User talk:Roger Danger Field

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey Roger, Late Merry Christmas! Roger Danger Field 16:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Joan of Arc

I appreciate your responding to RfC, but Wikipedia isn't Usenet. Let's keep it clean. Regards, Durova 17:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Jordan page

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. >Gator (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't nonsense and content disputes are NOT vandalism. It was a line and quote which had some coverage in Jordan when it was said on the TV show. But thanks once again, for helping a newly registered person to feel welcome by not even arguing why it isn't a decent edit. "Biting the newcomers", a document I've just had a look at, really isn't being kept to here. Roger Danger Field 09:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
For future reference, this user was reported at WP:VIP for the above. The administrator response was: No action taken. The content the user added to the page in question was valid trivia; whether it belongs in the article or not is a matter for discussion. There was no violation of the three-revert rule, and the user responded to warnings with reasonable civility. The report may be found in the second January 2006 archive. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 18:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Order5gy.gif

I don't dispute that you added the flashing "ORDER ORDER" to the image, but I do dispute that this wipes away the rights to the still of Parliamentary proceedings from their copyright holder. I've listed this image on Possibly unfree images. David | Talk 10:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law and In accordance with Title 17, U.S.C. Section 107, the use of the image for educational purposes, with the addition of the Order Order, is fair use. The still is also significantly reduced in size and is tiny relative to body of intellectual property from which it is taken. It is also arguably a parody. Roger Danger Field 11:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case then you must claim fair use for it. Normally fair use for television stills only extends to use in an article discussing the programme in question. You might want to go to WP:PUI and argue it. David | Talk 11:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User SA antiracist

Please refrain defacing templates, doing so borders on vandalism. Additionally, note that terrorism is defined as a deliberate attack on civilians in an attempt to coerce. Though Mandela was the founder of MK, its attacks focused on infrastructure and causalties were limited. Regards, Mikker ... 17:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether casualties were "limited" or not is irrelevant and I'm of the opinion that it was a fair edit. People are happy to slanderise George W Bush in userboxes, but when the truth about Nelson Mandela appears in one about him, it isn't acceptable. That's double standards in my book. Roger Danger Field 17:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The point is that MK never (well, never as far as I know) deliberately targeted civilians which means it cannot be a terrorist group. Innocent people did die, but this always happens in war so unless we want to classify EVERYONE as terrorists we need the deliberate caveat in there. Besides, Mandela first tried in emulate Ghandi & King with peaceful protest - these were shut down ruthlessly (see Sharpeville massacre) and THEN only was MK formed. Not really the behaviour of a terrorists, no?
Whether he deliberately did isn't relevant either. Setting up bombs will always kill or injure a lot of people.....that is what they're meant for. In war, civilians are killed and injured, yes, but it isn't deliberately designed to kill people.....the violence of the MK clearly was. They resorted to violence too readily, and Mandela is a discrace. It is like hailing Bin Laden 20 years from now as a world saviour. Roger Danger Field 12:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Unless you abide by WP:CIV, you will most probably be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I urge you to drop the hostile attitude. dewet|™ 05:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If people won't respond on the merit of the argument, then I'll be as uncivil as I like. Roger Danger Field 10:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shepherd's pie

Replied on my talk page. Pan Dan 18:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Regarding your edit here:[1]

With regards to your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norilana Books: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Indon (reply) — 19:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't throw irritating templates without justification at me sir. Going against AFD procedures and editing closed AFD's is rude to other users, and me pointing it out is completely justified in the sense that it is relevant to understanding Pan Dan's aggressive sourcing policies....something that was being discussed partially on the page. Roger Danger Field 19:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And please do not edit other comments as if I stroke my comment, sir! I gave you a nice warning to cool yourself down. — Indon (reply) — 08:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It was wrongly given, thus I will strike it out. If you justify it remaining there under rules, then you'd have a case. Clearly you cannot though. Roger Danger Field 11:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)