User talk:75.72.248.57

Please look at the talk page, before you mark something like that. Ariyen 16:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please understand copyright law before you post a derivative work of a copyrighted image illegally. --75.72.248.57 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please understand and read their copyrights that does not extend to fan work. Ariyen 17:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand copyrights perfectly well. That is a derivative work of a copyrighted image. You cannot relicense it under GDFL. Please stop removing the deletion tag, and discuss your reasoning on the image's talk page. --75.72.248.57 17:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of saying this, some are viewing your assault on Aryien's image as a personal vendetta of sorts. It has been suggested to me that you have a knack for finding copywritten files, so I would ask you to continue your audit through the list of user images. Venom20 20:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I came across hers while looking through pages related to the RC. To me it's a clear copyright violation, though I'm happy for discussion to continue until consensus is reached. Her continued removal of the deletion tag however, is not appropriate. --75.72.248.57 20:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Granted that is true, but your retaliation of continuously adding back on the tag was also not appropriate. Venom20 21:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true. When something is suspected of copyright violation, the tag draws attention to it so a decision can be made. While it would have been a better approach to make Ariyen understand that the copyvio tag is appropriate before replacing it, it's not the same as any old revert war. 21:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As Felix said, the tag is to alert the community that there is a suspected copyvio. Whether it is or not should be determined through discussion (during which time, the tag should remain), which I tried to do, however, rather than responding through discussion, Ariyen's first act was to remove the tag, and her second was to come here and tell me I was just wrong because there had been 3 comments posted on the talk page 8 months ago. When it was replaced by an admin, she once again removed the tag and rather than presenting her reasons for believing I was in error, pointed her finger at Felix and said... "well his has to go then too". Two wrongs do not make a right, however, as I indicated on on the talk page, his had been licensed under the GFDL on Wikipedia commons (link provided in his upload summary), and therefore had gained wider acceptance of it's suitability. Since there is no 1RR policy here, my replacing the tag was not in any violation. After I replaced it a total 3 times and she removed it yet again, it was clear she was not going to allow it to remain for discussion so I took it to the Noticeboard. It was again replaced by another member of the community. --75.72.248.57 21:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

While I don't disprove of your intentions, your methods are not perhaps the best. In the revert war, Ariyen did indeed start it; however, you joined in as well with more reverts. So you can either call yourself the second party in this revert war, or you can call yourself a baiter to troll. Either way, both you and Ariyen have demonstrated faults. And just to note, just because there is not an explicit 1RR here, that does not provide you with any permissions to go ahead and do it. Venom20 21:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL actually it does, but that's a discussion for a different day. I asked in the edit summaries of all 3 of my replacements of the tag for Ariyen to take her reasons to the discussion page. As Felix said, tags are a little different than your more common edits. --75.72.248.57 21:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Unfortunately you are mistaken. We have taken a new approach to policies on GW2W. Please read Practices and Processes. Esentially, you may revert once, but then please take it to the talk page. Venom20 22:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Where on that page does it say you may only revert once? -Auron 03:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Edit warring and revert warring often occur when users disagree with others' edits: edits might be constantly reversed or otherwise changed (usually in a short amount of time). To avoid this, edit summaries are used to explain changes and talk pages are used to resolve differences. It is usually recommended to halt changes to the contested parts of articles until a consensus is reached. The importance of assuming good faith on editors' parts is always stressed - most users intend to improve the wiki, but they just have different opinions on how to do so." Does it specify only one revert, no; however, it does state that one should not enter a revert war but should halt changes and take it to the talk page. Venom20 03:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I would like to direct you to my edit summaries.... I did not add an edit summary on the initial placement of the tag, as I felt the tag pretty much said what needed to be said, but on my first replacement of the tag, my edit summary was Please stop removing the deletion tag and discuss it on the talk page, on my second replacement of the tag my edit summary was once again... leave the deletion tag until the discussion is determined one way or another. While I don't believe this technically constitutes and edit war, I was asking Ariyen politely to follow the spirit of the tag, if you read it it does say... If you disagree with the deletion of this page, please explain why on the discussion page. it doesn't say If you disagree with the deletion of this page just remove the tag. There is a clear cut reason why deletion tags, especially regarding copyright issues should remain on the page until consensus is reached through discussion whether or not it is appropriate, and that is mostly to avoid "out of sight, out of mind" scenarios where something that should not be on the wiki is allowed to stay because it doesn't appear on the deletion list. --75.72.248.57 04:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Irregardless of who started what first, you partook in the edit war. Unfortunately this means that you as well acted in poor judgment. The conversation was not going to get cold, as it still isn't. A consensus could have been reached quite quickly in regards to adding back on the tag. I understand your hastiness in regards to not wanting it to be cast aside, but this doesn't grant you any special permissions to circumvents procedures on the wiki (aka partaking in revert wars). Venom20 04:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP has a point in how Ariyen was wrong (she should not have removed the tag from the image without it being discussed first), but two wrongs don't make a right. Creating an edit war (since that's what happened, regardless of how many times each user made a revert) was not going to solve the issue, it would only have wasted people's time and flooded recent changes. The proper thing would have been to not engage in the edit war and just call attention to the image, be it through the admin noticeboard or the request for comments article or the community portal (which was what solved the issue, when an admin blocked Ariyen and thus stopped the reverts). Erasculio 04:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I stand by my position that there is no 1RR policy here. If the admin who reviewed it (Tanetris) felt I had violated your practices and processes (which doesn't specify any number of reverts allowed), he was free to place a block on me as well, as on Ariyen, which he chose not to. I do not consider the replacement of a deletion tag twice to be an "edit war", and I did take it to the admin noticeboard when it was apparent that Ariyen had no intention of leaving the tag on the image to wait for discussion to occur. For someone who is supposedly so experienced in wiki communities and wiki practices, she should know that the tag should remain until consensus is reached. --75.72.248.57 05:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)