No edit summary |
Danteferno (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 206: | Line 206: | ||
Hello, are you still interested in mediation? Please reply at my talk page. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">Redwolf24</font>]] ([[User talk:Redwolf24|talk]]) 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) |
Hello, are you still interested in mediation? Please reply at my talk page. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">Redwolf24</font>]] ([[User talk:Redwolf24|talk]]) 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Leyasu|Leyasu]] == |
|||
You don't know me, but we both got into a similar debacle with the same user. (A user who fails to provide references/justification for their edits |
|||
and when brought up, he/she engages in personal attacks. Sound familiar?) I hope Wikipedia cracks down on stuff like this in the future; Mature, responsible editors shouldn't have to take the fall. Cheers, [[User:Danteferno|Danteferno]] 15:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:15, 15 January 2006
Hi - A while ago, you changed category:fictional places into a redirect to category:fictional locations. I don't know if you already know this, but category redirects effectively don't work (articles added to the redirected category don't show up in the "redirected to" category, etc.). I'll put category:fictional places in WP:CFD. -- Rick Block 02:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
boston meetup?
Hi LG, we're planning a Boston meetup on Nov 20 or 21. Leave a note on that page if you think you could make it. +sj+ 06:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Palahniuk Photos
Believe it or not, I just brought the photos in for development today. I will add one, I promise. I have got to get one of those digital cameras already. --Feitclub 16:24, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Adminship
Recently I did some analysis of contribution history for Wikipedia, the fruits of which are at Wikipedia:Another list of Wikipedians in order of arrival. As I reviewed the list, I noted that there are about a dozen longtime contributors who have not been made administrators. You are one of them. Accordingly, I would like to nominate you for adminship, with your permission. If you would appreciate such a nomination, please let me know on my talk page. If you do wish to decline, a note so saying would also be appreciated, though not necessary. Kindest regards, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wild accusations
Accusing me of flaming when I am conciliatory towards you and threatening to tittletattle to an admin (as if they were teachers you could run to rather than just other editors! They are not the police, just people like you and I) instead of sorting out the problem you have with me for opposing your nomination for admin convince me even further to strongly oppose your elevation to adminship. As I said, I don't see the point of discussing this further. I will not respond to further comment from you on this issue in the hopes that you will back off and involve yourself in other work on Wikipedia.Dr Zen 04:46, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) I have asked you not to continue the conflict with me. Because you would not, I have blocked you from commenting on my talk page. I deplore your threatening me. That makes you, more than anything else, totally unsuitable for becoming an admin.Dr Zen 05:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi, LGagnon. I sent you an e-mail through the "E-mail this user" function many hours ago. Did you get it?--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen ( talk)]] 22:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dr Zen
So, I'm not the only one who thinks Dr Zen is a troll. RickK 23:41, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
He has openly attacked me on Talk:Yasser Arafat and accused me of "bias" when I pointed out the fallacy in his argument. I would appreciate it if you could explain to me the history of your interaction with Dr. Zen. You may email me or respond on my talk page. Thank you. --Viriditas 02:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have attempted to resolve my differences with Dr. Zen. Let's see how long it lasts. I encourage you to do the same, if you are able. --Viriditas 11:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Adminship
I read your note on my talk page. You are correct that much of the problem is in the adminship process itself, rather than being entirely a matter of your actions. The process for approving adminship nominations is a frustrating one and it is not usual for nominations to be voted down for unfair reasons. I apologize for my role in this.
I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia, despite its flaws. If you should wish to seek adminship at some point in the future, let me know and I will help as best I can.
Very kindest regards
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Article Licensing
Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...
- ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
- ...all articles...
using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.
- Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 18:03, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Hi LGagnon, I've changed Category:Smashing Pumpkins a bit. Please see the talk page. I wanted to warn you, since I expect you'll have an opinion one way or the other. Please let me know if you disagree with what I've done. Thanks, --Dbenbenn 02:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I changed your redirection about the Key Values of the Green Party. The Green Party is not only the american Green Party, but on the contrary a world wide organisation sharing common values, defined in key values and pillars. Please be careful not to propagate american centrism on this project. Thanks. Anthere 09:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Only US party ? Ah ? ... I think we often refers to them... 6 principles and 10 values. Hmmmmm. Well, if you say so...never mind Anthere
You stuck an accuracy dispute tag on that page, but you didn't indicate what you are disputing. Please, either clarify your issues or remove the tag. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:09, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Song lyrics
You made a comment on my talk page a few days ago regarding me adding links to song lyrics in song articles here on Wikipedia. I commented on that, but you have not followed up, so would you please go to my talk page and respond to my comments, as I maintain that links to song lyrics do not constitute a copyright violation, as the lyric sites themselves are legal with the appropriate copyright notices provided. Thank you. Solver 14:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Taking God's name in vain
Concerning your comments on how taking God's name in vain is really about breaking a contract:
I agree, up to a point. First of all, we really don't know how the phrase was understood in the time of Moses. We have an excellent understanding of Jewish thinking around 600-700, due to the Talmud, and a pretty good understanding for a few centuries prior to that, but Moses was a couple of millenia back. Second, "taking God's name in vain" has been used to refer to profanity, especially that involving "God", "Jesus", etc., in both European and American christian circles for centuries. When English speakers hear "taking God's name in vain", they think "profanity", whether they agree that this is what it means or not.
But, again, you are basically right. So, how to restate this? -- Nowhither 03:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Footnotes
I guess (and it is only a guess) that "Notes" arose as a section title because, strictly speaking, they do not appear at the foot of the page. --Theo (Talk) 07:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. Since you've been previously nominated I added an '*' immediately before your name in this list. If for any reason you're NOT interested, my apologies and please remove the '*' (you could entirely remove yourself from the list also, if you'd like). I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I notice you added Jeff Luers to this category. It's been voted for deletion but I am trying to save it. Please come to Votes for undeletion to express your view. David File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | Talk 00:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To be honest, that bit with Black Flag and the Dead Kennedys reads worse after your revert. What it now appears to say is "These two bands was one of the first US Bands..." I'd suggest either removing the reference to Black Flag (band) or make an edit similar to the one I made. -- Xinit 07:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Locals
I thought "Gagnon" sounded like a home-town name, but I just let it go, and then I found you and I were both editing UMass Dartmouth and New Bedford. So, are you from the New Bedford area originally? I grew up there, and attended high school in Dartmouth back in the class of '87. Just wondering, since we seem to be editing in the same places these days... -Harmil 20:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Films
Look for pl:wiki films's ranking here. It is for all users in polish Wikipedia. Time for vote - during July. If you want... :) Przykuta 13:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
moving pages
Hi, I see you've moved Talk:Fight Club (book) back to Talk:Fight Club (and the rest of the book articles). Looking at the history, you haven't actually moved them so much as copied and pasted the contents. This isn't good, the edit history is not present on the current Talk:Fight Club and Fight Club pages. Please see the Help:Renaming_(moving)_a_page article, specifically Help:Renaming_(moving)_a_page#Undoing_a_move. It's a bit late for me so I'm not 100% sure, apologies if I'm mistaken. Bear with me whilst I try to sort it out... -- Jon Dowland 22:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've reverted the cut-and-pastes so we now have our edit histories. Although I don't agree with Fight Club (book) being directed to from Fight Club, I'll try and restore that since it's nearly what the situation was before I introduced the disambig page, then it can be discussed on a talk. Rather than have to wait for an admin to delete the redir page, I'll move it somewhere, move the book one back and request for the moved redir page to be deleted. -- Jon Dowland 22:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok there we go, sorted. -- Jon Dowland 22:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Deleted MAME-emulated arcade games
I've noticed you've deleted my category of MAME-emulated arcade games. I don't complain, but I was trying to find the proper place to put up a list of just that, now that playagain.net is gone and a decent updated ROM list is harder to find. Perhaps you could tell me where to look. I know it may be redundant, but I was not sure were MAME-emulated games fit best. I know most are arcade games, so should I put my list there?
