User talk:Dgies/Archive 4

Hi, check the editor's entries they are all vandalism, he is a vandal and nothing more. PianoKeys 23:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The dozens and Mother insult have obvious and documented sexist bias. I am not calling for their deletion. WP:NPOV, however, says we must represent all views and requires balance. Thus these articles may remain but a point of balance is required to bring attention to their sexist point of view. This is a constructive comment and a call for rational balance. Rlsheehan. June 15, 2007

If it's documented then you can provide a source. Calling something sexist is a value judgment, so if anything calling the subject of an article sexist increases neutrality problems. It's only a point of balance if there is something stating it's not sexist. Since currently nothing is said either way, that is neutral point of view. —dgies^t_c 16:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice you are listed as not currently having any students. (I also note you are listed as preferring to co-coach). Would you take me on? If necessary I'll try to find someone willing to co-coach with you. Thank you! -N 19:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll help, but I recently got a lot busier at work so it would be good to find a co-coach. For starters, please make a coaching subpage in your user space. —dgies^t_c 21:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo! Page now at User:N/admincoaching. I assume you'll ask me questions and stuff. If you'd like I can work on the RfA questions. -N 22:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Updated. Please review it at your leisure. -N 18:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw this [1] and having looked at this [2] and this [3] I have decided that I would like to mediate some kind of settlement, so if you can post a reply to say that you would be willing for me to help and I will get back to you. I will be posting this message at all three users names on the MedCab. Darrenhusted 02:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to try to mediate, that's OK with me. I feel my position is well-expressed on Talk:Mother insult, but contact me if you have further questions. —dgies^t_c 04:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have posted at the Mediation page [4]. Darrenhusted 13:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Can you add your approval at the mediation page, cheers. Darrenhusted 16:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, why did you redirect the legendary creatures template to the paranormal creatures template? The paranormal one is only suitable to cryptids whereas the one about legendary creatures is speficically for mythological creatures. Funkynusayri 16:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• See my explanation at WP:RT. Basically they two templates share 90% of their variables so it is best to reduce maintenance effort by simply using a single template with optional variables. The fact that the name of the template is not a perfect match for all uses is not really a concern because that doesn't show up in the rendered article. —dgies^t_c 16:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see User talk:199.175.12.38

I'm not sure it's the same person, and in any case they have stopped for now. —dgies^t_c 20:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Eyepatchman.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 22:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Sirhan_Sirhan.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 11:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for uploading Image:Sirhan_Sirhan.gif,however it would be much appreciated if you could expand or clarify the sourcing information you have provided in the image summary., In particular which law enforcment agency took the photo? ShakespeareFan00 11:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Kai81123 keeps on uploading this image and it keeps on being deleted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vistatopright.png —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MicroChip123 (talk • contribs). 14:22, 13 July 2007

Are you an Admin? Tiptoety 03:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Why do you ask? —dgies^t_c 03:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

oh, just when you deleted a page it did not show up in the deletion logs, and i wondered if it was b/c you were an editor that was just putting block tags on peoples pages for fun, but never-mind, thanks, Tiptoety 03:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I haven't been able to find the answer to this on my own: in Template:Diagram needed (which you have edited), I see the code {{{category|...}}}. What does this do? Does it only add the category tag if the category already exists? If so, this could come in handy on all the other Image request templates. And what exactly are {{{...}}} constructs in templates called, anyway? Apparently not "magic words" nor "parser functions" (since those pages on Meta didn't help me). Knowing the correct term would have really helped me find the answer on my own... - dcljr (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have noticed that you are listed on the admin coaching page, as preferring to co-coach. If you don't mind then User:Lar is considering coaching me, but the user also prefers to have a few partners who can team coach me. If you are interested, please drop a comment at User talk:Lar#Admin Coaching. Thanks Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 13:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi! John has agreed to co-coach this user, so we should be set, hopefully. ++Lar: t/c 01:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 

GreaterWikiholic has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

18:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dgies, at this point you should either withdraw from the mediation (as I have) or respond to the mediator's request [5]. I suggest just withdrawing. I think it's pointless to send the mediator off on a wild goose chase for a source that I'm quite confident doesn't exist, and is Rlsheehan's responsibility to find anyway. But that's just my opinion.--Chaser - T 00:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hhmmm. In the case Excel Business copied wikipedia (and not the other way round), aren't the violating the GFDL license? Should this be reported somewhere? Regards, -- Iván Sánchez^(talk) 00:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Those two images are now free, and have been replaced by cc 2 pictures each, haven't been verified as flickr images or as cc images, but they are, I guess an admin needs to do that or something JayKeaton 18:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can verify image copyright status. Admins are only needed for deletion or undeletion. —dgies^t_c 18:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Okies, cool ^_^ I thought my revert would put both images back on, but it looks like there never was an iTouch photo to begin with, I must have been tripping. Anyway, nice to have them all filled up especially with all the people, like me, that will come to that very page to read up on the 'pods. Cheers JayKeaton 18:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This user is removing a plethora of ELs to another Wiki based on the policy Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples. However, those links were not posted as sources, but as further information for those interested in the subject. Moreover, this user is removing links that were there long before I replaced them with the template you created. --217.129.169.136 15:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of you, please read WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. That's the page about Eternal links and not sources, and it states the policy against linking to open wikis except in narrow, consensus-agreed-upon circumstances. User:217.129.169.136 cannot, personally, by herself, decide that any particular outside open wiki meets the high criteria stated. --Tenebrae 15:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but you're the one who removed dozens of External links while quoting Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples. --217.129.169.136 19:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

