User talk:Dfpc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Talk to me people

Leave a message at the tone. BEEP.

[edit] Offline attacks

Please don't link to pages which contain attacks on Wikipedia editors. Doing so can be viewed as making the attack yourself. I've remoged a link from your user page to such a website. -Will Beback · † · 23:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know. Dfpc 23:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you delete "unhelpful comments" on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch?

You deleted two comments in your edit of 10:35, 6 May 2007. While these comments may not have been helpful, they didn't do any harm except to the author's reputation. If someone wants to put embarrass himself in a talk page, it's not up to you or me to cover their tracks for them. Please consider restoring the edit. Dfpc 01:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The comments, although signed, were bordering on vandalism. They had no bearing on the conversation and seemed like two editors having an inside joke. At the very least it was a strawman argument. Sometimes it's better to just quietly slide such comments off the page (not off the record - it's still in history) to avert needless trolling.--Monotonehell 03:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GrowUpWithoutShame.jpg

Hello, Dfpc. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:GrowUpWithoutShame.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Dfpc. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

The source you added to the pro-pedophile activism article is interesting but it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. The definitive standards are at WP:V and WP:ATT. The basic principle is that self-published sources, like blogs, may only be used as sources in limited circumstances. There are two main exemptions: blogs written by experts in the field, and blogs written by an article subject as a source for his own opinions. So, if I interpret it correctly, http://optymyst.blogspot.com/2006/10/lets-see-what-rookiee-and-his-pals.html, would not be a sufficient source for the assertion that blogs are used by pedophiles. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] block

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I am unable to leave message with the blocking admin User_talk:Sean William on his user page due to blocking and I cannot leave him email due to his preferences. Why was my account blocked and user page deleted without notice? The only comment for the block is "single purpose account" which is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. The only comment for the deletion is "material inappropriate for user space" which can be resolved with a warning or deletion of said material. Can another admin facilitate communication with Sean William on my behalf?"

Decline reason: "This is a valid block with more than sufficient significant precedent in similar cases. —-Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Admins:Please leave this up until Sean William is made aware. -- John Reaves (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I am aware. Unfortunately, I was forced to disable my e-mail because I was getting harassed. I have re-enabled it. I am reviewing the block now. Sean William @ 16:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Any member of WP:ARBCOM I have contacted the arbcom mailing list several times in the last several weeks with no official reply. What's up? Dfpc 00:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me last month. I really appreciate it. Dfpc 04:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] proposed templates for controversial material

Proposed templates for articles which, while conforming to NPOV, are about controversial subjects. These articles usually spin off from a larger subject. Any article that could use these tags is at risk of becoming a POV fork. See Wikipedia:Content forking for guidelines on when an article is an NPOV article about a subject that is a point of view, vs. a POV fork subject to deletion.

For article pages:
This subject matter is subject to criticism in the academic, scientific, or other communities. See also: .


Example:
This subject matter is subject to criticism in the academic, scientific, or other communities. See also Criticism of XYZ.


For articles which are themselves criticisms, a simple "See also" template at the beginning, along with a summary of the main article somewhere in the article text, is customary. For example, for the article Criticism of XYZ, a "See also: XYZ" at the beginning, along with a paragraph summarizing the main article, is appropriate.


For talk pages:

.
This subject matter is subject to criticism from elements inside and outside the academic or scientific community. This criticism may be put forth by a large group of critics or only by the fringes. While such content is welcome, but any such content must conform to Wikipedia principles including undue weight. Before spinning criticism off into another article, read content forking.


.
This article is a criticism of . Please be mindful of undue weight and content forking when editing.


I'm not too happy about the unbalanced scales icon, I'd much rather see an icon representing a vigorous scientific debate.

I'm writing this with the Pedophile/Pro-pedophile activism/Anti-pedophile activism/Pedophile activism edit war from early July 2007 in mind. The last three articles are good candidates for these proposed templates. Depending on the eventual content after the edit war subsides, the first may also be a candidate.

Your thoughts? Dfpc 04:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed category: Articles with uncivil disputes this week

Proposal: Create a template that includes a date field. If this template exists and the date is less than 7 days old, the article will be added to the category Articles with uncivil disputes this week.

Mediators and other editors who are concerned with editor behavior can watch articles in this category.

My hope is level-headed editors that don't care about the subject matter will step in and warn editors who are acting unreasonably to play nice before they wind up in mediation or arbitration calmly educate editors of Wikipedia rules and conventions they may not have been aware of.

If this works, this will replace mediation and arbitration with community policing family-style wiki-tough-love.

Thoughts? Dfpc 04:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)