I reverted it because that template is not applied according to guidelines as you say. The image page should be tagged as a copyright violation if you believe it to be a violation. The userpage of the editor who uploaded the image should not. Please do not re-add the speedy deletion template. - auburnpilottalk16:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
My bad --- it is a copyright violation so I used the {copyvio}. I've changed the tag to
explicity be an image violation tag. Thanks for the good catch! KoshVorlon
Please stop tagging this image as a copyright violation unless you can provide an external link to where the copyrighted images exists and/or was taken from. Administrators must have a way to confirm your claims, and you have not provided such a source for confirmation. This is becoming disruptive. - auburnpilottalk15:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Auburnpilot, I've stated where the image comes from, therefore it's not disruptive. His image is
a copyright violation and I will tag it as such. Additionally, per policy, websites are
not considered reliable resources, as such, if I were to undertake your suggestion, it would create a
quandry. Any Anime fan would recognize the image tagged as a copyright violation.
Please allow the admins to handle this. It's been brought to their attention already.
Incidentally, I haven't checked to see if the template on the image has been reverted yet.
If it's been reverted I will place the appopriate template on it. Again, please let the admins
handle this, ok ? It's been brought to their attention and I've seen Laughing_Man's assertion
that he created the logo himself based on the logo in the series. I've commented there as well.
Thank you KoshVorlon
As far as "letting the admins handle this", please take note that I am an admin. When placing the tag on the image and Laughing Man's user page, you did not note where the image could be confirmed as a copyright violation. We cannot simply take your word for it, and must be able to confirm that such a violation is taking place. Also, in response to your message on my talk page, my action regarding Image:Bush.jpg was not to upload an image on top of another, but to fix the mess you created by doing so. Further, please realize you have failed to provide any source and license information for the image you uploaded, Image:Bush1.jpg. The image is not likely free, and fair use images may not be used outside of articles. In other words, it needs to be removed from the templates you've created regarding Bush's impeachment.
One last note, please do not alter other user's signatures, as you did to my signatures on this page. Such edits are completely unacceptable and may be seen as vandalism. I understand you are just starting to find your way around Wikipedia, but these type edits are not helpful. - auburnpilottalk04:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bush image
What ??? I did state where I got the Bush image from in the text and tagged it as "Fair Use". I didn't
create it, so a GDFL-self would be inappropriate. Also, it fits the criteria mentioned in Wikipedia:Fair_use#Acceptable_images
I stated in the file itself that it is a screencapture from a satelite feed (FTA satelite). NO special
subscription was / is necessary to recieve that image. It's not doctored up, it's really Pres
Bush flipping off the camera. I'm not sure what your'e saying is missing. Again, I stated where
I got it from in the file and tagged it as fair-use per the above criteria.
KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 12:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FAIR use policy requirement #9: "Restrictions on location. Non-free content is only allowed in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace." A fair use image must have a proper license tag, source information such as the publisher and copyright owner, and a detailed fair use rationale for each use. The image had been tagged for over 48 hours, as required by policy, and has since been deleted. - auburnpilottalk16:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, do not re-add fair use images to templates and userpages that I have removed them from. You may not use fair use images outside of article space. This is policy. - auburnpilottalk17:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pilot
Pilot, the image is FAIR USE as defined per policy:
[edit] Acceptable images
Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia.
Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
Team and corporate logos: For identification. See Wikipedia:Logos.
Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject.
Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary.
Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.
Screenshots from software products: For critical commentary.
Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.
Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary
The image is tagged as such in the image gallery. I am linking to the same image to create a theme
for this page in keeping with my name. More importantly, it's not "ON" my page - it's on Wiki's "COMMON"
page. Therefore, there is no valid reason to remove it. IF the image was ON my page, sure, that's a no-brainer, but it wasn't. For the moment, I will not restore the template that generated that image
untill I hear back from you. Thanks KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the images I removed (Image:B5 kosh01b.jpg, Image:Babylon5 02.jpg, and Image:SuSE logo.svg) are hosted on the English Wikipedia, and not Wikipedia Commons. All of the images are uploaded under the terms of fair use, and images uploaded under a claim of fair use may not be used anywhere except within articles. While it is acceptable to upload fair use images, as explained in the section you quote above, it is not acceptable to use those images outside of the article namespace. As for your claim that the images were not being used on your page, take a look here, here, and here, for the pages that included the fair use images within your userpace. - auburnpilottalk17:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pilot, You didn't read my reply. I said the images are not "ON" my webpage. I placed a link to the image
(i.e a template or a link to the image "[[Image:xxx.jpg] ") the image itself exists in wikipedias "Image"
area (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Images:). So what you removed was the link the image, not the image itself.
