I called you jesus because you are trying to walk on water instead of swimming across like normal people....SKy Pacific isn't the only company they own, they also own Digicel Play as well as TVWan..so a red link is justified and yes, it does apply to categories too..--Stemoc22:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary sanctions (1 revert per 24 hours)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Calibrador (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TomStar81: WTF??? do you even follow or understand the lasw set on that certain page Tom? I was not the one violating anything, per rule, Gage Skidmore/Calibrador is NOT allowed to change the image on that page and he did quite cunningly by replacing a different image added by someone not aware with one of his added by another..Tom if you have no idea whats happening, please keep away from the page...READ my last few edits, I was ENFORCING THE NO IMAGE CHANGE RULE, not BREAKING IT.--Stemoc09:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
also @TomStar81: restoring the image back to the original because as per rule, NO ONE is allowed to change the image is not a violation of 1RR or 3RR, its reverting "vandalism"...read my edit summaries first, It was decided on WP:ANI that the image on that page CANNOT be changed unless it was discussed on the talk page,. It was never discussed but forcefully implemented by 3 users, one of who who reported me who is NOT allowed ot change the image on that page EVER..I reverted them telling why, if thats vandalism then please BLOCK ME INDEFINITELY cause i'd rather not be part of a site where the "Real" vandals who lie all the time never get blocked.....--Stemoc09:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the file on commons to a more descriptive filename. We typically do NOT want images on highly visible current event articles to change without consensus regardless of any specific policy or rule. -- A Certain White Catchi? 09:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I finished chasing this down and it turns out you are owed an apology. The editnote at the time I leave this message is pretty explicit about enforcing 1RR, however in a moment of wiki-failure it doesn't mention anything about the rfc's for the image to be used in the article. In the absence of that rather important information I presumed that there was a edit war here, so I blocked, which in this case was the incorrect action. Thanks to some help from your fellow editors I have chased this down and determined that I am in the wrong and you are in the right, so I have unblocked you. Please accept my sincerest apologies, and if you feel the need to report this at ANI I understand. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TomStar81: It was decided a while back due to the image getting changed every 2 weeks or so that unless there was "consensus", the image cannot be changed and thus since then we have only had consensus for the current image (august 2015 one) to be used, I tried to change the image back per my first edit cause snake bgd (who was unaware of the rule) changed the image to something newer, I did not see that edit. Gage Skidmore/Calibrador is prohibited from changing the image on that page so cunningly (without using edit summary), instead of changing it back to the "consenus" image, he changed it to one of his and when Wikieditorial changed it again (i knew via the edit summary), i saw the edit history and knew what happened so i changed it back to the original warning Gage to "don't change the image Gage" cause he knows he is not allowed to touch that page per a Topic Ban here and when ZiaLater changed the image again, I reverted, telling him "no one can change the image without discussion" but Gage Skidmore/Calibrador restored Zia's addition even though he is not allowed to so i rolled him back with an edit summary as a warning and then left a message on the talk page for Gage/Calibrador to "It needs to be DISCUSSED first Gage/Calibrador, stop imposing it, most of us like to follow rules and when Wikieditor undid my post, i undid his while telling him "Follow the page rule, this image CANNOT be changed without discussion" then Calibrador warned me on my page and reported me to the 1RR board and he even cited a lie there claiming there was an "attempt to resolve dispute". There wasn't any. What he linked to was me telling him not to change the image on its talk page and quote "It needs to be DISCUSSED first Gage/Calibrador, stop imposing it, most of us like to follow rules" ...so if anything Tom, its Calibrador you should be blocking who has/refused to learn as he has been reported to not one but 3 WP:Noticeboards and not once but atleast 6 times over the last 12 months for intentionally imposing his images into articles...--Stemoc10:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So it would seem, but I've caused enough trouble for editors here for one day. If it makes you feel better, I added a mention of the image to the current edit notice on the page (here), so hopefully we can avoid something like this happening again to other editors who are acting in good faith to keep the image there. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, another issue is that people don't understand "consensus", they think one 'other' person supporting the image they added is 'consensus" and thus add/impose that image without proper discussion, maybe a proper consensus closed by an admin would be much better outcome in the future.....--Stemoc10:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's hoping. Also, thanks for the understanding over the confusion. Its unusual that people actually work with me after I make an admin level screw up, so the above lay of the land was a pleasant surprise. On the whole I have to say you handled this well, so I am honored to present you with a your own purple heart. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, Thanks, as you may have noticed, I rarely get "Gifts" on wikipedia lol.. I'll keep it in my private safe :) ..--Stemoc10:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Admin retention
Hi Stemoc, I've been wondering how you came to the idea that "evidently, they all disappoint by becoming 'inactive' within 3-6 months". I've been compiling stats on RFA for a few years now, and while it's been a while since I looked specifically at retention, we currently have roughly as many active admins as we have had successful RFAs in the last eight years. Can I ask how you calculated that 3-6 month figure? My understanding was that admins usually have quite long wiki careers after successful RFAs. ϢereSpielChequers21:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you take into account when you talk about activity levels? from your graph it seems like you consider atleast 30 edits made in 60 days as "Active" but do you consider how many of these admins are as active as before they became admins?. Obviously an admin can make 5k deletions in a month if they choose to cause there are just so many nonsense out there but how many actually do make say consistently a thousand admin actions a month? I would judge that as being 'active' as an admin rather than 30 warnings in 60 days. If you can collect and compile that information, I'd be intrigued...you can drop it to 500 admin actions a month if necessary..We should not be collecting data on active editors, but on active admins--Stemoc00:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that the definition of active is unsatisfactory, if it means anything it means active editors who happen to be admins. There have been various proposals to find some alternate way of measuring admins who are active as admins, but they usually founder on such problems as not all admin actions being logged. Our "Active admin" measure does have an advantage of consistency in that it has been measured that way for longer than I've been on the site; So it can show us trends such as us having barely half as many "active admins" as at our peak.
