User talk:Hbdragon88/Archive 3: Difference between revisions
AGF |
|||
| Line 220: | Line 220: | ||
It is against Wikipedia policy to assume bad faith. Stop doing so. - [[User:A Link to the Past|A Link to the Past]] [[User talk:A Link to the Past|(talk)]] 21:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC) |
It is against Wikipedia policy to assume bad faith. Stop doing so. - [[User:A Link to the Past|A Link to the Past]] [[User talk:A Link to the Past|(talk)]] 21:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Well then, good thing - we wouldn't want people not going around insisting, without a shred of evidence, that what they say about someone is true. In fact, I'll do so right now - you're a bad Wikipedian and have not contributed anything good to Wikipedia. And since it's only a silly little insignificant guideline that says I can't say this, I guess I can then. - [[User:A Link to the Past|A Link to the Past]] [[User talk:A Link to the Past|(talk)]] 04:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 04:18, 13 February 2007
- WP:ADMIN: One-click rollback is only intended for simple vandalism; other kinds of reverting should be done manually with an appropriate edit summary.
 Archives |
|---|
John Hall photo
Can you hold off on this one just a bit? He got elected, and as his office web site promises, an official, high-res public domain photo should be available soon (always my intention to replace that one once he was in Congress anyway). Daniel Case 05:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Find out who put it there in the history file. Daniel Case 05:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
So did I. But it probably will be up soon. I think you can take the tag off and put something on the page to the effect that a PD image will be available soon. Daniel Case 05:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
What exactly was the reason you tagged this with "no source?" The uploader tagged it with {{PD-self}}, which clearly specifies that he/she created the image. Mangojuicetalk 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I actually find it very believable that the user took those pictures. The ones tagged with PD-self are all images of Casinos in the same local area, probably pictures taken on a trip. WP:AGF dictates that we shouldn't question the user's {{PD-self}} tag, which is just about all the confirmation we could ultimately get anyway. Mangojuicetalk 21:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Still, the right thing to do is to simply ask the editor. Tagging with "no source" basically demands deletion unless they comply, which . There are loads and loads of editors who upload a couple of valid contributions to Wikipedia, don't know our rules and policies, and then vanish, but we shouldn't aim at deleting those contributions, when they say everything that's needed, just because we can't be sure. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and should honor volunteer contributions. If you still find yourself suspicious and worried, the image would at least need to go through WP:IFD, because it does give a source. Mangojuicetalk 21:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 4 | 22 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag | WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness" |
| News and notes: Talk page template, milestones | Wikipedia in the News |
| Features and admins | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
AfD Nomination: List of pequeninos
An editor has nominated the article List of pequeninos for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pequeninos. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article List of pequeninos during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 13:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
SH2
I did a bit of work. Could you tell me if you see any more problems? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Trust me on this
I saw your comment on the Administrators' noticeboard. If you insist on finding out as much as you can, well, no one can stop you from digging. But I'd like to recommend that you not. Life'll be easier. I guarantee it. No need to reply. Picaroon 02:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Monobook.js question
Could you leave me a message as to where you found your mnobook.js page? There's a small problem with it, and I'd like to get the author to fix it. Thanks. SkierRMH 21:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Merging for you
Yu-Gi-Oh! GX media and release information—Each episode has a sentence long synopsis. Have fun❣—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The class system is now working on the above. I've tested it for each class and it worked on everyone of them (see the history on the talk page) - X201 22:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 5 | 29 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Prods of HP books/films differences articles
I've removed the prod templates and brought up a discussion at Talk:Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets#Proposed deletion. Thanks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Saying that there are three cards unused is OK, I'm just really adamant about seeing crufted edits, but otherwise, your edit is OK with me.
As of this discussion, I'm totally paranoid about the cruft this "Denise Christie Chan" leaves on gaming pages such as House of the Dead and Time Crisis that's why I'm starting to get adamant about the edits on these two franchise pages, but saying "Three cards from Tarot is unused" is fine with me. You can also say "As of today's date/date of the edit, three cards from the Tarot deck remains unused."
