User talk:Govvy/Archive2

Image:Dirty larry.jpg

Hello, Govvy. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Dirty larry.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Govvy/images. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 00:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Internationalrugby gen.jpg

Hello, Govvy. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Internationalrugby gen.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Govvy/images. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Those images

Hi,

Actually, all of those images must be removed from your userspace -- they are all copyrighted "fair use" images. "Fair use" applies only when the images are employed in an encyclopedic article for a scholarly or analytic purpose. Technically, having on a userspace page violates not only WP policy (WP:FREE), but also US law. I have speedy deleted the userspace page to fix the problem, under WP:CSD U3. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. Talk pages are not automatically archived unless you ask a bot to do it for you. I archive mine manually, so I'm unsure of the details, but Werdnabot is used by many folks.

Ah, you could always look at the "my contributions" tag in the upper right-hand corner of your screen, and select "Image" namespace. That will list your contributions. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

This is regarding your comment on Lloyd Youngblood's AfD, about WWE never lying. I don't follow wrestling at all, so I wouldn't know wrestler x from wrestler y and such. As such, I wouldn't know if the WWE would never lie about injuries or not. Would be, well, rather stupid to me if they did lie. As I said on the AfD, that was my first one, and it just happened to be against someone related to wrestling, so please don't assume I'm against it all.--Whsitchy 15:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Herts

That was a short-lived revival. I have decided to make the project go live and will remove from the proposal soon. Simply south 17:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The design looks interesting. Simply south 16:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

IWC

That's a simple one to remove in theory at least, I'll AfD it later. The problem is one of referencing, as the sources are self-referential, ie they are part of the IWC itself. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of "K" to represent thousands of pounds

The use of K in this way is a slang usage, in an encyclopedia the proper number should always be written ie £600,000 not £600K. Similarly we wouldn't write "the attendance at the FA Cup Final was 90K people" - it's too informal for an encyclopedia ChrisTheDude 10:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The May 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated notice by BrownBot 21:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good retraction

For example see this AfD. See this IP editor arguing to keep? Yours truly. That was before I had an account, and as you can see I was part of the original campaign to get JB196's first sockpuppet banned, and have been ever since. Want more proof? That edit to revert a Chadbryant attempt to change the LDS category to "Ex-Mormons", something I've done more than once since then. Still not enough? Ask SirFozzie, he'll tell you that was me. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Colt Cabana

No he does, both names are correct and neither is vandalism. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please remember to me more civil than you were here. Edit summaries like this get nothing done. Bmg916^Speak 21:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So you explain that you had six refs, and are continuing to reference, you don't just call someone a shit head and tell them to fuck off. Being uncivil gets nothing done on Wikipedia. Explaining things in a calm, more personable manner is much more effective. Good luck in sourcing the article. Bmg916^Speak 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Govvy please if you want to source something just do it, but don't restore material which is not yet fully referenced. That is all I ask of you. Eventualism is not an acceptable route for WP:BLP concerns. That, and it would be greatly appreciated if you would tone done the insulting comments. Burntsauce 22:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bmg, Govvy. I can understand you're stressed. Remember, I've dealt with this from the start. What you posted there is not good... it's not going to solve the problem, and it makes you look like the bad guy in this situation. You don't need a block on your record.. and you're reallllly close to that line. take a few deep breaths, take a Wikibreak if you need to, and go from there. SirFozzie 22:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

er, but I need to restore to see where I am, removing all the stuff removes the section points, you try citing events then in the way Burnt burns the documents!! Govvy 22:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Your behavior in this edit summary and these two talk page posts is unacceptable; it violates not only our civility policy, but also our policy against personal attacks. I'd suggest discussing your differences civilly on the article talk page. You've not "lost" any references, as they're saved in the article history. Any further personal attacks, regardless of whether you consider them justified, are going to result in your being temporarily blocked from editing. Please relax, take a short break, and discuss your differences on the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, now I just lost 26 refs, LOL, because I get pissed off a little you think it's smart to block me! What a pathetic policy, you should block Bunrtsource for the abuse he has contributed to the Wrestling Project, you should read your rules, you didn't warn me first. You failed your own rules! Govvy 22:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