--Abaraibar 21:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
- OK, but you misunderstood me. I don't want a ROM list: I already have one and only wanted to share it because I thought some people would find it interesting. Not because I wanted to facilitate any illegal downloading (I was not going to upload the ROMs or anything!) but because I think that MAME ROM lists are very useful in documenting arcade games' details such as they were vector or raster, year, company, etc. Don't get me wrong, man. I'm here to help, not to spam or do illegal things! --Abaraibar 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Crystal Pepsi
I notice that we're both working on this article. I have some info' on the subject at home, which I plan to add to Wikipedia soon. I hope that you might contact me - via aaron.jethro@chemist.com or through WikiTalk - so that we might be able to arrive at a final [sic] edit of the piece. Thanks.
New Bedford
Not a fan of alternating left/right for images, eh? Oh well, for a fellow New Bedfordite, I suppose I can let it go. ;-) -Harmil 23:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi. You recently tagged these articles for speedy deletion, but it's not clear what WP:CSD they meet. Can you update the tags to {{deletebecause|}} and indicate which criteria they meet? Thanks! Pburka 19:06, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Firestarter disambiguation
The firestarter firewall seems to be the more common term on the net than the book. Seems like a good reason to have a disambig page for "Firestarter" itself. --Ambar 04:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Chuck Palahniuk
Thanks for putting up the Mainpage date on this article. It looks like you had a lot to do with it becoming a FA in the first place so, congratulations. --hydnjo talk 00:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Bret Easton Ellis bio.
Thanks for NPOVing my addidtion of the bio to the Bret Easton Ellis entry. I guess I had a brain-fart or something. I should of known better than to say "excellent" because I've made similar NPOV changes myself to other entries. I guess I forgot. ;)
Matthew king 04:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Dead Kennedys
Hello, you recently reverted a link I added to the Dead Kennedys page, because you said it was redudant, by which I assume you mean that because the music is linked below, there's no need for two links. If that is indeed the case (and I'm sorry for the incovencie if it isn't), then at least to other musics, "Kill the Poor" and "Nazi Punks Fuck Off!" should be de-linked as well, for they too have two links on the page, one on the "lyrical stance" part and one at the "singles" part. SO if you could clear that up for me, I'd be grateful. --Vertigo200 21:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC) Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me! =] --Vertigo200 03:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Great American Novel
Quick question on your addition to the Great American Novel page - what's the reasoning for including a link to zeitgeist? I don't see the connection, and the zeitgeist article has nothing to do with American novels. Before I delete the link, I'd like to hear your logic for adding it. Thanks. | Keithlaw 04:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Never mind - I just realized it wasn't your addition in the first place. My error. | Keithlaw 04:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Do not edit articles you have no warrant over
The dieselpunk article is unrealted to your expertise, therefore I would reccomend you do not change or edit it simply out of your own biased opinion that Dark City is not dieselpunk when in fact it has been considered and an inspiration to the dieselpunk genre. Therefore stop trying to advocate your fascist tendencies on every article. I backed down from the pathetic argument of pointing out the characteristics of why Dark City would fit into the dieselpunk category but you and your followers seem to be obsessed of keeping the article entirely isolated from any othe rcategory than those who deem to be fit. Therefore I would appreciate you do not put your POV on the dieselpunk article which is a consensus on the general idea and attributes listed referring to the genre. You may want to take your authoritarian ways to the Cyberpunk list of films where they ALSO list Dark City! Piecraft 01:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Apology in order
Dear LGagnon, I am writing in order to extend a form of an apology, not because I was asked or forced to but because I actually feel that my words towards you were perhaps unfair and unjustified. I am hoping however that you will understand my perspective, I might not be an editor with as much experience as yours, but I still feel that I was not being taken seriously by yourself along with your peers from the Dark City article page. I am willing to accept that Dark City is not justifiably a film that would be listed as dieselpunk, however I still believe it should be mentioned in the article as a movie that represents elements present in the genre, or that has inspired the genre to its followers etc... I am hoping that perhaps by starting off on a better ground we can come to a fair agreement and discussion relating to perhaps the further advancement of the dieselpunk article. I do not believe it should be deleted - because I honestly know it to be a definitive term, perhaps not as developed. With your help and insight perhaps we can discuss further and sort out the differences? Again I am hoping this attempt for seeking peace has not been in vain on my side. Thanks for your consideration. Piecraft 19:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism
