User talk:CarolSpears/2008-06/Cilantro

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dawn over Oostende-retouched.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pena Palace back-edit.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Citroen AX white 1.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Powerlines Over Fields Erzhausen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Artist Point-Monument Valley-USA-retouched.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

For not looking like an idiot for template psychology games...

Still not cool (please take it slow)

Carol, being civil means treating others respectfully... even the guy you're disagreeing with is (like you) here to help improve the wiki and its organization. Please make good use of the preview button, and read your comments carefully. When previewing, put yourself in the place of the person you're addressing, and if you might interpret a comment as insulting of dismissive, either reword it or just don't hit save. It doesn't matter if you think someone is over-reacting, your only responsibility is not to feed into the over-reaction and make it worse. Next time, you'll be blocked for a few days, because it's really becoming disruptive now. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear about what you are saying -- it is more respectful to delete the work of others and to not communicate about it than it is to not delete the work of others and to ask with various degrees of intensity that they stop? -- carol (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please be very precise about the expected behavior from all of the participants here. -- carol (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not other people are being respectful is not something you can control. Not responding with insults (either direct or backhanded) is in your control. Content disputes are just content disputes: they'll go on until a compormise or consensus is reached. However, name calling and insults don't help solve them, and will not be tolerated. Just lay out your reasons for doing it your way, and explain why you think it's better than his way (and do this in a way that doesn't involve questioning the intelligence of the other side). Clear enough? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And whether or not I am being anything is no business of yours or the people who aggressively edit without the attempt to communicate. At any point in which you see me editing work that people are in the process of working on and do so without communication -- step in then. Let me know that I have done this. It is wrong, there are documents around that say it is wrong, it feels wrong, it is a wrong application of administrative tools to protect a person who does this and it is a wrong that I would like to have the opportunity to correct. I have not done a wrong like this so there is no reason to keep correcting me. Find people who are or have recently done those things listed in this paragraph, hound them, watch their every move. -- carol (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This was started by a person so thoughtful that a deletion template was removed while in the thrall of reversion. Be careful that all attempts to communicate are deemed "uncool" and not communicating while being aggressive begins to be considered to be "cool".

Trying to communicate should be cool. Actually, trying to communicate is cool. That is if the definition for cool is a good thing to do. If it defines "productive fun". Maybe we use the word differently. -- carol (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Explanation required. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

At the point that an explanation is requested I will gladly show you the little thing. Did you ask the actual contributor in that situation if there was a problem? Are you making a problem when there isn't one? Do you need something to do with your time other than look at what I do?

An explanation is requested about the reason it matters to you. -- carol (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really investigating, just trying to understand what's going on. Found it through this. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And when you asked Richard Bartz if there was a problem or not he said: <fill in blank with words or diff>?

Here is something to look at. The commenter on my talk page is new and not that involved here. The diff at that comment is to a similar change I made to a user who writes bots for things here. Investigate that!

What did Richard say when you asked if there really was a problem. Because I can provide yet another diff (of people who are and have been active here) which clearly displays that it is not a problem. -- carol (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Assume good intent, show good intent

Reminder to self and others: before leaving messages for Carol about odd edits that seem a bit off color, please keep in mind that Carol has an off-color sense of humor, and has on occaision had a hard time expressing it properly.

Carol: I realize part of the laugh is those few seconds where people are trying to figure out if you're joking or not, but remember there's a difference between joking around in person and joking around in print. You might avoid a lot of confusion by using the winky emoticon (";-)") either on the page or at least in the edit comment, at least for a while (you've ruffled a lot of feathers lately, and despite the fact ruffled feathers look funny, the victims of the ruffling might not see it that way, and you need to respect that). Your efforts otherwise are greatly appreciated (at least by yours truly). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem if it is always the same person at the User name. There is only a problem if there is a different person at the user name. Is there a problem? -- carol (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Stay away from my talk page and also from my edits. There are plenty of admin around who have been active for the last year who fix real problems when they occur. I don't really care about ruffled feathers and in the last year here no one cared about ruffled feathers. If you want my opinion on your perfomance and ability to be an administrator here at the commons -- type another uneducated, trigger-happy and unwanted thing here. -- carol (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Carol, SB Johnny is really trying to help you out here. Pay attention, and try to not leave to many "smart remarks" around other users talk pages. Your contributions are appreciated, but not all of the postings you have made lately. It is a real problem when users start feeling intimidated by another users postings, and when this other user (you) don't seem to get that message the only way we have to solve this real problem is to push the block button. That is not something I want to happen, but it is something that will happen very soon if you don't start listening. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

SB wasn't feeling intimidated. SB asked me not to leave messages on that user page. I felt intimidated the first 6 to 8 months here. Is it that SB feels intimidated or needs to feel intimidating? -- carol (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

