User talk:Uncle Dick
- 1 Why I did
- 2 Respect for editors
- 3 Trent Edwards
- 4 Your Abuse Response Filing
- 5 Your abuse response filing
- 6 Sharron Angle
- 7 Nomination of Incidents at Walt Disney World Resort for deletion
- 8 WHYY?
- 9 Edit Warring
- 10 Thanks
- 11 Barleycorn
- 12 Thanks for the revert
- 13 al-Kabri massacre
- 14 OTGH
- 15 My Brother, Borat
- 16 Thanks for revert
- 17 Discussion at Family Research Council
- 18 Ichthus: January 2012
- 19 inre 1906 (film)
- 20 Icthus
- 21 Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
- 22 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 23 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Why I did
I removed the pictures of Imam Ali (Alaihi Salam) because that is disrespect, and, out of respect for the last rightly guided Khalifa, the picture shouldn't be shown. We don't know how he looks exactly, so no photo should be shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for Wikipedia's policy on images of religious figures. Uncle Dick (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Respect for editors
I received a message from you that I must respect other editors. I only said I cannot fathom why I was accused of vandalism when I altered an article with a simple uncontroversial addition which did not contest the original editor's assertion - rather it added to it. It would be diffrent if I had added spurious and wild POC assertions. I still cannot understand why a simple addition to a railway station site provoked such anger and accusations. How is Wikipedia going to progress if people have a "bee in their bonnet" about something and correct additions just for the sake of it or some strange posession thing. Could someone tell me the logic of accusing someone of vandalism when they have simply said that the people of Marlborough use both Bewdwyn and Pewsey stations. Hardly controversial and certainly not vandalism. Are you saying that Pewsey is in Hungary (which it cleary is not)? Very odd —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackRance22 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't take issue with your edit to the railway station article, but rather with your tone when addressing another editor on their talk page. Calling another editor "childish" and insinuating that they are mentally handicapped is not appropriate. You have every right to address other editors about warnings or accusations of vandalism that you believe are unjustified, but please do so in a civil manner. For example, I think your comments here on my talk page are well-stated. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This is fair enough and I accept what you are saying. I was probably a little frustrated and mystified by Wikipedia! Having just been called a vandal for a simple addition I could not see any logic so resorted to anger! Anyway, to widen the discussion and my problems with Wilipedia, I note the following: it seems to me that there are a number of "Wikipedia thought police" (not you!) who have the most peculiar views and who stalk Wikipedia correcting things (and reporting) the "wrong" things. Then there are those (generally from the right-wing of politics) who think that to point out (for example) that many people think Hitler was not a nice man is POV! Academic encyclopedic content/balance demands that if person x or idea y has been regarded by a and b as wrong then that view must be included as well as the positive. All too often \a small group of Wikipedia editors take unpalatable facts (supported by references and serious historians/scientists) as POV. When someone (whose speciality seems to be Star Trek) calls someone a vandal for adding a simple geographical fact to a uncontentious article, one has to question their sanity at least in ones own mind. As I admit, I see your point about not being rude but it is very frustrating at times - the person who started this off, seems to me one of the self appointed and slightly unhinged (yes, that appears to be POV but there is eviedence in his actions and "CV") Wiki vigilantes and I thought that he needed this pointing out. Sorry that I did it badly. Thanks for your considered reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackRance22 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I did not call you a vandal. My edit summary said reverted edits by JackRance22 to last version using (HG). I was using a antivandalism program. Like the warning I used I said it appeared unconstructive and that's why I reverted. It appeared to be a comment on the article, which is not appropriate. If you add it again please provide a reference. I reverted roughly 400 suspected cases of vandalism yesterday. It is quite possible that I made a few mistakes. Best, --Alpha Quadrant talk 17:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I AM SO SORRY UNCLE DICK. I WILL NEVER VANDALIZE YOU OTTO DIX PAGE EVER AGAIN. SORRY FOR THE INCONVIENIENCE I HAVE SET ON YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. SORRY. SORRY. NOT SO SORRY. BUT STILL SORRY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karisadill (talk • contribs) 17:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Why do you keep changing the article that states Trent Edwards signed with the Carolina Panthers? How about a link to an AP article that proves what you are writing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've reverted the article to the last good version. It looks like the Panthers references are vandalism. I reverted your edits because the term "was" is only used for people who are deceased. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- "Former" would be appropriate, however, I think the current revision ("free agent") is most accurate since he has not officially retired. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Uncle Dick (talk | contribs) (Level 1 warning re. Library House (HG))
I only removed the 'futurefest' link because it points to an online bathroom store - up to you if you think it's appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Your Abuse Response Filing
Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 184.108.40.206. We wanted to let you know that the case has been opened and is currently under investigation. --Wolfnix • Talk • 21:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Your abuse response filing
Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 220.127.116.11. We wanted to let you know that the case for the report you filed for 18.104.22.168 has been closed. Thank you again for filing and alerting us of this IP's abusive behavior. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 01:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Why do you keep reverting the edits? His campaign changed them the first time, are you working for him also? Every single detail was referenced at the bottom of the page, and I was going to adding more currently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please see my response at Talk:Kevin Carney. The material you added likely violates WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to tangentially-related "scandals". Uncle Dick (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Your edit summary here claims that it removes vandalism but it clearly does not. The edit your removed is, however, original research. Please use a factually correct edit summary. The lack of edit summaries, or incorrect ones, can damage one's reputation for veracity here at Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Noted. User's edit history reveals a pattern of similar unhelpful edits, but they may just be unfamiliar with the policy on original research. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's likely. I added a good citation for Pat Boone's endorsement, for what it's worth, but I could only find blogs (from both sides) about the robocalls on Google. No doubt they're happening, but are also not worth six sentences. I put it back in as one sentence. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of Incidents at Walt Disney World Resort for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Incidents at Walt Disney World Resort, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incidents at Walt Disney World Resort until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Coren (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- A side note - it may have been preferred to discuss the split-off rather than being bold and doing it anyway. Possibly could have prevented a deletion discussion. SpikeJones (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The "half your age plus seven" rule is well known in society, especially urban areas and online. I don't see why you would consistently removed a section of cultural relevance. My source is reliable considering the context. But even if I didn't have a source, their would be no reason to delete it unless you're distanced from particular areas of society. The rule is pretty common in my area and it's used quite a lot online. You even see it in various media, such as this online comic: xkcd. Again, I don't see your point in deleting this section. A search on Google for "half your age plus seven" with the quotations reveals 6,090 results. Searching "divide by two add seven", the alternative name, with the quotations reveals 1,030 results. The main term on urban dictionary for half-your-age-plus-seven, of which there are five entries, reveals the first entry to have 10,020 thumbs up. How can you not accept this cultural phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AVanover (talk • contribs) 03:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It is hard to cite, the unit is over a thousand years old and thus not standarised as the SI is. The wiki page on English units lists the barleycorn ([]), again, uncited except for its current use in the shoe industry.126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting, I was unfamiliar with that unit of measure. Thanks for clearing things up. It looks like the article actually includes a historical digression on the 3:1 barleycorn to inch equivalence. I'm not sure that we can say that the international inch is precisely equivalent to an imprecise measure like the "barleycorn", but I won't object if you would like to reintroduce your edit into the article. Uncle Dick (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert
Hi, I just wrote some stuff on the talk page. I like to check references an discovered that 3 of the 4 references given don't refer to this incident as a "massacre." I did not check the Nazzal reference. Also would you check the external link given for reference and see if you consider it a correct use of linking? If you have the time please look over the RobinMiller site carefully. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I see you deleted the content here and re-directed it a couple of days ago. That seems pretty high-handed, considering the matter was under discussion at the time; in fact you made your edit while the other guy was in mid-sentence.
I would suggest if you feel that way about an article you check the talk page first, and maybe make your opinion known, rather than barging on; that would be more civil, don't you think? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I made what I felt was a fairly obvious edit per WP:BRD. Feel free to revert and continue the discussion on the talk page if you disagree. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I've been expanding and sourcing it. Looking much better. Not too bad for an article that was speedied 2 minutes after its creation. Going to be a fun article to further expand. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- It seemed too wacky to be true, but I'm glad to see the burgeoning Kazakhstani film industry get some more attention. :) Uncle Dick (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for revert
Discussion at Family Research Council
Someone restarted the straw poll re: including the SPLC's characterization in the lead. You are getting this because you participated in the last poll. Please see Talk:Family Research Council to give your input on its inclusion.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Ichthus: January 2012
In this issue...
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
inre 1906 (film)
I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
|World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!|
|Hi Uncle Dick! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)|
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) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)