At User:Dgies' request, I have struck my original statement. He tells me the block that was on his page was not a real block, but a forgery. I regret the good-faith error and would be game to remove the thread beginning with the struck portion down to here. --Tenebrae 17:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Guess What? IM BACK! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dell970 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for uploading Image:Nicolae Ceausescu dead.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is better to discuss it on the template talk page, but I think the 'survivors' field must be per aircraft, as it would otherwise become undefined when applied to 'ground survivors'. Crum375 22:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Dgies,   I took that as vandalism while hunting vandals few hours ago. Anti-vandal tool point me out that IP as a vandal, may be due to the BOT warn in the IP's talkpage. Anyway, Thank you very much for pointing my mistake. Happy editing!!! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, they are not the exact same thing. Mama shops are in the middle of neighborhood housing as just one shop, whereas provision shops are in neighborhood shopping district along with other shophouses (and comes with another set of history). The products arrangement in both photos are usual, though, and probably just the one thing in common. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 15:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that you would go out of your way to label my changes on Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery regarding her husband's Internet Coffee Phone as vandalism. Just because they may not align with what you believe to be true doesn't mean they are vandalism. I am appalled by the type of censorship you have demonstrated. If this is what wikipedia is about then maybe it isn't ready for prime-time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Applebutterz (talk • contribs) 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Diabeetis.com is not an attack page. We love Wilford! Drummer1986 03:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What is up your butt, seriously?! Quit being the fun police. Diabeetis.com is a fun little parody of Wilford. Merchandise is completely irrelevant in determining a website notable. Chucknorrisfacts.com sells merchandise, but it's still listed on his Wiki. This is no different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.169.89 (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eyepatchman.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have restored User:UBX/Country music sucks which you deleted as WP:CSD#T1. While it may be divisive, it's a very borderline case for CSD, and since it's being used by over 100 people, it really ought to go through the full WP:TFD process. —dgies^t_c 04:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. To clarify:

The number of users using it doesn't have anything to do with whether it's divisive. See Wikipedia:Userboxes#Designing_a_userbox, and in particular the sections on content. It's stated several times to not have "negative" userboxes. One example: "State what you like, not what you don't like." So this userbox is not a "borderline case".

All that said, if, after reading over the guidelines, you still feel it should go through TfD, please let me know. - jc37 11:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that left-justified text looks hideous (well, not really, but just hypothetically assume I am...) The navbox class would have allowed me to override how the templated looked, while I'm now forced to look at the non-standard design you forced upon me. —Ruud 22:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't force anything on you. I asked you to change something, giving my reasons. Later I noticed you had resumed editing but did not respond, so I took the initiative. —dgies^t_c 00:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

With "forced" I meant that the style of CSS-based based version could have been overridden in someone's personal monobook skin, while this is not possible with your solution. —Ruud 15:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Those images are under FDL. So there's nothing to worry about. --Gp75motorsports 13:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for uploading Image:Newton eat up martha.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate the support! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thx for your edits to this article, and especially the semiprotect. Is it going to stay that way? It would be nice, since the article is chronically plagued by puerile vandalism, probably by teenage high-school boys writing assignments. It's a steady trickle, but a real nuisance to the regulars (and I'm sure to visitors who come at the wrong time). Tony (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It was already semi-protected by Moreschi a month ago, just nobody had put on the warning template. I've got some more referenced stuff about Bach's late-life ailments I'll probably add in a bit. —dgies^t_c 03:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for reminding me. I forgot that no need for deletion as the result is merge, my bad. I delayed transwikiing the text because I'm not sure I've fully grasped the policies on Wikisource. I intended to have somebody do it for me and I would provide them the text. However, I've created the entry here. Hope nothing goes wrong. Cheers! @pple complain 17:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi— Thanks for your message. Does it mean a link to the template isn't working somewhere? Sardanaphalus 06:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If it got moved again (a double redirect), then stuff would be broken. Single-redirect template transcludes work, they're just untidy. If a page is worth renaming, it's worth doing it right, no? —dgies^t_c 06:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, I guess so - but this template appears on quite a few pages and I imagine others appear on many more, so is your view generally practicable? Or is there a neat command I've yet to find? Sardanaphalus 11:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Varano (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I don´t know if you realize or not, but Zape82 started out deleting the article claiming it was a "Rant" and that it was rubbish, didn´t exist or something (check the logs if they didn´t get deleted too).

These two users can only be "progressive"-feminists or members of the Spanish Socialist party, and for this reason want to conceal the facts of what´s going on.

