User talk:Tehonk

The standard for infobox film posters is the film's original theatrical release poster (see WP:FILMPOSTER). We do not opt for English posters merely because this is English Wikipedia. Οἶδα (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Οἶδα OK but I'm not sure about "original poster" in that case, French release comes first and that's also a country of origin, so should it be French then? Also I think that page is not a policy page and there is no policy on this matter actually. Plus that page does not actually forbid the use of posters not from the country of origin (quote: "If the poster used is not from the film's country of origin, then the poster's language or country of origin can be specified")

Anyway, in the end, even if we go with "original poster", I'm not sure which one it would be. Tehonk (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the French poster does apply, I considered uploading it myself before but I decided to wait for news of a Turkish release. Considering the film is a Turkish film shot in Turkey in the Turkish language with an entire Turkish cast and the majority of its funding from Turkey. And in that the template "does not actually forbid the use of posters not from the country of origin", that guideline is presented near the bottom for such unique exceptions when a film is first theatrically released in a country which was not attached to its production. It is not saying just upload an English poster if you want.

And I wouldn't put too much stock in saying there is no "policy" on this matter. The template documentation exists for a reason, and purposely ignoring community standards is not going serve you well. In any case, the poster I uploaded is from the forthcoming theatrical release in Turkey by Bir Film, which is a more accurate poster and should not have been reverted to an English-language rendition of the same poster, which is completely unrelated to the relevant production and distribution of the film. It is my understanding that we do not tailor any foreign media to the details of its English edition simply due to this being English Wikipedia. Of course, rare exceptions can always be made with consensus but first editions are always the ideal for everything from films to books etc.

Given the film's overwhelming Turkishness, should an exception be made for its Turkish poster? Unless you are interested in raising that issue on the talk page, I will be opting to upload the French poster. Οἶδα (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Inspection request. Thank you.

Mandatory notification, as the person who filed the report failed to complete this step. I believe the report is without merit and have commented as much. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Thank you for the notification and for your comment there. Cheers. Tehonk (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

only apples if the page was created by someone that was is evading a current block. We don't apply it retroactively. Please review WP:CSD carefully before again tagging for speedy deletion. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Hi, I know that, that tag was meeting "any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5" part. Tehonk (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tehonk,

I've seen several AFD discussions where you have made mild insults to me because I chose to relist an AFD discussion. I get your point, you don't want an AFD discussion where you have a strong opinion relisted, so you don't need to repeat it.

But if I don't see a consensus among participants, especially if other closers have passed on closing a discussion (meaning they didn't see a consensus either), I often relist a discussion because I've seen discussions drastically change over the course of time. Even after three relists, I've seen 3 or 4 editors come in at the end and offer opinions that determined how the discussion should be closed. And I don't agree with your understanding of "consensus"....there was one comment where you said there were 3 editors voting to Delete but that wasn't true unless you were reading into the comments of other editors and guessed how they might vote if they chose to (but they didn't chooose to). I find that editors who make comments like yours are simply impatient with the time it takes to arrive at a consensus and want a discussion closed according to their point of view. Of course, you have a right to air your view, as long as it is civil, but it doesn't need to be said with every relist and it doesn't help move things along. What we really need to close more AFD discussions in a timely way is to have more editors participate in discussions but there is no quick solution for that. Any way, I just wanted to remark that I've seen your messages and I know where you stand. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Hi, thanks for your message, sorry to hear you call it "mild insults" and I apologize if you felt that way, but I wouldn't call it that because that wasn't my intention. Also, I can only remember two times I made such a comment (maybe it's more), but again, sorry and let me clarify. My main frustration in those comments was actually with the socks, not with you, so please don't get me wrong. For the last one, "be omitted" was a delete vote (just a strange translation of the "delete" from his own language), and there was my vote, which makes it two, and you're right, counting the third vote could be my "reading into the comment" of the nominator, but I just wanted to express my opinion, and like I said, my frustration was actually because of the socks situation, so I saw it as a waste of time, because I thought it will most likely be a G5 eligible in the end anyway, so why waste time anyway, and I wanted to say that. The other time I remember criticizing a relist, there was just a sock attack with a lot of obvious socks with new accounts and I was frustrated by the fact that they could affect it like that when they should just be ignored and not affect the outcome or the process. So I don't really have a general problem with a relist like you thought, I just don't get it when socks affect it, that's the main part actually.

