File talk:Circe.jpg

This is the sort of thing that cannot happen. Please do not replace perfectly credited and sourced pictures with different versions. ― Thailog 10:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It can, and should. Please do not use such language. This is not your personal website. Your user page leads me to believe that you have a lot of emotion and ego invested in this project (by the way, if you want to be accurate on your user page, I wrote this article. You expanded it). Pride in your work is good to a degree, however this is a community effort. You are way out of line, thinking you have any cause to scold me like an errant child, for any reason, much less for improving an element of this wiki. Not to mention the hypocrisy of your complaint since you replaced the image I originally uploaded with a "different version".

I replaced a low-quality tv grab with a high-quality DVD grab. This is perfectly fine, happens all the time, an I expect it to happen whenever an image can be improved. I think its worse to replace a perfectly good high quality image with a lower quality one to satisfy your personal feelings and preferences. I am reverting it back, and expect it to be left alone, unless you happen to have a higher-quality version. --BoneGnawer 12:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

addendum I realize there was some emotion in my own words. I stand by all of my points, but apologize for not wording them more gently. --BoneGnawer 13:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

---

A couple of things:

It can, and should. Please do not use such language.

What you did, and are endorsing others to do, constitutes a direct violation of our policy. And my language was nothing but straightforward, as I was merely enforcing a policy. A policy that I reworded and expanded to fit our most recent conduct, and which no one so far has voiced against. In the past, when someone would contradict a rule, you'd rollback that change and tell that someone to propose a revision where the resolution first took place [1]. Now you are disregarding a guideline and implementing your own will.

Your user page leads me to believe that you have a lot of emotion and ego invested in this project

If you think this is an issue of ego, then you're the one way out of line here. Yes, I take pride in my work, but the inclusion of "my contributions" on my user page is merely to refer visitors to the most detailed articles. If I wanted to gloat, like you are implying, I would list all the articles I created, no matter now little or underdeveloped they are, all the categories, project pages and vast array of templates I created and improved. Do not confuse enticing users with "ego feeding". I won't nor should feel guilty because my profusion somehow makes your ego feel belittled.

(by the way, if you want to be accurate on your user page, I wrote this article. You expanded it)

Check again. I replaced and reworded your four loose sentences because I couldn't integrate them into my own bio, which I often try to do. Do not mistake creating an article with writing it.

Not to mention the hypocrisy of your complaint since you replaced the image I originally uploaded with a "different version".

I replaced an image you took from a fansite [2] (most likely without the courtesy of asking permission) and without stating why the image could be used here, which is a major copyright infringement. So, by replacing an uncredited image with a credited one, I was making you a favor. Not to mention you reprimanded me for replacing a picture of yours before (even though my version was clearly better [3]), but now that it's the other way around, I suppose it's alright. Talking about hypocrisy... Ever since that, I never replaced credited images with different versions because of our convo, but now I see that your "personal policy" did not work both ways.

My only mistake here was rollbacking your change before the discussion was over. But since you've done it so many times before [4][5], I didn't suppose you'd be affronted.

I replaced a low-quality tv grab with a high-quality DVD grab. This is perfectly fine, happens all the time, an I expect it to happen whenever an image can be improved.

So, you are saying it's alright to go around replacing every single picture every time we think it can be improved? You who voiced against judgment call? You who were so concerned about "other" editors becoming upset if we "second-guessed their creative choices without discussion"? Wow. Not a contradiction or double standard at all. "It's alright if I do it, but if you do it, I need to approve it".

The most correct and professional course of action would have been:

• either replacing (my carefully selected) picture with the same DVD quality version, adding your own separately and paying me the courtesy of proposing a change;
• or proposing replacing mine with yours.

It's what I did, and expected others to follow ― especially an admin.

I think its worse to replace a perfectly good high quality image with a lower quality one to satisfy your personal feelings and preferences.

So, it's OK to upset other editors' personal feelings and preferences editors by "second-guessing their creative choices without discussion" and replacing their pictures with different versions, ever since the new picture is prettier? Wait a minute wasn't that what I did here? You need to be more consistent in your statements.

Sorry if I'm making this too personal, but you opened that window.

