User talk:DC/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
DC
Talk • Edits • Count • Reviews • Playbox
Talk Archives
Aug-Dec 2009 • Jan-Apr 2010 • May-Aug 2010 • Sep-Dec 2010

HADAS

Hi - you recently declined my submission on HADAS (Hendon and District Archaeological Society) as failing WP-ORG. The last comment from Fetchcomm seemed to be that if I put inline citations in it would be fine - which I did. Is there something I can do to change the article and resubmit it? Timhadas (talk) 6:26 am, 1 January 2010, Friday (1 month, 4 days ago) (UTC−5)

Since your a registered user, you could submit the article yourself, and see if it would standup to a possible deletion discussion. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 1:56 am, 2 January 2010, Saturday (1 month, 3 days ago) (UTC−5)
Thanks. I'll see if I can add some more sources (although it already has 20)and resubmit it. What is a deletion discussion and how does it work?

92.12.108.105 (talk) 8:23 am, 2 January 2010, Saturday (1 month, 3 days ago) (UTC−5)

sorry - wasn't logged in.

Timhadas (talk) 8:24 am, 2 January 2010, Saturday (1 month, 3 days ago) (UTC−5)

See WP:AFD. Basically in a deletion discussion, editors debate whether the article is notable enough to remain on wiki.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 6:03 pm, 6 January 2010, Wednesday (30 days ago) (UTC−5)

Tactical Unit (film series) rating

Hello, I was wondering if you could check some of the links on Tactical Unit (film series) to see what grade it should get. I gave it a B but that might be high. We should also consider WP:DYK as it seems very well-sourced and of decent quality. Certainly not a stub. Thanks, Gosox(55)(55) 9:23 pm, 6 January 2010, Wednesday (30 days ago) (UTC−5)

Thanks. I'm not an expert, but B seems good (though I may have gone with a C). As for DYK, I'm not too familiar with the selection process (more of an ITN guy myself), but I'd say go for it if you can find a suitable hook. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 12:24 am, 7 January 2010, Thursday (29 days ago) (UTC−5)

E-Mail

reply.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 7:57 pm, 7 January 2010, Thursday (29 days ago) (UTC−5)

I replied to your reply. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 1:25 am, 8 January 2010, Friday (28 days ago) (UTC−5)

Denied because of copyright

I had a page about Ervin Marton denied recently by you because of copyright infringement. The page I quoted from is a page that I did write myself. I am not sure where or how I can prove that to you, but I will if needed. Also, if that would help, I will be glad to delete that biographical web page I wrote myself as a Wikipedia page would replace it. What should be my next step. I am a total newbie with Wikipedia? Thanks. It is hard to communicate all of this when I write my proposal. Also, just in case you have any advice, I am not able to input text when I open up the Wiki chat web pages, I see text but am not able to enter text into them. I am using Mac OSX 10.6.2 with latest Safari and Firefox. Thanks.--Barkilehet (talk) 9:28 am, 9 January 2010, Saturday (27 days ago) (UTC−5)Barkilehet

This isn't my field of expertise, but I suggest you check out WP:DCM for information. If you still need more help, you can see the WP:HELPDESK. As for the other thing, I assume you're talking about IRC. That's not something I use, but you could see WP:IRC for help. Thanks. ~DC Talk To Me 10:38 am, 9 January 2010, Saturday (27 days ago) (UTC−5)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 3:23 am, 12 January 2010, Tuesday (24 days ago) (UTC−5)

Todd Levy photo

Hello.

I recently posted an image upload request for a new Todd Levy press photo. You declined it, and I can understand why. However, I am a student of his, and he personally sent me this photo and requested my help in getting his article's image changed. Do you know of any ways I could prove this, or perhaps upload the image in a different way? I was trying to save time by not setting up an autoconfirmed account.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.41.0 (talk) 11:01 pm, 12 January 2010, Tuesday (24 days ago) (UTC−5)

See the section above this about copyright. Follow the links there for more info. ~DC Talk To Me 3:31 am, 13 January 2010, Wednesday (23 days ago) (UTC−5)

RfA

Thanks for pointing that out right away. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 9:16 pm, 14 January 2010, Thursday (22 days ago) (UTC−5)

No problem ~DC Talk To Me 9:27 pm, 14 January 2010, Thursday (22 days ago) (UTC−5)

Cross posted from Floquenbeam's RFA

Um, the questions on the talk were placed at 16:12 on the 15th January and Flo has not edited since 14:52. So whatever else may concern you please at least give the candidate time to reply. To oppose based on non answers when the candidate is off-line is exceptionally wrong headed. Pedro :  Chat  4:02 pm, 15 January 2010, Friday (21 days ago) (UTC−5)

Thanks, I responded on the RFA. ~DC Talk To Me 4:19 pm, 15 January 2010, Friday (21 days ago) (UTC−5)
No worries. It's not your oppose per se, just being fair to the candidate. (And FWIW "I edited previously" per Q4 is worth pondering in that previously very much does not mean at the same time. Just a thought.) Thanks for considering reconsidering pending answers if that makes sense! Pedro :  Chat  4:27 pm, 15 January 2010, Friday (21 days ago) (UTC−5)

Updates to Mary Rose Tully

Thanks for your tag to wikify this new page I created. I erred in creating external URLs instead of internal links, and think I've cleaned that up. But if you find I still need more cleanup, please let me know and/or revert your tag. Thanks for your kind editing DilipBarman (talk) 2:30 am, 18 January 2010, Monday (18 days ago) (UTC−5)

It can use some more work, but it's better now. Try adding some reliable sources (like newspaper articles) to the page. I might be able to help later today. ~DC Talk To Me 3:09 am, 18 January 2010, Monday (18 days ago) (UTC−5)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 9:27 am, 19 January 2010, Tuesday (17 days ago) (UTC−5)

Black Country

Hello, I noticed you put the refimprove tag on the page for Black Country, why? Nothing I put in the article was unsourced. RG (talk) 3:06 pm, 22 January 2010, Friday (14 days ago) (UTC−5)

RFA

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:37 pm, 25 January 2010, Monday (11 days ago) (UTC−5)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 3:59 pm, 2 February 2010, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC−5)

Intentional rollback?

