Jump to content

User talk:Dgies

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dgies (talk | contribs) at 20:31, 24 May 2007 (→‎Admin coaching.: addendum). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Delete help

thanks for that it was very helpful i just did a bit of looking around and found this article it is now delted but i copyed the text have a look did i ad the right tag User:RedSpike101/testpage

Thanks

I Have Talked to him and he changed his password and cant remember what he changed it to so he created User:Pap_Crap2. i have added that he is blocked to his accont.

Unfair Delition

I would like to inform you that my user page,temples,userboxes,barnstars,etc. was delited by Shazaam. I feel that this action is unfair. Shazaam claims that my userpage needs to be simple but I find that I need a advanced userpage to help wikipedia in a more advanced way. I have gave a warning to Shazaam for the unfair delition.

Cordially, --ISOLA'd ELBA 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was Jeffrey O. Gustafson who deleted them. If you want them undeleted, you could try at deletion review. If you try that, I suggest you be calm, polite, and explain how restoring your user pages will be of benefit to the encyclopedia. I also note you have a general page blanking warning to him; you may wish to see "Don't template the regulars". —dgiestc 20:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My AfR

Thanks for letting me know. Since I don't really care about being an admin and since I don't much care what people think of me, I won't be disputing anything. I said my piece, if people got happy from taking gratuitous shots then good for them. Otto4711 21:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I tidied up the closure of the above RfA, with the header, footer and transcluding on the list of failed RfA candidates too. Regards, (aeropagitica) 21:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i used the vista logo on one of my user page themes and it got changed to a © why? RedSpike101 19:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image you were using, Image:Winvista.png, is copyrighted. Wikipedia is allowed to use it under a fair use copyright exemption, which allows it to be used for discussing Vista in articles. Fair use does NOT extend to decorative uses, such as templates and user pages. Some bot patrolled for copyright infringing uses, such as that one and fixed it with a non-infringing version. Also, in the future it would be nice to provide a diff so I don't need to go hunting for what you're talking about. —dgiestc 19:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star size

Hi,

This image does not appear to represent that size of different star types (red giants are much larger than the Sun, ect). Could you explain that in the image? Thanks. --Wasted Sapience 00:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are all main sequence stars. This is to scale (though not properly brightness-scaled). The small red ones are red dwarves. —dgiestc 03:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal re: Vandalism Templates

Hi there! I noticed that you recently warned a user who is inserting comments such as "is openly gay" with the {{subst:uw-defamatory}} template. I'm hoping that you will consider using {{subst:uw-vandalism}} or {{subst:uw-test}} templates instead, because the labelling of such vandalism as defamatory reinforces the idea that being thought of as gay is a bad thing. Thanks for your consideration!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I sympathize with your assertion that an accusation of homosexuality should not be considered defamatory, in common usage, as in this case, it often is. The {{uw-test}} is for edits which might be accidental. And while it is almost certainly vandalism, {{uw-defamatory}} allows for the possiblity that the edit is true, just unsourced. —dgiestc 03:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about using {{uw-vandalism}}?I won't push the issue, but by confirming the vandal's intentions to use the words "gay" as an insult it contributes to the continued perception of it being a bad thing.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 03:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonable option, but since they intended to defame, I picked the obvious response. I'm not going to second-guess myself just to be PC. —dgiestc 03:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely fair. Thanks for your responses!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 03:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Release the protection..

Please release the protection of the discussion page of 63.135.11.194 page. I want to say a lots of things. This time, really, I didn't touch the tags. I promise I will NEVER do that. Last contribution was to redirect User:Gabeyg to AirFrance358. It wasn't tag that I touched. Also, it is same person. I moved. (If you see in ID changing place, you will see me...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.86.156 (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2007

If I were to unprotect that page, your past behavior suggests you would place unblock notices which do not provide a valid rationale for unblocking. This would make you show up in Category:Requests for unblock and other admins would need to waste their time evaluating the situation before they come to the same conclusion as several of us already have: That your block is justified because of continued interference with sock tags after warnings. The IP block and talk page protection expire in about 4 days. Once that happens you may petition to get AirFrance358 unblocked, but note that continued protestation that the block was unfair will likely not help, as you have had many warnings. Your best bet to staying unblocked is to agree to not touch those tags and instead petition for their removal by others through WP:ANI. —dgiestc 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching.

I would like to know what you think of the possibility of me submitting an RfA, and whether you would be prepared to coach me. I noticed your name was added to the coach list recently. Joshua John Lee 19:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you submitted an RfA right now it would go down in flames. This is because you have 328 edits on this account. Generally people don't have a good chance of passing until they have at least a couple thousand edits. Try not to get discouraged, its just that since admins can cause so much trouble if they apply policy incorrectly, people generally want to see some experience applying policy. This generally means edits to deletion debates, vandal-blocking reports or the admin noticeboard. You mayalso wish to read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. If you're serious about being an admin, I suggest you try contributing to some of those areas. In the mean time, feel free to contact me with any questions. Also it may seem trivial, but some people might oppose you because at present, your signature takes up too much space in markup. A good rule of thumb is 3 lines absolute maximum (240 characters), yours is 408 characters. Anyway, for now I'd be willing to do some informal coaching, but it would help if you can round up a co-coach. —dgiestc 20:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]