User talk:Dionyseus/Archive 4
 | This page 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. |
RfA thanks
 |
I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, Dionyseus, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, Martinp23 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
Thanks for your support!
|
A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again! ReyBrujo 20:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
Tango's RfA
I don't know if it was intentional, but your vote in Tango's RfA goes as follows: "Oppose I see no reason to oppose this candidate. Dionyseus 21:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)"
Just wanted to let you know, in case you want to fix it or something. Nishkid64 01:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing it out to me, I have now fixed it. Dionyseus 01:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Midnight Syndicate
Hi, Dionyseus - I just wanted to say thank you for your help with the Midnight Syndicate article. It's nice to see someone else shares my opinion of what the other side is trying to accomplish with their edits. Sorry I referred to you as an admin - I guess I just assumed because you do so much work here. Thanks again! - Skinny McGee 20:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks
 |
I would like to express my appreciation of the time you spent considering my successful RfA. Thankyou Gnangarra 13:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC) |
Cat
What nonsense are you talking about? I added a photograph and fixed the one that is stairstepping. I am also in the process of adding more information to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoky Bear (talk • contribs)
- You did not add a paragraph, you inserted images of cats, sometimes the same image of a cat multiple times in the article. Dionyseus 06:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
How does adding a link constitute a vandalism? HUH? Is it because I forgot to add the second set of brackets [ [ ? Vandalism is the complete replacement or deletion of text.
Don't be silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoky Bear (talk • contribs)
- Intentionally breaking links such as the Wikitionary links you vandalised is vandalism. Dionyseus 09:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
 |
Oh, the humanity!
I had my doubts about accepting a nomination for a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the stir it caused as it drifted to the ground in flames! Still, it was as educational as ever. Thanks for your input; it will be on my mind as I continue to edit Wikipedia, and perhaps I will have earned your support if another nomination comes around. Kafziel Talk 15:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
Block log
Hello!
I have been warned by another administrator (User:Khoikhoi) for posting this comment. User:Irpen has also posted a notice on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks.2C_harrassment.2C_baiting_and_pestering_by_user:Oden. As you are one of the users mentioned in my comment I would value your input into this matter.
Your input in the matter would be noted with interest.
Sincerely, --Oden 12:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Removing my request for Admin assistence
Dionyseus, you blanked my request for Admin assistence [[1] to hide the fact that it is you helping Skinny McGee in making false edits to the Midnight Syndicate article. You have no right to blank a request. If you do so again I will report your actions to the board. GuardianZ 16:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Arbitration
I am initiating an arbitration request on Midnight Syndicate. The formal request will be posted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration shortly. You will be a named party in this dispute. DurovaCharge! 03:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
Hi. Thank you for voting in my RfA. Just to let you know that I have replied to the concerns you raised in your vote. Thanks again. Wikiwoohoo 18:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
About your copyright question
I have moved it here, where it is likely to get more replies (the WP:SCV is a special page where only User:Wherebot should report copyvios). Personally, I believe the site is doing a copyright violation, and thus should not be referenced, however I would check that section to see if someone else thinks as me. -- ReyBrujo 18:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
PS3
Criticism sections are normally negative. I utilized 2 very good refs. ( A New York Times Article, and an IGN article ). I don't feel wiki articles are supposed to be 100% positive, but offer an objective look at the facts. The PS3 has been heavily criticized in the media. I didn't do it, the New York Times, IGN, and gamers across the land have. No console has even been priced so high, nor so hyped. I was not in any way tring to bash PS3, I was simply trying to round out a half moon picture. Forgive any copy edits on this talk page, I wrote this quickly.Derek Cormier 07:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
update: I changed the name of the section to "Press" and made it a little less negative, while still trying to show the fact that there has been quite a bit of negative press regarding this machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Cormier (talk • contribs)
- You have your facts a bit wrong. The 3D0 for example launched at almost $700 in the United States, and back then $700 was worth far more than it is today. We are well aware of the two articles you referred to, don't you think we would have used them long ago? Dionyseus 07:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I must humbly admit I shouldn't have said "No console" but instead said "Not many". Derek Cormier 01:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
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 20:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Much-belated RfA Thanks
I would like to take the time to thank you for voting in my unsuccessful RFA. Although I did not find your comment very helpful, I still appreciate it. Have a nice day, and I apologize for the laggy response! -- Chris is me 17:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you check whether this image is properly sourced
Hi, can you check whether this image is properly sourced: Image:Georgezimmer.jpg ? Dionyseus 01:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- The source should point to the page containing the image, and not the image itself, so that we can check the pages's term's of use (or something equivalent).
- The correct source link should be the one pointed by the "Mens Wearhouse web page" link.