Sega is remaining tight-lipped about future HOTD games, though. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 15:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
WUSA
How about we do this...and by we, I mean me....I call WUSA tomorrow, I get permission and the whole damned image gallery goes back up? I think permission from the actual company and actual station overrules any fair-use/public domain crap any day. Yes, I will have them send it to the admins in charge of the whole site and in writing. If necessary, I will do this for each and every station. Then they all go back up and we go on with our lives and I don't have to think about fair-use or public domain again. - SVRTVDude 03:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Broussard Quote on the DNF article
I don't think the Gamespot link is nearly as reliable as the direct Broussard quote. The Shacknews message database is just as reliable for staying around as the Gamespot news stories, and goes directly to the actual words being quoted instead of the factually *incorrect* Gamespot article. By using the citation from Gamespot you are actually making the accuracy of the DNF article worse. Charlie Wiederhold 08:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Or to put it another way, when quoting other people do we favor a citation of someone else referencing them, or do we favor the original writing of the person? The same standards should apply here. Especially in light of the Gamespot article being wrong. Charlie Wiederhold 08:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- The Gamespot article you are quoting is citing the exact message board quote you are saying can't be used. I somehow doubt it's incorrect to reference a quote from the direct source, but to quote someone *else* who is referencing that original source would be ok. The Bulletinboards, wikis, and posts to Usenet section is in relation to research/verification of information. In other words we can't just have a message board post about someone doing research into Cold Fusion. This (was) a case of a direct quote being used by a person in a manner which we can rely on being the person in question. Since the actual quote and the incorrect information has been removed my primary complaint is lessened, though I think the current edit is far less informative and useful, as well as misleading since it redirects to an article which we can verify to have false information. The information that you have decided to provide in the current edit also came from a message board post (so you are doing the exact same thing you are stating I was doing incorrectly), again referenced by the Gamespot article. Finally, you cite that the Gamespot one is reliable because it had contacted 3DR, except in the article it specifically states that they had had no confirmation from 3DR that they had actually said anything in the article. If we were to follow things to the logical conclusion you set out with, all we could do is reference the Shacknews article and stop there. Either we accept that the forum posts were by who they say they were, or all followup sources are invalid. Charlie Wiederhold 10:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 6 | 5 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Certain Time Crisis articles
Yesterday I attempted to simplify the Time Crisis 4 article to the best of my power, and I'm prolly going to do the same thing with Time Crisis 3. Check out the Time Crisis 4 article and tell me what you think. Give me some suggestions, as there could be bugs even with the simplification and condensation of the article. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 12:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Precedent?
What makes you think that image was freely licensed? I'm confused. Jkelly 00:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- No need to apologise, and it's a trivial point -- I was just curious. Jkelly 00:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Interwikis
Actually, I had went to that page to learn what they were about after the first message on my talk page about them. I thought someone was trying to enter a category in a different language and it wasn't work cause it was Russian on English Wiki....hence my deletion. My mistake...sorry. I guess I still have alot to learn here on Wiki, what with the Interwikis and whatnot. Sorry again for the confusion. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 05:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- No worries, but thanks....I appericate ya going an extra mile to find that for me. Now if I could just read Russian, I would know what those Interwikis say:) - SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 05:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Deletions
Thank you for explaining about where the correct deletion discussion was, I am not an experienced Wikipedian and the original notice on the entry for Jossed was ambiguous, implying that it was okay to delete that notice once the article had been improved.Agrestis 06:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion
In re your listing on Wikipedia:Third opinion—there was no talk page link provided to direct WP:3O to the location of the dispute. — Athænara ✉ 08:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
AGF
It is against Wikipedia policy to assume bad faith. Stop doing so. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well then, good thing - we wouldn't want people not going around insisting, without a shred of evidence, that what they say about someone is true. In fact, I'll do so right now - you're a bad Wikipedian and have not contributed anything good to Wikipedia. And since it's only a silly little insignificant guideline that says I can't say this, I guess I can then. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)