5,000, 1,000 even 500 logged admin actions is a level of activity, even hyperactivity that I'd say was unhealthy and at the 5,000 level could well lead to a desysop. Some deletions are so clear cut that they generate little subsequent conversation, but anyone doing a high volume of deletions is going to wind up with an awful lot of handholding of people trying to create their first article. If someone did 5,000 in two months I'd worry that they were cutting corners. Aside from the problems of sloppy tagging driving away newbies, we also need to watch out for outright vandals who first turn an article into something deletionworthy and then tag if for deletion. So doing deletion properly is time consuming. But wider than that is the argument that admins should be part of our community, and that should mean doing more non-admin stuff than admin stuff. RFA !voters have long opposed specialists who only want to do admin type things, hence the de facto requirement to have added content. There is also the issue that admins are volunteers, and though we have some retired, semi retired and unemployed editors who are volunteering hours here the equivalent of a full time job, a more normal and sustainable hobby is one that you put an evening or two into in a month, hence the threshold for counting very active editors is >100 mainspace edits a month. A thousand admin actions a month, that is an awful lot for an unpaid hobby, especially as some actions represent quite a bit of time.
I think it important that we care enough about both the admin and non admin retention to maintain stats. But I'm not keen on doing anything to imply that we only want full time volunteers. ϢereSpielChequers16:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health. --Cameron11598
Thanks
I'm about to leave this site, but I wanted to thank you for adding the images of Julia Sarah Stone. They inspired me to create an article. Took about 10 tiring hours, but I'm happy with the end result. -- James26 (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@James26: These things generally work in reverse (article then image) but Good job on creating the article. It looks good, shame you are leaving, i have seen many contributors leave over the last decade..best of luck :)--Stemoc07:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It usually works in reverse. :) I had noticed for a while that there was no article, and when I searched for images and saw yours, I finally got inspired. Thanks for the compliment, and best of luck to you too. -- James26 (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stemoc Howdy in Fiji! I noticed you wrote on your support: Those Opposers; Bad!, Just terrible..... I was wondering if you would explain to me what that was supposed to mean? DO you disagree with the Oppose's reasons? Or do you think we're hardheaded haters or what? Thanks L3X1My Complaint Desk21:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Basically yeah, I thought the opposing reasons were quite 'silly' especially those that complain about "experience", i have been here for a decade now and i remember people who were on the wiki for less than 6 months becoming admin, so 14 month is actually pretty good and also, he has a 'CSD background' and if we are going to have admins,its best we have those who know which articles to keep and those to "delete". --Stemoc22:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Thanks. I saw some people on the RfA were saying things like "94% AfD rate". Do you know of an in-Wiki way to see all the XfD votes a user has made? I know there is a CSD log, but I can't find any automated lists for regular ol' AfD. L3X1My Complaint Desk22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2017 British Academy Television Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Who Do You Think You Are?. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You were right. They posted RD of Leo Baxendale which is not sourced like Vinod Khanna. I have sourced almost everything about Vinod Khanna, even gave them links of international media like TIME, BBC, CNN to make them believe that he was not a ordinary actor. --MarvellousSpider-Man06:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware, they act like that there is no bias but there is, we all know that its quite close to impossible to source for older Indian movies of actors, mainly pre-90s and thus they use that as a reason to not include their deaths, i'm sure only Amitabh, Rajnikanth and the 3 Khans will get an RD (not even a blurb) once they die and no one else...as someone said, they are using RD as a way to impose WP:GA as in, if the article does not qualify for GA, it will never make the RD, That was a big slap on the face of Om Puri and many other Indian actors will follow, RD/Blurb should be based on notability, not how PRETTY their article is , fucking pathetic really...they block or bully off all the people who work on their articles so I don't think anything will change anytime soon--Stemoc06:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for May 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joe Cokanasiga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page London Scottish. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Please can you let me know why you continue to change the creative commons image on Jim Hamilton's Wikipedia page, despite having been twice instructed that the image is free to use?
