User talk:Lefty on campus

Personal attacks[edit]

Don't make personal attacks either directly or indirectly towards other editors or you will be banned. There is no joking about it, no discussion, and no compromise. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will put in a complain about users ganging up to harrass me. Xtra links to an article indirectly ATTACKING PSYCH. I don't care, I'll fight for my right to edit my user page no discussion, and no compromise, and there is no such rule on linking to articles. Lefty on campus 08:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This is almost entirely one sided and it is against you - two wrongs don't make a right. You will garner no respect or support by flouting clear advice from an admin. What you will get is a ban from editing. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I have said is "I don't like certain behaviour" and link to articles about john howard and my own talk page and a beliefs page! Xtra still accuses me of being another user (a personal attack in itself) I have the right to link to whatever page I want. Xtra links to brag about a demise of another user through arbitration, but I don't see you vandalising his page. Regardless, you don't speak for all admins, I'm sure there are people who will defend the right to link on user pages. If you don't like it, fight to have it removed, like I will fight to leave it as is. And to correct your statement, there is no policy on the personal attacks page about linking to articles. Lefty on campus 08:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered bad form to delete discussion on your talk page as it shows how you are viewed by other editors and sugggests you have something to hide. Of course they can always look in the history to see those deletion. Oh and you didn't answer the question you deleted from my comments: do you have a vested interest in a disagreement between two other editors that you should be disclosing? And you deleted my guidance: there is a policy regarding the edits at issue on your user page - it is called WP:NPA. You can obscure direct references but NPA is also about intent. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More attacks against me? There was an edit conflict and I pasted over old posts. I did reference that. Please read carefully before you accuse me of not answering your question. As above, Xtra still accuses me of being another user (a personal attack in itself) He has it in his head I'm another user, and has disliked me since I edited Costello's page on anti-gay comments. I'll risk a ban in in some form of third opinion or arbitration if it comes to that, because I feel anyone has the right to link to other articles. Lefty on campus 08:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not attacking you - I'm use strong language because you seem to think this is all black and white. You are exhibiting strong bad faith immaterial of what another editor did or didn't say. At the very least you are demonstrating poor form by making POV comments on your user page and linking to another user's page as an example of your point. I think you're two feet tall and fat. Are you going to launch an assault on me or be sensible and ignore it? Editing can get hot and you either walk away or use cool logic to incrementally make your point and overwhelm those who disagree by gathering consensus from other editors. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the linked articles, This is a BELIEFS page, I am not making any POV, the user admits to anything I infer in his beliefs page, for example, "OPPOSE people who are not married, within the Biblical meaning, recieving IVF." That's pretty easy to understand on the face of it, namely, only those who obey his bible are entitled to those rights. NPOV because the other user admitted. That would be like saying it's POV to say Hitler hated Jews, even though he often admitted it (and there is much evidence to go along). Regardless, I'm not directing an attack, I'm just linking to an article, and one can read it for themselves. With all due respect, can you make sure you've typed everything before submitting, I'm getting a lot of editting conflicts, and am pasting over your updated comments. Lefty on campus 09:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've given it over to a third opinion in DisputeRes.. Too tired to stand up for my rights tonight, and I have places to be, pages to read .... and miles to go before I sleep. :) Lefty on campus 09:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

~~Now that that's sorted, can you please remove your attack against me. Xtra 10:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Why would you repost the third opinion knowing full well I'd removed it? You give me more and mroe evidence to use against you each and every day. Lefty on campus 10:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what's on your page at the moment: "I am forbidden to link to this page [4], though for evidence of right-wing vandals, please look on my talk page, there is quite a lot." I take it you haven't got much thought to why we worry about civility and not making attacks. To be a successful editor on Wikipedia, you must be willing to play nice with others and co-operate with people you think are idiots.

Now, if you're unable to see the long-term consequences of your attitude, then I will give you some short-term consequences to think about. I will not be removing the references to Xtra from your userpage — but I will expect you to do so yourself next time you're 'round and editing. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that statement above, I maintain complete and utter NPOV. I am forbidden to llink to this page. Fact. Tird opinion fact. I have not made any comments about the content of that link whosoever, just referring to right wing vandals on my talk page (also fact). There is no judgement made about that link, no inference whatsoever. Regardless, if we're supposed to play nice, ask Xtra to remove the link to his "successful" arbitration. How "nice" is it to rub a so-called successful arbtration in anothers' face? Lefty on campus 10:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A link to an arbitration case (successful or no) is a very different issue from a blatant personal attack one someone whose ideology you (and I) dislike. I suggest that, since Xtra is not making any snide remarks about you on his page, you concentrate less on what his userpage says, and more on making sure that your own userpage no longer includes any inappropriate content. Now. Please. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you again. Please remove your personal attack against me. Xtra 00:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please think again about persuing this line of immaturity. I have better things to do. Lefty on campus 00:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::I was about to make this block myself, and if you wish to consider it as a block by me, then feel free to do so. --bainer (talk)~~ 01:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Melbourne student who's studying law at melb, the same place as Xtra, that's your beacon of impartiality? Like I said, I will ask other admins, because I have a right to defend my user page, and made no such personal attacks, no appreciate biased blockings my Xtra's friends. Please don't vandalise my user talk page either, comments were deleted for a reason. Lefty on campus 01:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked[edit]

Per your promise to Danny, I've unblocked you. I'll expect the following removed from your userpage now:

I am forbidden to link to this page [4], though for evidence of right-wing vandals, please look on my talk page, there is quite a lot.