You are in effect vandalizing this userpage. Further you deleted bush1.jpg without cause, it's a screenshot and therefore fair use - no template was necessary and I DID place that data along with the image when I uploaded it. Stop vandalizing this webpage. KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 17:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I don't know if we're having a problem due to a language barrier or if you just don't understand what I'm saying. Linking to an image, adding it to your userpage, or however you wish to say it, is unacceptable and against policy if it is a fair use image. The image is not on commons and the "image" namespace you refer to is simply where the image resides when uploaded. If you feel I have abused my tools as an administrator, please leave a note on the admin intervention board and hopefully they'll respond. However, I can't explain this any differently than I already have. You may not use fair use images in your userspace, template space, or any other page on Wikipedia that is not an article. - auburnpilottalk18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Auburn - No I don't think you're abusing your powers. I did get a bit hot under the collar with my last note. I'm a native english speaker, so there's no issue with my not understanding english. I guess my issue is, the policy states that a non-free image cannot be "ON" my website. I agree it says that. My understanding of wikipedia is that calling an image enclosed in double "brackets" "[ [ " is, in essence, creating a link to that image, as the image itself is saved in a different area other than this userpage. If that's true, the image is not on this userpage, but on the wikipedia webpage "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:xxxx.jpg". Is that a correct understanding? KoshVorlon
It looks like this may be a simple misunderstanding of Wikipedia's terminology. You are correct that the image is saved on the "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:xxxx.jpg" page, but when policy speaks of a forbidden use of an image, it is referring to the link created by placing the brackets around the image name. The existence of a fair use image on Wikipedia is not against policy, only the display of that image outside of article space. In other words, the link created by enclosing the image name in brackets ([[Image:Bush1.jpg]]) displays the image on the page where you create that link. If that link is placed on a page other than an article, displaying a fair use image on a page that is not an article, it is a violation of policy. - auburnpilottalk18:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an example of what I'm trying to say above, I uploaded Image:NASDAQ logo.png for use in the NASDAQ article. If you look at the image page, it has proper source information, a fair use rationale, and a license tag. The image may be used in the NASDAQ article by placing the brackets are its name, but I may not do the same on my userpage. - auburnpilottalk18:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Auburnpilot - I understand you. I was more or less half right. The image isn't on this userpage, but, that doesn't mean I can link to it to make it display on this userpage unless it's on of my own images (Attributed correctly! :) ). Thanks for the reply. KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've finally seen it. I don't know what I was looking at last time but I feel it was a wrongful deletion on my part. The image is graffiti on a wall, and therefore it's too original for it to be a copyright violation. The colour's different, there's sufficient original lighting, and it's at an angle. It's a bit like using an image of a work of art. If it's not over 100 years old, then I can't use a photo of it; but if it's my own original photo, taken with original lighting and distance, it would be my own work. If you strongly disagree with my decision, I'd take it to WP:IFD, but if you do, please notify me and paste this comment on the page. Hope this helps. Best, PeterSymonds(talk)16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Say no to fair use"
Have you ever considered that Fair Use is actually a freer system than GFDL? Fair use has a history under US law. Copyleft, as far as I can tell, does not. What happens if someone says "I change my mind?" I don't know - it hasn't been tested in court. More importantly, of course, we have thousands of images in Wikipedia which are tagged as GFDL, and ownership is claimed by a person known only by their username. If you were a company interested in reusing Wikipedia content (ie, one with real assets that made it worth suing), would you really trust an image tagged by a person known only by a username?
So I made an none constructive edit to my own user page. Are you having a laugh? Please explain what i did wrong and explain how it was none constructive. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wikipedia articles are intended to be the products of teamwork. No article should be owned by one Wikipedia editor in particular. Am I correct about this? Thanks. Wfgh66 (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism warnings
Hello!
I noticed that you have been placing vandalism warnings on some editors' talk pages after some edits that couldn't really be considered vandalism. Here are some examples:
this warning was placed on the editor's page in regards to this edit of his. That edit was constructive.
this warning with regards to this editor's edits on article Zude. He made no non-constructive edits there.
