User talk:Gavinmacqueen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Gavinmacqueen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 03:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Original_contour_bottle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Original_contour_bottle.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In response to your comment

(In response to "...even in the dark!!! In other word, by touch. I believe you're thinking visually. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the Coca-Cola Company because they're the ones who coined the phrase.[1]")

Oh, is that so? Well, if that's the case, I suggest you do the following:

1. Don't make that point sound so silly.
2. Add a citation so the point doesn't get questioned.

Looking at the article, it seems that you did add a citation. Good; that's good practice. Now, the other thing you need to do is to not make the point sound so silly. May I suggest, 1. don't use boldface; it's unneccessary and it implies silliness in the way you used it, and 2. maybe something along the lines of, "Today, the contour Coca-Cola bottle is one of the most recognized packages on the planet, and as a result of the aforementioned contest, the bottle is literally suggested by the Coca-Cola Company to be recognizable in the dark." I don't care if what you used is a direct quote from Coca-Cola's site; heck, one may even liken it to be plagiarism if they really wanted to. (I'm not going to bother, though.)

I'll let you make the neccessary changes. Maybe you ought to learn something, too. As for the sample quote I provided, I could certainly come up with something better. If you word that quote differently, then more compliments to you!

My apologies for the misunderstanding. And another thing: please sign your posts on talk pages. It's just good etiquette. Also taking another look at my talk page, it seems you added that touch too. Good! That's a good thing. :)

--Digiku 05:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

(In response to "Well thank you for your input...I think :) I didn't like the bolded text either...I just did that toward the end just to taunt you...lol. [...]")

"Silly"? Gee, to say that, you wouldn't even know the half of what I mean.

Since it seems you recognized the previous point I made, I will now discuss another point: keep in mind Wikipedia's policy titled, "no personal attacks". By saying this, I refer to one edit summary of yours,

Did you read the paragraphs preceding? Coca-Cola wanted a bottle design which could be recognized boken or in the dark. Are u blond or something..lol

and one excerpt of your discussion with me, which I trust you enough to know what I'm talking about. Getting to the point, these are direct mentions to people who edit on Wikipedia. This is heavily advised against in "no personal attacks". For example, people may be offended by the mention of the "blonde stereotype". As quoted in "no personal attacks", "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Moreover, I find the following quote to be very important:

"Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people."

And more clearly put:

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor."

I find that it matters not what you meant by the comment you made, even if it was a playful joke. Just so long as the other party is offended, regardless of meaning, the comment is an offense. The reason I bring this to your attention is so just in case you ever find yourself in an edit war, you wouldn't be battered too badly. :) I haven't personally been in one myself, nor have I witnessed one in person, but I do know enough about them to say that they can get pretty ugly. They really can. So, if you ever find yourself in an edit war, think: if you're considering insulting the other person directly, as you did in the one edit summary and also directly saying a personal sentence of mine (which I also firmly believe in, mind,) is "silly", don't do it. Just, don't do it. Please. For your own good.

On that note, I wish for you never to be in a hostile edit war, especially as you seem to be upholding good faith. I respect that. And me, I don't want to be in an edit war, myself. :)

--Digiku 09:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

(In response to "Sorry....")

Granted, what you state is good wiki etiquette. And, all things considered, I did apologize, as I quote, "My apologies for the misunderstanding." If that wasn't clear the first time, then my humble apologies, again.

You may liken my initial reaction as an "allegation" of sorts. A plaintiff may state an allegation when they feel something of wrongdoing has occurred. It may then be up to the other party to prove that their actions are rightful. That's what I believe happened here. I accused you of making a rather "silly" edit on the Coca-Cola page. You then backed up your actions credibly by citing a source and explaining the reasons behind your edit. The reasoning you provided, in my opinion, is credible and justifies your edit. Moreover, you did this fairly (barring the out-of-place personal attacks, but let's not split hairs.) Therefore, I now understand why you made the edit, and the initial allegation I made is now retracted due to this higher understanding. That I won't take away from you.

And yes, your accusation that I was a little presumptuous in making my edit is indeed credible. I understand; I was a little overzealous in reverting that edit, I'll admit. Remember: I'm rather new to this, too. :P

If it helps ya' out at all, I did learn from this instance. Take a look at "Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming" and its respective Talk page. I suspected that there may be a possible vandalism there, but I lack the means to verify the validity of the edit; therefore, I take it to the Talk page. :)

In any event, I admire the respect to your grandfather that you portray. This I say from a personal standpoint. More power to ya'.

--Digiku 19:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Original 1915 contour bottle.jpg listed for deletion