Jim Hamilton owns his own digital media company and, as such, has creative commons portrait images he is free to use. Citing that the image used is "obviously not free" is as unhelpful as it is untrue and comparing Wikipedia to a religion is equally unhelpful, unwelcome and needlessly passive aggressive in nature.
No one is interested in engaging in an edit war or prolonging this tiresome exchange. Kindly leave the free to use creative commons image as is and move on.
Hello, I appreciate you policing the photos. This is my photo I took with my camera. Go ahead and search to see if you find it anywhere else...Rebecca Mader, personally prefers this photo. You can send her a DM on twitter @bexmader and she will confirm. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planb88 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is Marc Kayne, Rebecca Mader's husband referred to in the article link you provided. This is a photo that I own, taken with my iPhone. It was first posted by myself on my Twitter account @marcuskayne on January 14, 2016. https://twitter.com/marcuskayne/status/687783087179206659 . Nobody else owns this photo. All other posts of this photo on any social media or any article used my photo. I appreciate you trying to protect the page. If you could kindly leave up the photo that I'm uploading as Rebecca prefers this photo rather than a photo taken by a fan at a comic convention. That would be much appreciated. If you would still like to verify that its actually me, DM or Tweet me on Twitter @marcuskayne. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planb88 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Pal, enough with the smart ass comments. I am her husband. I'm uploading a photo from the same set of pics thats never been posted. Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planb88 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can see a black shadow(the original crop) next to her, its Kayne and as per policy, unless the person took the image himself/herself, he/she does not own the rights to that image, the right belongs to the photographer who took the image.--Stemoc08:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the picture on the wikipedia page now is not even the same picture as you are providing the link to. This is a picture that I had not posted anywhere until today. Please compare the two photos and you can see they are not the same photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planb88 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't revert Rebecca Mader anymore. 3RR. We'll get the copyright question figured out, but for now it could be considered a content dispute and you risk being blocked. —Guanaco08:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stemoc, please let me know what you need to be satisfied on your end? These photos are mine and were taken with my iPhone. The photo you provided a link to was taken by my friend Jerry Mark who was head of security for the Golden Globes event. The other photo that I posted from the same event was taken by me. Please let me know what would satisfy you that these pictures are mine and have free license use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planb88 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You're listed as "Cap" number 61 in this WikiProject (although, confusingly, your name is struck through). It seems that the Project's talk page is sadly neglected these days. I know little about rugby but have seen how important an active WikiProject is to getting quality information on Wikipedia by helping each other. If you don't mind the nudge (and you may be very active, I've not checked) please pop by the WikiProject talk page from time to time to reply to comments - or start your own. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!00:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dweller:, Yeah i no longer associate myself with an archaic project that is going backwards, for a decade now i have tried really hard to get an actual rugby union infobox going, even came up with my own version but the idiots there refuse to use a rugby union infobox and instead forcefully use the pathetic soccer ones (Caps and Goals), I'm not sure why an ENCYCLOPEDIA would use soccer options for rugby union players, i tried many many times and have failed so now i refuse to be part of such a shitty project led by people who have no interest in the project but their on selfish gains..while other similar projects have evolved including the rugby league ones, ours have devolved in the last decade or so..--Stemoc00:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yeah Appearance and points, this ain't soccer where there are only 2 options, rugby has tries, penalties, conversions, drop goals and then points, i made a workable one, used it in a few of the articles i wrote but was forcefully removed because it was on my userspace so that was the last straw for me, i gave this shitty project a decade. I'm done...and in the future if i do manage to create a rugby player article i will forcefully use the rugby league infobox even if the player has no league background, the rugby union infobox is sickening.--Stemoc00:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I used it for a while here until changes made to the "protected" sections of the infobox cause it to become odd (out of place) but it was perfect as a rugby union infobox, easier to update too...when people think Jonah Lomu, they want to know how many caps he had and how many tries he scored, the soccer one totals his tries so people are forced to use their calculator and divide the total by 5 to know the answer which makes the encyclopedia redundant lol, anyways if you want to work on it and make it better, go for it. My interest in this project completely died this year.--Stemoc10:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I undid your revision here after spotting it when it tripped a filter - the Daily Mail is discouraged as a source per WP:DAILYMAIL. If you could cite a different one, that would be better. Home Lander (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