Hi! Did you really intend to roll back my comments on the Glenn Beck talk page? I don't understand. CosineKitty (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you perhaps hit the "mass rollback" button by accident? Absent an explanation in the next little while, I will revoke your rollback rights and/or block you indefinitely pending an expanation. Note there is a discussion on this here. –xenotalk 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pending an explanation, I have removed rollback rights from this account once the notice was placed at ANI and I ascertained that the tool was not being used properly. -MBK004 20:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does a mass rollback button even exist for non-admins? I've never seen one, unless there's a script I'm not aware of that can turn it on. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 22:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that what is written at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback#Mass reversions will work for anyone with rollback privileges. -- Atama頭 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er...did you mean to revert this message of mine? If so, why did you revert it? – ukexpat (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

{{Unblock on hold|blocking administrator|I've regained control of my account. I can verify it by email.|:Emailed to the address listed Jan 15 here. Please respond. –xenotalk 19:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

The Subject of the email you sent was "Please confirm you are in control of your account." The text of it was "Thanks. -x" ~DC Talk To Me 05:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Identity confirmed -- consider setting a {{User committed identity}}, and remember to secure your workstation in public areas.

Request handled by: –xenotalk

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

You have been blocked. kwami (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

he is a fucktard

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    • understand what you have been blocked for,
    • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Per [1], your talk page editing access has been revoked for the remainder of the block. –MuZemike 20:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that this user was warned and then blocked by the admin with whom he was edit warring with and yet no one is pointing out the abuse of admin privileges here or the fact that the offending admin can't read a block log properly. Lara 20:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you'll get the much result from commenting here, if you think there has been "admin abuse" I'm sure you know how to find WP:AN.Or you could try discussing the issue with Kwamikagami directly. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would actually be AN/I, but you're right. I shouldn't assume an admin would watchlist the talk page of a user he inappropriately blocked. Lara 20:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would also have been nice if diffs had been included for those who wanted to look into the block.
On a positive note, I think kudos should go to Beeblebrox for his fine explanation of a proper block appeal. I find it comforting to see that effort and courtesy extended even in a case where the appeal statement was worded in a way that expressed frustration, but doesn't do a particularly good job of addressing the block itself. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice of you to say, but I can't take credit for it. It's actually a default response inherent in the unblock template code via Template:Decline reason here. Here's a diff that I think sheds some light on both the block and the objection to it [2]. I've seen it said that an admin shouldn't hesitate from blocking a user who has done something blockable just because they happen to be the target of it, but I personally find that it's best to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. In either event, obviously the unblock request does not contain a valid reason for unblocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 1 month following Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Y2kcrazyjoker4

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I never used User:Free As A Byrd while this account was blocked. I also never used that account to votestack, avoid 3RR, etc.

Decline reason:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Again, I never used the other account abusively, and I think a month long block is an overreaction.

Decline reason:

The massive intersects in article editing shown here shows that the second account was not being used as per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, but would sway discussion based on false WP:CONSENSUS. Combined with previous block for incivility, this block could have been indef - one month appears closer to on-board. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you, BWilkins for the explanations. I'll be back in a few weeks. Until then, ~DC Talk To Me 17:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

{{unblock|First off, I'd like to apologize to Kwami for the personal attacks I made prior to my previous block (an apology was long over due). In regards to the current block, I won't be using any other accounts. I'd just like to get back to being productive (which is why I created User:Free As A Byrd in the first place). I'd like to get back to helping out WP:AFC and with vandal-fighting, and will likely avoid more contentious areas (like ITN) so I don't lose my cool again. Thanks ~DC Talk To Me 6:29 am, 22 March 2010, last Monday (3 days ago) (UTC+0)}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

See below

Request handled by: ~ Amory (u • t • c)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Hello DC. I've contacted the blocking administrator about this - please hold on. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RP, though Amory's page says she (I assume) is on vacation til the 29th. ~DC Talk To Me 21:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and unblocked you. The majority of the block has been served and your apology is well-taken. I think you get it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate it. ~DC Talk To Me 06:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Horses

"However, the Rolling Stones song is the only song called "Wild Horses" to have an article, so it goes without saying that the primary use of "Wild Horses (song)" is this page." Just letting you know that there's also Wild Horses (Garth Brooks song). I don't think there should be a primary use since there are (at least) two notable songs with that title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out to me, I missed it on the DAB page. ~DC Talk To Me 16:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy!

Thanks for your efforts to make Wikipedia a better place. SemVergonha (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the note. I think ITN is kind of a self-selected clique in that people who don't abide by the ruling mindset just say, "Oh, what the hell" and move on. I don't know why I keep banging my head against the wall. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:DC/Archive_2"