Also, barring some other aggravating circumstance, 1 warning is usually enough for 1 non-constructive edit. You have placed several warnings on user's talk pages after they were already warned about that edit. Examples: [1], [2], [3], [4] and others.
Please be careful to check if a warning has been placed on the userpage already and, if it has, consider the user properly warned until their next non-constructive edits. Adding to that, if some other than yourself actually reverted the vandalism edit, chances are that they will be the one to place the warning on the vandal's talk page anyways so just keep an eye out for that.
But the most important thing to remember, by far, is to make as certain as you possibly can to never incorrectly accuse someone of vandalism. When in doubt, refer to WP:VANDALISM, the official Wikipedia policy on vandalism to help you determine if it is or if it isn't vandalism or feel free to ask someone for a second opinion.
I'm sorry, but I hope the fact that I incorrectly wrote user's instead of users' doesn't change the fact that [5], [6], [7], [8] were warnings placed by you on other users' talk pages after they were already warned about a specific edit. You've been duplicating warnings and that's what I was trying to say. Check those links and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Also, I'm afraid that this edit is not vandalism. It's not sourced, it may be a BLP violation but it's not vandalism even though this warning stated that it was. WP:VAND requires an edit to be made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia which the above edit fails to prove to obviousness of such an intent.
I'm not trying to be a dick either but your warnings were incorrectly placed and I was trying to nicely inform you of that. Please do be more careful in the future. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there!
No intention of beating a dead horse but I want to come back to this edit. First of all, the subject of the article is dead, therefore, WP:BLP doesn't exactly apply here as strictly as it would if he were alive. Second, many men have female sounding nicknames and it shouldn't be immediately assumed that it's derogatory if a statement like that is made. A simple two step process might have led you to find out that there was no vandalism in that edit. In the first step, you could notice that the article, even before the editor in question got to it, mentions racing stables named Eve Stud Ltd after which the editor suggests that Eve is the male owner's nickname. In the second step, you could perform a Google search from which you might come across this article which specifically states In India Sir Victor raced under the pseudonym of 'Mr Eve'. When he established a stud at Newmarket he named it the Eve Stud. I agree that the above editor should have provided the reference but there are other ways to deal with a situation like that. Accusing him of vandalism is the most incorrect way possible because that's as bitey as one can get towards a newcomer.
Anyways, I'm glad you see my point of why we need to be careful about things like these.
Trivial changes are not protection, and she did not always make said changes: for instance, look at the sentence in the first comparison beginning "Lake Kimilili is surrounded by sparse C3 shrubland dominated by Alchemilla, Helichrysum, and Dendrosenecio..." That's a very long passsage where the changes are as likely as not accidental, as that book cannot be copy-pasted from. The third diff has one complete sentence, unchanged at all, and one sentence that is simply slighly abridged from the original. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Nor did I show everything. Look at the Google cache of Agrostis gigantea [9] and you'll find a lot more copyvio than I quoted:[reply]
The preference is full sun, moist to mesic conditions, and a loam or clay-loam soil. This grass adapts well to worn-out soil in agricultural fields.
The preference is full sun, moist to mesic conditions, and a loam or clay-loam soil. This grass adapts well to worn-out soil in agricultural fields.
It has a circumpolar distribution, occurring as a now native grass in both North America and Eurasia.
It has a circumpolar distribution, occurring as a native grass in both North America and Eurasia.
The wind-pollinated flowers attract few insects. The caterpillars of several skippers feed on the foliage of Redtop, including Amblyscirtes vialis (Common Roadside Skipper), Hesperia leonardus (Leonard's Skipper), Hylephila phyleus (Fiery Skipper), and the introduced Thymelicus lineola (European Skipper). The caterpillars of the moth Leucania pseudargyria (False Wainscot) feed on Agrostis spp. (Bentgrasses). The seeds are eaten by the Field Sparrow to a limited extent, while the Cottontail rabbit occasionally browses on the foliage. Redtop is quite palatable to livestock.
The wind-pollinated flowers attract few insects. The caterpillars of several skippers feed on the foliage of Redtop, including Amblyscirtes vialis (Common Roadside Skipper), Hesperia leonardus (Leonard's Skipper), Hylephila phyleus (Fiery Skipper), and the introduced Thymelicus lineola (European Skipper). The caterpillars of the moth Leucania pseudargyria (False Wainscot) feed on Agrostis spp. (Bentgrasses). The seeds are eaten by the Field Sparrow to a limited extent, while the Cottontail Rabbit occasionally browses on the foliage. Redtop is quite palatable to livestock.