Thank you for quickly reversing my vandalism
--J7 19:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Deletion of 'green wikipedians' category
Hi. I saw you're (like me) listed in this category which is up for deletion. Hoped you'd like to vote in favor of keeping it... Thanks! Larix 02:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for voting! Larix 16:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Dispute
I must admit to not being very familiar with what can be done. It looks like WP:DR is your first step in the process. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Dispute part 2
I'm afraid I don't know enough about the topic to help solve the content dispute. As for the personality clash between you and User:Leyasu, it doesn't look to me like it's escalated to the point where even a request for comment about him would be necessary, though that would in principle be the first step if several people agree he's violating policy. For now, my advice is just read WP:COOL and ignore it when he calls you a megalomaniac. --Angr (t·c) 07:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Dispute with Leyasu
Hello, LGagnon. I have been asked by the other party involved in this dispute to give input and possibly take an attempt at mediation, so please listen to what I have to say. It is clear that both of you have reached a point in which it can be said that you both are wrong. Editors that cannot agree on certain issues need make their edit sourced, backing up their claims. If each of you provides evidence to back-up your claims, there will be nothing to discuss. I would like to ask that you made no threats and avoided personal attacks, those are both blockable offences. Keep your head cool and edit patiently, it is clear the issue you both are arguing over is not major, so treat it as such. This comment is made to both parties. You both should try to edit constructively. --Sn0wflake 01:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I did have a glance at the Talk page and I have already contacted Leyasu and will also be attempting to mediate her. I am definitely not taking sides, but out of the exchanges I read, you seemed to be the one to be discussing with the most agressivity. As I have said, you both have begun taking this issue a little too personally, and are both a little outside of what is expected of civil editors. If you both could try discussing the matters more calmly, it would benefit all. I have asked her to provide sources, also. If a serious issu pops-up, you may contact me. --Sn0wflake 02:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
Seeing that is unlikely that any of you will voluntarily come to terms, I will do what I feel is fair for both parties. From now on, you both have a clean record. Please, please try to forget your old issues. However, from this point on, whenever one of you makes a personal attack, I will enforce a 6-hour block. If you can discuss amicably, best for everyone, but if you cannot, at least you will think twice before saying something offensive to one another.
I know it's hard to overcome this sort of dispute, but I have done so a couple of times in the past. My suggestion is that first you both stay away from the article for at least a day, then, when you return to discussion, try to not step on toes. Give suggestions instead of enforcing ideas, do not discuss much, instead, produce reliable sources. If you act in this manner, all will work out. --Sn0wflake 04:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
You have been blocked for 12 hours for violating 3RR on Grunge music
You are invited to edit again once the block has expired. The evidence is here. The 3 revert rule is extremely important and should not be violated under any circumstances. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
LGagnon, I seem to have come to terms with Leyasu, so now let's talk. She asks for the template to be removed, but everything else may stay. Thus, you can claim that hardcore punk and grunge music are basically the same thing according to Hype!, as long as we make it clear that according to other views, they are different genres. The Category:Hardcore punk genres may also stay, I assume. Are we game? I think it's a good way of making sure that both of you have your views presented. --Sn0wflake 03:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- The conclusion of the dispute resolution is as follows: the template will be removed, and the category stays. Assertions that grunge is similiar to hardcore punk may be made as long as it is made explicit that there is no consensus on that. Leyasu and LGagnon are encouraged to avoid interaction in the future, and in case that is made necessary, it is advised that unless it is a trivial matter, they ask for an admin to proxy the discussion. The article will be unprotected ASAP and admin Sn0wflake makes a request that both editors stay away from the article for at least a few days, only reverting the occasional vandalism if it is necessary. Regards, --Sn0wflake 04:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
RFM
Hello, are you still interested in mediation? Please reply at my talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You don't know me, but we both got into a similar debacle with the same user. (A user who fails to provide references/justification for their edits and when brought up, he/she engages in personal attacks. Sound familiar?) I hope Wikipedia cracks down on stuff like this in the future; Mature, responsible editors shouldn't have to take the fall. Cheers, Danteferno 15:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)