User talk:Royalguard11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

User	Talk	Desk	Contrib's	Awards	Email	Userbox Archive	Userbox Personality Essay	AIV'er	Review Me!

Archives

---

• January 2006-September 2006
• October 2006-

[edit] New page

Encyclopedia page.To put new info on.

P.S. What did you mean by pesonal page?

Alchemistjikan 13:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Thanks for the help.I know who to turn to if I need anything else.

Alchemistjikan 15:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMA Request

Thank you for your note Royalguard11. The dispute does revolve around the interpretation of the policy on verifiability. I will comment in detail shortly. --Ian Pitchford 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you so much for actually stating in TfD#Template:MySpace what the exact problem is. Though we're on opposing sides of the discussion, I really appreciate it that you didn't just spew out policy shortcuts at me; there are times that I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall in this TfD (or, at best, people who vote "delete" and don't monitor the discussion), and the fact that you actually spelled out your position (again, though we disagree) is very appreciated. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jenna Jameson myspace link

It's her official myspace site, and promoted as such from her company site and fan club. Appropriate as official page per WP:EL: "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid:..." AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice abuse of the rollback tool for non-vandalism edits. I wouldn't count myspace as the official page unless there is no other official page to goto. We can't link to everyone's 12 different official pages. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I see you are requesting to be reviewed in your signature. I read this excellent and recent statement from you at that editor review:

My way of dealing with conflict is to ask questions, why is it happening. I'm not a person that will go "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong".

It really is a good statement, and I would happily encourage others to follow it.

You will see the quote from the policy that you claimed to be following explicitly contradicts you, using "an", not "the", meaning that yes, we can link to multiple official pages. I agree with you that 12 would be excessive, but there aren't 12. It is a sufficiently long and comprehensive article that it is not close to becoming a link farm. It has a total of 6 External links, while today's Wikipedia:Featured Article, Jaws (film) has 10.

Whether removal of an official site link in clear contradiction to policy that you explicitly refer to in your removal comment is vandalism or not is at least debatable. I did believe myself to be sufficiently justified in using the rollback tool for it, but didn't explicitly call your action vandalism in the note above.

But I will say that your response does read as a bit of a contradiction to your truly admirable editor review statement. I don't see a single question in your response, while I do see "I wouldn't ... we can't ..." which does seem to be two assertions that you are right, and I am wrong. And the word "abuse", of course, which - right or wrong - seems to be an escalation of conflict that could be avoided. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Geez, that was stupid of me. I was in a bit of a rush, and was a little annoyed at people who think that IAR is a reasonable keep reason. I have finally went and took a look at the mailing list also from yesterday (which I didn't do before), and saw a discussion on WP:RS, among other things. But, I stupidly jumped to "I'm right and your wrong" like I said I wouldn't. I should have stepped away for a couple minutes, and it's good someone actually asked me what I was doing. Although, while looking through transclusions of {{myspace}} (how I found that), I did find some links to myspace that were blatent advertisments. So, I guess the right thing now is to ask for consensus of people, and not single-handidly do something like deleting all transclusions (unless of course it's a link to "the unofficial myspace fansite for _insertartisthere_" or "Bob's page" or a full page ad). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Whew. Thank you, that's nice of you. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support at RFA

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 23:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for November 27th.

Weekly Delivery

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 01:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadowtool

I'd be happy to give you a copy of ShadowTool! I'm not entirely sure of the situation with Perl on Macs, but if you'd like to give it a go, you're more than welcome to. The only thing that I'm worried about is Firefox, since that's what ShadowTool uses to load edits, but, other than that, I think it should work fairly well. If you could, put your name under User:Shadow1/ShadowTool in 'Beta Testers,' and I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you have in #shadowtool on freenode. Thanks! Shadow1 (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll be releasing ShadowTool 1.00pre within the next day or so, keep an eye on the project page for the download. Shadow1 (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confused!

I don't mean to be defensive, but I was wondering about the comment here: [1]

I think all I had done on Saskatoon was change "couldn't be colder then our bedroom" to "couldn't be colder than our bedroom".

Still new to this editing business, but I thought I was just taking care of a little typo--not "experimenting"....

Let me know if I did something wrong! (Or if I misunderstood the comment!) I'll keep this IP address for awhile....

Thanks,

mmori

PS: All cleared up! Thanks!

PS: Newbie Question for Royalguard11: Since you're the first person to welcome me to Wikipedia, can you tell me how to link to a version of an article in another language? I've tried the "language:Article Title" tag, but that only shows up in the "in other languages" sidebar. I've been using external links, but I was wondering if there was a better way...?

PS: BTW, I do have a login--I'll try not to be so lazy in the future...! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.244.2.91 (talk • contribs) 22:41, December 3, 2006.

[edit] Re: Tmalmjursson's helpme...

