wikipedia, you might be tempted to edit. And then, when your block expires, be very careful. The world will not collapse without your participation. How important is that image? Will anyone fail to understand urination without it? Sure, the article may be better with it, I'm not diving into that dispute. You had, and have, support for the image. But as a blocked editor, you must depend on others to advocate it; you could answer questions here. You could, as you did, ask for comments to be copied to Talk (and that's okay if the editor copying them takes responsibility for them not being disruptive). Now, I'd say, depend completely on others for two weeks, at least. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP not blocked[edit]

I found out as my block is almost over but it is only my username not my (static) IP that is blocked, how this can be I don't know. To test it I edited a page and sure enough it worked, however I do not want to get the ban reset for evading the ban, I do not intend to make any other edits until it is lifted.

I would argue that it was not truly an evasion more just testing the curiosity that I seemingly could edit from my static IP and that it was not truly a block as plainly my IP is not blocked.

It isn't my attempt to anger any admin obviously, But as stated above my block is wholly invalid, the reasons:

1: Administrators MUST NOT block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute (Emphasis added); instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Protection

Nandesuka was plainly in a content dispute in the urination article and he made a number of revisions.

2: Also being blocked for a week for an image that is still in use in an article because an admin suspects (without cause) that it is copyrighted does not sound like a fair blocking reason despite being the main reason given. I am not even sure that copyright vio. is given as a valid blocking reason but if it is it would not be a single offense where only suspiscioon of copyright exists.

3: Disruption which is not explained, but here is the policy on blocking for disruption:

A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. If discussion with the offending editor has been attempted and exhausted, or in extreme circumstances, then a block for disruption may be necessary in response to:

   * persistent vandalism;
   * persistent gross incivility;
   * persistent harassment;
   * persistent spamming;
   * edit warring or revert warring;
   * breaching the sock puppetry policy;
   * persistently violating other policies or guidelines.

Disruptive edits are sometimes subjective, and users may not fully understand wikipedia etiquette (especially the strict code of civility). Except in extreme circumstances, blocking for these offenses should be used only after discussion attempts have proved unsuccessful. In the case of incivility, administrators are urged to err on the side of caution, and avoid escalating a dispute by blocking when a clear discussion of etiquette could be a successful alternative.

Except for previous (before the first ban) revert warring, or very minor (humorous and unintentional) incivility none of these apply.

4: The claim of (accidental appearance of) IP sock puppetry should never have been enough for one ban but as I stopped leaving unsigned IP comments it should never have been mentioned in the second block.

Jayron32 rejected my unblock request for further non existent sock puppetry, it seems to me admins can make stuff up. In reality he either imagined something, lied or assumed that another user was a sock puppet, which it is I have no idea.

And so for these reason I would ask that if anyone is unhappy with my semi block evasion they consider that I maybe have already had more than my fair share of blocks. Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A person who represents himself (here, wikilawyers, i.e., presents rules and claims lack of technical violation) has a fool for a client. You presented an appearance of sock puppetry to a casual observer, and, I've explained, that's what the bulk of admin actions involves. Talking about lying, even as a theoretical possibility, can get you blocked, all by itself. (It can be done, but there better be good reason; I was blocked for mentioning a theoretical possibility of sock puppetry, and then discussing it, even though there was some plain evidence that made that reasonable. It wasn't necessary to any process, it was essentially speculation. Had the editor in question been disruptive, that would have been another matter.) No, you were blocked this time for edit warring. Yes, a single reversion of prior content previously added by you and taken out, without first finding consensus, is edit warring, but ordinarily someone won't be blocked for it at that level, unless there is prior edit warring, which there was. Your first block was for edit warring, the sock issue was a red herring. --Abd (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Aether22 made an edit as IP prior to the edit to Urination:

08:47, 21 January 2009 BitTorrent (protocol) ‎ (→Creating and publishing torrents)[1]

08:53, 21 January 2009 Urination ‎ (Will this possibly work?????)[2]. --Abd (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was gong to edit Urination but I tested it there first, I was still in disbelief the edit at urination would work but obviously less than I had been a moment before. (Actually the first edit was hard to find after having been made, I had not verified the change took at the time) The problem with blocks where the real reason is not clear is it is hard to stop doing what you are not aware was an offense. Only after I was blocked the first time did I learn of the 3RR. Only later did I learn that less than 3 reverts in 24h could be considered edit warring. And now I learn that 1 revert in a week can be called edit warring depending on which side you are on. If I had actually been informed of the rules and warned first. (or more correctly be warned about the things you can get banned for that are not written rules)

It seems that many admins don't give a stuff about the rules themselves though, or the spirit of the project. Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 week block[edit]

So your very first edit to the page in question -- not logged in -- was to begin edit warring over your image again? Uh-uh. No way. I have doubled the previous block, this time for 2 weeks. If you continue to edit war when this block is over, the next block will be for a month.