My note was actually in reference to this, my intent was to help you avoid such misunderstandings in the future (as well as helping others avoid misunderstanding you). I thought that was pretty clear, but I guess not. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No one protected poor defenseless Richard Bartz when I put that rotate tag on that photograph. Even Richard did not defend his photograph when I told on myself. No one protected poor defenseless Richard Bartz when I put the rename tag on the photograph either. No one removed the "mirror" portait of him and that fly I put on FP -- they just seemed to vote more for it. Now, I "help and assist" the dumb blonde photographer fill in his name at QI and everyone jumps up and decides that the poor weak thing needs protection from big strong me, or something. Probably, they defend him now because I made fun of him on English wikipedia because he has actually written an insect article somewhere. It is my opinion that the person who needs defending is not Richard, but his mom because probably he still lives at his parents home.... -- carol (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

SB, was that your bird portrait in QI? It was a cool photograph, it was not sharp though. -- carol (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I put that damn diff back. How about allowing misunderstandings and having a ban on diffs for a few days? How about saying instead, "I don't understand this, this is okay behavior in your opinion?"

What kind of world is it where there are no misunderstandings and after about a year of observation and participation, what kind of a world is it that now it is questioned? SB: these photographers make some really honestly scary imagery and you worry about what I am doing?

I got a diff for you. This was great, it is one of the reasons I keep looking at their silly photograph voting things. Last July, Mbz1 hates them more than likes them as well.... -- carol (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(reset tabs) Yeah, sorry, I could have chosen better words than "explanation required" for the monster trucks thing... I'm often only at the keyboard for a few minutes at a time (it's hard to hold the laptop and the chainsaw at the same time, at least for me). Don't take this in an "intimidating" way, but if I really did think you were doing that for malicious reasons, I would have just blocked you and left the note on the admin board rather than here.

"It is my opinion that the person who needs defending is not Richard, but his mom because probably he still lives at his parents home" <-- You've been warned specifically about this, so I'm going to block you for a day after finishing this message. Sorry about that.

I don't think I've uploaded any bird photos, because I don't have a good zoom lens. I did get one image promoted to QI a while ago, but honestly I'm just happy when I am happy with a pic, and can use it on wb, wv, or wp to improve something.

Again, sorry about the block, especially because you've really been proving your value as a contributor lately, but insulting people who are contributing their time and efforts (often thanklessly, though arguably not in Richard's case) is just really inappropriate.

I'm off to play with the chainsaw for a while... back in a couple hours. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You are worried about me being rude to either of these people?

Excuse me? Can I have an administrator who is paying attention? -- carol (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Carol, use {{Unblock}} to get another opinion. I'll be back in a bit. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This user has been blocked
The reason for the block is available in the block log. The administrator listed there in the block log can give you further information.

See also the contributions of this user or the Upload log in order to find out why this user has been blocked.

---

Kanonkas_(talk) 17:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the thing. The blocking administrator did not know the templates to use? Could I have a User with administrative privileges who doesn't have a prettified User name and who doesn't watch talk pages for imaginary problems? -- carol (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Carol please reconsider how you're acting, now that you've been blocked you shouldn't be talking on your talk page unless it's for an unblock. --Kanonkas_(talk) 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that a suggestion or a summary of what I have been doing? The demanding to know the reasons I made edits, the constant harrassing for anything I do which is not on an image page and probably is not something that software can do; what the hell? The words "Assume Good Faith" don't get used here. That is a phrase that is used on one of the encyclopedia wikis and it usually means that the person using that phrase is not doing that. Here you go, was there a complaint from the offended person? Because I really think that the blocking administrators should be blocked for offending me.

Who are you anyways? -- carol (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, what is going on here? It seems like once you are put under the microscope every mosquito looks like an elephant! Granted, there apparently have been a couple of elephants, but I have had only friendly encounters with carol as far as I can remember. Her postings sometimes most times require exegesis, but please take them with a grain of salt. I know carol as a hard working constructive contributor, especially on COM:QI where she shouldered huge amounts of administrative work. I'm not contesting this block, as I feel that a day of cooling off could benefit both sides. It just makes me a bit sad to see that things spiraled this far. --Dschwen (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If I might amend this, the way to not be offended by a talk page is to not watch it. -- carol (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think this block was completely unnecessary. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 18:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

An opinion I respect, thanks -- carol (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A sad progression today. Saw it coming. Reminds me of the song Comfortably Numb. ;-( -- Slaunger (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Epic song is epic. *listens now* Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ho hum. Carol, consider carefully that it might be better in the end to be (briefly) blocked by me than to be blocked by someone else ;-). Please refrain from directly insulting people, overtly questioning their intelligence, or publicizing your opinions about their relationships with their parents. Abusive behavior on your part will result in another block (and if I'm the one blocking I'll leave you an explanatory note rather than a silly template).

You and I are both old enough to know that it's inappropriate and unconstructive to meet the earnest efforts of young people with ridicule and scorn. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocking me so that driving that Porsche can feel okay for ya? Beautiful, btw, watching that expensive to license and maintain toy steer through here and then English wikipedia. How about if everyone take a few moments for some introspection along with whatever else you have been taking, look at what has been written on this page and erase anything that you do not want to find here when you come out of the whatever you are in/under. -- carol (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)