Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:40, 12 July 2006

Archive 1:User talk:Michael Dorosh Archive 1

Why blocked again?

Huh?? why am I blocked again. I said I committed myself to not changing any more pictures - however, I am going to pursue further action regarding this block. That's my right. Please unblock as I have met your conditions.Michael Dorosh 19:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you should be fully unblocked now. I would encourage you to be civil and polite in any further action you choose to pursue. Kirill Lokshin 19:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Always! Thanks. Michael Dorosh 19:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You are unblocked. Check your block log. There aren't any autoblocks for me to lift in my logs. Jkelly 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Any autoblocks wouldn't show up in your logs, only in the main IP blocklist. Maybe that was the source of the confusion? Kirill Lokshin 19:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for clearing that up. Jkelly

Consensus seems to be that I was too quick to block you. Please accept my apologies for blocking you without an individual warning; it is true that I had no way of knowing whether you had read the edit summaries at Stephen Harper or my note at Talk:Stephen Harper, and I should have taken that into consideration. Jkelly 19:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Accepted.Michael Dorosh 20:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Then let me also thank you for being gracious about it. Jkelly 20:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Charles Durning

I added some references. I am sure they won't be good enough for you either. Sorry to disappoint you, but not all Americans are liars and cheats. Also, what exactly is your issue with his Broadway credits? That can be easily verified on IBDB.com or TonyAwards.com --rogerd 01:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I read the references and they state specifically he was not in the infantry on D-Day, but was already in the artillery. The Infantry Regiment he was drafted into was not part of the 1st Division. I've changed the article accordingly. Good work finding sources.Michael Dorosh 01:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I was a little paranoid. You had added a {{citation needed}} after the mention of his 1990 Tony Award . I don't understand the controversy about that. It is easily verified on IBDB.com or TonyAwards.com (IBDB.com does not allow the public to post like IMDB does) --rogerd 04:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt it - but you need to put the citation on the page. You'll have to excuse me for appearing pedantic - I come from a History degree background, and when writing history papers, one always footnotes everything. It is also the wikipedia standard, so I'm getting used to seeing references. Again, good job finding the info on his war service.Michael Dorosh 04:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Many award recipients (see Cynthia Nixon, Helen Hayes, Richard Griffiths and Nathan Lane and other more obscure actors) are credited with Tony Awards in wikipedia without a reference. If each little fact, especially ones as well known as awards had to be referenced, it would take more space than the article. For instance, it mentions that he is trained in classical dance without a reference. Does that mean it should be removed? I'm sorry, but I am not going to take the time to track that one down. Or his role in The Sting. I saw the film, and remember his role. Does that need to be referenced, too? Where does it end? --rogerd 05:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Analogy at Talk:Stephen Harper

Are you at all interested in explaining why it is a bad analogy? Jkelly 05:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well in my opinion, you can always rewrite copy, and you can take an article online and reword it so it become original. But how the heck do you take a photograph and do the same thing? I could do a charcoal sketch of that portrait photo, but it doesn't have the same impact. On the other hand, I can reword an article and it is just as effective. If that makes sense? For example, I could reword your post above, make it into something completely original with the same impact, and there is no problem. You can't do that with a photo.

Example: "If you have the interest, could you perhaps delineate why this analogy is not a good one?"

You see what I've done? I completely reworded your sentence, but made it original and unique to me while still having the same effect. How does one do that with a photograph?Michael Dorosh 05:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Images can also be edited. Compare Image:Stephen Harper head.jpg with . The latter shouldn't be in PNG format, but, regardless, we expect images to be edited; it is why we insist that media be licensed to allow derivatives. I recommend GIMP as an free software movement image editor. Jkelly 01:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Your uploading of public domain image(s)

Hi, thanks for uploading the PD image. Please consider uploading new free images to Commons. This allows all language Wikipedias to share them. Any Paul Martin images should be placed in Commons:Category:Paul Martin. A similiar category (or gallery/article) should exist for other prime ministers. Use of Commons helps avoids redundant uploads and storage. --Rob 18:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Google image

Did you not notice that there is no image in the Google template, but it is just coloured text. -- Jeff3000 04:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, if you look at my history (probably 6 months ago), I actually was quite an advocate of removing fair-use images from Template and User space. I took down most of the fair use Sports logos off the Sports templates. -- Jeff3000 04:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy

I think your comments here may have been somewhat unwarranted, no? Courtesy is paramount in any discussion; condescending remarks are hardly helpful, and are usually regarded as being incivil. Please don't continue in this vein.

(Incidentally, you might want reflect on the fact that consensus doesn't mean quite what you think it means.) Kirill Lokshin 18:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)