Feel free to participate on the talk page all you like, once your block expires, but this edit warring over your images will stop or you will continue to be blocked. Nandesuka (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It almost was but as abd pointed out I did make a fast test edit, though I still was in a state of disbelief and somehow still doubted it would actually take.

Nadesuka can we please talk about your decision to block me? Can you explain the initial block and why I have now had another 2 weeks added on?

And explain why instead of warning me you give super long blocks?

Also and I imagine you will find this argumentative but are you not aware of the conflict of interest rule? You have a content dispute over the image you are blocking me for, you are not allowed to block me in such a case.

And as for edit waring are you not also guilty of such, indeed you have probably made more reverts to the page in question than I have since my initial 24h block.

Also you did not warn me that if I made a single revert to the image I would be blocked again, having my block doubled. Yet you could reasonably predict that since you did not warn me as soon as my block ended I would do at least one revision if needed.

Is making a single revert really edit waring? And if I have been banned for edit warring why was Geradw not also as he has made almost as many reverts? Oh, no you agreed with Gerardw!

I am feeling I could be blocked for sneezing at this point, this is in great contrast of what the rules say about giving out blocks.

Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aether22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not aware that a single reversion could be considered edit warring, now I know. I will not revert that image once unblocked. Therefore keeping me blocked will serve no purpose.

Decline reason:

A single reversion can absolutely be edit warring...especially when it is the same reversion that has already gotten you blocked. — Smashville^talk 03:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If you will promise to stop edit warring to insert "your" images in any article, I will reduce the block to 1 week. Your contributions are welcome here, but edit warring is not. Nandesuka (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ok (I Promise), but how about the new block is removed altogether? What purpose would it serve? (let the previous 1 week block finish) I agree to refrain from edit warring esp. on images I UL. If you had correctly explained your reason for blocking in the first place the new block would not be needed, indeed the first block would not have been needed. Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aether22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not aware that a single reversion could be considered edit warring, now I know. I will not revert that image once unblocked or otherwise edit war. Therefore keeping me blocked will serve no purpose. I was not aware I was possibly breaking an (unwritten?) rule but now I am. The reason for the previous block was not made clear in the least until now.

Decline reason:

Of course, this all ignores the fact that you made the edit while already blocked. Per WP:BLOCK, you may not commit edits while logged out in order to dodge a block on your account. Its nice how you try to shift the issue away from the real issue, which is the attempt to dodge the prior block by editing while logged out. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Aether22, please listen for a second. I do understand your passion. Maybe if you looked at it like this: Consider admins like parents, and editors with less experience as teenagers. If the parent says "You can borrow the car tonight, but the rules are, you must be home by midnight, and you must not be drinking". Now, the teenager takes the car, doesn't drink, but doesn't get home until after 1:00 am. Mom and dad tell the teen that they are grounded for 2 weeks. NOW, the teenager responds (and can verify) that he/she was not drinking, and was simply at the coffee shop, and wasn't watching the time. The parent then listens (as adults should), and says, "ok, you're not grounded, but you can't use the car for a week." Now, I am not calling you a teen, I am simply asking you to look at the situation in this manner, and maybe understand what's going on.

On the image itself, while Wikipedia is not censored, most of its members do want to maintain a modicum of decorum and dignity for the site. Yes, there are plenty of graphic images on articles regarding sexuality (many under dispute as this one is). If you truly care about the Wikipedia site as a whole, then you must trust the community to come to an understanding, reach compromises, and eventually come to a consensus on what should and should not be on the article pages. You're able to present your thoughts in a very articulate manner, but too much arguing is simply disruptive to the entire process. Please understand the boundaries when you reach them, and respect the rules and guidelines that exist. I would look forward to seeing you become a wonderful contributor here. Perhaps if you found an outlet for the testosterone, hormones, and adrenalin it would be easier to understand where a lot of the editors and admins are coming from. Take a deep breath, and relax a bit. Everything will work out. I hope you understand that I wouldn't even bother to write anything if I didn't care. Take Care my friend. Ched (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ched, the difference here is that I was not given the rules, perhaps told not to drink but no one told me about the curfew. Only now do I know what I should not have done, edit reverted an image that I added.

Jayron32, you miss the point that the same thing would have happened even if I had waited the extra day for the block to expire. (plus that was not Nandesukas given reason, so it is an irrelevant detail) Also when I edited by IP since it was not blocked I was not sure if it was or was not Ok and I was not even sure it work work. (my test beforehand not withstanding) And more interesting question is your reason for denying my previous unblock request which consisted of accusing me of something that did not happen.

