Jump to content

User talk:Dppowell

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beentheredonethat21 (talk | contribs) at 02:58, 25 October 2007 (→I have noticed something. . .: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Old talk archived at Archive1, Archive2; Messages from banned users, angry sockpuppets, etc. archived at Trolls ;-)

Hello!

Please leave me new messages at the bottom of the page. Use headlines (like the "Hello!" up there) if starting a new topic. Dppowell 22:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Boscov

The fact that you work for the man shows you to be a hypocrite. Dirtybirdy78

Responded on your talk page. Dppowell 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panairjdde

I haven't heard from him in a while? This is too good to be true. Kingjeff 02:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland flag

Hey there...just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit to Ireland, since that's the article for the whole island and not just the Republic. There's been a lot of back-and-forth on adding flags to that page, so if flags are your thing, I'd suggest entering the discussion on the talk page. Dppowell 04:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I didn't know that the flag of Ireland included the whole island. So yes, I agree with your revert. Thanks for informing me kindly. I may re-add the flag closer to the bottom of the article in a more insugnificant place. Thanks again. -- Penubag  04:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How it works?

And how it works? Let me tell you. If you edit looking for consensus, the stubborn editor will win the battle, because he will tire you untill you give up. Then, if you play the stubborn, everything goes well, until you get into an admin and he bans you just because he doesn't like that single edit of yours (he does not mind if you are right or wrong, he just wants to get rid of you).

E.g.: you think that Kingjeff of yours is a good fellow? He wanted so desperately to put a picture of his favourite football player that he did not mind to upload an unfree image on WP. This is bad, I hope you will agree with me, as I hoped everybody would have agreed with me, and I would expect his potentially damaging behaviour to be "punished", wouldn't you? Well, if you know WP as I know it, it would not come as a surprise the fact that it took more than a month of fights to have that unfree picture removed; and he is the good contributor; and I am the bad one.

There are countless I could tell, but I won't annoy you. I am just what WP made me to be. --GodShores 00:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just a side note: when he uploaded Image:Andreas Ottl.jpg, he claimed to have had it allowed by Bayern Munich: I asked him to fill an official request for permission (I think it is called something-ticket on Commons), and he said he would have done it. Ask him what happened to that request, maybe you will understand why I say a good editor is valued as a bad one.--GodShores 00:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily explain Image:Andreas Ottl.jpg. I emialed Wikipedia explaining the free license and all that. So I got a reply a few days later with this picture. (I can't remember how many days). So, I'm assuming that this implies that they agreed to the photo on Wikipedia. I sent in the email to Wikipedia. So, as far as I know, they've accepted the photo. I uploaded 39 Ottl Andreas.jpg on German Wikipedia and they have already comfirmed that this photo is ligitimate. I translated the comfirming template from German Wikipedia on freetranslation.com.

For the publication of this file under the indicated licenses, the Wikimedia Foundation exists a written permission to the publication. The Wikimedia Foundation recovered an e-mail on the 15 November 2006 at permissions-de@wikimedia.org with the OTRS-Ticketnummer tickets#: 2006111510011081 that this permission documents.

Kingjeff 01:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see he's already ready to avoid his ban. Kingjeff 01:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about your AIV report

I asked a question on AIV, you can see it here. Thanks! · AndonicO Talk 00:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panairjdde

I wouldn't be surpeised if this new account is just a decoy for another account? Kingjeff 01:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Pennsylvania

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 03:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish articles assessments

It seems that the assessment of Irish articles has fallen off the radar but recently Flowerpotman, Sarah777 and I have been doing a little work on this as well as actually classifying articles (actually Sarah has done the most work). Anyway, you are listed as a member of the WikiProject hence this post.

  • The first thing that needs doing is to work on the WikiProject template. Actually there are two templates both of which get recorded by the assessment statistics bot that collects the ratings and creates the listings in the category Category:Ireland articles by quality. The two project templates are {{Irelandproj}} listed on the main project page and {{WikiProject Ireland}} listed on the assessment page—the first allows both quality and importance rating as well as nesting but no reviewer comments, while the second allows quality rating and comments but the importance does not seem to work and comments are not included. This needs to be fixed, so we use one that works fully—can you help?
  • The next thing is to decide if we just let editors assess as they wish or to create some criteria or guidelines for rating the quality and importance of the Irish articles. Personally I am in favour of some guidelines—some will be easy to decide while others are a little more complex. What do you think?
  • Some projects make lists of articles for assessment while other go after groups of articles by category. What should we do? A mixture of both by using a "To do list"?
  • As of the last assessment statistics bot run on Sunday, August 20, only 1462 articles have been tagged, of which 1156 have been assessed for quality but 660 of these have no importance value.
  • Besides these 1462 there must be hundreds more untagged articles that should be tagged when we get the template issue mentioned above fixed.

We are not bad in our assessments but some projects have all their articles assessed while others are lacking more than we are. We can really use a few active editors to bring assessments to the fore. Please reply on the assessment talk page as to what you can do. Please help out. ww2censor 17:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

Hello, just wanted to drop you a friendly line about disambiguation pages. As per the style guideline for disambiguation pages, only the words being disambiguated get wikilinked, rather than the normal practice of linking all interesting terms. As such, I reverted your change to the O'Brien disambiguation page. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Christian Ireland

If you are minded to write something, feel free to take whatever you like from here. I don't see that I'm likely to get back to this before 2008. Best wishes, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed something. . .

Why have you removed my comment. I did nothing wrong. I just don't want to see this ilicit text and comments on a whats supposed to be a reliable source.

Thankyou, and please don't remove,

Mindy

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dppowell&oldid=166902137"