User talk:108.20.176.55

IPs aren't admins, so you can't summarily delete File:Nukecloud.png. If you want to nominate it for deletion, the link is on the side of the page. Otherwise, use the talk pages for a discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Get a clue. An IP's ability to delete something has no bearing on whether something should be deleted.

Also, Pay Attention. I didn't propose to delete it. I simply placed a warning in it about the fact that the data in it wasn't sourced. That's an ordinary everyday uncontroversial thing to do when the data are not actually sourced.

108.20.176.55 19:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Get a clue; when you say the alternative is summary deletion, that's false. There's no way in hell anyone is going to speedily delete it, and I find it quite improbable that an admin would delete it after an DR. And the only way it has any chance for deletion is if it gets nominated for deletion. It is not in the least uncontroversial to change the description of an image to start off with a (probably false) claim that it is not verifiable and (absolutely false) claim that it can't be used. It might be typical in some projects to add a template for that, something clearly separate of the content of the page, but I can't find one on Commons, probably because we don't care.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about you and your perverse interpretations anymore. It's not my job to educate you. You can accept a warning, or you can continue on your stupid trolling quest, but I'm not going to waste any more of my time and vertical space on talk pages responding to your lunacy. 108.20.176.55 20:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

BLP is a policy for all Wikimedia projects

BLP is a policy for all Wikimedia projects. Do you want to try and rephrase the text I deleted from File talk:Nukecloud.png‎ without the personal attacks and slander?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I might note that this image has nothing to do with slander, so any discussion based on that is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Since the name in that sentence you complain about is actually immaterial, I changed it "Joe Blow".

Maybe it's more "I can't hear you" head games, or your general rage, but for some reason you are blind to the fact that the statement in quotes with your name was obviously hypothetical, and that no one could reasonably interpret it as an actual statement. It was even hypothetical on two levels, it was a hypothetical statement hypothetically included. And, the statement was unsourced (hypothetically), and otherwise obviously a fake statement! It obviously was not slander.

I initially used your name to drive home to you the peril of unsourced statements, and that if someone had included such an unsourced statement as part of a pretty picture in Commons, you argue that it wouldn't be deletable. Whereas, any data which is presented as reliable must have sources or it should be not used. The included caution is simply a warning that the data should not be presented as reliable unless sources are included. I think if an image including unsourced data about you were on Commons, you would be suddenly more concerned about deleting it or at least including a warning that the pretty picture includes data that is unsourced.

108.20.176.55 20:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, people who say nasty things about me and dance around so they can say "I didn't say that" piss me off. The libel policy on Wikimedia is entirely different from the unsourced policy on Wikipedia, for good reason. There's no peril in an unsourced statement about the height of various nuclear clouds.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)