User talk:TownDown/Archive 2

Speedy tags

Hi, I just came across this [1] edit of yours by chance and I'm a bit confused. What's the logic behind de-tagging that? If it's a Reuters picture it's a copyvio no matter what the tags say, it's got to go as fast as possible. Am I missing something? Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote in the edit summary: "cannot be a copyvio if there's no licence" -- it's like saying "do not open the door" - when there is no door. feydey (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhm no, I don't agree. Of course an untagged image can be a copyvio. There objectively is a "door": the image. It's there. And it objectively is a copyvio. No matter what the tags are or aren't claiming about it. The seven-day waiting period for untagged images is only for cases where there is at least a realistic chance that the tagging might bring with it a satisfactory source/license declaration. With an image already known to be from Reuter, that chance is zero right from the beginning, so it's no use waiting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As I see the uploader needs to be informed that the image has no license, in this case it is still possible to use f. ex. {{Non-free fair use in}} -- so the chance is not zero. So we would be jumping the gun here. In 95% of the cases the image is probably deleted, but we still have to give the uploader the benefit of the doubt. feydey (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides nowhere in CSD#F9 it says: "The seven-day waiting period for untagged images is only for cases where there is at least a realistic chance that the tagging might bring with it a satisfactory source/license declaration". feydey (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

With a commercial news agency photo, the chances of a successful FU case are close enough to zero so as to be negligible. In the extremely rare cases where such a claim can legitimately be made, we should expect of the uploader to make their case from the outset, or indeed for it to be apparent from the actual use of the image. When such images are uploaded by an obviously careless or irresponsible uploader, like in that case, waiting for further information is just not realistically useful. As for the other part, the waiting time is indeed for images that "lack the necessary information". It doesn't matter whether the information is present in the form of a standard tag, or whether it was provided by the uploader or by somebody else. In the present case, all the necessary information was there: the speedy-tagger had actually done the research and provided it.

I guess it doesn't really matter much as long as the image does in the end get deleted, and as long as a really blatant commercial case isn't displayed in an article during those seven days. I was really more concerned about the signal this gives to the guy who speedy-tagged it. De-tagging in such a case could come across as devaluating his efforts, which I'd be careful to avoid. Just a thought. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Argentina HDI

Hello. The links of the sources are dead. And these numbers in the article are confliting with the UN data. Please see the talk page for further informations. Thank's.--Italodal (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

They are not dead.--TownDown (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. JulieSpaulding (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

About the report

Hi TownDown! I just thought I'd drop by and let you know why I got involved in the HDI article dispute. As you probably know, Wikipedia has a three-revert rule, meaning that if you get rid of someone else's edits more than three times in twenty-four hours, you may be blocked. I've seen some of your edits, and they are very good! Although you haven't broken the 3RR yet, it's getting close to that, and I just wanted to make sure you weren't blocked - Wikipedia needs fine editors such as yourself! Anyway, give me a shout if you need anything. JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi TownDown, I saw that you already reported Italodal at WP:RFPP, so I thought he was covered on that front. Happy editing! JulieSpaulding (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I just saw the images you created. They're great! JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Paraguay Orthographic Projection

Hey, I saw your request at Ssoldbergj's talk page, and decided to take it on myself. What do you think? . Connormah (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's nice. Look this or or --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 02:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Chile Map

I reverted because there has been no discussion about changing the map. Also, to be completely honest, the current map being used is more detailed. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As you wish, never mind. I really don't care to be honest. Regards.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 07:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that the edit you made was well intentioned, it's just that Chile is a very narrow country and the newer image makes it difficult to accurately view. Cheers. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice to find you

I'm very happy to find another commited Mexican in this vast community. You don't know how happy I am. You should be aware that there are several topics in which a certain user is always trying to push a POV that Mexico is not part of North America but Central America, and if this criteria is not followed, he then says Mexico is part of "Middle America". Then may be you can give us a hand. Gracias. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware about the term Middle America. However, as I already told you, this user is always trying to advance the false idea that "Middle America" is a commonly used term in the Americas, all in all just to exclude Mexico from North America (meaning US, Mex and Canada). Also, the geographic UN model is wrong, because it includes Mexico in Central America, so using it won't be helpful, not to mention that the UN clarify that model was divised for statistical purposes only. Thanks. The user is named Corticopia. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right!.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 19:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Town, please do not revert the usage section in the North America article. I'm sure you feel it is wrong but again, this has been long discussed before. See, there are two main texts:

1) North America means US and Canada only.

