User talk:Dragon695: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:20, 11 February 2006 editMike McGregor (Can) (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users4,970 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:45, 11 February 2006 edit undoDragon695 (talk \| contribs)1,687 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 105:		Line 105:

	Userboxes are deleted reasonably regularly; there are all sorts of reasons why any template might be deleted, and many of them apply to userbox templates just as much as those outside user space. Someone has reverted your change. --] 16:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)		Userboxes are deleted reasonably regularly; there are all sorts of reasons why any template might be deleted, and many of them apply to userbox templates just as much as those outside user space. Someone has reverted your change. --] 16:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
			:I'm sorry I got angry, violated ], and added that out of frustration. However, by a certain individual's definition, all non-encyclopedic templates are therefore "qualified candidates". That just isn't true, userboxes are not typical templates. I was under the impression that an official policy was being crafted regarding them subsequent to the entire Kelly Martin affair. I don't think it is fair or fruitful to just ignore the ongoing effort to reach consensus around a policy and revert to rules-lawyering just to prove a point. And I certainly think that the whole hubbub about <nowiki>{{User pedophile}}</nowiki> was way over the top and is absolutely not a reason to resume purging userboxes. All it says is that we have some activist admins who are unable to control themselves. To be quite frank, I don't feel one way or the other about pedophiles. From a scientific viewpoint, I think that, like most of us, they're people with mental health problems (I suffer from severe bi-polar disorder and ADD myself). Honestly, I have much more important things to worry about. Yet there seems to be certain people who just have to be crusaders. There seems to be too much illogical, irrational actions around here. I understand if they feel a certain way, but overreacting to a dumb userbox is just insane and people who do it really need to seek professional help. Look, every time I see ]'s userpage, I get irked (see for yourself). But I don't go blubbering to the first admin, whining that my feelings are hurt because he seeks to imply that liberals, like myself, and Osama bin Laden think alike. Who cares if we have some similar thinking patterns? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. In the end, all this drama accomplished was to spill over into and '''ruin''' a much need project to make one of the most poorly written series of articles of all of Misplaced Pages (those concerning inter-generational relationships and various sundry items) more accurate and encyclopedic.
			:Look, I probably am just another dumb user to you. That's fine. I've not done anything meritorious. However, I've been lurking around here/using Misplaced Pages ever since Jimbo's last major media blitz tour (culminating in C-SPAN's Q&A). I decided to sign up so that I could work on the problems listed in my TODO List(AKA My Gay Agenda ). When I first started looking at userpages last year, I thought one of the nicer aspects were the userboxes. To me they told me more about the individual as a person and made them less of a "stick figure" in my mind then any written words. More to the point, they assisted me in determining the accuracy/POV of their contribution. I make judicious use of history as a way of making sure that the article I'm reading is complete and accurate. I think the idea that people's bias is checked at the door is rubbish. That isn't possible, and anyone honest will admit that. That is why I plan to '''actively''' seek out people with opposing view points to help determine if any potentially controversial submission I make is NPOV or POV. I want to know if my bias is creeping into my work and welcome constructive critiques from those most likely to make them. Better to get things upfront rather then to get bogged down in edit war later. Anywho, that's just my POV, feel free to disagree. --] 08:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

	==help yourself==		==help yourself==

Revision as of 08:45, 11 February 2006

Current time: 02:43. Purge page cache Welcome to Dragon695's talk page

on Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit

Messages

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). If you're new to Misplaced Pages, please see Welcome to Misplaced Pages and frequently asked questions.
I will reply to messages left here below your comment, not on your talk page.
Please do not reply to archived messages, but instead create a new topic on the main talk page.

Please add new discussions by clicking here.

Archives (in blocks of 30):

None

Welcome!

Hello Dragon695, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me on my talk page or see Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question. Again, welcome! --Sean|Black 06:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying hello! I hope to begin contributing in earnest once I get settled in. --Dragon695 06:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

SC User box

Thanks for your help. I was surprised that there were none that I could find, so I made it. This my first template I have ever made.--Adam 02:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

pls check the talk page on this template.--Adam

02:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea! --Dragon695 02:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem :). Initially, I had wanted to change it is so that it would be the same height as the USA template, but you know, once I got started I decided to throw in the other changes as well. --Dragon695 02:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic, Violation of copyright?

How does including the lyrics to a song violate a copyright and in what way is not encyclopedic??

I believe usage of the lyrics is not covered by copyright and even if it were it would be covered under a fair use theory of law.

Definition of Encyclopedia (merriam-webster.com): a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject.

(Headsinger 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC))

The lyrics were reverted at least twice before (check history). Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files (nor is it a repository of lyrical source material). As to lyrics not being covered by copyright, I believe the author of that song would beg to differ. Also, it is one thing to selectively quote song lyrics, it's quite another to reproduce the song lyrics in their entirety. Reproduction of written works of any type, in their entirety, is rather dubious where fair use is concerned. --Dragon695 22:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Re Uncle Fucka: Dragon695 is correct. - brenneman 23:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I second the above. Most people believe that "fair use" laws cover a far more cases than they actually do. In personal life or private websites, that is unlikely to turn out to be problematic. On a large encyclopedia that also happens to be one of the top-50 most frequently viewed websites in the world, it is a problem. It is, however, nice to have information about a song, e.g. what it's about, how fans reacted to it, or if it won any awards or sparked controversy. R adiant _>|< 11:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

EFF userbox

Please keep the width of the image at 40px, it f's up the layout for many people; userboxes are meant to have the smaller box to the left at 45px maximum. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 08:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I'll be more careful in the future! --Dragon695 17:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Improper userbox deletion