In the end, the entire last two sections differ from the source only in a single word, and in having some footnote numbers stripped in one paragraph. There's similar copy-paste elsewhere. Please strike your comment, you were clearly unaware of the situation.
Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put your dunce cap on, buddy, because that's the exact situation I was talking about. Nothing was "proven", so I don't know where you came up with that. It's laughably absurd to think that the edit he made with the alt account would have been a tactic at sock puppetry. Everyone knows by now that Beta uses more than one computer, he even has a "Betacommand 2" something account for the sake of some customized monobook or javascript setting. When he made the edit with the wrong account he did so without hiding who he was. He posted under that different account as himself, acting as he was just moments before. Given the way people have been treating him, it's no surprise, whatsoever, that he would have wanted to make a new account to start fresh with.
Just because he might have some problems with how he handled some past situations does not make him a dishonest user. You have no basis to say that he's done anything dishonest. He might be rude sometimes, be might be right or wrong about policy, but what you're accusing of him is completely out of character. You don't even have to like the guy to see this. -- Ned Scott01:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NAMBLA
The conntroversial topics are always the most difficult to tag up. I have copied your comment to WT:LGBT. Please remember to sign your post next time. Thanks. ZueJay (talk)00:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice there is also an LGBT project tag on Talk:Jesse Helms. He's not LGBT either! His article is within the scope of the project.
KoshVorlon, edits like this one are completely unacceptable. Whether said jokingly or not (I honestly can't tell), it is never a good idea to suggest somebody "off" them self; please don't do that in the future. And incidentally, the correct spelling is weird. - auburnpilottalk01:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re:TALK: John Edwards
I think you might have accidentally removed 2 user's comments: both "Intelligent Mr Toad"'s fairly innocuous comments, and "MrKing84"'s quite rude posting. When I restored your deletes I didn't notice MrKing84's comment and meant only to restore Intelligent Mr Toad's somewhat on-topic post. If you redelete MrKing's post I won't object. (That said, this particular talk page does have a history of somewhat overzealous censoring/undo-ing on BLP grounds which is why I was so quick to undo deletes.) DiggyG (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
KoshVorlon, could you please stop editing Andy Bjornovich's various user pages for now? I have proposed a block of this user at WP:AN, and I think it's best to work it out there instead of possibly antagonizing them any further. Thanks so much! — Satori Son19:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians
Stop trying to reopen this discussion. It was not the appropriate place for a deletion discussion, as it was not an article, and it was correctly closed. Do not reopen the discussion. - auburnpilottalk17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No template, but you've now attempted to revert the close three times. The close is proper, as pages that are not articles (in the mainspace) cannot, by rule, be nominated as Articles for deletion. You have been instructed to take the matter to MfD; please do so. This AfD has been properly closed, and needs to remain that way. Thank you. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence18:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a particular opinion on the page itself, but it's not an article - doesn't matter what it is, or what policy justifies its deletion, it can't be reviewed under the Articles for deletion process. Pages like this are very specifically why we have Miscellany for Deletion, which is where it should go. Thanks, UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence19:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put it another way; if the page were actually deleted at AfD, it would be overturned immediately at Deletion Review on procedural grounds, since it's not an article. By my math, we've saved you several days of headache. Best, UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence19:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information. Any page beginning with the prefix Wikipedia: (often abbreviated WP:) is not an article. There's a discussion about this on the Admins' Noticeboard and the general feeling there is that WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply to these two pages, but to articles. Respectfully, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your "protest" link
... doesn't work, nor would I encourage you to keep it there. Do you really believe the closure of the AFD in question is on a par with the occupation of Tibet? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been explained numerous times, Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians is not an article and can not be deleted at AfD. Therefor,the AfD was improperly OPENED not improperly closed. If you still have an issue with the page, take it to MfD and cut out all the OMGDRAMAZ. DCEdwards196617:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You play the oboe, you enforce fair use policy...I simply can't bring myself to dislike you with these two pieces of evidence in your favor. Nevertheless, I'd really rather you not vandalize my talk page in the future, if you don't mind. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 02:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed most of the quotes because it was started to read like an interview. Yes it feels more dry, but that's what an encyclopedia is. Check out WP:Quote. Quotes should be used sparatically. You did a good job of starting the article, but it looked like you were essentially took your sources and pulled things direct. It's much better to summarize the quotes. Also, the overall tone of the article felt (and still does to a lesser extent) like it was praise. The tone should feel less biased.
