User talk:Slaunger/Archives/2016/12

IRC communication

Hello, so I want to clarify to you in on exactly what transpired on IRC in regards to the thread. All I did was seek discussion on two public channels. As you may be aware such discussions regularly happen where a wide range of issues are discussed. Yann himself and others regularly post discussions there. That is the point of IRC.

One recent discussion was when I decided to block Colin. Yann was in that discussion. Someone "leaked" to Colin that such a discussion was happening on his talk page.

The next day once my deadminship discussion stated I posted the issue on the English wikipedia channel with all 223 people (as of now) in it. These people aren't on my side, they aren't on either side given how they aren't commons regulars (as uninvolved as one can get). I did not ask them to comment on the discussion. I was merely seeking opinions and explaining my case.

So this wasn't some back alley deal as some comments would make you feel. Public IRC channels are a spectacularly bad place for such private dealings. Feel free to reach out on IRC or here if you wish more info.

I will note and retain that feedback from non-commons users should be warmly welcome. Remarks should be merited on their substance not source.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello とある白い猫, and thanks for explaining your activities on IRC related to this incident.

Was your post on the English Wikipedia channel neutral or biased?

I agree a wide variety of views is helpful, but I do not think much weight should be given to editors with only very little knowledge of the community and the background for the very complicated dispute. My prior experience on IRC is limited. The few times I have tried to logon I have found there were no interesting discussion for a content creator type of user such as myself. Instead, I found a hostile environment with childish off-putting comments and cliques mobbing selected users. I was not something I felt any kind of motivation to be part of. The entire user interface is also very nerdy and I believe it attracts a biased section of the Commons community consisting of users with very similar views and backgrounds. I may have been unlucky the few times I have tried, I do not know. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the warning I issued

It was 'claimed', by some that I changed the... formulation.. of what I said. That's true, in a way, stated like that, but not as it was phrased when said by Colin or Jkadavoor. I will not block Colin on the basis of my interpretation of any subjective criteria... I first said that long, long ago. However, if he has been warned, repeatedly, that a specific clearly defined and explicitly stated unacceptable behavior (referring to another editor's behavior as pathological, in this case) will result in a block, especially if that warning was announced to the community, and especially when he said he won't do it, then it is no longer a matter of subjectivity. It's a clearly stated bright-line rule, and if he does it he can be blocked by any admin without warning. He's been told this, and if he does so it's not only in contravention of what he said he will not do, but (as I said) knowing that the exact behavior will result in him being blocked.

Because Colin had 'rejected' this warning, and tried to claim that he could not be blocked if he claimed that he did not 'intend' the behavior as a personal attack (which is not true, as he has been told clearly that the specific action will be considered a personal attack), I attempted to repeatedly say the same thing in different wordings to get the message across. Apparently, I eventually was taken to have said so in such a way that it could be interpreted as having withdrawn the warning. I did not.

To be explicit: If Colin refers to the behavior of another editor as 'pathological', then he is doing so knowing that it is an unacceptable personal attack, and in direct contradiction of his statement that he will not do so. Any admin (including me) can block him for it without further warning.... he has been explicitly warned. If I see him do it, and no other admin has taken action, I will block him for it, and then ask the community to review the block.

Colin is clearly intelligent enough to express his opinions about the behavior of other editors without claiming that their actions are due to a mental illness. I sincerely hope that he won't do so... he's a valuable contributor, and often insightful about user problems. He's only a real problem, in my opinion, when he starts talking about 'why' other editors do things... his comments seem to consistently (in my opinion) imply they are acting in bad faith, and create a hostile environment in which some people are unwilling to express their opinions. Revent^talk 07:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Revent, your excessive use of passive voice is noway helpful here. Instead of saying "he has been warned", tell the truth that "I warned him just after a few days he had opposed my RfOS request" where it was highly inappropriate as your in the cloud of being a strong COI with him. Further instead of saying "him being blocked" say the truth that "I will ask my friend through IRC or any other wicked channel to block him". Too much is said, already. Please be straight or stop pinging me. Jee 08:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I pinged you because I mentioned you. It's common courtesy. My warning had nothing to do with his oppose there... to be honest, I rather expected the exact oppose votes, so it was nothing to create any further drama in my mind. Revent^talk 08:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Revent, I think the problem here is that you keep on citing "pathological" as a standalone description. Colin had a headline saying "Pathological dishonesty". I am not a native English speaker, so you have an advantage over me here, but the way I perceived this headline was like pervasive/persistent/recurring/repeated dishonesty. And the contents of what Colin wrote was a factual description of recurring dishonesty/twisting of facts or omissions. That is how I perceived it was meant. You have a different perception, that you should isolate that word and look at it in one of its many meanings, where it could be associated with a description of a mental disorder. I do not agree with that interpretation, other editors have contested this one-sided interpretation of your as well. Colin did not accept your argumentation that this was potentially blockable, and he stated that was not how it was meant. So I think you need to accept that what you perceive as something which cannot be understood in any other way than your way is not how it has been understood by many others. The meaning is simply ambiguous. It shows a lack of empathy on your part in my opinion in this incident. An inability to see an issue from more than one side. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

When I warned Colin, I actually 'stated' the definition of what pathological means, and why it was unacceptable. He responded by citing other definitions that he said were what he actually meant, that included the phrases "extreme, excessive, or markedly abnormal" and "with no rational motive for doing so". Neither of those makes it any better. I understand that the term can be misunderstood, and is sometimes misused in the way you mean, but I suggest you go read pathological liar. Calling someone 'pathologically dishonest', or a 'pathological liar', is accusing them of behaving irrationally because of a mental illness. The excuse that someone does not know what something actually means, or that it is grossly insulting, only works once. Colin has said that he won't use the term, but seems to be trying to claim that even if he does he can't be blocked for it as long as he claims that he didn't mean it that way the next time. That's not how it works. If you have been warned that something is unacceptable, you say you won't do it, and then you do it anyhow, you can clearly be blocked for it.

