User talk:DvonD

This is the talk page for DvonD

I plan to be an active editor on a wide variety of topics. I will also be writing new articles about whose topics I have some knowledge and interest. To talk about instances of my editing, please start a new discussion for each of them by clicking the + tab at the top of the page. DvonD 17:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Puritans

Write here regarding changes to Puritan. DvonD 01:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Irish Godfather

Do a Google search for the complete phrase "Ruaraidh 'the Irish Godfather' Fitzpatrick" and you will find that the only thing that comes up is the Wikipedia article of that name. Furthermore, a search for Ruaraidh Fitzpatrick does not turn up anyone or any web page about this purportedly renowned figure. I noticed this article because I am a Boston and New England history buff and I have never heard of the man. No wonder... DvonD 00:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please see "Google this". Is it too difficult for you to provide this link? Note that it does not even need the quotes.

Actually the evidence where there in the history - the article was created by User:Fitzy67 - Ruaraidh Fitzpatrick born 1991. -- RHaworth 03:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that myself. Also, I did not provide a Google link as I was only providing my own course of action upon finding the hoax article as a suggestion. DvonD 02:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wording and NPOV

In the future, please find another word other than cocksure, because that violates NPOV. Thanks! Real96 03:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Cocksure

Main Entry: cock·sure Pronunciation: 'käk-'shur Function: adjective Etymology: probably from 1cock + sure 1 : feeling perfect assurance sometimes on inadequate grounds 2 : marked by overconfidence or presumptuousness : COCKY synonym see SURE - cock·sure·ly adverb - cock·sure·ness noun —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DvonD (talk • contribs) 10:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I know the meaning. However, to have the article follow a NPOV in order to disprove bias in the article. Real96 10:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

However, to have the article follow a NPOV in order to disprove bias. This is not a sentence. DvonD 02:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a sentence now. :-) Real96 02:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't. DvonD (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Please review this before alleging others of committing WP:NOR. For example, "cocksure" was a violation of WP:NOR. Real96 02:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's another issue. Cocksure was not original research, it was a descriptive word based on his perceived behavior. I conceded it could be judged differently which is why I did not return the otherwise correct word to the article.

"Real cries" is correct. The current language that you added is also correct as he did profess his love. The previous language (" and revealed his true love for New York."), as it cannot be judged from what he actually says whether there is "true love" in fact or only in confession, was O.R. in agreement with the no original research clause. There are also clauses regarding primary source-editor contributions.

This discussion has also taken on a tone with which I am uncomfortable. I hope that none of my edits nor my discussion has been read as uncivil as that was never my intention. Your contributions, Real96, are rightly valued. Let us both bear in mind that we both hope to make the articles that interest us better. Cheers! DvonD 03:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Occidental Quarterly

I am confused by your reasoning. Do you believe that no white nationalists "write for the National Review, the Wall Street Journal, and Harvard LR"? --Orange Mike 19:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Yet we don't label periodicals for which avowed communists write "radical anti-Western" nor those for which gays write "sexual deviant-interest publications." The point is that "white nationalist" is both offensive and a loaded phrase that in itself promotes a non-NPOV. One doesn't label a publication in any specific way based on the personally held beliefs of one or a few of its contributers. DvonD (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source for Image:Jokersized.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Jokersized.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 17:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Image was already sourced and usage stated. Amended the page. DvonD (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

re:Image:Jokersized.JPG

The long and the short:

• While it is fair of you to release your work (the cap) you aren't in a position to release copyright on the material within it. The character, costuming, show, etc have 'rights and 'marks held by others.
• DC holds the 'right and 'mark to the character of "the Joker" which was licensed for the production of the Greenway/Fox TV show. That still holds sway even if the show does slip into public domain before the character does.
• 'rights are still active for the show. These 'rights, and the desires of their holders, have been one of the impediments cited to the series not having migrated to DVD for home sale.
• The "conventional wisdom" with images, as well as any content taken from another source, is to be conservative with regards to copyright. Unless it's a lead pipe cinch that it isn't under a right (age, family/candid snap, defunct company unlikely to have renewed, citable source, etc), or you've done the rigorous, ready for court research to hind that the 'right has lapsed, err on caution and use the non-free licenses.

- J Greb (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

While I haven't prepared a case in this instance (I am actually a 3rd year law student), that isn't necessary. The copyrights and trademarks held by DC, as I wrote, relate to specific titles and objects, etc., and not to a particular image from the show. As ABC has not renewed the copyright on the show, certain proprietary rights must be in effect. Having had some experience with these sorts of proceedings, my best guess is that DC Comics wants to assert ownership despite not being the party the produced the show (ABC) and only the licensor. Nonetheless, if you have any interest in the image, you could rather easily craft a fair-use rationale. Otherwise, I'd say delete it; it's not important enough to develop the argument further.

He is pretty tall though, isn't he? DvonD (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter Brown

Thank you for your edits to the disambiguation page, Peter Brown. In my opinion, your changes improved the article, although the previous version was correct English. Your edit summary, however, was uncivil. Please bear in mind in future that editors give up a lot of time to try to improve articles and to imsult their work is demoralising and completely unnecessary. In this case, it was also incorrect. Boleyn (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing uncivil about it (have you seen an authentic example of uncivil conduct on WP yet? -- it's quite different). The previous version was a poor edit. There is nothing incorrect about that. It was incorrect to describe my initial edits as piping. Making it clear that the subject of a biographical article is known by two spellings is not piping. If there were no Peter Brown/e the Pilgrim article and I listed him redirected to Pilgrims or the Mayflower, that would have been piping. All editors, including myself, spend time on their contributions. Best regards, DvonD (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Friendly reminder to sign your messages

Hello. Just making a friendly reminder to be sure you sign your talk pages messages. I noticed a couple at User talk:TatianaRussia007 that were not signed. Thanks! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right -- I'm usually rather careful about that. Regarding the account creation block on "Tatiana," I'm not certain it will have the desired effect as it seems that she logs in about once each week. As her last edits were made two days ago, a short-term block would, I think, have little effect since it will probably have expired by the time she next logs in. The repeated notices from editors reverting her edits to Myles Standish, I think, are rather telling of her modus operandi on WP. While Jawna Standish is possibly a descendant of Myles Standish, there are thousands of his descendants, including a few US presidents who are not listed there because the page has no section for that without her repeated contribution. Moreover, it seems likely that she is, in fact, Jawna Standish, although that is by no means certain. DvonD (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Could be. However notices in article edit summaries do not count as warnings. Only messages left at her talk page are considered warnings. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of Schoortasche for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Schoortasche is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schoortasche until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vrac (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DvonD. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DvonD. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Mimi Lee

On 15 December 2017 you edited that article to add that Mimi Lee's sister Mary-Elizabeth d'Harcourt was "the first Dame Grand Cross of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta". What gave you the impression this was the case? Mimi's sister Mary-Elizabeth d'Harcourt is in fact not the recipient of any honor from the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. I have edited the article to fix this small mistake but am curious as to the origin of the incorrect information. Tfjaa762 (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)