I also want to say something, In this I only commented on the content and sources and you felt the need to tell me "let's not be adversarial here" when the first comment of the other party called my nomination "a waste of time" (I would call that "adversarial") when I tried to carefully start the nomination with a good reason, and then these socks wrote a personal attack, a nonsense accusation calling me a racist, on that user's talk page, the user could ignore the sock and remove the personal attack, but not only didn't they do that, they went to other users and referred to this nonsense personal attack of the sock accusing me of racism while trying to gather support for AfD. I would call that "adversarial" and offensive, but you didn't say anything to other user and felt the need to warn me when I was only trying to comment on content and not users. So in the end that was actually a "work of a sock's disruption" as well. So that's why I sometimes get frustrated when I see them having some effect and not just being ignored. Anyway, thanks for your comment and sorry again to hear you call it that way, I'll pay attention to everything you said. Have a good weekend. Tehonk (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by this edit summary? I don't dislike you. And I'm no inclusionist, I've deleted over 500,000 pages on this project. An inclusionist would not have deleted half a million pages. I'm just strict about the speedy deletion criteria and I don't think some pages require deletion when the offending comments can simply be removed from the page. Do you really think any editor will go into the page history of an IP address's User talk page? I don't delete pages just because someone requests a deletion, they have to have a good reason and I didn't think you offered a good reason. Both editors are not active any more and the remark was posted years ago. I don't think there is a need to delete this particular page. I just wish you would refrain from making personal comments about me anywhere on this project and just let me do my work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Hi, OK, that was just my feeling, but if you say that's not the case, then OK, I'm sorry. I'm not "making personal comments about you anywhere on this project", you making comments like that was the reason I got the impression you didn't like me. When did I make personal comments about you? If you're referring to the conversation above, I explained to you that it was about the socks, not about you, and honestly I can only remember two times and I don't think I made any personal comments in either of them. In the last case I just said there were 3 deleted votes and I felt it would be G5 in the end and I just wanted to say that, it was not about you. In the other older case, I just said that I didn't think a sock attack should have that effect. And I clarified that your assumptions about me weren't really correct and that I don't have a problem with relists or I don't "want a discussion closed according to my point of view". I even sent you a message to show my appreciation for all you do with AfD closures, you didn't reply to my above message or my attempt to show my good will so I thought you really disliked me, but OK, sorry for saying that, that wasn't OK, I just didn't understand the insistence on keeping an attack page. That page is "a page that serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject" with "material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person". That fits the G10 criteria exactly, that's the reason G10 exists, there is really no reason to keep this page. I found it while looking for remnants of a cross-wiki spam and cleaning it up, so "Do you really think any editor will go into the page history of an IP address's User talk page?" is not a good reason to keep it, it can be found via a random search etc, it can be found after all. It's an attack page with an attack edit summary and attack content with insults directed at someone with their real name, there was no other revision "to revert to" and there was nothing else. G10 specially exists for things like that. Tehonk (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was actually with regards to Yangopano, who after waiting for 9 days, created a new article and currently appears to have a very narrow interest. They also know the Wikipedia jargon pretty well for a less than a month old account that is active only for 2 weeks. I am unsure if the account you have reported is the same person as this one. It could be. Maybe. (Though, your report alone has merit.) Aintabli (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aintabli Oh sorry I thought you were talking about that bludgeoning guy who copy pasted policy quotes all over the AfD page :) Yeah this account looks like a SPA as well but can't tell if any sockpuppetry is involved with that one. Tehonk (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be sorry. I can't say I didn't think of filing a SPI like you've done. Askarii27 and Baris ozgur are obvious socks. Aintabli (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]