User talk:とある白い猫/Archive/2008/08

とある白い猫 A Certain White Cat Bilinen Bir Beyaz Kedi User Page | Office | Talk Page | Bot edits | Sandbox #1 | #2 EN JA TR Meta Hello this is an Archive. Please do not edit. You are welcome to post comments regarding material here at my user talk page. Always believe in yourserf and your dreams, you have a wing!

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2006 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2009 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2015 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2016 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2017 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

——————————————— Archive, August 2008 ——————————————— Merhaba White Cat, Ben kızılsungur. Benim MG-3 ile olan bir iki fotoğraf var. Onları silebilir misin? İletişim için kizilsungur@gmail.com e-posta adresimi kullanabilirsin. Kolay gelsin. :) --kızılsungur Size email yolladim. Cevaplamanizi bekliyorum. -- Cat ちぃ？ 11:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Image:Baj1.png Image deletion warning Image:Baj1.png and other Bajoran Insignia have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these images, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! Powers (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Ping Did you notice? Nice photo. :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC) O_O; -- Cat ちぃ？ 19:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC) At this rate I will be a celebrity... Do you have any pointers to handle fanatic fans? -- Cat ちぃ？ 14:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC) I don't have any fanatic fans, so no. But then, I haven't had the magic touch of a photo with Jimbo, so who knows? Maybe soon you can give me pointers. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Oh that particular photo op was not my first. :) -- Cat ちぃ？ 08:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC) By the way you have gone very silent about the "#Featured picture categories" matter. I hope I did not offend you. -- Cat ちぃ？ 14:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC) You didn't offend me. I just don't have much energy for it. As dumb as moving a humungous category unnecessarily is, moving it back is nearly equally dumb, when the name is acceptable. And I try not to rise to poor-me bait. The usual. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Hmm... Okay. :) -- Cat ちぃ？ 08:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Let's make a deal… Hey there, I saw the link above to 'mellow' and looked again and found COM:MELLOW#What not to do while you are here... specifically the part about disputes from other wikis. One of the DR things we've not done well at is talk, so I thought I would give it another go. I have focused on other things these last few months; things like id and jv navboxes and moving images to here. I will soon have (as 'Jack') as many edits to non-en:wp as I have to en:wp[1] [2]. The very name of this project is per the idea that all the others meet here. I've done a fair number of things here, as have you, so I'm posting this here (the other idea was meta). I would like to see the drama and aggressive dialogue dialed-back. What would you like? We obviously disagree on a number of points, but it certainly can't be universal. I've seen your bot do things that have saved me effort; mebbe I could seed stuff for it to work from — such as getting it to propagate better inter-wiki links. If it were to inter-wiki link my user pages, I'd be pleased. And do send it on another pass across id:wp and jv:wp; I'm certainly tired of changing 'Kabupaten' to 'Kabupatèn' in iw links to jv. It's getting late here, so you (and anyone else) have better than 12 hours before I'll see where this goes. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Eeto... What do you think is the dispute? It is important to identify the source... As for the other point... I'd be happy to provide technical help concerning IW links. I do routine scans of individual wikis - that is I check the IW link on every article on a spesific wiki which I compare with all the linked wikis. Bot synchronizes the IW links basically. All you need to do is move the page to the correct name. Using the redirects generated by the move the bot will sort everything out. I have IW linked some of your userpages. I will rerun the bot once it is unblocked on ja.wikipedia. My bot will stay off until ja.wikipedia issue is resolved (I can't be bothered to edit config files over that issue in ja.wiki) -- Cat ちぃ？ 17:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Robert John Bardo Thanks for the iwlinks. I didn't know I had a user page at w:sr:Корисник:Jack Merridew. That account was created automatically by my following some link; I've no edits there, but someone plunked a box on the page. I will paste some more user pages onto the wikis that I've made more than a few edits on. I would think that your bot only does userspace when you specifically direct it to whereas with article space it's reasonable to just give it free reign. It wouldn't do to iwlink user pages that are not of an SUL account. Anyway, feel free to point it at my pages anytime. Would you like me to make some tweaks to your userpage? I have a validator installed and it has things to say. The iwlinks on the 'pedias are a mess and bots can't fix this; they can only propagate links. The core issue is that the different projects do not have the same article set and there is a lot of ambiguity as to what an appropriate link is. For example, Bali is an island, but is also