User talk:DatGuy/Archives/2015/November

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Care
You have been making good contributions to fighting vandalism, and you are to be congratulated on that. However, you really need to be careful not to mar your record with some unconstructive edits: for example, the edit you made at User talk:90.154.77.33 was really unacceptable, and amounted to trolling. Please don't do things like that again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize that and just wanted to make a small joke because his comment made me laugh. Anyways, thanks for reverting it. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Guy, I found it funny too, and I do understand why you were tempted to post a response, but it would have been better to have resisted the temptation. I can't really blame you, as sometimes I give way to temptation to do things like that too, but I usually manage to resist it, and all I'm doing is trying to encourage you to do the same. Smile_eye.png The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Flora Antarctica
Hi, I notice you have just added a muliple issues template to Flora Antarctica and claim it is not containing proper citations. I believe this is very much unjustified. There is but one source, but the entire contents is covered by the cited source, which is itself by the way the topic of this arcle. This makes it logical that it is the only source. Unless you checked the sourcing, I think it is unhelpful to add a multiple issues template, and I implore you to revert. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Even though that the article is based on the book, you usually don't have only one primary source, but also a couple of secondary sources. Anyway, there is no specific rule for that however I don't think that the whole article is off two pages ( pp. 30–31. ) as you listed. After you add some more sources or detail to the pages, I will remove it. Regards, Dat GuyWiki (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I promised, it's done. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks. I'll continue work on the article covering further islands.


 * Now, concerning the other issue. I checked and found no double links. Which of the links (or types of link) do you think need to be removed, i.e. which links are irrelevant to readers of this article? Dwergenpaartje (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * the template should make this more clear, but what I meant is the amount of red links you have in the bottom of your page. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question
Hello, Dat GuyWiki! I'm Wikiisawesome. I have replied to your question about a submission at the WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk. /wia  /tlk  16:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Team Secret has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Team Secret. Thanks! Fiddle  Faddle  20:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Dat GuyWiki! I like the new userbox you created -- the one about reporting vandals to AIV! I'd like to suggest that we move it to your userspace, however, since it is a template that is only relevant to you, in that it links to your contributions and has a "count" that is hard coded, and specific to you. Moving it is easy, and I can help you if you are unsure how to accomplish this. Ping me if you would like help with this. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 02:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. If you could clean up the redirects I left behind (I accidentally moved it to a user), I would be grateful. Regards, Dat GuyWiki (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tagged Template:Aiv contributor and User:Aiv contributor for you. Both are tagged under the speedy deletion criteria as self-nominated, so be sure you don't delete your request above, as I've linked to that as evidence that you requested assistance with removing those. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 10:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

On a related topic, here is a tool that I think you will enjoy. Userbox Maker Please use it responsibly! Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 11:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits
My edits were not disruptive, so I'd be careful before hurling such accusations at other Wikipedia users. If you are going to say someone is being disruptive, you should also be very specific about how they're being disruptive. Before you imply I am being disruptive, you might want to read WP:NOTCENSORED. All the best, TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The template really should be more specific. Anyways, the page you linked even further proves my point. The WP:NOTCENSORED page links to WP:MOS/I, in which it says that Sometimes it is impossible to avoid the use of a lead image with perceived shock value if the topic itself is of that nature, for example in articles on various parts of human genitalia. That does not mean however, that you need to use human genitals on a page that can avoid it, such as Psoriasis which already thrives of useful images. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who initially added the picture, but I do recognize its medical importance as I'm sure many other editors on Wikiproject Medicine do as well. You're certainly welcome to open a discussion there if you like to see if there is a consensus but unilateral action on your part is inappropriate. The fact remains that psoriasis is an autoimmune condition that affects the skin (among other organ systems) and this includes the skin of the genitalia. It's not an unreasonable thought that those affected by psoriasis or other genital lesions might desire an encyclopedia to have a medical example. It's up to you if you want to pursue action at Wikiproject Medicine and I don't strongly feel one way or the other about having the genitalia picture there since psoriasis has a variety of presentations. In fact, I'll start the conversation for you there. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're interested, here is the link to the conversation . TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Lastly, I just noticed you were under the impression that I uploaded the picture to the psoriasis page when you threatened me with a possible block. Just FYI, I didn't as evidenced by this diff . Before you make threats like that, please be sure to have your facts straight. I have reverted edits that attempted to remove the picture without explanation, but this is not the same as uploading it. There should be a consensus and discussion on the psoriasis talk page if it is to be removed, but the consensus (so far) appears to be in favor of keeping this image or a similar one to demonstrate this type of pathology (please see discussion on WT:MED. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The template is a warning, not a threat, and as far as I saw there you posted it, although I was wrong. From now on refer to the WikiProject discussion. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there any chance that both of you can walk away from this? It's disappointing that it is continuing, and, even in apology it seems to be escalating, which I doubt either of you would really like. At this point it really doesn't matter who was right. Points have been made, points have been refuted, but hackles are still raised. Please come to a mutual understanding, even if you disagree with each other, perhaps especially if you disagree with each other. It seems to be at the stage where being right is important. But this is Wikipedia. Being right (personally) is simply interesting. Consensus overtakes being right every time. Walking away allows peace to break out. Fiddle  Faddle  09:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I actually always want to walk away from long arguments, so valid point. Consider it done. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Tim, I have no interest in discussing the actual issue itself any longer, it's not about right vs. wrong here as you correctly state (I was the one who took it to WT:MED to obtain consensus). As I mentioned before, I don't feel strongly about the image itself. But Dat's attempts to use semantics (warning vs threat, give me a break) to backpedal is unacceptable. I really didn't appreciate seeing something like that out of the blue on my wall unprovoked, it wasn't cool. Don't do that again, Dat, get your facts straight next time. If the discussion is ongoing, I'll see you at WT:MED. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)