I always noted a double-standard trend from you, and that, especially from an admin, is unacceptable. Everyone here needs to justify every single inclusion they make that you second-guess [6], but when someone else questions your work or judgment, we have to go through some very long [7], tiring [8], boring [9], and pointless [10] discussions.

You say I let "emotion seep into my discussions" and should "keep an even tone and stick to the facts of the discussion" and now you get all ticked off, calling me hypocrite and self-absorbed because (according to you) I'm scolding you — and not the way around. See what I mean by double standard? Regardless of the addended apologies, you should also take your own advice.

I am reverting it back, and expect it to be left alone, unless you happen to have a higher-quality version.

I'll leave it alone, not because you are right, but because I don't feel like having a rollback war with you. I will, however, request Tim's intervention here, because now I'm pretty sure that all of this derived from his promoting you without consulting the community — and his seems to be the only opinion you respect.

I never brought this issue up before, because despite butting heads with you (on virtually every single adjustment I propose to make) you always seemed serious and impartial, but your display of double standards and self-righteous conduct makes me seriously question your proficiency as an unbiased admin. And seeing as I had to go through a two weeks election and prove how I deserved a vote of confidence to become — like you so strongly bolstered — a "basic" admin (on a wiki whose only active admins had been AWOL for one month, might I add), I see now your nomination as an irregularity.

I noticed a pattern of disregarding rules or discussions that don't interest you right from the first days I joined here, and it has been escalating into this. BoneGnawer, I suggest you revise your conduct, because you are not always right. Your authoritarian and incoherent attitude makes this site very unattractive and frankly it will drive me away from this project. ― Thailog 21:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Ok, we're both getting personal here. Lets stop and stick to facts.

• I have great respect for you and your work. You've done excellent work here, and I'd like to resolve our obvious differences amicably.

I'll address a few of your points...

What you did, and are endorsing others to do, constitutes a direct violation of our policy.

This is a policy you wrote without input from others. Granted, you have asked for input, but this is far from consensus and adoption. At best, its a proposed policy.

If you think this is an issue of ego, then you're the one way out of line here.

You're right, this was part of my emotional response to what I felt was a personal attack. I'm dropping that point.

Image copyrights...

I dont want to start beating this dead horse again, however since WB owns the rights to the image, permission from WF is not necessary, just citation of WB's ownership.

So, you are saying it's alright to go around replacing every single picture every time we think it can be improved?

It was not a matter of thinking it could be improved (subjective improvement). It was a higher-quality image (objective improvement).

I always noted a double-standard trend from you

Lets look at the examples you cite:

• You call this conversation second-guessing, I call it Fact Checking. The statement was proven, and I left it alone.
• In the discussions you call very long and tiring, I turned out to be at least partially right, so the conversation was justified.
• This was an attempt at presenting several possible in-universe explanations for a question we don't have a canon answer for, instead of making the comics-based conjecture. In the end, I was overruled by popular consensus, and I accept that.
• This was fact checking again, and quite justified seeing as my original spelling was taken from a DCAU product, and the currently adopted spelling of this article is conjectured from the comics.

But since you've done it so many times before

In both instances I did jump the gun, and I have apologized for and rectified those errors. However in both instances, I was at least partially correct. In the end, I did compromise my position to come to a reasonable representation of the facts. That aside, two instances don't make for many times.

I'm pretty sure that all of this derived from his promoting you without consulting the community — and his seems to be the only opinion you respect.

As evidenced by my actions, I respect the community consensus, and I respect the facts. Frankly, at the time I was made an admin, I more or less was the community, contributing approximately 90% of all edits at the time, and Tim was generally absent at the time. I don't say that out of ego, its just the way it was. I also don't think that makes me any better than anyone else. However, I would prefer not to be insulted by your insinuations against my admin abilities. I am impartial. My passion is for the facts, not my personal opinions, and I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong about a fact or outnumbered in opinion.

Today, you're making the majority of the edits and like I've said, you're doing a great job. However, you are not operating in a vacuum. If I or anyone else questions, discusses, or changes edits you've made, you have to be accepting of it, and willing to discuss, justify or accept edits to your work.

--BoneGnawer 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)