a province of Indonesia. Some projects will have articles on each subject, some on one, and many on neither. A project with two articles may have both linked to a single page on a project with only one article. While I'm not aware of actual issues with Bali iwlinks, I've seen a lot of tangles when you get down to smaller geographic chunks; Gianyar is a Regency of Bali and there is a subdistrict of the Regency that is also named Gianyar which in turn has a town by that name in it; it's the capital of the Regency. On jv:wp, there are a huge number of redirects from the Bahasa Indonesia name for a place to the Javanese name and there are a great many pages that have not been moved to the Javanese name yet. The norm is that pages and templates are copied from id or en and worked on and moved at some point. A scan of id pages looking at iwlinks to jv will find many targets on jv that are redirects to a proper name. Would it help to feed the bot a starting point; i.e. a page like; w:id:Wikipedia:ProyekWiki Kecamatan di Indonesia/Jawa Many of the pages linked from there need iwlinks adjusted; there are a bunch of other such pages, too. There's a related issue here; w:id:Pembicaraan Pengguna:Borgx#Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included. (in English) The preprocessor is maxing-out on template expansion on the page with 116 instantiations of nested templates. It is not my intent to rehash the nature of our dispute. I see you as having strong biases and an editing agenda driven by them. You have also come down on the include-anything side of the inclusion criteria debate. Think about the term 'editor' for a moment. The job of an editor in the journalistic sense it to cut; to strike inappropriate content with a blue pencil. Overall, I see this schism as being one of quantity vs quality; fluff vs substance. Have a read of; w:en:Robert John Bardo and w:en:Stalking The term 'stalking' is a poisonous term that I see as a thinly veiled personal attack. I have debated with you and opposed you on a variety of issues because I disagree with your positions and goals. This has been about content. I see the use of a counter-claim of 'stalking' as an attempt to change the subject (i.e. your editing) to one of you being the victim of a psychopath. I have no interest in finding out personal information about you. I'm not going to show up at your door. You have sought to get me blocked on all wikis. This is exactly the sort of thing that the 'mellow' section link I gave above says to not do; this is what w:en:WP:BATTLEGROUND is about, and this is what I'm asking you to drop as drama and aggressive dialogue. All the projects meet here on Commons; I'm here to stay and I expect you'll un-retire at some point. You have to stop going ballistic every time you see a post from me. Please take this lightly, but you're acting like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs. I fully expect to return to en:wp and I think you know this is inevitable, too. And I have mixed feeling about that place; the other projects a far more civilized. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Please keep this thread in one place, here on your talk page; do not copy everything to my page. We've had this issue before; time to listen IW links had the issues you mentioned for quite some time. Dealing with them is slow and painful due to user errors (poor IW linking like the Bali example you pointed out). The preprocessor issue is something I am rather familiar with. It was an issue I pointed out to the devs. It was an unintended result as I was requesting the allowance of more nested templates. I will look over the other material you have provided in great detail later. If you desire to edit my userpage, feel free to do so. I allow any change to my userspace. You can even preform a translation if you like. You are even welcome to use elements used on my userpage if you desire. Anybody is welcome to edit my userspace provided the edit is not intended to disrupt. The term "stalking" ("wikistalking" as covered by en:Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking) is what you, Jack Merridew, had been sanctioned from multiple times on English wikipedia. In fact the arbitration case involving en:User:The Recycling Troll (a user unrelated to you and me) and your case had laid the foundations of the term wikistalking. You were involved in practically every dispute or disagreement I got into. You didn't just coincidentally edit articles I edit, instead on occasions you were the source of the dispute. For example, you added en:Category:Kurdistan (via your "en:User:Diyarbakir" account that mascaraed as being a Kurd from Diyarbakır) to various Turkish cities simply to bait me (or so concluded the checkuser case IIRC). You, Jack Merridew, had continued this behaviour for a little over three years I believe. This behaviour was never restricted to English wikipedia. One of your other account here on commons (User:Moby Dick) had received a serious warning (in the form of a block) to this end before. These were a part of the official history. It should be obvious why I would be less than comfortable working with you on a project aside from en.wikipedia. To put it mildly, it would be very unfair to picture me as the source of this issue as you implied. Consider your behaviour here on commons since you got your commons account User:Jack Merridew... How often has your path crossed mine? You edited templates only I edited just hours after me. That couldn't have been a coincidence. You got very involved just hours after I requested my admin flag back on this very wiki. That