I'd also like you to remove the reference to Xtra in the bullet point immediately above that section. Thank you. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Danny has assured me that Xtra's own userpage will be looked after, so it is no longer a problem for either of us. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, case closed. Lefty on campus 03:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hand on the shoulder ...[edit]

Hello, hello, hello, what's all this, then?

You said above, and I quote, "case closed". Please don't troll. Your problems with Xtra (talk · contribs) will never be resolved if you resort to that sort of immaturity. If you continue to troll (for example, by failing to remove your latest bit o' cuteness quick smart), you'll face another block. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a link to "My successful block." I think it's fair to include that, besides, [User:Xtra|Xtra] has a link on his page called "My successful arbitration." so I think, under any rule of fairness or the rule of law, if he's entitled to include his link, I can include mine. Unless there are different rules for some users than others? Lefty on campus 03:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You're trolling, and you know you're trolling. Don't play cute. It's exceedingly uncouth to mock others in this fashion, and I'll expect it removed now, thank you. If you can't manage to somehow behave yourself around Xtra, then I suggest you pretend he isn't here in future. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can one user be pusnished for something another user gets away with and FLAUNTS openly Lefty on campus 04:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not doing the same thing Xtra's doing. You talked to another administrator, Danny (talk · contribs), who said he'd deal with it himself, so now neither of us are going to worry about Xtra's userpage. What you're doing is trolling. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask a question off-topic, are album/cd covers copyrighted images? I'm working on WikiProject Albums (most of my own bands barely have stubs) and want to know whether I can upload album .jpgs without having them later removed. Cheers. Lefty on campus 04:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Album/cd covers are copyrighted images, but most People In The Know consider, as I understand it, that a picture of an album cover to illustrate an article about that album is covered by the USA's fair use doctrine. If you've got an article about an album that you'd like to illustrate with the cover, that's fine — just upload the image, put a link to where you got it from in the description, and tag it with {{Albumcover}} (or choose "album cover" from the drop-down box when you upload the image). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! appreciated, Lefty on campus 04:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Image:Ugtc.jpg looks pretty good. You don't have to use the {{Information}} template (you can just write all that stuff in), and you accidentally used the {{Albumcover}} tag twice, but that's otherwise exactly the way to upload and describe images on Wikipedia.

Now, if I could just redirect your attention to your userpage ... please, remove the "successful block" notice. It seems to me (and other admins I've talked to about the issue) to be a clear attempt to get a rise out of Xtra by mocking his userpage. Now, either Danny or I will deal with Xtra's page later — it is not your problem. Please take 5 seconds out of your day today to remove that notice. Thanks, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tip[edit]

G'day Lefty,

thought you might appreciate a tip — you already know about Wikimarkup like [[Foo</nowiki>]] creating a link and so on, but did you know that you don't have to use HTML markup to make words italic or bold? Two apostrophes '' is equivalent to <i> or <em>, and three to <b> or <strong>. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help on the image tags and style tip, is there any way to reduce the image size when I add it to the page? I'll remove the link...only now I'll have an empty block. Lefty on campus 05:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

When you add an image, you'd typically do it like this: [[Image:Foo.png|right|thumb|Caption]]. The "thumb" keyword there tells the MediaWiki software to resize the image to what it thinks is a decent size for a thumbnail image; this usually suffices. If not, you can try saying something like [[Image:Foo.png|right|thumb|200px|Caption]]; this means "Insert the image Foo.png, floated on the right, with a thumbnail-style frame, 200 pixels wide". You can resize images that are in a thumbnail frame (good idea) or have no frame (bad idea). If you just use "frame" (a keyword you could use instead of thumb), the frame looks prettier but you can't resize the image. "Thumb" is best for most uses, although not always appropriate (for instance, sometimes you don't want a frame, or the image needs a frame but shouldn't be a thumbnail).

By the way, I'd like you to remove the whole "my successful block" thing, not just the link to my block notice on Xtra's talkpage. Have a good night, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xtra[edit]

Lou, He's at it again, think you could dish up that WP:PAIN claim against him for his personal attacks? It would help my case if I can prove he's a serial offender. Thanks PSYCH 01:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EARTH DAY![edit]

Celebrate me! Happy Earth Day! __earth ^(Talk) 16:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Forever Free (tribute album) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Forever Free (tribute album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever Free (tribute album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]