heat_fan1 (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't remove other's comments at ACE2008
ST47's comments were neither uncivil or BITE-y. He was simply clerking, and properly indented an ineligible editor's vote. Remnoval of such comments could be considered vandalism. S.D.D.J.Jameson21:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Justin
My apologies on the MySpace revert, friend. Please don't take offense. Obviously, I'm new to this. If I would have fully read the Wiki policy's article I would have understood what it meant. When I saw "links to avoid" I thought it didn't necessary mean these links should not be used, yet they should be used with caution (hence, avoid), because they could violate copyright or some other rights. I understand why MySpace links are links to be avoided (not used). I disagree with this, however, so I will try to bring it up on that policy's talk page. My question for you is, for a group whose website is their MySpace page (this is not uncommon, I know of many bands who do this) what do they do? If their MySpace page is an offical band site and it is their copyright, there is no foul in my eyes. What do you think? I say this because, in regards to the Dirty Barby link you removed, that is the only official Dirty Barby website--they have no other offical sites.
In the spirit of editing MySpace out of Wikipedia altogether... here are some other pages I found with links to MySpace accounts on them, have at it! :)
There is much more where that came from. Perhaps we should start an anti-MySpace Wikipedia campaign. Talk soon my friend. :) M. W. Eilers 03:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Caylee
Sorry- you're right, I missed the footnote in the middle because of the speculation at the end which I'm glad you removed. I know the reports came in, but think we should proceed with caution about reporting minute-by-minute breaking news. Plenty of time to add material when it's really verified. But I was wrong when I said it was unsourced. Thanks for catching that. I'll leave it in, as I don't feel that strongly about it, but let's please keep speculation out.Tvoz/talk21:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
Hi. Do not remove my comments from talk pages, as you did here and here. I believe you can be blocked for that. And try to be more civil when leaving comments on my talk page (that is, avoid this).
Back to discussing the content, can you please double check that reference you mentioned on the Dwight Lauderdale article? It gives me a 404 error. Also, the sentence saying that Lauderdale "had a passion to "get the story right"" can not be sourced by an interview where a co-worker says he "works hard to see that we get the story right". That just someones opinion, and not a fact.
Likewise, we should avoid press-release language like "After working in news since he was 17, he wanted to have choices and work at his own pace". This is unnecessarily praising.
What, may I ask, were you thinking when you made these reverts? [10][11][12] That's hardly trolling. He thinks something is OR. If you don't think so discuss it with him on the talk page. Your reversions were trolling. Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly and disruptive conduct such as this is prohibited. Please see incivility--Patton12316:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to leave a similar message. Those edits are not trolling, and continuously calling another a user a troll in incivil, disruptive, and constitutes trolling itself. If you want to stick around you'll have to work together with other users. Discussion on the talk page is the way to resolve disputes, not edit wars and name-calling. BradV16:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy, Kosh. I see you removed the template warning I issued you earlier today citing the essay of not to template the regulars. While this is your talk page and I respect your right to remove whatever you want I would like to point you to a counter essay, Wikipedia:Template the regulars. Cheers! Bstone (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then- thanks for disclosing that; the editor in question made at least 4 replies in which he only demanded my backing off because I had previously played the game. TBH, considering the info you'd introduced to that page, I had wondered what your connection was. Incidentally that very website might end up being a good source for corroborating some of the info in the article; it's still mirrored by the Internet Archive. At any rate, thanks for your reply! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for keeping an eye on things. As to concern about outing, I'm confident there's sufficient behavioral evidence on-wiki to establish the identity of the editor in question without violating policy- should it become necessary. In any event, it does look like things have died down to the point where we can assume he's either accepting things or preparing a counterstrike. Thanks again! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUCK does not apply, and does not supersede civility. Your motion is not what I templated for, it was your condescending tone and juvenile name-calling that got me here. Try to act in a more appropriate way. — neuro(talk)17:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thanks for using my signature as a template for your new one (looks splendid by the way)! Glad to see someone else actually likes it and doesn't think of it as bland... :D — neuro(talk)17:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted passage only quotes someone as saying it, thus it is not an appropriate reference to use for that particular bit. I have readded the {{by whom}} template. Regards, — neuro(talk)19:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the publisher does not guarantee the reliability of the author. It might be published by a noteworthy organization, but the article is written by a teenager. Let's consider the article on its merits alone: would you actually use a high school journalism report as a source in a Wikipedia article? Hopefully, you would say no, based on thee principal tenet of WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Furthermore, per WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, primary sources (such as interviews) are not considered "reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion". In that case, we would need secondary sources. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)21:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence taken from the source, "Lauderdale considers reaching out to the community, like telling aspiring students about the work it takes to get to where he is and the endurance it takes to get there, to be a big part of his career." falls into the realm of "interpretation, analysis or conclusion". Per policy, primary sources aren't considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion. Also, how does the second sentence add anything to the encyclopedia? It seems like a highly trivial detail, which reads like personal commentary/analysis. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)22:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood me. The policy refers to statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion from the source itself. That's exactly what the sentence is. The author of the paper is not stating fact (Lauderdale was born in XX place), she's offering her own personal commentary in claiming that Lauderdale's community outreach to be a big part of his career. If his service to the community is so profound, you shouldn't have any trouble finding a secondary source to back up the claim. That will satisfy my concerns. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)23:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err, no, you're still not understanding my points. From WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, "Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an analysis of the characters in the work of fiction)." As I mentioned above, the sentence in question "Lauderdale considers reaching out to the community, like telling aspiring students about the work it takes to get to where he is and the endurance it takes to get there, to be a big part of his career." falls into the realm of "interpretation, analysis or conclusion". The article by Angelique Gayle is by definition a primary source (it's an interview and then some). Including the sentence in the article does not meet policy because the Gayle article is a primary source and the line which you cited from the article is not fact, but opinion/analysis of the writer (if it had been fact, why couldn't she have just quoted Dwight Lauderdale to begin with?). In addition, my point regarding WP:NOT#SOAP was in reference to this line: "Sometimes, it is just for the fun of it, like when he judged a Jamaican Jerk Festival at Markham Park Sunrise, Florida on September 24, 2008." It's quite clearly personal commentary, and it's unencyclopedic. So far, my arguments fit well within policy, and I have yet to find any solid ground in your rebuttals. I'm going to ask others who have edited the article to also participate in this discussion. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)01:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this explanation. Interviews are considered primary sources which are not very useful for writing encyclopedic articles. In addition, the constant ownership of this article, exemplified by reverting other editors, calling them trolls or vandals, and refusing to listen to their comments is getting a little tiresome. BradV01:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Dwight Lauderdale/Editnotice, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Dwight Lauderdale/Editnotice is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Dwight Lauderdale/Editnotice, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dwight Lauderdale/Editnotice
Thanks for the heads-up. I was a little unsure about the purpose of the page and took a chance that someone would get back to me if I made a mistake. Thanks again... ttonyb1 (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dwight Lauderdale/Editnotice
I have deleted Dwight Lauderdale/Editnotice, a page you created. User-created editnotices only work on user pages and user talk pages; editnotices for mainspace articles need to be created in the MediaWiki space and are an admin-only action. Only a very few ultra-high-traffic articles such as Barack Obama have their own editnotices. If you think Dwight Lauderdale needs one, go to WP:EDITNOTICE and follow the instructions there; however, the level of vandalism does not appear to be high enough to warrant it.
Continuing to template a user's page who you disagree with (especially when you template him twice in 24 hours when he hasn't edited in 24 hours), reverting his edits with uncivil comments and referring to his edits as vandalism is tantamount to harassment. Please stop. --Smashvilletalk01:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't reverting vandalism. As for your discussion with Nishkid - you can discuss anything you want with him here. I would have been more sympathetic if you had stopped reverting and were just discussing the article, but you continued to revert to your preferred version even after starting to discuss it. --B (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...I don't appreciate my edits being referred to as "vandalism". And I already told him once that referring to edits that are not vandalism as vandalism constitutes a personal attack. --Smashvilletalk16:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting sourced edits as OR IS vandalism, and that's just what happened here
Per WP:VANDAL it constitutes Sneaky Vandalism and Abuse of tags, both on your part and Damiens.rf.
(Again, the information was sourced. Sourced info never equals OR)
Also, this block is punative and not preventative, thus making this block against policy.
