User talk:MrDarcy/Archive6

And with that, I'm done. Bye. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Retirement

Pardon me for interjecting, but there is no reason that you should leave Wikipedia simply because one situation was not handled as you would have liked. Of course you will only stay active if you continue to enjoy editing and administering, but there are plenty of other ways in which you could remain productive and a valued part of the community apart from the one particular, complex issue that presently has you demoralized. I've certainly had people strongly disagree with a particular administrative decision or two of mine; it goes with the job. Please give this some thought. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Brad, thanks for the note. I want to state again that I am not leaving because I'm not happy about how this one situation was handled. I am leaving because this incident illustrates to me that incivility and personal attacks are going to be tolerated to a degree with which I am not comfortable. Vintagekits (with help now from his little Sancho Panza) has waged a five-month or longer series of attacks, insults, and retaliatory AfDs against a group of users with whom he has a content dispute. He's been blocked three times previously for the personal attacks - but of course, it's never his fault, it's always a misunderstanding - and has been warned numerous additional times, yet by forum-shopping, he's gotten a number of admins to condone his juvenile, hostile behavior. I will not remain here if content disputes justify incivility. I have far too many good things going on in my life - family, job, friends, etc. - to waste time on a project where Vintagekits' behavior is considered appropriate.

I harbor no illusions about my departure: Wikipedia will go on unchanged, and my absence will scarcely be noticed. But I will not be a party to it. Three things in human life are important. The first is to be kind. The second is to be kind. The third is to be kind. A tolerance for unkindness will drive users off of Wikipedia. Like me. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of people are watching now. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

---

As of May 26th, I won't be responding to messages left on this page. If anyone wants to reach me, email me. As long as it's not official Wikipedia business, I'll be happy to respond. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

User:SqueakBox has filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party. Kittybrewster (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened

Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.

For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles closed

The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

unblock request, please help

• Hello, MrDarcy. I wanted to contact you for a long time now. I contacted Yamla about this already. One year ago, I was blocked from editing wikipedia. What happened was I had created another user name and a checkuser was done to confirm this. I am still apologizing for that but I can't login to my original user name. Please, if it is possible, can I be unblocked on wikipedia and continue to contribute with my original user name, Zarbon. I opened an unblock request, which can be seen here, Unblock Request a whole ten months or so ago and it was refused. Yamla stated that I should refrain from creating another user name, etc. or editing and I would be allowed to continue with my original user name when a whole year passed. Now that I brought this up to Yamla, he told me to go do another unblock request, which will again be ignored most likely. Please, since you were the person who moved my unblock request originally, can you look into this and help me because I want to be unblocked. It's been such a long block and I just want to be able to edit with my name again. Thanks for your time and patience. - 72.229.48.178 (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Book cover image

This is to let you know that I've orphaned the fair use image Image:Betrothed.jpg, and replaced it with Image:I promessi sposi - 2nd edition cover.jpg, an image in the public domain. For more information, see the book cover replacement project. Thanks. Sorry to see you've been gone; I missed all this somehow. Chick Bowen 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Betrothed.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Betrothed.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Kerwin Danley

Ok, here's the thing--the part edited on Danley's page is referenced by three sources and simply echoes what it is that was seen in those articles and telecast. So I would suggest we unprotect that page and replace what it is that you have removed or I'll just go up the ladder to get that put back. It's 100% legit and verifiable. YerYeller (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and I respect your decision on that particularly with respect to WP:Recentism. For what it's worth, I have no interest in the affair and only saw it through the clips in the sources given that, frankly, to my eye appear that the umpire made the call correctly though not adeptly. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Michigan

I just created my account. I saw MrDarcy was taken, great name, same as mine. Are you by any chance related to the Darcys of Detroit?

Thanks,

TheRealMrDarcy (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about Wikipedia. It is all new to me. It looks like I will just be a reader for a while. There are a lot of guidelines I would like to read first.

Thanks TheRealMrDarcy (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Very glad to see your return. Must have been a long season in London, or perhaps a distant estate needed your management? Send my best wishes to Georgiana. Durova^Charge! 01:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yay! You are back! miranda 23:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Jay Glazer page edit

Mr. Darcy, today you edited a page about Jay Glazer, to which I contributed. Your stated reason for the removal of information was that it was due to uncited sources and violations of Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons.

I assure you, I cited my information at the bottom of the page and I advised of that within the post. Mr. Glazer's own article was cited, as well of that of 2 other sources, verifying my statements.

Additionally, please refer to the BLP page, in regards to "Well-known public figures," which will support my information staying on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinkelynn (talk • contribs) 00:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. A random list of links at the end of the article doesn't satisfy WP:BLP, and the content in question (which I removed again) also fails WP:NPOV. I would encourage you to review our policies on reliable sources and on how to cite sources properly, and then try to add the content again, bearing in mind our policy on a neutral point of view.. Mr. Darcy talk 00:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Twinkelynn"

MrDarcy, it is your opinion - and only your opinion - that mine is not a "neutral point of view." What I have stated is factual and verifiable as demonstrated by my included sources; it should not be removed simply because you do not like it.

The fact that you not only went back and deleted the information again, but that this time you also deleted my cited sources, flies in the face of your whining about others' incivility; I consider your actions to be at the height of incivility.

In regards to the rules of Wikipedia, I have read them and believe that I have a good grasp of them. For your review:

Well-known public figures Policy shortcut: WP:WELLKNOWN In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.'--Twinkelynn (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Twinkelynn

Sorry, this isn't really negotiable. I have no problem with the incident being mentioned, but if it's not properly cited and written in a neutral tone, it's not staying in the article. Thanks. Mr. Darcy talk 00:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You are not the final say in what goes on Wikipedia entries and your arrogance is extremely off-putting. If you are saying that you plan to engage in an editing war with me, I guess a mediator can be brought in. If you can specify where in my writing it was "non-neutral" I may consider a re-write.

--Twinkelynn (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Twinkelynn

If you insert that content again, you'll be blocked. Mr. Darcy talk 02:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC) One solid example of why that content can not stay. Your edit said: The story was unsubstantiated, with no presentation made of either tangible proof or any named sources. Yet the reference you provided to back that up is an article by Glazer himself that says: Several sources have told FOX Sports that Favre earlier this year phoned the Detroit Lions prior to their battle versus Favre's old team, the Green Bay Packers, and gave them a rundown of the nuances of what Green Bay does on offense. According to the sources, Favre actually spent over an hour on the phone with Lions coaches, who were connected with Favre by then-team president Matt Millen. That story is not "unsubstantiated" and the use of anonymous sources is completely normal and accepted in journalism. Calling the story unsubstantiated is a violation of WP:BLP, and implying that it was incorrect because of the lack of "named sources" is an arbitrary standard that violates WP:NPOV. In addition, in the third source you provide, Favre admits that he did have a conversation with the Detroit executive, and that "Favre said former players and coaches exchange information all the time." That doesn't disprove anything Glazer said, and in some ways seems to support it. As I said above, if you reinsert that content, I will have to block you from editing. Let's not get to that point; find new reliable sources and quote them properly, or leave the article alone. Mr. Darcy talk

The story is unsubstantiated. There is no other than Jay Glazer who has said that this has occurred. Favre himself tells a completely different story. Glazer's story becomes nothing more than a "He said, he said" without anyone else backin it.

The fact that you would threaten to block my ability to edit is ludicrous. You are not an administrator here. If you change my information, should I threaten to have you blocked, as well? How about this: If you have me blocked from editing, I shall request that the same occur to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinkelynn (talk • contribs) 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)