MastCell wasn't the one to block you, Govvy. That was someone else. Come on.. step back.. you're doing yourself no favors here. Step back, chill out, request an unblock, and go from there. Getting yourself blocked isn't gonna get the articles sourced any faster, is it? That's what we all want... SirFozzie 22:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am chilled with everyone else, just pissed of with Mr Burnt the burner, destroyer of all things. But blocking me from doing nothing but citation? That's just illogical! Govvy 22:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who blocked you; it looks like another admin saw your recent comments and decided they warranted a block. I'll discuss with him whether he's willing to unblock you, but for that to work I need to know that you recognize the problem here and agree to resolve your dispute with Burntsauce civilly. Any edits you've saved will be preserved in the page history and can be accessed, even if they're reverted. MastCell ^Talk 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Block isn't because of citations, lack of citations or anything in between. Your block is because calling someone what you did is just not done, as a friend of mine would say. Think of it this way.. you know the whole history. BS has no reason to like me, probably every good reason to hate my ass, but when I asked him to change something on his opposition to my RfA (I didn't ask him to change his vote, but to clarify something he posted), he did so quickly and civily. If he can do that, surely we can show him the same courtesy? Apologize for your personal attack, and request an unblock, and we can go from there. SirFozzie 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked User Page?

That's a bit strange? Even my userpage is blocked from me and I saw it says Myleslong blocked me. Very illogical. In fact, I think too many people fail to take human emotion into account. The worse of it all, is when one tries to help, you punish them? But when one decides not to punish the person who is doing the most damage around here?

Lets see, Biographies of living or dead people. What is fact and fiction, to determine you require citation. So I put citation where I can, so I decide to place it. In order to do that, I need to restore the information removed. So when I see people removing massive amounts of information, it first looks like vandalism. Then I take into account, this policy war. The most failed thing around here is the etiquette. The simple thing, to ask on a project talk page, I don't understand while Burntsource doesn't want to do that. I have asked so many times, yet, you punish the one with the etiquette and praise the one with out it? Govvy 22:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living people are sensitive areas, because of the potential to harm the subject, possible legal ramifications for Wikipedia, etc. For that reason, we generally insist that all remotely controversial material be adequately sourced before being included. If you'd like to work on the article and save some intermediate revisions, I can explain how to do this in your own userspace, but Burntsauce is actually enforcing a rigid but necessary policy against including poorly sourced information in articles about living people. Source it first, then add it. MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Govvy, the phrase you used in that edit summary is the opposite of ettiquette. Could you have just left an edit on his page saying "You just reverted a change of mine that had six references, could you look at them?" One thing you might also want to do is create a sandbox page and copy the article there, that way you can edit it piecemeal and bring it back fully sourced without this kinda thing happening. Emotion is fine man, just try to watch WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. If you're so stressed out that you can't reply civilly... don't reply until you can. Step up and go for a walk or something (I've done it a couple times myself.. I even made it one of my rules!)Blocked users can only edit their talk page (which is why I was suggesting you request an unblock once you've apologized) (I've duplicated what MastCell has said above, but that's because that's the truth) SirFozzie 22:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is the data is already there and all it needs is citation, the data is correct, it has never been controversial material. I have hardly seen controversial material, the worse wrestler you're going to get is Iron Sheik so much bad stuff keeps getting to his page! But still, I have always been fairly civil, been very self-opinionated and always been trying to help the wrestling project. Shamefully, even know I am totally calm, you can't see through a computer screen.