I'm sorry - but is there some misunderstanding? Could you please refer to which actions I have conducted which are questionable? And also, I am unsure of what action you wish me to take - I am not an administrator, so I can not delete nor undelete things, so may I therefore ask you clarify your statement. Thanks! Ian13|talk 17:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I thought you were an admin ;-). I'll tak it to nightstallion. --Dragon695 17:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, its just because it sounded like you were questioning some of my actions. Good luck! Ian13|talk 17:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh no problem, sorry if that was the impression, my beef is with Tony Sidaway. --Dragon695 17:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing comments and/or positions on an RFC

~~Is extremely, extremely discouraged. We are talking really really discouraged here. Please don't do it again (and yes I do suppose this counts as an official warning and all *sigh*)~~ Kim Bruning 03:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me??? I didn't remove anything. Please clarify! --Dragon695 03:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Crap, you are correct, my sincere apologies. It was an anon, and I was briefly mislead by the way in which the anon had written it. (Please feel free to refactor this section off of your talk page, once you have read the apology) Sorry again. Kim Bruning 03:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all, I was worried I accidently deleted somthing by mistake. Thanks for clearing it up. --Dragon695 03:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And here I finger the real culprit WP:AN/I#Interesting_edits_by_anon_to_congressional_RFC, sorry for the misunderstanding. Kim Bruning 03:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't sweat it! I know you probably have your work cut out for you with that RFC ;-). BTW, unless you want it, I'd kinda prefer to not delete talk entries in the interest of openness and full disclosure . I'll go ahead and put a strikethrough to indicate that it was just a misunderstanding :-). --Dragon695 04:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks!

Hey! Thanks for the Murrow pic barnstar thingy! Actually, I felt I didn't deserve it -- I haven't really done much work on the pedophila articles, I just put together a project structure -- so I gave it over to Lotusduck who deserves it more. But thanks! Herostratus 09:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I take it you were referring to the RfC I'm preparing against Tony Sidaway, as that's the only thing of the sort I'm undertaking at the moment. The charges are outlined, and I'll gladly add the anti-Randroid box deletion to the list of grievances. What's still needed is more diffs proving that people attempted to reason with him on all the listed violations; I haven't gotten around to that yet. If you want to help, the RfC is being compiled here. Rogue 9 12:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't have but I did.

I thought you might get a laugh out of the story I put on the Payson, Az's vandal's user page. User:24.121.122.92--mitrebox 04:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it didn't work, cause all I see is a redlink :-/. --Dragon695 09:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion

I see that you added this to the TfD criteria for deletion:

The template is not a userbox.

Userboxes are deleted reasonably regularly; there are all sorts of reasons why any template might be deleted, and many of them apply to userbox templates just as much as those outside user space. Someone has reverted your change. --Tony Sidaway 16:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I got angry, violated WP:COOL, and added that out of frustration. However, by a certain individual's definition, all non-encyclopedic templates are therefore "qualified candidates". That just isn't true, userboxes are not typical templates. I was under the impression that an official policy was being crafted regarding them subsequent to the entire Kelly Martin affair. I don't think it is fair or fruitful to just ignore the ongoing effort to reach consensus around a policy and revert to rules-lawyering just to prove a point. And I certainly think that the whole hubbub about {{User pedophile}} was way over the top and is absolutely not a reason to resume purging userboxes. All it says is that we have some activist admins who are unable to control themselves. To be quite frank, I don't feel one way or the other about pedophiles. From a scientific viewpoint, I think that, like most of us, they're people with mental health problems (I suffer from severe bi-polar disorder and ADD myself). Honestly, I have much more important things to worry about. Yet there seems to be certain people who just have to be crusaders. There seems to be too much illogical, irrational actions around here. I understand if they feel a certain way, but overreacting to a dumb userbox is just insane and people who do it really need to seek professional help. Look, every time I see TDC's userpage, I get irked (see for yourself). But I don't go blubbering to the first admin, whining that my feelings are hurt because he seeks to imply that liberals, like myself, and Osama bin Laden think alike. Who cares if we have some similar thinking patterns? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. In the end, all this drama accomplished was to spill over into and ruin a much need project to make one of the most poorly written series of articles of all of Misplaced Pages (those concerning inter-generational relationships and various sundry items) more accurate and encyclopedic.

Look, I probably am just another dumb user to you. That's fine. I've not done anything meritorious. However, I've been lurking around here/using Misplaced Pages ever since Jimbo's last major media blitz tour (culminating in C-SPAN's Q&A). I decided to sign up so that I could work on the problems listed in my TODO List(AKA My Gay Agenda ). When I first started looking at userpages last year, I thought one of the nicer aspects were the userboxes. To me they told me more about the individual as a person and made them less of a "stick figure" in my mind then any written words. More to the point, they assisted me in determining the accuracy/POV of their contribution. I make judicious use of history as a way of making sure that the article I'm reading is complete and accurate. I think the idea that people's bias is checked at the door is rubbish. That isn't possible, and anyone honest will admit that. That is why I plan to actively seek out people with opposing view points to help determine if any potentially controversial submission I make is NPOV or POV. I want to know if my bias is creeping into my work and welcome constructive critiques from those most likely to make them. Better to get things upfront rather then to get bogged down in edit war later. Anywho, that's just my POV, feel free to disagree. --Dragon695 08:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

help yourself

User:Mike McGregor (Can)/code page

you know which one you want... BTW, if you know how to link to a category to group like-minded users together, please modify...Mike McGregor (Can) 03:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)