Jump to content

User talk:Dgw

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Invictus Solis (talk | contribs) at 07:29, 8 March 2007 (→‎Canada Time Zones). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Tuvok's status: Offline

LCARS Status Tab r74656


Hi, everyone. This isn't the most spiffy talk page you will ever see, but it's my belief that less is more. Besides, if the talk page is for talking, why decorate it? Leave me a message if you've got something chewing on your ear, or if you just want to say something to me. Please use the + tab above unless you're replying to a discussion already present, in which case please edit only that section and indent your reply using one more colon (:) than the last person. Also, please remember to sign your posts. Responses will be posted on this page. Thanks!

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Voyagerfan5761/Archives/20070208. Sections with less than two timestamps (that have not been replied to) are not archived.


Talk page comments.

Hi, please stop reverting User talk:Liist. A user may remove comments from his own talk page if he wishes. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liist continually removes warnings from his/her own talk page. Warnings should stay on talk pages, as a record of the user's actions. Liist is welcome to archive the warnings (and I have mentioned this possibility), but not to delete them outright. I have always observed other users being told not to remove legitimate warnings; why should Liist be an exception? — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 01:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely mistaken. The removal of a warning is considered an acknowledgement that it has been read. There is NO policy that states that a user must leave warnings on his/her talk page. The fact that you are actually edit-warring - including reverting an admin's revert - over this is ridiculous. Do not restore those warnings to Liist's talk page again. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of a vandalism warning is not just to warn the vandal, but also to inform other people who are fighting against vandalism that the vandal is at a certain level of warning so that they can issue the appropriate warnings or ask to have him blocked. Removing the warnings interferes with the process of fighting vandalism and thus IS vandalism. JRSpriggs 07:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you see, that's what I thought was the reason. Do you think I should continue the reverts, Mr(s). Spriggs (I gather from your username)? I see MrDarcy has warned you, too. Such a commotion (from one admin, I notice) about what would seem to be obvious. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 23:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a Wikipedia policy expert, but from a logical standpoint I have to agree with JRSpriggs and Tuvok. The closest I could find on this was this: Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace, and it doesn't mention anything about removing warnings. IMHO, it would be logical therefore to assume they should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I80and (talk • contribs) 00:11, March 7, 2007.
Users have the right to do as they wish within their user space, as long as it doesn't violate another policy (such as WP:NPA). Archiving is encouraged but not required; the removal of a warning doesn't remove it from the page's history, so its effect is cosmetic rather than permanent. There is NO policy that says that talk page messages can't be removed. Voyager, I've warned you already not to continue. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have talked with Persian Poet Gal and she has helped me see the difference. Last time I checked, Liist was not blocked. Now that (s)he has been indefblocked, I see no reason (per PPG's reasoning) to put the warnings back. I have, however, redirected the talk page to the userpage, since it is now an empty talk page for a blocked user. I trust that is not vandalism. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 02:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Reverting removal of vandalism warnings by the vandal -- is it vandalism?, in order to try to get a definitive ruling from them. JRSpriggs 11:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! I see it's garnered quite a response. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 22:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I hope you've both noticed that experienced users are telling you not to revert those talk-page blankings. This issue has been discussed repeatedly, and every time I've seen it come up, the answer has been the same. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!

Wow! While I was reading El Tigre, I wasn't looking at that typo! Cheers! Groupempty 04:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean this edit? I sometimes use Lupin's Anti Vandal Tool, which includes a checker for common misspellings. That's how I caught it. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 23:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Talkpage warning removals?