Your description of my perception is wrong. If you 'know' that a specific term will be taken by some people as a gross attack, you should simply find a different way to express what you mean. The only meaning of the phrase that is 'not' a personal attack is what you said above.. "pervasive, persistent, etc". That's also not what any dictionary (and because of this argument, I have looked at several now) seems to say that the term means. Simply warning him (instead of blocking him for a gross personal attack) was giving him the benefit of the doubt. Revent^talk 00:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

E-mails

Hi Slaunger, apologies for getting back to you this late. Unfortunately I haven't received any e-mails from you last night; is there any chance you could send them to me again? As far as I can see my e-mail is marked as correct here on Commons as I received an e-mail from someone else yesterday morning without any issues. Sorry about that! odder (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi odder, No apology needed. My emails were for Ellin. It is only now I realize that it was ambiguous who my message was directed to as I posted right underneath a message from you. Sorry for the confusion! -- Slaunger (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy holidays! 2017! ;)

		* * * * * * * Happy Holidays 2017 ! * * * * * * *
		* Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! * Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année! * Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! * Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! * ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! * Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком! -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Some holiday joy

Since 1959, it is a Swedish tradition to (at 3 pm) watch Donald Duck and other Disney cartoons on TV. The most appreciated part is about Donald as bird photographer in Clown of the Jungle. I think most users at FPC can relate to the frustrated Donald (especially the parrot scene), which is why I'm sharing it with you. Happy Holiday! --cart-Talk 15:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi w.carter: Thanks for your kind xmas greetings! We have almost the same thing in Denmark Fra alle os til alle jer is broadcast at 4 pm on Dec. 24 and has been so for as many years as I remember, although it is my impression it is not quite as strongly institutionalized as in Sweden. For instance, it is not a live show. "The Clown of the Jungle" is not part of the Danish clips shown, but I know it very well, and it is very funny. The Kalle Anker (Anders And in Denmark) troubles reminds me of my attempts to try and get a good photo of a hummingbird the Caribbean 7 years ago. A couple of hummingbirds was in the garden of a house we had rented, and it was only on one of the very last day I finally got [[::File:Orthorhyncus cristatus male guadeloupe crop 2010-04-05.jpg|an OK shot]], even though it was neither QI nor FP quality. Again, thanks for popping by on my talk page, it was really kind of you! -- Slaunger (talk) 13:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a very cute little hummingbird. I've never had any luck at all with fast birds. My best shot is so embarrassing that I've never even uploaded it on Commons. It stays on Flickr where people must have a sense of humor since it is my most watched photo so far. God fortsättning på helgen! cart-Talk 13:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy new year!

	Merry Christmas, Slaunger/Archives/2016!
	English: Hellow Slaunger/Archives/2016, Merci/Gracias/Thanks my friend for do it posible, this family of Commons, beleave that we can change world improving the educational media disponible. Take care by your self --The Photographer 02:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC) --The Photographer 02:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, The Photographer! Since I am late, I also wish you a happy new year! -- Slaunger (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

RE:

The metadata is the less important thing here, the most important is the image will be good, thanks for your job. Happy New Year Ezarateesteban 19:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

OK Ezarate. Glad I could help! Also a happy New Year from Denmark! -- Slaunger (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Question about an image

You recently promoted one of my images and mentioned editing the bottom for a better composition. I made two different revisions: first crop & second crop, and I was unsure which one seemed better. Does one of these seem like an improvement over the original, or would something else be ideal? Thanks. WClarke (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi WClarke, Given that you do not have more space at the top, I think the first revision is best as it is more symmetric. If you had had more space at the top, something like the 2nd revision would be better as the object would be able to breath better. But that's just my opinion. Happy New Year! -- Slaunger (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy New Year. WClarke (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Pear!

Happy New Pear! or The Secret Lives of Pears.

--cart-Talk 13:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

HaHaHaaah W.carter! Du gør det så meget sjovere at være på Commons. Du er et fantastisk aktiv for Commons. Jeg ser frem til dine opfindsomme bidrag næste år. Godt nytår (eller pæreår) til dig også! -- Slaunger (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Lampor

Riktigt underbara foton! Kan inte riktigt bestämma mig för vilket jag gillar bäst. Det här är bra för att det känns lite som i en bazar någonstans österut med gången mellan lamporna och allt den ger faktisk en bättre känsla för hur trångt det är mellan lamporna än om man bara ser en "skog" av dom, medans den här är den som har bäst ljus (av förklarliga skäl). Den på taket är också bra, men att titta så snett uppåt ger ett lite anstängande perspektiv. Härliga är dom I alla fall. :) cart-Talk 22:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Je n'ai rien compris, j'aurais besoin d'être éclairé...--Jebulon (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)