- Unfortunatelly, I'm affraid the image is not a "promotional photo" as described on the image's description page. The source page's terms of use forbids the use of it's images for such purpose. It says
Men's Wearhouse authorizes you to view the Materials on this Site, and to download and make a single copy of all or a portion of the Materials only for your personal noncommercial use. You may not otherwise copy or download Materials, and may not modify, use or distribute the Materials
- Also, even if we would find a valid promotional image for Mr Zimmer, we shouldn't use it unless it was freely licensed. According to the very first item on WP:FUC, our criteria to determine when we can use unfree material on Wikipedia, we shouldn't use unfree images when it's not possible to create a free replacement (which is the case for public living people).
- For now, I would suggest tagging the image both as {{imagevio}} and {{replaceable fair use}}.
- Let me know if you need any further help in this matter. Best regards, --Abu Badali 14:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
RE Your revert in the Wii article
Your edit made it seem as if the consensus was to leave "Wiimote" out. Just64helpin 17:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
There's no consensus on not including it. I'll also point out that but there are a number of editors that insist on add "Wiimote" in the section. Rather than cleaning up the edits every time they appear, the "Wiimote" reference should stay until the final verdict on the matter. Just64helpin 17:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Er, fine... But the warning should redirect editors to the discussion page, not state that "Wiimote" is inappropriate. Just64helpin 17:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, these "Wiimote"-related edits will undoubtedly force an admin to fully-protect the Wii article. Just64helpin 17:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for self-reverting your edit. At the moment I don't think a prot would be necessary, the user who is obsessed with including the nickname "Wiimote" in the article, User:J.L.Main, has been blocked for 24h for violating WP:3RR. Dionyseus 18:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
"The" Wii issue
This has been covered in the discussion page. The warning in the main article and Common Question the discussion are in favor of starting the Wii article with "the". If you disagree, I would suggest starting a new topic on the subject, as the warning does. Thank you. Just64helpin 18:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- My mistake, I misread the FAQ section. Dionyseus 18:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Brian's RfA, attack allegation
Hi, Dionyseus.
In the context of Hawkestone's and others' comments at User_talk:Customs#Please_obey_the_rules_or_leave, I fail to see how Brian's comment at User_talk:Hawkestone#User:Customes attacks Hawkestone. Hawkestone and the others may have been biting a newbie. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
| |
Rfa Thanks
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA. I decided to end it; more time is needed, and I probably need a bit more experience. From here, I think I'll look at community discussion, AfD and the like. I will try to improve in the areas of concern, and thanks to everyone who supplied feedback. -- Selmo (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
My recent RfA
Thank you for considering my RfA. It was a very humbling yet surprisingly gratifying experience. I am grateful for all the constructive comments that will undoubtedly make me a better contributer, and hopefully a stronger candidate in the future. Grika 14:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate
A Temporary injunction has been enacted in the above titled arbitration case. Dionyseus (talk · contribs), GuardianZ (talk · contribs), and Skinny McGee (talk · contribs) are placed on standard revert parole until the conclusion of this case. They are restricted to one content revert per page per day each, and may be blocked for 24 hours for each violation. Blocks imposed under this injunction should be listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 03:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Inquirer award
Well done! You won an award from The Inquirer: The Mountbatten Award for incompetent people who manage to achieve success --Amaccormack 10:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,—— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 04:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Signing comments?
Um...
Uh...
Um...
Okay, so I really don't understand why you bothered leaving me a message to 'sign' my comments... I'm not logged in when I use this computer, so "signing" actually adds absolutely nothing? Other than my ip address, which is available through the history anyways?
The primary reason for signing is so you can keep track of who said what, except...
That's why I added (~Bladestorm) to the end of my comments. So you could tell who said it, even if I couldn't actually log in?
Anyways, up to you if you want to bother replying or not, but obviously you'll have to leave any replies here, since leaving comments on an IP talk page won't do much. (I'll probably have a different IP address next time I'm on) (~Bladestorm) (see? that's how I identify who I am when I can't log in) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.88.64.22 (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
- Hi, it's important even if you don't have a username because it helps us keep a track of who's who. Anyone can sign "(~Bladestorm)", and that would force us to look at the talk page's contribution history to figure out who actually posted the comment. Signing your comments with 4 "~"'s saves us time and avoids confusion. Dionyseus 16:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- How? If I write logged in as Bladestorm on my own computer, and as an IP when I'm not, then isn't the best way to keep track of "who's who" to always just include the same username, linked or not? I don't think there's really much concern of randomo people signing, "~Bladestorm", because I'm pretty sure nobody else wants to pretend to be me. Fact is, it's too messy to include my username and the signature, so I think it's a lot cleaner to just list my username. Also, you shouldn't known better than to use a premade template that implies that I'm new to wikipedia. I'm not. You know I'm not. And pretending I am is irritating, if not insulting.