Copied from User talk:Persian Poet Gal

I've had a run-in with MrDarcy (MrDarcy) over reverting warning removals on User talk:Liist. MrDarcy says users have a right to remove warnings as "acknowledgment that they have read them." I80and, JRSpriggs, and I all agree that warnings should stay, or at least be archived to a visible page. What's your take? — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 02:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I know why he may be blanking the page. It seems that this editor is now indefinitely blocked according to the block log. In such cases I believe it ok to remove the warnings to deny the vandal/troll recognition. If the vandal were still active I would believe it to be very inappropriate to remove the warnings (especially when it is not the user themself) and I would recommend archiving.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm I see. As I said before, if the vandal were still active I would generally be very concerned if the warnings were blanked. However, since the user was indefinitely blocked, I think that it does not hurt for them to be removed. Remember to not feed trolls attention. Reverting a blanking of their talk page numerous times even when they are indefinitely blocked is unnecessary. I do value your good intentions though. Allow that vandal/troll to stomp along now.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may be of any help here: users must not blank warnings from their talk pages, even if they've been indefinitely blocked. Users who have continually blanked their talk pages have had their talk pages fully protected. Acalamari 02:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think blanking should be allowed in minor Circumstance such as the warning is atleast 6 months old and that the user was never blocked meaning that if the user had been blocked in the last six months he cannot blank his page but if he has recieved warnings for vandalising certain pages but no final ultimatum(only or last warning) then the user may blank the pages but all of these shouldnt apply to IP Addresses but only to logged in users..--Cometstyles 10:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, he's been blocked. Last time I checked the block log (March 4?), I did not see that the user had been blocked (perhaps I checked the log incorrectly...). However, the log says MrDarcy blocked "anon. only, account creation blocked"? This would lead me to believe that Liist is still able to edit, given "anon. only". Am I misinterpreting something...? — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 02:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Thanks for that! — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 03:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove your practical joke banner. Such things are obnoxious and detract from the user experience. Also, spoofing the user interface is officially discouraged per WP:USER. For an example of a fun and far more palettable alternative, see the orange box at User talk:Bishonen. If you feel a need to keep the orange box, please consider using a distinctive message not easily confused with the new messages announcement. Dragons flight 08:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see, I got the idea from someone... I just wish I could remember who... Anyway, I just put it there to get the code up (so I wouldn't forget); I was planning to replace the message with something less MediaWiki-ish once I could think of something. I'll give it more thought, and comment it out for now (I actually fooled myself with it; I clicked the New messages banner on the login successful page and was confronted with my own banner, which led me to become momentarily confused, as I had gotten to my talk page [which should clear the notice] through another such banner...until I remembered that I had done it intentionally.). I'll try to think of a better alternative message, something funny, witty, or perhaps practical. Sorry if I caused you any trouble.
It would be interesting to know, however, how you came to my page? I don't think I've ever seen you anywhere... — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Time Zones

Hello,

I'm writing in response to the tag for removal of the maps for time zones of Canada, I'm new here and would appreciate any help to correct things, I provided the wording from the site, the link and I feel it's also fair use as I'm a Canadian and the Government website clearly states how the maps can be used.

One thing I would like to ask or suggest is maybe it would be more helpful to advise a person on how to fix things and adapt to this setting, it just seems to easy to just tag it and bag it.

Any constructive advice in how to improve would be great, Thank You, Everything Is Relative 05:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I don't know why this went out in this format, I'm sorry.

Your message came out as code because you started each line with a space; the software that runs Wikipedia interprets that as code.
Regarding the images you uploaded, I had nothing to do with tagging those for deletion; they were probably deleted because they contained no licensing tag and were unused. You stated they were Fair Use; Fair Use images that are unused get deleted, it's just Wikipedia policy. Am I correct in interpreting the disclaimer (you say you copied it from a government website?) if I say the Canadian Government retains copyright of the images? Here in the U.S., any works created by the government are public domain, as I understand it. Please feel free to address any other concerns right here.
Now to address article improvement. First, one of the things I saw that marked your article as a candidate for deletion was the fact that you signed it; that sometimes indicates an editor making a test. I then examined the rest of the article. It was really nothing but a list of time zones, which can be had at List of time zones. That would be why BigDT (I believe) redirected the article instead of deleting it. Also, your title was improperly capitalized (proper title would have been "Canadian time zones"). That could have been corrected with a simple page move, though. Since Wikipedia is not a repository of indiscriminate information, I concluded that the article was either addressed somewhere else in a broader sense or was just more indiscriminate info.
Now, to improve images, you first have to tag them as Fair Use when you upload them (in this case, according to the license you posted). Try just leaving the default license selection and tagging it with an appropriate tag from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use after it's uploaded. Also, make sure the images are used somewhere; they won't be deleted if they're used (exceptions are copyright violations). Hope this helps you, and any response is welcome, especially if you have more questions. I'll answer you, if you respond, tomorrow. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 05:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Images I was trying to tie into the list of time zones, this request was originally in the request for articles page, I'm sorry I made the assumption that the info was wanted and the requester had been unable to find any info they were requesting there on here, what was suposed to happen that I was attempting to do was for the maps to be shown along with the timezone listings therefore helping the orginal requester of the article. The Images were fine for use and I did not know the requirement for tags, what I recall is it asks for info on where you got the image url and so on I had thought I had met those critera.Everything Is Relative 07:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dgw&oldid=113524401"