User talk:Dsprc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A Barnstar for you[edit]

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for helping a newbie. Its because of people like you that this place is so great. Thank You Blessedhuman111 (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


List of applications of ARM cores[edit]

You deleted a delete request. Please discuss, don't just revert. What's up with that? Brycen (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Brycen: PROD can be removed (I deleted nothing). If you think it should go then AfD it. Calls for discussion are ironic given PROD which allows for deletions without discussion; what's up with that!? Also, please try to create an appropriate heading or some other indication of what you're referring to. -- dsprc [talk] 16:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Khayal Abbas AKhtar[edit]

Sir, this person being a controversial personality in his country. His article has been attacked (several times) with vandalism in past. You, being an experienced wikipedian, suggest either to remove it from wikipedia (to avoid expected vandalism in future) or anything else? contact me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imabbas (talkcontribs) 07:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Imabbas: Please stop recreating this article under different names or you will be blocked. -- dsprc [talk] 07:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
sir then what i can do why this article attaked servel times.....plz you can aviod him to attacked i will be very thanksful to you.... and later i cant recreate a article....plz aviod him it i my request to you becuse your are an experienced wikipedian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imabbas (talkcontribs) 07:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Digital rights management shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Aoidh (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't template me; if you've something to say then speak with me as a human being. I wasn't even going to touch it after that and didn't even hit 3r. However, if you're going to come here to harangue me, why don't you also do the same with other editor that has the axe to grind? 3 editors reverted them, so this isn't the place you should be lazily dropping templates. -- dsprc [talk] 20:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

CyberTeamRox[edit]

stop reporting my articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saheenshoukath (talkcontribs) 17:22, 22 September 2015‎

@Saheenshoukath: Reported nothing; did however nominate article for deletion as subject fails to meet basic inclusion criteria (WP:GNG). Is just a bunch of script kiddies with zero coverage. Also very sloppy and poor OPSEC to declare association or even edit in a public place like this... better # rm -rf / and grab DBAN. Smile.gif -- dsprc [talk] 19:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for fixing my edit where I accidentally deleted another editor's comments on the Frederick Brennan talk page and for assuming good faith in the process. I'm on a mobile presently but you can expect a barnstar soon. Lucasoutloud (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Lucasoutloud (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lucasoutloud, I know that feel. Experienced this on mobile quite a bit, both in Mozilla Fennec and Wikipedia app. Are serious bugs in how they handle cursor/text selection/input. Is their implementation as others don't have these issues. Save the barnstars and your time; don't worry about it. -- dsprc [talk] 16:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Lamo Talk[edit]

Hello,

I've posted on the Adrian Lamo talk page regarding your recent reversion(s).

Best Regards,

Adrian Lamo ·· 17:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Quack[edit]

@Valereee: Does this look like a duck to you? Nym, language and objections are similar, especially in context. (ping you here for, reasons.) -- dsprc [talk] 19:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yow...yes, it does resemble one. Certainly it's an interesting set of first edits.  :) I've just edited, maybe a little more rope? valereee (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The quack is too different. Which is very interesting...why would a clearly experienced editor who hasn't been editing this article or the talk page suddenly sprout a sock for it? Just their idea of fun? valereee (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Civility. SirYoureWrong (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: They™ do it all the time (who knows what for... like the gazebo ceiling-fan spammer; forever mysterious). Could be meatpuppet, axe-grinder or just plain inexperienced (maybe I'm too jaded SFriendly.svg).
  • @SirYoureWrong: practice what ya' preach.[1] WP:CIV wouldn't apply here anyway; WP:AGF is probably more apt... And yeah, I'll go back read both of 'em -- you should as well. With that said, tellin' people they're wrong every time you sign posts really ain't gonna' help your positions much. Mayhaps WP:CHU/S? SNive.gif -- dsprc [talk] 12:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No politicization[edit]

It is very wrong to bring your political views and enforce opinionated classifications. [2] [3] --Mahmudmasri (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Assalaum alaikum, Mahmudmasri. Both Radio Nederland and VOA are State controlled media organizations, so Category:State media stays. For VOA specifically, propaganda is what they are chartered to do; just like RFE/RL, RT, Al Jazeera, Press TV, CCTV, NHK et al. My philosophical leanings are of zero consequence or importance (you're not even privy to them). The objective facts speak for themselves. -- dsprc [talk] 00:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
We alekom el salam. Though, CCTV isn't categorized as such. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Mahmudmasri: Category:China Central Television is already a sub cat of State Media. I just removed State Media from VOA as is also already sub cat'ed. Radio Nederland has no categorization like this so I left it in. Cats are just for people to locate related stuff anyway. -- dsprc [talk] 05:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:NYC Resistor.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:NYC Resistor.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Freelancer.com, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Privacy Act (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at the NPR article[edit]