Everything I say is provable, I can point you to official documents showing over 140 Questions raised by current judges saying they find the new Women´s Court laws inconstitutional because the punishments are harsher for men than women, because the courts are exclusively for women against men, etc.

Lets say you still don´t believe me, yet I hope you still care enough about democracy and human rights to read on?

The new law put into force by these "progressive" feminists (PF) states that "domestic violence is a violence originating from the position of power of men over women", they´re actually saying in the new law that domestic violence is Exclusively only occuring against women!! I just can´t image that in a law book, but its in there, in black and white!

So in the version of the article I posted the FACTS, and both sides of the story, with the PFs saying "the law is necesary", more important than human rights or the constitution, and they make no other defense so its a short argument to include, and those against, a range of professional groups some hundreds of judges, both major judicial organizations (where members are now being replaced by the Social government to avoid further embarasment!).

All I can say is God help democracy in Spain! That´s my POV, but I still posted both arguments in the original article, and what we have now is a political whitewash, and just one POV, which is why Zape82 and Verano are so happy with keeping the new version - but you´ll notice they haven´t troubled to write a Spanish Wiki article to match (Juzgados de violencia sobre la Mujer) because they don´t want any Spanish citizens to even think about this court, let alone read the facts.

Do you follow me, and why I think that the facts, all the facts, and both opinions should be publicly available and not blocked?

Facts are important, Wiki is an opportunity for humanity to share information openly to allow people to be properly informed, not politically manipulated which is now what´s happened here. That´s all, its up to you to decide if you´re happy participating in a coverup, sorry thats what it is INHO. Rubén Mar 17:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in a political dispute over some Spanish law. I'm only interested in seeing that the article has a neutral POV and consists of verifiable, reliably-sourced facts. The earlier versions of the article consisted mostly of statements of opinion and various people's analysis of the law. A statement by some person about the law may be a fact, but it is a fact about their opinion, not a fact about the law itself.

Also, I get the feeling from your tone that you think Zape82 and Verano are fighting with you over the article because they are your political opponents. Have you considered that perhaps they may not be interested in pushing a political agenda but are instead concerned that the article fits within the style and policies of Wikipedia?

As for a "cover up", I don't think anyone is suggesting that the article should not mention that this law is controversial. It's just that the article should mention what the controversy is without becoming a platform for airing those grievances. If you're having a dispute over the article's point of view, follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Also, for an interesting essay on how to handle strong opinions on Wikipedia, I recommend Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers. —dgies^t_c 18:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is not what I am saying about a law that counts, its the actual facts of the law, as published by the government, and at the end of that document it lists well over 140 judges that have appealed about inconstitutionality. So not my facts, but fatcs that neither Zape82 or Varano wish to be included.

They instead write there are "Several judges", and 140+ is not correctly classsified by "Several".

I also am not political, so I have no political opponents. I am pro-democracy and non-partisian.

Its clear to all that Zape82 and Varano are heaviliy politically biased, its clear just by looking at the fact they´ve cut out or minimized all criticisms of the Court or the law by the judiciary.

If you don´t want to see that, fine, then we´ll all know that corruption has reached into Wiki and reduced its value. It doesn´t bother me, I´ll stop wasting my time with Wiki. Rubén Mar 13:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me you basically just said "If you don't agree with me, Wikipedia is corrupt". I don't think I can have a productive discussion with you under those conditions. —dgies^t_c 15:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you recently moved the Tout Ensemble article, but I think the title of the page shouldn't be capitalized. Could you move it again? Tamajared (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If there's only a redirect at the wrong title, you can move it yourself. Otherwise, please write back here the title with the exact capitalization you want. —dgies^t_c 22:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Adopt-A-User Barnstar
		For adopting a user I User Swirlex award you this adopting Barnstar.

22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you are the right person to ask for a lock on a page but anyway... on America's Next Top Model, people are repetitively adding Brazil as the international destination and thirteen for the number of girls for cycle ten even though there is no source. I've been reverting these but the fact that a large majority of them are IPs, they could be stopped with one of those special page locks which require you to be a member. Also, more non-accounts are adding third place to the summary even though it's really not that big of a significance and it makes it large and cramped. So is there anyway you can use your "administrator" stuff to help this? Thank you! Sireafi (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The main America's Next Top Model article has a substantial number of constructive edits by anons so it seems overkill to semi-protect it to prevent a single (recurring) piece of unsourced information. As for America's Next Top Model, Cycle 10 there are few enough rumor edits that manually reverting should be fairly easy. In the future, requests of this type can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. —dgies^t_c 06:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Doctorate is a new scheme designed to recognise the people who "do all the work" on Wikipedia. It has been mainly developed for Wikipedia administrators however if you have done lots to keep Wikipedia on "the straight and narrow", including being members of different groups which help Wikipedia i.e "The Welcoming Committee. We have selected to email you because you can apply for the doctorate and we would be very grateful if you did and put the userbox on your user page to boost advertising. The following link will take you straight to our homepage.

Yours sincerely

--Dr.J.Wright MD (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)