User talk:TDC

User_talk:TDC/Archive_1

Threats of banning

You are not an administrator. Please do not make threats of banning against other users. Snowspinner 17:47, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Vandal attack

Really? It seems Turrican and the four IPs must be the same. They are making the exact same edits to virtually the exact same set of articles. VeryVerily 06:21, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, I added a comment about User talk:Snowspinner re above. VeryVerily 06:21, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The IP address are coming from two sources, Belgium and Uraguay. TDC 06:36, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

They're anonymous proxies. VeryVerily 06:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BTW, have you noticed that Pol Pot is also under attack? I've been fighting a lonely battle over there. VeryVerily 06:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You might want to add your name to the complaint against Turrican at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. VeryVerily 23:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your note on my page, I am trying to get temporary orders. If the proxies are simple vandals they can be blocked on that basis. Fred Bauder 23:18, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Protections

After looking through the page histories, I protected those where it was clear to me that a sustained revert war is happening. For some of the articles, the recent contributions were from a number of different parties and it appeared to be a period of intense editing, but I couldn't be sure that page protection was warranted. I did not protect any particular versions of the articles, as with this volume of requests to evaluate, I'm not inclined to investigate the exact details of the content dispute. --Michael Snow 21:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Requests for comment Shorne

A few of us are talking about doing a RfC regarding Shorne. Before we can do that we must pass this threshold:

"Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by talking with the person on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. The two users must document and certify their efforts when listing the dispute. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted."

If you feel that any issues exist with respect to his edits, please enter into a dialogue on User talk:Shorne and see how much progress we can make through negotiation. Fred Bauder 18:51, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'm all alone on Pol Pot right now and could use help keeping it untrashed. VeryVerily 23:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, it just got protected. VeryVerily 23:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Winter Soldier

I protected the Winter Soldier Investigation article without prejudice. That is, I'm not endorsing your version; nor am I endorsing your claim that the anon's were vandals.

I'm trusting you, so ya better be right, man! --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 20:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can you come to the talk page please. I'm going to try and see if I can broker a compromise solution so that the protection can be lifted. Cheers Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 20:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Unverified image

Thanks for uploading the image

• Image:Kiss.jpeg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the image and I'll tag it for you. Thanks, Kbh3rd 17:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:HMruger 0924A.jpeg and Image:Wild eyed communist.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:HMruger 0924A.jpeg and Image:Wild eyed communist.jpg. Please leave a note on those pages about where you got the images because of copyright law. If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. --Ellmist 05:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Other untagged images

• Image:F38.jpeg

– Quadell ^{(talk) (help)} 00:49, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

VVAW and WSI debate

Frankly, I find your comment to me ("where do you get off pushing your nose into this debate?") a bit strange. It's a wiki, you know. People are encouraged to push their noses into debates. I also note that my first edit to Winter Soldier Investigation predated yours by a few weeks, so you have even less cause to try to dismiss me as an interloper. Nor is promising that "this revert war will not end" very helpful. A more constructive approach would be to try to work out text that conveys the information, using available language that's in the public domain or appropriately licensed for use here, and rewriting any copyvio material. JamesMLane 05:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey

What's your email? J. Parker Stone 04:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

he he, for me to know.... go to TDC@dodgeit.com, and I will send you my real one. Later. TDC 04:28, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

-looks at site- dubya tee eff? I sent an email but I don't know if it goes anywhere. J. Parker Stone 04:44, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution RFC, William M. Connolley

I started an RFC regarding user William M. Connolley, located here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley. If you are interested, please comment or sign as appropriate. — Cortonin | Talk 12:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FOX News

Just to let you know we have come pretty close to a concensus on trimming the FOX News#Allegations of bias section to about 1/2 the original size - there are a few things we haven't agreed on. Noticed you had contributed earlier and might want to throw in on the proposal. Trödel 22:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Winter Soldier Investigation, Vietnam Veterans Against the War

A request has been made by the anonymous user to unprotect both of these articles, which I find highly inappropriate. I believe it might be time that you take your case to WP:RFM if you have not done so, otherwise try WP:RFA -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced claim on 2003 Invasion of Iraq

I refer to your edit: "14:24, 28 Jan 2005 TDC (RV, if you are too lazy to look for the source in the talk archives, that is not my problem"

You're wrong in this instance. This is a project to create an encyclopedia, and statements in articles should be sourced. We're not engaged in a debate where someone who disagrees with your statement can be challenged to do his homework, as it were, we're engaged in producing factually true articles. Where, as in this case, even some of the editors cannot determine whether a statement in the article is true without trawling through discussion archives, the statement does not belong in the article until a proper source can be provided for it and placed in the article for the benefit of the reader. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This issue, including the sources, was covered in the talk pages between myself and another user almost a year ago. I stand by my statement that if a user is too damn lazy to go to the talk archives and find it, then that is too bad for them. TDC 15:14, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I am sure you realise that the result of your stance is that the statement, if true, will be lost from the article unless someone else comes up to provide a source. Couldn't you just bend a little and find the discussion and its resolution so that the reference can be inserted into the article to support the statement? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2003 Invasion of Iraq: "Some individuals have claimed..."

Hi. In your edit summary of 2003 Invasion of Iraq, you said: "RV, if you are too lazy to look for the source in the talk archives, that is not my problem". I removed the text you reverted because there is no source for it listed in the article. This makes the text unverifiable to the average reader (see: Wikipedia:Cite sources). A talk page archive is not a valid reference because the talk pages will not be available to a reader of:

• an external project using WP data
• a forked project
• Wikipedia 1.0

Also, a casual reader will probably not be inclined to look through heaps of lengthy discussions to find a source of a particular statement.

