User talk:Roger Danger Field

Hey Roger, Late Merry Christmas! Roger Danger Field 16:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Arc
I appreciate your responding to RfC, but Wikipedia isn't Usenet. Let's keep it clean. Regards, Durova 17:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Jordan page
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. > Gator (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't nonsense and content disputes are NOT vandalism. It was a line and quote which had some coverage in Jordan when it was said on the TV show. But thanks once again, for helping a newly registered person to feel welcome by not even arguing why it isn't a decent edit. "Biting the newcomers", a document I've just had a look at, really isn't being kept to here. Roger Danger Field 09:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For future reference, this user was reported at WP:VIP for the above. The administrator response was: No action taken. The content the user added to the page in question was valid trivia; whether it belongs in the article or not is a matter for discussion. There was no violation of the three-revert rule, and the user responded to warnings with reasonable civility. The report may be found in the second January 2006 archive. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 18:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Order5gy.gif
I don't dispute that you added the flashing "ORDER ORDER" to the image, but I do dispute that this wipes away the rights to the still of Parliamentary proceedings from their copyright holder. I've listed this image on Possibly unfree images. David | Talk 10:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law and In accordance with Title 17, U.S.C. Section 107, the use of the image for educational purposes, with the addition of the Order Order, is fair use. The still is also significantly reduced in size and is tiny relative to body of intellectual property from which it is taken. It is also arguably a parody. Roger Danger Field 11:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case then you must claim fair use for it. Normally fair use for television stills only extends to use in an article discussing the programme in question. You might want to go to WP:PUI and argue it. David | Talk 11:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User SA antiracist
Please refrain defacing templates, doing so borders on vandalism. Additionally, note that terrorism is defined as a deliberate attack on civilians in an attempt to coerce. Though Mandela was the founder of MK, its attacks focused on infrastructure and causalties were limited. Regards, Mi kk er ... 17:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether casualties were "limited" or not is irrelevant and I'm of the opinion that it was a fair edit. People are happy to slanderise George W Bush in userboxes, but when the truth about Nelson Mandela appears in one about him, it isn't acceptable. That's double standards in my book. Roger Danger Field 17:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that MK never (well, never as far as I know) deliberately targeted civilians which means it cannot be a terrorist group. Innocent people did die, but this always happens in war so unless we want to classify EVERYONE as terrorists we need the deliberate caveat in there. Besides, Mandela first tried in emulate Ghandi & King with peaceful protest - these were shut down ruthlessly (see Sharpeville massacre) and THEN only was MK formed. Not really the behaviour of a terrorists, no?
 * Whether he deliberately did isn't relevant either. Setting up bombs will always kill or injure a lot of people.....that is what they're meant for. In war, civilians are killed and injured, yes, but it isn't deliberately designed to kill people.....the violence of the MK clearly was. They resorted to violence too readily, and Mandela is a discrace. It is like hailing Bin Laden 20 years from now as a world saviour. Roger Danger Field 12:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Civility
Unless you abide by WP:CIV, you will most probably be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I urge you to drop the hostile attitude. dewet|&trade; 05:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If people won't respond on the merit of the argument, then I'll be as uncivil as I like. Roger Danger Field 10:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Shepherd's pie
Replied on my talk page. Pan Dan 18:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edit here:
With regards to your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norilana Books:&#32;Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 19:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't throw irritating templates without justification at me sir. Going against AFD procedures and editing closed AFD's is rude to other users, and me pointing it out is completely justified in the sense that it is relevant to understanding Pan Dan's aggressive sourcing policies....something that was being discussed partially on the page. Roger Danger Field 19:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And please do not edit other comments as if I stroke my comment, sir! I gave you a nice warning to cool yourself down. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 08:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It was wrongly given, thus I will strike it out. If you justify it remaining there under rules, then you'd have a case. Clearly you cannot though. Roger Danger Field 11:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

March 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Albert Kesselring has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Falcon8765 (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Gates of Saturn


The article The Gates of Saturn has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Hoax article"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shantavira|feed me 18:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Gates of Saturn


Please do not create hoaxes on Wikipedia, as you did at The Gates of Saturn. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

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 deleted 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.  Java Hurricane  13:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)