couldn't have been a coincidence either. These are just two examples of many I can point out. Can you really blame me for being more than uneasy? You seem to be a bit too sure about a certain number of things, I would be more modest if I were you. I believe your conduct here on commons will be the factor determining weather or not you will ever get unblocked on English wikipedia. You have to win the trust of Wikimedians for any unblock decision. Time alone is not a guarantee of trust and wining trust is hard. Of course everybody has their own metric that determines the level of trust they feel for others... I just pointed out my metric for everyone else in general. I am not responding to your every point. This doesn't mean I can't. It merely means I do not feel it is necessary to clarify my standpoint on those issues as they should be more than obvious to you. However feel free to ask any further clarifications. -- Cat ちぃ？ 11:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Nifty corners I realize that the iwlinks are a long standing issue. People on all projects move stuff quite cavalierly and don't attend to the finer points. And I realize that the number of things to look at in any attempt at sorting such links out is quite large. I made a few edits to your subpages, but undid them; mostly they were valid corrections, but somewhere in there something interfered with the aligning of cells at all the corners. Check the diffs and use what you care to. FYI, there are pre-existing issues with old IE with the cell joins; lots of gaps and such. Mostly I use FF3. I have acknowledged my multiple accounts and resolved to not go there again. And as I said, I have mixed feeling about en. The quality of discourse there is getting worse rapidly. Have you forgotten that you've been found to make a great many biased edits? I'm certainly not the only one who's commented in that regard. And that's the root of it. Remove that, and I might have gotten along well with you on subjects such as bots and templates. You effectively can not edit articles such as Armenian Genocide and do too much damage to stuff related to Kurds, at this point, and this is, I believe, the core of your frustration. I asked you to back-off on the aggressive characterizations and it doesn't seem like you have any interest in deescalating things. You're not going to sell many folks on the idea that you're lily-white. Since you've brought up my block here as Moby, I'll comment; the block was for 'inappropriate editing' which would be these edits; [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. If you look at the categorization of those images today, you'll see that the general idea of what I was doing is in place; other editors since (and I've not looked in any detail) have extended the categorization. You must realize that biases such as yours elicit responses from those holding other views. You might as well try to turn back the tide with a bucket. You've certainly run into opposition from users other than myself. Have you looked at the Armenian Genocide article lately? I hardly ever edited that page; mostly I was on the talk page. And the article today is vastly better that what we first argued over. It should be obvious why I don't see you as appropriate for the mop-bit. Recall; Commons:Disputes noticeboard/Archive 2#Complaint about abuse of adminship by Cool Cat It's the same non-mellow issue I opened this thread with; cross-wiki conflict, with the bit. You seem to have had other arguments about stuff with folks. If you can adjust your attitudes some, I believe you can avoid the Wiki-Deceased fate that I see you posting at the top of this page as I compose this post. Please go read 'mellow' again. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC) The point is not weather or not I made biased edits - that is an entirely different issue involving my content related conduct. The issue was your non-content related conduct on that wiki. I am merely trying to say is that you have had a history with me in the past. This history is the source of my current reservations. Please do not expect me to forget everything that has happened. I can only lift my reservations once I get to trust you. Please do not get the wrong idea, I will go out of my way to cause you problems. That's not my style. That's the style I was forced to put up with. That's the style I detest. The COM:DN complaint you linked to above was filed by Karl Meier (Steriotek) - a user that was also sanctioned for stalking me on the first arbitration case. Since then he has disengaged aside from that particular incident you have linked to. User:SAJordan that made the bulk amount of comments there is still indef blocked from this wiki as he has "exhausted the patience of the community". I was kindly asked not to edit pages like your former userpage where there was room for disagreement on possible COI issues. Since marking your userpage wasn't all that crucial and since I hate drama I agreed with that. This was not an acknowledgment of guilt or anything of the sort. The complaint was filed after I reverted my own action within minutes of the original edits I made. No one saw the edits unless they were looking at the RC feed, page history, or various relevant logs. By no means was I abusing my tools. You sure you want to bring this up? This is an example of why I have the kind of reservations I mentioned above. I have a clean history of my use of admin tools. I have not made any controversial edit with my admin tools. The only major disagreement of my use of admin tools was my protection of license templates. I protected several license templates over legal concerns and still believe that is good practice. I never seen that disagreement as a major issue. I was however fed up with people reverting my protections without bothering to notify me. I do not like people covertly reverting my edits you see... Cat ちぃ？