I believe that these blocks should be removed because what good is a block if the reason stated are not the real reasons? If you are going to block someone (even against multiple rules) make sure they understand why you are really blocking them and preferably start with a warning. Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardw's substitution[edit]

I appreciate the substitution that Gerardw has made, however it lends little clarity or relevancy. The image used is poor and I am having difficulty in comprehending parts of it. However it requires viewing a large version of the image to see the claimed location of the Urethra, and the vaginal opening is not visible. All in all this would not truly demystify or correct those who believe that the urethra is situated inside the vagina since someone could easily fail to note that only the vulva is visible in this image.

I would be willing to try and remove the urine stream from the current image as that should give a better view of the urethra and where it is compared to the vagina. Although the urine stream does seem very much on topic so maybe greyscale would be a better option. Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment[edit]

In case you missed it. I placed the following comment on the urination talk page:

I've been holding back on getting into the debate. However, today my ten year old son asked me where does a woman's urine come from? He knows where babies come from, but was unable to figure out how the female urethra and vagina were put together. I thought for a moment and then said that I would find a photo on WP which while was contentious showed the mechanics of female urination perfectly. I admittedly wondered if I was doing the right thing and then remembering that a picture is worth a thousand words, I went through the article history and found Aether22's oft deleted photo and showed it to him. He looked at it a moment and then I asked him if he had any questions. "Nope, Dad. That shows it perfectly. Thanks." And off he went and built a new bridge out of Knex. I'm really wondering what we are all hung up about. Put it back I say. It is anatomically accurate and incredibly useful for educative purposes. Gillyweed (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Can I suggest that you put something on your User Page so that you don't look like a vandal. Making your name blue rather than red often gives you a little more credibility. Gillyweed (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I want to however as long as I am blocked I am unable to create that page. I'm glad the image was useful. Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW can I ask if you believe that Gerardw's image would have sufficed, do you believe it would have lead to comparable clarity? And may I ask that you answer at Talk:Urination.

BTW for what it's worth, the current revert count at Urination is Gerardw 8, Nandesuka 3, Myself 11 (but I was not aware there were any limits for most of them).

I created the user page for you. Ched (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, feel free to dress it up a bit though because until my block is over the only page I can edit is this one. You could copy the top part of Jimmy's vision (till the part where I start moaning) Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Done Ched (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC) fix space. Ched (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is very kind of you.

However I may get less flak if this part is removed "These are wonderful policy/rules however with my current experience of being blocked for a week because I failed to notice I was not logged in one or twice, uploaded a non copyright image that someone felt likely was and made a joke I didn't mean to be offensive has me wondering which admins have read these recently if at all."

Sorry, hope I'm not asking one too many favors here, but thank you for putting that up, it bugged me I had not got to fix the no userpage thing. Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk)

no problem, just keep your cool when you start editing again .. I'd hate to see you get banned. Ched (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Very good move, Aether22. Looks like you "got it." Nice to see, enjoy your block and enjoy your editing when it falls away, as it will if you don't flap your arms in the water and attract sharks. (Not a comment on admins who acted here.) I was blocked last August myself, it sucks, doesn't it? But as I once said when I was given the opportunity to see what it's like in jail, some people need to get rested. So they get arrested. Many years later, I was actually a chaplain at San Quentin State Prison, with a community that was getting, indeed, some very serious rest. Being blocked from Wikipedia, piece of cake. But it didn't feel like that! --Abd (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Male Urination[edit]

Regarding the view that a male urination image should be added, I believe that though technically correct that since there are easily offended people and since male urination is not as mysterious perhaps a peeing fountain/statue could be used, adding male urination might just attract more critics. Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree. It's one thing to stand up against "censorship" when it inhibits usefulness, but quite another to needlessly offend. --Abd (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please take that irritating IP out of your signature. You don't need it. You are going to edit logged in, right? --Abd (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations flow freely from admins but apologies/corrections are something I have not experienced, Jayron32's stated reason for the rejection of my second ban for instance.

I am going to try and only edit when logged in but if I do screw it up I don't want a 4th ban over it or any continued accusations.

I have not checked in the last few hours but many days after making the offer Nadesuka still has not honored his promise to reduce my block to a week so my confidence in admins here (most I have run into at that) is very low.

Once being blocked is a distant memory I'll remove it.Aether22 121.98.130.163 (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you, since you have agreed to stop edit warring to insert your images into article. I strongly suggest you use the talk page and convince other editors to insert such images for you. If I see you edit warring over your images again, you will be blocked again. I hope this is a sufficiently clear warning. Nandesuka (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Flaccid no indication of erect size.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Flaccid no indication of erect size.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Radiant chains (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]