User talk:Dravecky/Archive 49
|
March 2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dravecky. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_2){kind=link}
Orphaned non-free media (File:WATR-new-Logo.jpg)
){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading File:WATR-new-Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Orphaned non-free media (File:WNLC logo.gif)
){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading File:WNLC logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
){kind=link}
The Signpost: 04 March 2013
- News and notes: Outing of editor causes firestorm
- Featured content: Slow week for featured content
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Television Stations
Orphaned non-free media (File:WATR-new-Logo.jpg)
_2){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading File:WATR-new-Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
_2){kind=link}
March 2013
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to assist in the Texan Collaboration of the Year for 2013
 | The current Texan Collaboration of the Year is Lizzie Velásquez. Every year, a different Texas-related topic, stub or non-existent article is picked. Please read the nomination text and improve the article any way you can. |
Tramadul (talk) 08:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Made a few edits, largely structural, grammatical, and wikification. This subject falls outside my areas of expertise and interest. - Dravecky (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This is an abuse of the rollback feature, at the very least, and I don't very much appreciate it. There is a right way to do things, and a wrong way. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, should have undone with "rv deletion of properly referenced text" and warned you about improperly deleting content. This article has come under so many random attacks and that section so worked over and discussed that no piece of it is the work of any one editor, banned or otherwise. - Dravecky (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I understand that you are close to the article, but there was nothing improper about its removal. Nor is there anything wrong with someone else later deciding to restore it, but as I've said, there's a right way and a wrong way. In situations like this, some sort of edit summary is probably a pretty good idea. Please don't misuse rollback again. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also, please don't delete properly referenced content that is the result of literally weeks of consensus building on an article's talkpage on the premise that it's the work of a banned user, especially without naming the banned user in question so that your assertion may be validated. Have a pleasant Monday. - Dravecky (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I understand that you are close to the article, but there was nothing improper about its removal. Nor is there anything wrong with someone else later deciding to restore it, but as I've said, there's a right way and a wrong way. In situations like this, some sort of edit summary is probably a pretty good idea. Please don't misuse rollback again. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- You are an admin - I would imagine that you possess sufficient wiki-competence to find out which user it was all on your own. If not, I would have been happy to tell you, had you bothered to ask. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- In the future, please include it in your edit summary. You were bold, I reverted, now we're discussing. You also appear to "possess sufficient wiki-competence" to have examined the article's edit history and talk page before deleting referenced, consensus-designed text. Not every deletion should require extensive detective work to uncover why it's been deleted for what appears to be an incorrect rationale. Lessons learned, let's move on, shall we? - Dravecky (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- You are an admin - I would imagine that you possess sufficient wiki-competence to find out which user it was all on your own. If not, I would have been happy to tell you, had you bothered to ask. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure any lessons have been learned. When removing edits from a banned user, there is no requirement that the details be made blindingly obvious to anyone who happens by. In fact, no immediate explanation is really required at all - one of the acceptable uses of rollback, as it happens, is reverting banned users (not that that option was available to me in this case). Believe me, I did examine the edit history carefully - your "consensus-designed text" was only superficially different from the original edit. Again, if you disagree with or don't understand the removal, that's fine. If you want to restore it on your own, that's also fine. But using rollback to restore content from a banned user is most assuredly not fine. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- As you point out, the text had been modified from what the banned user had entered and since the bulk of it was a direct quotation from a reliable source I'm not sure how much more modification would be appropriate. Blindly deleting it with a vague edit summary was certainly inappropriate but since you confess that you learned nothing here, further discussion on this point is contra-indicated as a matter of effective time management. If your life is so bereft of drama that my precise choice of how to undo your ill-advised deletion of referenced text consumes you, rest assured that I will use explicit edit summaries and appropriate templates on future encounters with such edits. - Dravecky (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure any lessons have been learned. When removing edits from a banned user, there is no requirement that the details be made blindingly obvious to anyone who happens by. In fact, no immediate explanation is really required at all - one of the acceptable uses of rollback, as it happens, is reverting banned users (not that that option was available to me in this case). Believe me, I did examine the edit history carefully - your "consensus-designed text" was only superficially different from the original edit. Again, if you disagree with or don't understand the removal, that's fine. If you want to restore it on your own, that's also fine. But using rollback to restore content from a banned user is most assuredly not fine. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Since it is apparent that you have no idea exactly what the concept of a ban means, I would feel much better if you would just avoid such edits altogether. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 March 2013
- From the editor: Signpost–Wikizine merger
- News and notes: Finance committee updates
- Featured content: Batman, three birds and a Mercedes
- Arbitration report: Doncram case closes; arbitrator resigns
- WikiProject report: Setting a precedent
- Technology report: Article Feedback reversal
The Signpost: 18 March 2013
- News and notes: Resigning arbitrator slams Committee
- WikiProject report: Making music
- Featured content: Wikipedia stays warm
- Arbitration report: Richard case closes
- Technology report: Visual Editor "on schedule"
The Signpost: 25 March 2013
- WikiProject report: The 'Burgh: WikiProject Pittsburgh
- Featured content: One and a half soursops
- Arbitration report: Two open cases
- News and notes: Sue Gardner to leave WMF; German Wikipedians spearhead another effort to close Wikinews
- Technology report: The Visual Editor: Where are we now, and where are we headed?
WEER & WEEG radio stations
Thanks for setting the articles for WEER and WEEG straight. As you saw, I did make an attempt to clarify what WEER and WEEG are/were, but it didn't turn out as well as I had hoped :-) --DrChuck68 (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- No worries. Always happy to help with radio station articles. - Dravecky (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Chicago Slaughter seasons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indoor football (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) 19:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
| | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dravecky. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | → | Archive 55 |