2) North America means US, Canada and Mexico. Sometimes is used to mean "US and Canada".

We are fighting to prove that the second option is the most correct. Your changes are reverting the page to the previous status, in which North America = US + Canada. Walterego is an American that also believes that North America includes Mexico. The "bad guy" here is Corticopia, which is now using an anonymous IP (check North America history page) AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 18:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Town I do understand what you say. I am also bothered by the word "exclusively", so if you find it wrong change it. "May be" means also "puede ser" pero no en el sentido de "que se permite", sino de "que así pasa, así sucede". Te apoyaría si quitas "exclusively", pues eso no dice la fuente. Tienes razón. Pero decir "mostly used" es falso, pues no es cierto. La gente usa North America para significar o todo el continente, o solo Mex, Can y USA. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Mass moves?

Hi there. I noticed you mass-moved a bunch of articles, however, they don't appear to be because of vandalism. Please help me to understand your actions. --slakr^\ talk / 02:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bad move reverts Ottava Rima (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as they are restored, I have no problems. I was hesitant to move them myself for various reasons. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I've been through far worse. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I assume you just had a script misfire? Anyways, if you worry that you might have goofed something, feel free to leave a note at the Wikipedia:Help desk, or if it's quite urgent, WP:AN. I've marked the ANI thread resolved. –xeno^talk 02:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Attention!

Hello again! Now that you're helping us with all the Mexico-related articles, there's something you should know. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/American(Can)] The newest Corticopia account (the anti-Mexican disrupter). It was just a matter of time after Administrator blocked several pages in which he edit-warred anonymously. So, be notified. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 12:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

O.K, but I changed the term warning to attention according to the cognitive process of selectively concentrating on one aspect of the environment while ignoring other things, it examples include listening carefully to what someone is saying.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 18:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Second Mexican Empire

Excuse me, but there is no reason to pass out warnings if you are unwilling to recieve them from others. You have some useful information, but your wording needs to be changed. If you'll look at any other article in Wikipedia, you'll notice it is not in the style you are writing in. Also, you do not need to erase everything that is always there. It is better to add than subtract. Please work WITH others and Stop edit warring.C.Kent87 (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You may accuse anyone of anything, the fact is, you are not working with others in a way that Wikipedia supports. I'm still willing to work with you in the article. C.Kent87 (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I reverted your edits at Second Mexican Empire because they contained additions that breach a neutral point of view and were so widespread that a consensus for such edits needs to be obtained on the talk page. In addition, you should not be edit warring to prove your point, such as demonstrated in these edits: [2] [3] [4] [5]. Your edits are being discussed at WP:ANI#Second Mexican Empire as well. seicer | talk | contribs 01:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hrs

Blocked for 6RR on Second Mexican Empire, 48 hrs.

TownDown - edit warring and reverting an article more than 3 times in 24 hrs are strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. When your block expires you need to engage in good faith discussions on article talk pages and not restart this type of behavior again. Further abuse will lead to more blocks. You need to talk to people and try to achieve consensus rather than beat articles back and forth like that. We expect you to edit in a civil and constructive manner and avoid making personal attacks in editing.

Wikipedia's community expects that all editors will edit in a constructive and adult manner, and try to cooperate with each other. I hope and expect that you can do better in the future. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hrs in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I reverted according Non-free content criteria, in the article there wasn't any reference and violated Neutral point of view, also the user C.Kent87 reverted this article more than 3 times in 24 hrs and it's not blocked, and I didn't use any personal attack but the user Seicer did it to me.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring. Whether you were 'right' or 'wrong' on a particular content position is immaterial. Unless what you were reverting blatantly violated our biographies of living persons policy or was blatant vandalism, there is no exemption to the three revert rule. Protonk (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2009 (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.