Since your revert seems to indicate that you want to have the "Some individuals have claimed..."-text in the article, please add your sources to the article, or list them in the ongoing discussion on the talk page.

Thank you. --Plek 15:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Five reverts is a little over the top don't you think?

You've reverted Iraq Liberation Act five times today and removed the NPOV dispute tag each time. I'd appreciate if you followed Wikipedia procedure rather than throwing your toys. And you can keep your silly personal insults to yourself. Take care. --Christiaan 19:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation

You have violated the Wikipedia:Three revert rule by reverting Iraq Liberation Act 5 times[1]. If you continue to revert this page, you will be blocked for up to 24 hours. Please be careful about this! Thanks. -Frazzydee|✍ 19:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I found a picture of someone who beats your wild-eyed communist hands down. Here's a real meshugina. [2] 172 22:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey TDC, your "blocked from editing" penalty should be lifted by now. Get your arse over to [3] where a significant conversation about you is ongoing, and say something in your defense. Maybe, after a healthy knock-down, drag-out scuffle, we can come to some sort of productive discourse. Oh, and as for User:172... quit feeding the god damned troll. He's doing well enough on his own without your obsequious, fawning help. -Rob (TDC's favorite Wiki-Editor)

You know, if you got an account people could post stuff on your own talk page. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so editors working in the same subject areas are supposed to communicate with each other. 172 05:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Winter Soldier Investigation and Vietnam Veterans Against the War

These two articles have been unprotected. I am going to assume good faith. Please do not start another edit war on those articles. If you have a problem, go through the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. I am going to make certain that you and the anonymous user follow Wikipedia guidelines on those two articles. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VVAW and WSI articles

I really do not know what to say on this subject other than there is no possible outcome for these articles other than another edit war. The Anon is unable to be negotiated with, and does not like people making edits to what he views are his articles. I would also remind you that these two articles are full of plagiarized material and past instances have shown me that this user is extremely uncooperative in removing such material. I think the only solution is that the article is blanked and started over again. Articles have been blanked in the past for large scale plagarism and dont see how this is an exception. TDC 13:45, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you not involve yourself in deciding what is and what is not plagarism. If there is evidence to it, you may claim so at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Understanding this, it is not your sole responsibility to see that articles are in line with Wikipedia policies. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To that effect, I highly suggest you do not continue to revert either article despite your objections. Like you said yourself, the best solution would be to claim the article is a copyright violation. To meet those ends, follow the copyright problem procedure, and leave the article alone. See: Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Copyright_infringement_notice. If the anon user reverts it, he may be blocked for it, as investigations into copyright infringements should not be reverted until the investigation is complete. Such a revert would be considered as vandalism. Even though, it is an opportunity to rewrite the article from scratch, it still does not give you the right to start an edit war on the rewrite of the article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am going to warn you that you should not revert any further on either article. Without discussion on the talk pages, an arbritation case against you... may prove that you were uncooperative. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all it seems like a pretty clear cut case to me that if text from the article matches text found in another source word for word, then it seems fairly clear cut that it is plagiarized. I would also point out, again, for like the umpteenth fucking time, that this user has been using plagiarized material repeatedly and only takes it out after being beaten over the head with it. Secondly, please do not threaten me with what might and might not be said in arbitration. Finally, in case you were not aware, an AOL IP cannot be blocked, so that is not any threat for the anon. TDC 23:12, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I am well aware that an AOL IP cannot be blocked, but there are certain exceptions to this rule. Technically, if the matter went into arbitration... depending on who filed it... a clear guideline could be established as to whether the content added is a copyright violation or not. And reverts could be then justified, depending on what the arbritation rules, I suppose.

I apologize for threating you, but the fact of the matter is, I would like to see this matter resolved and out of my hair. Having the article protected 5 or 6 times is unreasonable, and we can not permanently protect the articles either. Despite my objections to keeping the articles protected, another administrator disagreed. I gave up and unprotected the articles, however I only seem to be getting deeper and deeper into this debate that I clearly do not wish to be a part of. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

TDC, with regard to your statement that matching text shows plagiarism: It's not so clear as you seem to think. I once deleted some apparent copyvio material only to discover that the other site had copied from us rather than vice versa. I doubt that's the case here, but the general lesson of avoiding dogmatism is applicable. For example, perhaps Wikipedia and another site both used PD material from a third site. Furthermore, some use of copyrighted material is protected as fair use. Unfortunately, what we need to do is work through specific examples with attention to detail, rather than make blanket statements. (Well, more precisely, that's what someone needs to do. I'm with AllyUnion in getting in deeper into this 30-year-old ruckus than I want.) JamesMLane 16:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Classical definition

Are you back in town? I haven't heard from you in a while. I need your help.

The Wikipedian community has saw fit to delete The Classical definition of republic. I found more corraborating evidence and, on the Votes for Undeletion, They are still voting to keep it deleted. I think this is highly unfair. Is there a cabal going around voting things off that they don't like? I have put external link to Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic and they delete that also. It has been deleted twice from Republic. What's going on here? Wikipedia is not "Free and Open-Content". There is a group controlling what gets said around here. I have been reading about "Republics" all my life. I even quote from a Modern Scholary work that used the term "Classical Republic". And they still delete. Something is not right here. WHEELER 14:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mislabelled edit on Fidel Castro

I really don't think it's conceivable that your recent edit [4] on Fidel Castro could be understood by many people to be minor. Some of the sections seem to have been completely rewritten.

Please take care not to mislabel edits like this. Even when done by accident, it tends to give the impression that you are trying to do something dishonest. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)