- Call me crazy, but I happen to think that including actual information is better than including an anonymous signature. (seriously, an anonymous signature? that's just silly when there's a better solution) If I ever find a way to sign my comments without logging in, then I'll do it. But in the meantime, you'll just have to put up with knowing my username, rather than a dynamic IP address. (~Bladestorm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.64.22 (talk • contribs)
- I don't think I've ever met you before. When you post comments on talk pages, you must sign with four "~"'s. If you have a username, you can set your preferences so that Wikipedia will remember you. Dionyseus 21:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- ... *blink blink*
- Do a search on the wii talk page alone, and you'll find at least 3 or 4 dozen different comments from me. Do a search on my username, and you'll find edits spanning back at least a year or so. So, you know full well that pretending I'm a new member is uncalled for. You know that how I choose to mark my comments is entirely intentional, and not the result of absent-mindedness. I do identify myself when commenting, in a way that best identifies the vast majority of my edits/comments.
- And I know what a bloody cookie is. I know how to log in. I didn't say that wikipedia keeps bumping me out. I said that I log in on my own computer, but not this one. Scroll up, you'll see where I said it. It's very tiring to have to reply to your statements that result solely from you not reading before you type.
- Look, the sign-your-comments wikipedia page is only a guideline, not a policy, and does not cover my particular situation. As such, I chose the solution that best identifies myself. If you don't like that, then that's your problem. But don't treat established editors as newbies. It's insulting. Don't pretend what you're doing has anything to do with tracking who said what, because that's patently false. And PLEASE read before you type, because it's very very irritating to have to say something twice. In short, start being more civil, and start spending more of your time on the articles and discussion than how you want people to identify themselves. (~Bladestorm) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.88.64.22 (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
- Calm down sir, I have thousands of articles in my watchlist, I cannot possibly read the entire contents of every talk page, I did not know you were not new to Wikipedia. Dionyseus 22:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think I've ever met you before. When you post comments on talk pages, you must sign with four "~"'s. If you have a username, you can set your preferences so that Wikipedia will remember you. Dionyseus 21:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
|
Hello, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA. The final tally was 63/3/2, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I hope I can live up to your trust, and certainly welcome any and all feedback. All the best, and thanks again! — Agathoclea 13:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC) |
My Request for Adminship
Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asteriontalk 16:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your support
Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 22:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration
Hi, Dionyseus. I'm very confused by this whole arbitration thing and was wondering if you could shed some light on it for me. I thought we would present our evidence and there would be some show of people actually evaluating it - perhaps that's done behind the scenes? I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall as far as the arbitrators are concerned. Given what I can see, I can't help but feel they've decided the easiest solution is just to ban GuardianZ and I from the article. Also, if we're not allowed to use interviews or primary sources, there will be nothing left to reference (not that I'll have to worry about it). I really thought this was going to be a good process - real, experienced Wikipedians digging into the evidence and coming up with a workable solution - but I don't think that's how it's turning out. Regardless of how things end up, I appreciate your support. I was going to put in a good word for you on the editing bans, but, given their low opinion of me, I thought it might do more harm than good.
On a side note, since there's not much going on, I've been able to try my hand at editing some other articles. I even created a new one. It's really not that bad around here when you're not mired in controversy!
Thanks, again, for all your help! - Skinny McGee 15:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back to me, Dionyseus. I've been suspicious that Durova's opinion of me negatively impacted the arbitration right from the start - it's nice to hear I'm not alone in thinking that. You know, I don't know much about Wikipedia, but I was surprised she even referred this case for arbitration. In my opinion, we were pretty close to a version of the article we could agree on. Sure, the argument was not always as civil as it could be and I was extremely frustrated at going over the same things again and again, but I thought we were making progress (still do, in fact). But, what do I know? Anyway - as always, I appreciate your support. - Skinny McGee 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
My Request for Adminship
|
Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me; and that I will go on to prove good RfA candidates make good administrators. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
PS3
Thanks for fixing the PS3 article reference problem. That was odd, taking out the sentence and something that did not show up in the preview show up on the main page.--WhereAmI 04:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Everywhere Girl on DRV
Given you were centrally involved in this debate (and the complaining articles in the Inquirer), I thought you should be informed of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_23#Everywhere_Girl Bwithh 08:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
And you are now mentioned on Urban Dictionary- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=The+Everywhere+Girl . Wow, I've never seen such clever, cutting remarks before. I'm particularly amused by how whoever is unhappy with you in that definition still refers to the everywhere girl as "obscure." JoshuaZ 03:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed. GuardianZ and Skinny McGee are banned indefinitely from the article Midnight Syndicate. Dionyseus is banned for three months from Midnight Syndicate. No present or past employee or associate of the band Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics, under any username or anonymous IP, may edit Midnight Syndicate or associated articles (it is acceptable for such persons to make suggestions on the talk page; it is especially helpful if they identify themselves and the roles they play or played in the group). The complete text of the decision can be found at the link above. For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad, Assistant Clerk, 00:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You have been listed as one of the involved parties in a case against Philwelch. Please follow the link above. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm very thankful that something may finally be done about user:Philwelch's conduct. Dionyseus 22:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)