I reverted according Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, in the article there wasn't any reference and violated Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, also the user C.Kent87 reverted this article more than 3 times in 24 hrs and it's not blocked here, and I didn't use any personal attack but the user Seicer did it to me here. Why C.Kent87 is not blocked?. --TownDown^{How's going?} 03:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You're allowed to remove comments by other users, as you did by Seicer here, but you really should answer the question as to what material you believe was a NFCC violation. Your edit summaries and talk page messages don't seem to explain what the issue was there. If you are going to claim that as a defense you need to include details.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that I can remove comments from my talk page, thank you. Georgewilliamherbert please unblock me, I'm not vandalizing in Wikipedia, I'm updating some important articles for me. For example in this case, I draw the globe map of the second mexican empire in svg format, the mexican flags in svg format or maps and I added the territorial division but when I read the rest of the text in the article, it was really disgraceful for me, this text uses personal contexts like "view like puppet by some"? or "he was not regard him as the legitimate leader"?. The person who wrote this without any reference, seems not to know anything of the history, I love the history, that's why I made everything I told you. Now all my contributions will be blocked and offended because another user who really reverted three times wants his personal contexts there?, and restoring a false text again and again without any reference?, my block is unfair.--TownDown^{How's going?} 05:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are different claims than the NFCC claim you made above.

Those are also conventional content dispute claims, which have no special exemption from WP:EDITWAR or WP:3RR. A WP:BLP violation, or vandalism, are valid excuses on that - but you aren't arguing that those were the issue. The things you're saying you were responding to are not things you're allowed to keep editing about that way.

And even if you did have good cause, as our policy supports, you need to discuss on the talk page and attempt to explain to people and work it out there, rather than fighting over the article contents only on the article. That's what WP:EDITWAR is all about.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why you didn't make anything about the others, C.Kent87 who made 3RR, or Seicer with that personal attack?, why only me??, I did not use personal attacks and the other user made three reversions, and I just did it 1 and 3 usual editions (I respected all information based on references), but this text doesn't have any (sorry for my english), I respect others. This is unfair. --TownDown^{How's going?} 06:01, 11 August 2009 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did it because Wikipedia:BLP#Writing style and Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable sources.--TownDown^{How's going?} 07:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

BLP stands for biography of living people, and since the Second Mexican Empire ended 142 years ago, none of the individuals from that era are still, you know, living. Regardless of NFCC, BLP, or any other raison du jour, you were warned about edit warring and chose to disregard that warning. Are you aware three declined unblock requests your talk page is locked for the duration of your block ... ? — Kralizec! (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2009 (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.

Where are the personal attacks mentioned in the original block notice? Lara 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make any personal attack (can be checked everywhere), but Seicer did it to me here.--TownDown^{How's going?} 17:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Specific pages where there was uncivil behavior or borderline personal attacks:

Talk:Second Mexican Empire

User talk:Seicer#Second Mexican Empire

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/C.Kent87

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Second Mexican Empire

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:C.Kent87 reported by User:TownDown .28Result: Reporter blocked 48h.29

None of these were blatant personal attacks, but they were an excalating pattern of ruder behavior and exceeded the bounds of WP:CIVIL and our community expectation of collegial behavior between editors and WP:AGF. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Mexico

Hello:

Just to let you know that the variants of the Mexican Flag ("presidential banner") are not official. They are not specified in any legal document nor recognized officialy, they're just in use "de facto". So it should be a good idea to put it back in a separate section, as it used to be, not in the main frame because it gives the idea that those are also co-official flags.

AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 02:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know those variants of the Mexican flags are in use, but they are not official. An official flag is one that is published and approved by the Congress or any Government level that has the powers to do so, in a special law or ammendament. Those flags are only "de facto" flags, since there is no other official flag in Mexico (not even the State Flags, only 2 states have official flags), and most importantly, the "Ley Nacional de la Bandera, Himno y Símbolos Patrios", only make official the flag we all know. See you. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cierto, de hecho ahi no dice que son oficiales, una usada como presidencial y la otra como institucional, si no estas de acuerdo conmigo puedes quitarlas si quieres, que por cierto esas 2 que dices que son oficiales, de hecho no son oficiales como "estatales", son de uso "local","civil","domestico" y/o "historico" según la ley de Jalisco aqui y según el uso domestico de la de Tlaxcala, pero me gustaria no distorcionar el diseño, si quieres separarlas tu mismo, igual yo podría separalas de la nacional más tarde. --TownDown^{How's going?} 00:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

HDI

Italodal is back. --PuebloUnited (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)