User talk:Dreaded Walrus/Archives/March 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Personal Attacks

You posted a message about attacking users. I was personally attacked in that first post, and worse, everything that guy said wasn't true. So I have no recourse? Bryanjames76 (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I must admit, I am finding it difficult to find a personal attack aimed at you in the section (assuming that's the one you're talking about). As for the message I left you, it was with regards to the incivility more than any particular personal attacks. I felt that your response was perhaps a little too confrontational. As for recourse, you're always free to remove the warning message from your talk page if you feel it wasn't warranted. And with regards to the message on the talk page, I think his main point was regarding the accuracy of the Guardian piece. Dreaded Walrus t c 03:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I know it's ambiguous, but being as I was the only founder there that day, it is clearly about me and my wife. No one has ever been kicked out, but I was told by another wiki user that it was poor form to just delete his comments. Even though he is dead wrong. Bryanjames76 (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

edit summary

Thank you for pointing that out. I accidentally hit return, which I stopped shortly afterwards. What I meant to write was: "if it were a talk page, you would engage in talk page vandalism by removing other editors comments." --Raphael1 11:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a talk page, but nor is it an article. WP:POV only applies to articles. We do not prevent our users from having opinions, merely from making them obvious in written articles.
As I state in the section two above this one, there are many such FAQs, which are intended for the most frequently asked questions. They are not talk pages, and the only reason they are held in the Talk namespace is because it is the best possible space for such things. The questions that User:Aminz kept adding were being added against consensus, and weren't frequently asked (he is pretty much the only person raising those questions). If you still feel the FAQ needs some work, feel free to discuss it at Talk:Muhammad/images, but slapping a {{POV}} tag on something that isn't an article obviously isn't right. Dreaded Walrus t c 11:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Pretty convenient, eh? Since you consider it neither an article nor a talk page, no rules whatsoever apply.--Raphael1 16:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Ridiculous. That page is created as a consensus of the editors who take part in discussion in Talk:Muhammad and Talk:Muhammad/images, and were tired of answering the same question. Their answers are based on policies and guidelines. It is clearly not in article space, so {{POV}} doesn't apply just like it wouldn't apply if it was in WP-space, or any other space.
What bit do you disagree with? The answers of the editors? Go to Talk:Muhammad/images and discuss there. The policies? Go to the relevant policy talk pages, and discuss there. Because even if {{POV}} did apply to that FAQ (and numerous others like it), the POV tag requires discussion on a talk page, and I have seen you have attempted none of that, merely tagged it and left it.
Either way, whether the tag applies or not, you should make your grievances known on the talk page so they can be addressed. Dreaded Walrus t c 06:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For helping with the trolling: it's been a while since I've gotten very much of that. Acroterion (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

spa: Talk:Sons of Ben

I understand your point about the spa tag. In this case, however, its use is justified. While both you and I made our first posts on a discussion page, in neither case did we post such inflammatory comments - comments of a sort that usually get the "this page is to discuss the article not the subject matter" tag. And we had made several other contributions within days. Given the high number of spa's during the afD discussion (both pro and con), I feel this tag should stay.

Also, if the spa tag is not to be used on discussion pages, then wikipedia:SPA needs to be clarified as it specifically mantions its use on discussion pages. Delmlsfan (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Here is the only bit on the page that mentions {{spa}}, as I copied to your talk page.
Decision-making tags
In communal decision-making, single purpose accounts suspected of astroturfing or vote stacking will sometimes have a tag added below their name, as an aid to those discussing or closing the debate. Please do not take this as an attack on your editing, some users just find it easier to discuss issues when it is clear who the new editors are. The format of the tag is:
{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}.
That is the only bit that mentions {{spa}}. Regular talk page posts should not be marked with a single-purpose-account tag, even if they are by single-purpose-accounts, as having such a tag serves no decision-making purpose, and only bites the newcomers. Dreaded Walrus t c 06:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Userpage

Hi there, I just edited things because of the way I thought it looked like an eyesore with all the templates. If I'd submitted it to my writing professor, I'd catch flack. If you'd give me some pointers on how I could voice my thoughts on this, my email is <redacted>
Hope to hear from you bro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.172.131 (talk • contribs)

Hi. While we appreciate your concern, the best way to voice them would be to bring them up on the appropriate talk pages. Those templates appear for numerous reasons, and have a vast consensus for them being there. Of course, do feel free to make your feelings known on the talk pages, and you will likely get a response. :) Dreaded Walrus t c 16:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Cognos

I saw your revert on this article. It wasn't my edit originally, but the person who changed the company name in the article may actually have been right.

If you look at their logo, it says "Cognos, an IBM company". More importantly, if you look at the copyright notice in the mousetype on their website, it reads "Copyright © 2008 Cognos ULC (formerly Cognos Inc.), an IBM Company.". You'd never want to use anything in your copyright line other than your legal name, because that line is all about protecting your legal rights.

Mlaffs (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a good point. I had assumed that it was just the same as Asda, which is "ASDA, part of the Wal-Mart family". The company's name is Asda (or ASDA), and it is part of the Wal-Mart group. Regardless, it's not something I feel too strongly about, and won't revert again if it is changed again. Dreaded Walrus t c 18:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the info. Dimension31 (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for not taking it the wrong way. Dreaded Walrus t c 23:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For your recent contributions. Dimension31 (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Unexpected, but not at all unwelcome! :D Dreaded Walrus t c 00:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)