Hi, DSPRC. I'm heading over to the WP:AN3 noticeboard to file an edit warring report. It should only take me a few minutes. Please let me know before then if there is any reason why I should not do so. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic Fine by me. 2 reverts hardly seems warranted but be my guest. -- dsprc [talk] 00:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD. I've reverted your bold problematic addition to the article, and would appreciate it if you would resolve the concerns raised on the Talk page rather than attempt to edit war the content into the article. A report shouldn't need to be filed if we can do that. Thanks in advance. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Please. We have been here before when you outright objected to the usage of "advertising" and coverage of advertisements within this subject previously (even though numerous 3rd-parties and the subject itself uses such terminology). At which point you reverted others contributions, wrote an objection, and then simply stopped responding (so it's just gaming the system). The "D" only works if there is an actual discussion, and if done in good faith w/o throwing sticks into spokes; the latter of which is questionable given your previous blocking in this regard. -- dsprc [talk] 14:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Please. We have been here before...
By "been here before", do you mean Wikipedia editors have had disagreements before this one? That comes as no surprise. Editing Wikipedia is a collaborative effort involving many people, so disagreements are to be expected. Also to be expected is a sincere effort to resolve those disagreements. If there is a specific NPR-related matter from the past that you would like to revisit (and renew discussions on), we can certainly do that.
...given your previous blocking in this regard...
I do not understand what you mean by that. Could you be specific? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

() You specifically; your ideological diversion to language used by sources and previous gaming are already explained above. -- dsprc [talk] 15:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

No, you haven't explained above. You cast an unspecific aspersion, and when I asked you to explain specifically what you mean, you deflect. Of course I can't force you to back up your unsubstantiated comments, but I thought I'd ask anyway. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NPR controversies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diversity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Transhumanist politics dispute resolution[edit]

Hello! I have filed a dispute resolution request on the dispute resolution noticeboard, as per your request. I sincerely hope that we can resolve our differences and get the transhumanist politics page cleaned up. Thanks for agreeing to this. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

  •  Volunteer note: Hi there Dsprc, I just want to ask if you will be joining the DRN discussion? If you are, could you please post a summary of the content dispute (DRN is focused on content disputes, not conduct). If not, could you please indicate, on the DRN case, that you do not wish to currently participate in the discussion. Participation is voluntary but helpful in resolving content disputes. You can join in at a later time by simply commenting and/or creating a section for your response. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Just letting you know that I need some details clarified and explained about the reasoning for the contention about some of the sources. See here for the list of sources I gathered together from one of your comments during the talkpage discussion. Some of these sources may have been resolved, but I have not fully read the talkpage discussion except to gather periphereal knowledge. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Fourth round of statements are now up. Discussing the IEET sources. Please respond in 48 hrs if you won't be responding to this section. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:NRDC bear logo.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:NRDC bear logo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Dark web. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! TvojaStara (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Vertical vs. horizontal citations[edit]

I'm just curious, why change vertical cite formats to horizontal ones? Either are considered perfectly acceptable by Wikipedia. For example, Template:Cite_news has the vertical style listed right along with the horizontal style. Just seems like you put a lot of effort into that for no reason. Rockypedia (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: Vertical make editing more difficult for various user-agents, in particular mobile and text-mode (lynx, Emacs eww, etc); also fills display with useless whitespace that could better be filled with text. Vertical is compliant, horizontal is Standard. Almost zero effort. -- dsprc [talk] 12:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Is that just your opinion, or is that mentioned somewhere that I haven't seen? I use it because to me, it makes editing easier, as horizontal cites are so jumbled that it's difficult to spot individual elements. Rockypedia (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
This was discovered from reading user feedback/discussions on-wiki as well as developer comments on gerrit and phabricator; plus extensive firsthand knowledge after assaulting two dozen user-agents with WikiMedia Web servers (scrolling giant text-input fields in a frame turns out to be difficult problem to solve). If all cites were vert it would be even more jumbled; imagine the clusterfuck if large articles were all vert, or if multiple cites after just a few words in paragraph. Some template have vertical as Standard: Infobox, galleries etc but every tool outputs cites horizontally (plain C1 cites ((non-tenplate)) often break if vertical).
If you have difficulty reading then enable syntax highlighting in Special:Preferences, try WP:WIKED or simply use Ctrl+f to instantly jump to content. -- dsprc [talk] 23:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - recent (talk page stalker) - Sorry to butt in, but the typical practice is for horizontal citations for singular citations being ref'd, with possible vertical citations for multiple citations in a single ref tag. It is, of course, easy to manipulate the code to separate multiple individual citations. For example, a single cite in a single ref tag,[1] as opposed to a double cite in a single ref tag,[2] or two cites in separate ref tags.[3][4] This is a kind of non-issue considering that no-one is being really affected, it's just a technicality in editing. Agree with turning on syntax highlighting as it makes it much easier to edit, though the "elements" (I assume you mean the Citation template's parameters) are highlighted in the same colour as the whole template. But at least you can tell where the citations and reference tags are. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Drcrazy102 (4 February 2016), Changes in "Draft:Reel Canada", retrieved 4 February 2016 
  2. ^
  3. ^ Drcrazy102 (4 February 2016), Changes in "Draft:Reel Canada", retrieved 4 February 2016 
  4. ^ Drcrazy102 (4 February 2016), Changes in "User talk:Jeppiz", retrieved 4 February 2016