--14:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC) It's all of a piece. And it is getting late here, so I'll be brief. The dispute thread involved Cary characterizing it as an error of judgment and you apologized and called it an error. I expect you're right that one of those users was Karl; and if you're wondering, SAJordan was not me; I've no idea who that was, but agree with what he had to say. I've said above that it is not my intent to rehash old stuff; the peanut gallery is surely sick of all that. What I want is a deescalation, a reduction of the drama, and I ask, again, what do you want? Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC) This isn't about what I want. This is more about what I don't want. I do not want to be in a situation where all/most/some of my edits are regularly contested habitually by the same user. Basically I do not want to see any more wikistalking, trolling, or any forms of disruption. Aside from that I do not want anything else from you or anybody else. I do not believe I am asking for a lot... You do talk about mellow a lot but your complaint over my request of adminship wasn't very mellow. All I am trying to say with this is that you should live up to the expectations you have for others. -- Cat ちぃ？ 17:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Papillon I've agreed to avoid 'your' articles and that certainly maps to avoiding things like whatever the issue with 'assessments' is here on Commons. And I'm asking you to cease maligning me with terms such as 'stalking' and 'troll'; and I certainly can't hold a candle to your disruption. Ya, the en:ac called it wikistalking; that 'finding of fact' is their opinion, not a hard fact. And it's over there, not here under the purview of 'mellow'. Know what I'm reading at the moment? Papillon (and I read it once before). As I see it, you are the one attempting to maintain the drama at a shrill level. You seek a closure of this along the lines of me being banned WMF-wide and to present yourself as an innocent. It's not going to go that way. You have been found to be highly biased in much of your editing. Your overall dynamic of interaction with any editor who does not see things your way is one of consistent aggression. 'Jenny' once told you that you needed to 'listen' and that's good advice that I don't see you taking to heart three years on. Time to change that. I've taken events in stride; I've explored other projects and am much appreciated. There's been no drama. You seem to find drama on most all projects. Your bot's blocked here and there and is far from universally appreciated. Can you bring yourself to deal with me? I'll work with you on things we can agree on; I'll likely continue to disagree with you on the usual things, but hey, you could moderate some of your views. While I do see some value in what your bot gets done, it should be fairly obvious that I'd be fine with you 'retired', 'wiki-deceased' or (offers) 'wiki-catatonic'. If you can not cope with users such as I who do not see issues such as Kurdistan as you do, you'll never do well on projects such as these. You should read Lar's comments again. No, I don't see you as an appropriate person for adminship, but it's not up to me (and it's not up to Cary). If the Commons community agrees to revest you with a mop, I would suggest that you keep it far from me; should some issue arise, there are other neutral parties about. Did you note that my post to Cary consisted of my quoting Patrícia's comments about you? There were a mere eight words of my own gluing them into context. You can't have missed her comments, yet you sought to get a friend to summarily restore the bits. FWIW, I'm still a bit concerned about his reference to 'bureaucratic intervention' which would seem to allude to overriding the broader community. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC) So long as you fail to accept that you had been effectively wikistalking me for the past three plus years you can't seriously expect me to agree with anything. To put it bluntly, I do not run into controversies so long as you do not escalate things. Most of the difficulties I faced in the past three and a half years were crafted by you. Not by third parties. Excluding those I do not believe I have ran into difficulties any more than the next user. But thanks to you I have to deal with random nonsense from ill informed people because of your past involvement with me. I strongly advise you to change your tone on the matter. You will most certainly get blocked everywhere if you intend to maintain that past edit behaviour which English wikipedias arbcom sanctioned to be wikistalking (something you consider as a mere opinion). You stated that you wanted to put the past behind you so maybe your tone should reflect this intention of yours. You are the person that should start listening to others. My bot is blocked here and there because of technical issues. It isn't a big deal for a bot to get blocked. I explicitly create a "block this bot" on most of my bot userpages should it not function properly. Consider looking over my bots userpage on this wiki, it has that giant red shut off button that would block the bot if clicked over by an admin. Why do you think I put a giant notice like that? Block is effectively a "shut off button" in case