User talk:DSYoungEsq

Welcome, from Gflores
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Gflores  / '''Talk to me! |undefined
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * My thanks for the welcome! It's nice to know someone paid attention to something I did.  I'll try not to dissapoint. --DSYoungEsq 02:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Response
A message has been sent to Oldwindybear (from User:Gator1) and your talk page has been reverted. If you have further conflicts, feel free to message me, User talk:Gator1, or post a message on Request for Comment or Third opinion. Gflores Talk 16:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My thanks! The user in question professes to a reformed approach; we'll see how it goes. I should note for the record that I basically avoided anything to do with this site besides reading articles for about three weeks because of what happened (which went well beyond what was reverted). There isn't any clear method for new users who feel harrassed to get something done about it; it doesn't make one easily willing to be a participant. Doug 22:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry for the unpleasant conflict you had with the other user. For the most part, Wikipedia users are very kind and help newcomers whenever they can. Whenever you have any questions or wish to report something, you can message an administrator (there are hundreds) or ask on the Help Desk. The more you contribute here, the more friends you'll make, rather than adversaries. Trust me. :) Gflores Talk 02:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

DSYoungEsqDoug, I ventured here to apologize. I myself was a new user, and thought you were mocking me. (i am a disabled vet from the Vietnam Era -- I don't say that to excuse rudeness, but to try to explain that I myself had been harrassed, and I thought you were mocking me) I apologize, and hope you will accept it, and work with me on Tours, or any other area I am working on which you have concerns on. I have almost totally rewritten the article's conclusion to accomadate your concerns that it sound less judgmental, and more informative, simply stating the majority and minority cases, and why. Again, I am sorry if my posting caused you distress. Believe me, I understand being distressed because of such postings! Someone was writing me that the disabled should be drug from their wheelchairs, et al, and such things do bother you. I am sorry I offended you. If you will check the article at Tours, I rewrote the entire section you questioned, I think accomadating your concerns, and asked you on the talk page for your input so if needs further work, I can do so. I have a 2000 volume library here, adn much of it is on the Roman Empire, which of course includes the Carolinians since the Holy Roman Empire began with Martel's grandson, Charlamagne. I am sorry, and welcome your input to improve the article. old windy bear 14:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll have to wait until Saturday to look and see how it is coming, as I have work, etc. until then. I have seen that there has been effort to edit that section, so I am looking forward to seeing the progress. Doug 02:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Doug Thanks Doug - I believe you will be pleased. The rhetorical statements have all been removed. Anything ending with a ! has been removed. The language has been altered in a major rewrite in a fair attempt to present the majority and minority conclusionas as you pointed out, factually, without non-encyclopedic language. Hopefully, you will pass it, and unflag. But if you feel it needs more, merely indicate what to me, and I will take care of it promptly. (I remember the work, etc., before my health deteriorated to the point I am essentially here 24/7 adn the computer does my venturing; ironic, I who once roamed the world, now roam it only by cybernetics. Oh well, anyway, I think you will be pleased, and thanks for the help. old windy bear 20:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Doug Doug, another user, with whom I work on campaign boxes, went in after i was done rewriting, editing, sourcing, and then split the conclusion up, to better reflect as simply reporting of fact the minoirty and majority conclusions, and why. I believe honestly that you will find every one of your complaints has been addressed and the new conclusion so completely different in texture and tone that while the conclusions are the same historically == they are restructured in toto. Again, I will really be surprised if you are not pleased, and enough so to remove the dispute sign. BUT if you still think it requires more, no problem, just let me know what, and it will be taken care of tomorrow. We are anxious to fix this one, and move on! Take care!old windy bear 05:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Doug Thanks for the good revert in taking out that sentence in the Tours article -- i don't know why people spend their time putting silly vandalism type stuff in good articles! Anyway, thank you. old windy bear 05:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Frog won!
Dijxtra 21:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

History of art now COTW
Thanks to your support, this article is now the collaboration of the week. Feel free to help in any way possible during this week. &mdash; 0918BRIAN &bull; 2006-02-19 20:20

are you okay?
User:DSYoungEsqDoug, had not heard from you in awhile, and we wanted to check in and see if you were okay. I have had the usual aches and pains, but am allright. Hope you are the same...old windy bear 01:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Help
Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 01:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team

RIAA
Hello, you tagged RIAA as NPOV earlier. I think it is just the facts speaking for themselves, and can't see any obvious problems, so I've removed the tag. If there are any problems, just leave a note on the talk page and I'll see if I can't fix it. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, I just didn't spot the new comment, sorry :( The lawsuits bit does need a lot of work - I'll see what I can do about fixing it. --h2g2bob (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to my reverting on Star Trek
Hi, Doug. I totally support the re-adding of your grammatical edit on the Star Trek page (regarding the phrase "as well as"). I had thought your edit was a simple oversight due to quick reading. If you have a reasoned, thought-out rationale behind your decision, I was in error in reverting it. Don't take my second-guessing personally; I just thought you had made a hasty mistake (as I have been known to do on occasion). My bad. --LinkTiger (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles
I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

August 2012
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Brothers (Star Trek: The Next Generation) does not have an edit summary. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason for removing the tag was self-evident. Please do not revert again, unless you wish to offer a rationale for why the tag should exist on the article.  If you do, address why that article should be tagged, but the tag should not exist on other ST:tNG episode articles (to say nothing of ST:DSN, ST:VOY and ST:ENT episode articles.  Thanks.  Doug (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, any removal of a maintenance tag should have an edit summary, even if the summary is just going to be "problem has been resolved". Any editor has the right to question an edit made without a summary at any time. In this case, unless the article has any third-party sourcing establishing the significance of the particular episode, the tag is appropriate. That other episode articles are not similarly tagged may not establish anything beyond that they should be tagged. If you feel otherwise you're welcome to solicit other opinions on the subject. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Brothers (Star Trek: The Next Generation), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. As I noted previously, you are welcome to discuss whether this article should be tagged at the article's Talk page or another appropriate discussion page. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude, stop reverting. You have no special right to do so. My reason, as given in the edit history is valid.  If you want to tag the article, then YOU establish a discussion on the tag first (which you will note was never done).  Revert it again and be reported. Doug (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You did not provide a reason in the edit summary despite a prior request that you do so. See here if you don't believe me. You also did not make any effort to discuss your opinion that I'm aware of, though I invited you to. I have every right to reinsert a maintenance tag if I disagree with you and the tag was there before you began removing it - as the tag was added in 2010, you are the editor who needs to sufficiently explain why you are changing a stable edit without providing a sufficient reason. "No other episode article has it" is not a valid reason - can you link to any sort of project-related discussion or guideline that supports your view? There is no requirement that one start a discussion when tagging an article for notability concerns...the mere fact that no third-party sourcing is provided to establish the significance of the subject makes it qualify for the tag, unless you can cite a guideline or policy that states otherwise - can you? You have now removed the tag 3 times, which is a violation of 3RR. I will include full details accordingly, but the burden is on you to start a discussion, as the editor removing the tag, not me. Please stop removing the tag until you can establish a consensus among editors to do so. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Brothers (Star Trek: The Next Generation). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Disambiguation link notification for September 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monica McFawn, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conduit and Confrontation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Charlotte Curling Association


A tag has been placed on Charlotte Curling Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Gbawden (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)