Thank you so much for dropping by and providing me with the assistance I needed. I normally sort of guess what language the code would be, but with Croatian, i didnt have a clue. Once again, Thanks and if you ever need any help, point yourself at my talk page and I will be glad to reciprocate. Thor Malmjursson 19:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for IRC

Thank you for the tips on IRC. I'll probably have some more time to tinker around with it after my school projects and exams. :) --CyclePat 05:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 4th.

Weekly Delivery

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 05:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HUH?

WP:YFA?What is that supposed to mean.

Alchemistjikan 16:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Trust me I changed it back. Watersoftheoasis

[edit] Impressive

I'm surprised someone from Canada was interested enough in CHS to pick that up so fast. Honestly, 'tis just fun and games, I wanted to changed it and then revert it for the screenshot :D

-E-EoP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.173.91.49 (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] AMA Request

The dispute has been resolved! Thanks. Reginhild 23:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal Sniper

I was never able to get it to work. I had more success with Vandal Fighter, but also ultimately I had trouble with various OSX requirements. Mkdw^talk 02:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA nom

Martinp23 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for voting

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 19:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 11th.

Weekly Delivery

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 05:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Worlds-Smallest-Political-Quiz.PNG

Many images on Wikipedia are mistagged. Only the copyright holder can authorize a derivative work of a copyrighted work, so if you copy and paste a picture out of someone else's document, edit someone else's photo, etc, that doesn't give you rights to it and the resulting work is not available to Wikipedia under a free license. That is why I changed the tag on Image:Worlds-Smallest-Political-Quiz.PNG to a "fair use" tag - it is not free. The original uploader reverted it back, asserting permission. I have left a message on his/her talk page explaining derivative works and asking if, in fact, the original copyright holder has authorized this derivative work and released it under the license that was selected. The new image is not quite as straight forward. Facts are public domain, so I would be inclined to think that this image is ok to use. (I'd strongly suggest getting the parody tag off of there, though.) Others may disagree, though, and consider this to be a derivative work of the original image. BigDT 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMA meeting

Thanks for pointing it out to me. I voted on a couple of the polls but I don't think I can really catch up to all that has been said this late in the game without my brain exploding! Will watch for the next one. - Jord 22:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Royalguard, My name is Barbara Biggs. I appear to hve been blocked from Wikipedia in a process I find confronting. I innocently wrote my own entry, only to find it contravened WP guidelines. I emailed what I had written to the friend who suggested I make an entry, saying that it was too difficult and that I had lived without a WP entry for this long and could continue to survive without it now! He then posted a version to the site without telling me. This version has since been the subject of what I consider to be a strange process. All but one person has suggested the article should be kept, since notability is clear. I and the one person who has voted for a speedy delete, Alan, have had coridal discussions about teaching me how to edit articles and source them. There are many about child sexual abuse which I, as a person who volunteers much of my time to this field, read as rubbish and highjacked by a particular extremist group. Then I discovered, just today, a discussion on Alan's page (being unable to access my own, since my username appears, as a result of this? to have been removed or made inaccessible, I went in to Alan's page to ask why). He and another guy, who, btw, has a keep recommendation on my article, saying I've been disobedient in continuing to edit my own article. I haven't edited my own article except to change typos and add sources. I may have done this a lot, since I didn't know about the show preview function, so each time I made a minor change, people may have thought it was a major one. Once it was putting in an apostrophe, another time changing a typo. As I pointed out to Alan and the other user, many of the sources I have found don't come up on a google search because they're too old (even only a couple of years old can be too old in this environment). I am the only person who knows who has interviewd me and where, therefore I was able to find sources that others would have had no hope finding because they wouldn't know where to look. I have added these sources. Now I read that doing this is a violation of WP policy. I have lived my life not waiting for others to fix problems. Had I waited for others to source the material, I would still be waiting. Another user with a strong keep tag on the discussion page, sent me a recent article in the Washington Post about WP's inexplicable handling of notability and it's delete policy. This was not positive for WP media profile, especially having been published in such a well respected publication. This seems to me like an enormous amount of time and effort I have put into this, about a fairly innocuous article, that, as one user has pointed out, when read could have been written by anyone. Are people having control issues here? This has put me off WP, helping out with changing some of the outright rubbish I have read on it (See unsourced opinions and claims on Recovered Memory Therapy, The Courage to Heal, Satanic Ritual Abuse and many more - all, in my opinion, highjacked by the recovered memory movement which most professionals in the field believe is fuelled by people who have either been accused of child sexual abuse or have a loved one who has been). If you want people like me to have a positive experience with WP and continue to be involved to help clean up such articles, as Alan has suggested, it does not serve the purpose to make such heavy work of what should have been a fairly straight forward process. Finally, I have asked if someone can rewrite my article if it's a problem. No-one has taken up the offer. At this stage, it seems like far more trouble than it's worth.