of emergencies where I cannot be contacted immediately. After all I do not have direct control over the individual edits of my bot on every wiki just like any other bot operator. While my bot operates properly 99.99% of the time it may break down that .01% of the time like any other bot. My bot deals with mindless tasks a lot of people do not even care to look at... My bot is most certainly appreciated on hundereds of wikis or else it would be blocked on those hundereds of wikis particularly on the largest wikis. For example, I just got a bot flag on pt.wikipedia and sv.wikipedia just weeks ago and already have a total of 5k edits since. My bot has well over 378 thousand edits. So to put it mildly your accusation is unwarranted. Firstly I do not stalk you so I have no clue who you are talking to and what you said to who. I am in fact rather uncomfortable in clicking any of the links you have provided. Secondly Patrícia has a mouth and if she feels like speaking up, I am sure she does not need your help. What makes you think she maintains the same exact position? It is possible that maybe (just maybe) she changed her mind. If you feel her input is necessary you can ask her to comment on the matter. Weather I am worthy of adminship on commons is an decision entitled to b'crats on commons which of course includes the Wikimedia Foundation staffer cary who also happens to be a b'crat here. B'crats may request community opinion in the form of an RFA but that's not required. B'crats are trusted users to this community probably more than a lot of other users. I cannot understand why on earth are you asking me to keep an admin mop far from you. It isn't like I have a history of stalking or harassing you. If you violate any policy on commons I am sure some other admin would notice it and react to it before I even know about it. That is if I ever know about it. I do not regularly RC patrol on any wiki at the moment. -- Cat ちぃ？ 12:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I certainly reject the term 'stalking', 'wiki-' or otherwise. It is a wholly inappropriate term for use on these projects. I accept that I've evaded some of the intent of the en:ac. I've apologized for that; it's been sitting on my en talk page for some time and has been stated in emails, as well. The core of the dispute we've had is a content one and the general consensus on subjects like the mass murder of some folks and the encyclopaedicity of subjects such as the indigenous inhabitants of 'Kurdistan' has arrived where I though it should go. There are some cases of serious harassment that I've seen hints of; Newyorkbrad, for example. The details are, quite appropriately, kept close. These would seem to be of the real-world sort; the showing up at the door kind, seeking personal information and leveraging it. Real harassment. There's a world of difference between that and my having noted an appalling amount of biased editing by you. Do you seriously believe that you can put all of the controversies you've been involved in on me? I don't even know the broad outlines of whatever your 'assessments' dispute here was and I don't know the participants, other than you. The thread I gave above concerning your views on Kurdistan here on Commons had no involvement from me. I only dredged that up recently. Same for the dispute concerning your bot on the various wikisource projects; and do recall the comment there by Aphaia calling your bot a nuisance on ja:wikinews and AndreasPraefcke's comment about your childish behaviour of the worst kind — then he basically called you a troll. I have not crafted your difficulties for you and neither have third parties. There is a consistent theme in your disputes. Bias. Arrogance. Not listening to the concerns of others. Poor communications. Trying to aggressively out-edit the other participants. Immaturity, and (I'll retract this if anyone objects) a snotty attitude. I have listened to others, many times, and not just recently. I recall seeing the big red switch on your bot pages. You really don't need to detail things like that; I see such things readily enough and you know it. You really think you do yourself any credit by pointing out the obvious to an experienced editor? Why did you feel the need to give an example of a third level header? When you get all the disparate names of the bots changed yet again all over the wiki-verse, you'll get an even larger collective edit-count. Patrícia does not seem to have edited in several weeks and I saw nothing to indicate that Cary was aware of her past comments. And I've no idea if she participated in what ever 'crat-chat went on or if her opinion has changed. I was pleased to see several editors comment to you that they saw nothing inappropriate about my post to Cary. You might want to consider whether it would really be appropriate for any 'crat to bit you if the Commons community expressed opposition. I would like to refocus on working out an arrangement of some sort with you. This bandying about of our history amounts to venting and really is not productive. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Wikistalking is a commonly accepted term. Please pull the other leg. Your contribution history coincided with me over articles like Valkyrie (disambiguation)... Off wiki harassment is a different criminal offense particularly in California. The issues you are telling me about are the ones I am quite familiar with. Not committing off-wiki stalking is not a license for on-wiki stalking. I have no idea how that off-wiki stalker relates to your case. Do I seriously believe? Oh yes. So long as you do not escalate things. I will show no tolerance whatsoever if you show up on disputes concerning me again. That should be obvious to you. I have never been in front of arbcom on a case that does not involve you. You had been the core of most of my problems. The time stamp of the thread you linked to last had active discussion between 26 February and 31 March 2007. I do not believe you could have gotten involved. Your Moby Dick account was warned (blocked) on commons on 18 January 2007 for "I will keep blocking you here if you keep making edits here that only in some way relate to Cool Cat" (see User talk:Moby Dick). You were stalking me on English wikipedia (baiting) by the use of your User:Diyarbakir account which had no edits here. Am I on trial here? Your involvement with the meta case on -jkb- case is the dictionary definition of interwiki stalking given your past history. You are seemingly going out of your way to monitor my activity on every wiki I edit. This needs to stop. I have not slipped the -jkb- issue, I merely do not care about cs.wikisource that much. I do not pick fights and fight to the bitter end. If me arguing doesn't have a net good effect to the project as a whole I disengage and do something else. I may always return to that topic later. There isn't half the controversy you claim to be there. No, you are describing your own self. That has been your consistent edit behaviour. If I am anything aggressive it is because you contesting each and every edit I make from time to time. I am not the person in trial here. Please save me the personality analysis. The templates I use on my bot pages ({{Bot}}) are often required and I like the big red button. It is polite to point out even the most experienced editors what you mean clearly so as to avoid a confusion. I can order a bot to more easily process a third special level header that only contains the tasks it needs to preform. Oh not at all. My bots edit count is not increased with my username rename requests. Those take 1-5 edits. If you do the math that's 5editsx200wikis = 1000 edits max. And those are credited to my human account not my bot account. Why do I get the feeling next thing you will attack is my bot accounts... Seriously drop the bot issue. And you have taken the liberty to talk behalf of Patrícia? You need to go an apologize to her if you ask me. Even if Cary wasn't aware (I seriously doubt that - there was a off wiki b'crat discussion) that is of no concern to you. I am very displeased that some editors lack the common sense to object to your constant wikistalking. This is exactly why you consider your edit behaviour justified or at least why you claim it is. See how things get out of control when you stir it up? I stand corrected. Stop talking behalf of the commons community. I am not on trial here. I disagree. You have been consistently accusing me of things here. So please stay the heck away from me for an indefinite period of time. You have shown no interest in stopping to stalk me since your block on English wikipedia for stalking me. You will not even acknowledge that you have stalked me and your edit behaviour and comments clearly show you have no intention of stopping. I know it was my fault for trying to reason with you but I will not continue making the same mistake. -- Cat ちぃ？ 08:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC) new user pages nb: I created user pages at ca:wp, pl:wp, and vi:wp and propagated the iwlinks about. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Oh you only need to put IW links on one wikipedia page. For example you can put them on your id.wikipedia userpage. My bot would detect and synchronize the relevant IW links for you. About a much earlier point. I generally run my IW bot on the article namespace. I very rarely give spesific non-article space IW checks. -- Cat ちぃ？ 14:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Consider pointing it at template namespace. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Template namespace is problematic because the IW links are placed inside noinclude tags. Interwiki bots cannot handle those well yet. -- Cat ちぃ？ 17:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC) A pity; it would seem a parsing issue. I'll paste more user pages; I'll focus on making the ones here on Commons the 'master' ones. I assume the bot will add any missing iwlinks out there and remove any mistakes. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC) It would work better if you can create a list on this talk page as a separate section. That way I can avoid making mistakes. Feel free to use a third level section (=== Title ===). -- Cat ちぃ？ 11:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Sure, when I've a few more done, I'll give you a list, in another section. Saw you added the 3 to en; thanks. Cheers, Jack Merridew Restructuring nb: I've adjusted the indenting for clarity; please don't keep messing with it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Consider the following. On wikis it is common practice to copy paste entire threads back and forth between talk pages. That way you generate a "you have got a message" notice on the person you are talking to. This is considered polite as you are giving the courtesy of notice to the other person. You objected to the common practice for whatever the reason and I played along (compromised). I was merely trying to be polite to the person I was responding to whom in this case is you. On wikis it is common practice to increase the indent if you are responding to a post by someone else. Each top level indentation (no indentation) is typically treated like a new thread rather than a response to the previous post. This way confusion over who is responding to who is avoided. It gets very confusing if a third person decides to respond to something any of the parties said earlier for example. It also helps anyone to read the archived thread. It is polite to everyone following the thread (including the participants) to keep it readable. Now you are objecting to this too. :( Granted none of these are a rule or anything of the sort. On the contrary it is the exact opposite. It is just how I and most people voluntarily use to communicate. Adopting these as a principle may help you to avoid an unnecessary friction between people you are trying to communicating with. -- Cat ちぃ？ 11:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I've got to go soon; so brief. I'm familiar — in this case I'm quite aware that we have a thread going and do not feel it appropriate to copy everything to my page. Many users prefer to keep discussions in one place. Thank you for not continuing to cross-post. As to indenting, I'm obviously familiar with indenting practices. In the case of two participants, I think this format is quite clear. See? I expect others have looked at this, but are staying out of it as long as it goes well-enough. Should others chip-in, we'll adapt. Third level headings are fine; I'll add some. Jack Merridew 11:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I can't follow the thread as is with ease. -- Cat ちぃ？ 12:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC) It's your talk page; if you like, restructure it as you will. I'll not fuss over it and will follow your preferred format. See here where you first chose to indent my second post to this thread for me. Déjà vu all over again; w:en:WP:ARBDAV#Coolcat prohibited from restructuring Anyway, you suggested further sections and that is a good idea. I'll pick-up some of the topics above in new sections below. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Please stop posting comments on my talk page. Seems like you will go out of your way to dig up any negative comment (that case was over the now indef blocked Fadix) about me on an edit by edit basis. -- Cat ちぃ？ 08:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Alright, I'll consider these threads closed. Jack Merridew 09:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Fadix Fadix is not indef blocked. VartanM (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Oh... 1 year arbcom banned and ban was reset multiple times due to abusive use of sockpuppets... And why exactly are you commenting on my talk page on this thread? -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Because I can, and I hate seeing someone make comments about something they know nothing about. BTW if you're ever up for another RFA I'll support it only if you promise to treat Russian, Georgian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Moldovaian, Kazak, Kyrgyz, Tajik, and Uzbek images the way you treat Armenian ones. Thats a lot of images to delete isn't it? VartanM (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC) You do realize Fadix was sanctioned for stalking me as was Jack Merridew (several times). This is a bit uncomfortable in that context. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. No reason to be paranoid. :) You mean about the non-commercial licenses? I vaguely remember a few images concerning a memorial of some sort. I used to shoot those as I found them. I'd still do had I had sysop tools. I believe my delete log can demonstrate this easily (oh the former PD-Soviet template). I have no issues with Armenia or Armenians if that is what you are implying. Wikimania should be the proof of that. I do hate the Armenian copyright law though since it is too restrictive. -- Cat ちぃ？ 20:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC) You are indeed being paranoid and you are wrong again, You were the only user that was sanctioned[11]. You mean you don't remember how you deleted en:Armenian Genocide memorial images? Even going as far as having images from Argentina deleted[12]. How can Wikimania be a proof that you're not a genocide denying, Armenian and Kurd hating Turk? VartanM (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek#Davenbelle (talk · contribs), Stereotek (talk · contribs), and Fadix (talk · contribs). You manage to read proposed decision and not the decision... Thats beautiful. Copyrighted images of any kind is unwelcome on commons. If you do not like Armenian copyright law that prevents commercial use of such images go complain to the Armenian parliament. This applies to derivative works as far as Argentina due to the Bern Convention which Armenia is a signatory. Go ask any long term user on commons. Also, thank you for showing your true colors. I guess I was naive in assuming a level of good faith with you. -- Cat ちぃ？ 07:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Oh and with your analogy User:Anonymous Dissident is a Bajoran hating Cardassian. -- Cat ちぃ？ 08:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Commonscat progress Hi White Cat, you can view the progress here, you can leave comments here. Multichill (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC) You have been blocked for a duration of 3 months You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 3 months for the following reason: User request . If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. See block log. --ShakataGaNai 00:52, 19 August 2008‎ (UTC) Block reversed -- Giggy 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)