In fact, do I sound like someone who is rash and erratic? Have you seen the way I type, do I have have an irresponsible nature about it? How many times have I done bad things? Considering one burst is nothing compared to the mass murder across Africa! Policies are nothing compared to the bloodshed every day. Yet, to derive some form of incoherent punishment is illogical. Anyway, I am going to bed, too many people with power hungry abilities around here. Govvy 22:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Bold text

OK

Take a break, get some rest, and chill out. If, tomorrow, you can accept that the personal attacks you made were not acceptable, then I'll consider unblocking you provided you agree to behave civilly and refrain from any further personal attacks and remove or strike out the ones you currently have on your talk page. If you're still unwilling to admit to having done anything out of line, I don't think anyone's going to be willing to unblock you. MastCell ^Talk 23:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You're using the wrong unblock template and have not provided any rationale for unblocking here - Alison ☺ 13:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You were blocked for personal attacks like this one. See WP:NPA. The block is temporary. So you can come back once it's over. Don't take the block as an insult -- it's a time to reflect over your actions. Good luck, and hope to see you back soon. 202.54.176.51 13:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't take the block as an insult, I see this block as a policeman putting someone in jail for swearing to someone else on the street. It doesn't happen, same reason is for me swearing at Burntsauce, you don't block someone from editing just for swearing at someone else. That's incorrect administration.

Decline reason:

You were clearly incivil and bordering on a personal attack here. Comment on the edits, not the editor. I don't see a reason to unblock at this time, however I think the length of the block was a bit excessive for a first block of an editor with a fairly long history here and no previous blocks. I'm going to reduce the block length to 24 hours (pro-rated)(I'm going to discuss this with the blocking admin) and I'd suggest you try to refrain from that sort of incivility in the future. — Isotope23 15:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

---

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.

civil has a point of view... and I still don't know how you expect me to apologies to someone who doesn't defend his action by posting any considerate comments to me first. If Burntsauce was civil he would come here instead of going to the admin control ban thingy magigy! I refuse to apologise to someone who clearly would rather get people banned for trying to help articles after his actions. For someone who wants to help wikipedia, I haven't seen any real help from him for the Wrestling Project, something which I try to help a great deal. Instead of ever posting on the project talk page expressing concerns, he just removes large amounts of information from articles which makes it 100 times harder to run a project of that size. Rules or not, civil or not, I don't like his style and it annoys me. I have always been vocal and I will always be vocal, as for wikipedia's civil rules!!! They are over the top. As for civil rights, I bet the civil policy breaches freedom of expression somewhere! Banning someone for very vocal expression is wrong also.

So I shall make it clear, I refuse to apologise and at the same time I condone the ban, which in itself is offensive. Govvy 16:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Look Goovy, I'm trying to help you here. I personally don't particularly care if you apologize or not, but what you have to understand is that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are policy. You have no freedom of expression here and no right to freedom of speech. I'm not trying to kick you with my jackboots here, I'm just stating a simple fact. If you choose not to adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, you will likely get blocked again in the future; it is that simple. I understand that Burntsauce's editing style annoys you, but that isn't carte blanc to disparage him. Use one of the myriad of dispute resolution options we have here. Given some of the current developments at Wikipedia I would guess that verifiability and reliable sourcing of biographies of living persons is going to become even more important and you are going to see a lot more deletions of unsourced material in the future... but I'm going off on a tangent here.

As I stated earlier, I think 1 week was a bit excessive of a block, but the fact that you are essentially rejecting the idea of civility here doesn't do much to help your case for an unblock. As I said above, I don't really care if you apologize, but if you do get unblocked (or when your block expires), please be aware that continuing to be incivil or disparaging other editors whom you have a disagreement with will most likely lead to future blocks. I don't say this as a threat, I'm just stating this as someone who has seen this same pattern in the past. I'll continue to converse with the blocking admin about this.--Isotope23 17:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL

forgot I was blocked! I went to rv some vandalism I just saw! heh, o well, I guess the admin that decided to block me from editing over stepped his power. Govvy 10:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Gov.. you WERE wrong on that statement, flat out. If you do it again, you will be blocked again, and that's just a fact of life. SirFozzie 19:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL, like ddaaa! of course the statement was wrong, just the admin abused his powers also. Govvy 11:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)