— Kosh Jumpgate17:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My removal of your unencyclopedic content is not vandalism and I consider your reference to me as a "sneaky vandal" a personal attack. And considering I added no tags, I highly object to your accusation of my "abuse of tags". It is original research. There is no source in existence that can tell you someone's motive for doing charity work. In fact, the only reason I reverted them in the first place was because I felt it would be a better alternative than blocking you for violating 3RR...which is why I told you that you had violated 3RR. And why I told you already that his edits were not vandalism. This is your final warning about continued personal attacks, including this one. --Smashvilletalk17:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, removing sourced information, or Calling it "OR" which you did is not appropriate behavior. (Per policy ). Sourced information is NOT OR, no way, no how. I reverted that change because it was false. (it's not OR). Bottom line, I created that damn article to begin with, I made sure any claim had a reliable source behind it (not a blog, a forum, some youtube link, not a tabliod) there is not one iota of OR in that article. If you belive it, then prove it, by all means. Hey, right now I can't do anything about it anyway, in fact, I won't even look at that article for 31 hours, so go for it, prove it's OR (I've already proven , by a reference ) that it isn't.
But it IS sourced, per the article, in fact, it's a direct quote from the article. Therefore it's not original research. Again, I've proven it isn't OR by having a reference that backs that up, word for word. It's not OR, it's not proven as OR, therefor it isnt.
I don't see what part of this you don't comprehend. Just tacking a source onto the end of a sentence doesn't make it "sourced". You will not find one single reliable source that can back up this sentence, "Sometimes, it is just for the fun of it, like when he judged a Jamaican Jerk Festival at Markham Park Sunrise, Florida on September 24, 2008." You can find a source that says he judged the competition, but you cannot find a source to give you his motives. In addition, there is no way this sentence is appropriate in any Wikipedia article: "His father in particular taught him the importance of being himself." Let me put this as simply as possible. Your reverts were not reverting vandalism. This has been backed up by not one, not two, not three, but four admins. Your continued failure to get the point and personal attacks are becoming continually disruptive. --Smashvilletalk17:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a source on to any claim shows that this claim is referenced to a reliable publication and not a product of the editor's research, and that's just what I did. I quoted word-for-word the source.
The source itself ascribed his motives. The source can do that, I cannot. Attempting to find out what his motives are would be OR on my behalf and it would be reverted. However, an article which states word-for-word a motive is different. It's simple. If I have a reliable source, it's not OR. If I have no source, or I researched it, it's OR and can be reverted at will and I have ground to stand on.
— Kosh Jumpgate18:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is your opinion, but it doesn't excuse a) personal attacks, b) harassment, c) edit warring, d) the continuous addition of poorly written unencyclopedic content or e) ignoring 4 admins who have told you that you are wrong and to stop. --Smashvilletalk18:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the fact that this conversation is proving utterly unproducctive and that you seem to be on the verge of saying something you really shouldn't, I am going to protect your talk page so you don't do anything to extend your block duration. --Smashvilletalk19:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have unprotected, following Smashville requesting comment at WP:AN. I trust that further discussion will comply with the relevant policies and guidelines. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your post to Cambios
Kosh, what harassment are you speaking of? If someone is harassing you, give me details and if it is someone I have any influence over I will put a stop to it. Cambios (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you've taken complete ownership of the Dwight Lauderdale article and it's annoying. You and Damiens got into that argument over the suburbs, so I took it out. You added it by quoting WP:BLP. Guess what: there's nothing in that article that states that "a suburb of" be included. In fact, there's no reference whatsoever to birthplace in that article. I'm not going to get into an argument and switching it back and forth, but if you want to back-up your edits with WP guidelines, pick the right one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heat fan1 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue really has nothing to do with BLP, and everything to do with Wikipedia:Verifiability (though it's really an odd thing to argue about). I know I've said it before, but it seems I need to say it again: if you want to help Wikipedia, contribute content and stop trying to enforce policy. Your understanding of policy, KoshVorlon, is not sufficient enough to run around trying to enforce it. - auburnpilottalk17:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Auburn said. Again, there's no point in arguing over 3 words or change it, but don't cite WP guidelines and not pick the right one. There's nothing about birthplace in BLP and this has nothing to do with BLP. There's no point in putting a general statement like, "suburb of..." without stating the specific suburb. If there's a source that states "suburb of...", then add the footnote there.
heat_fan1 (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looks like someone else has gone and changed it to Columbus again (in the proper format, as well), with a source. I looked through the high school article and didn't see where it mentioned Columbus or a suburb. Oh well, no biggie. - heat_fan1 (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removing my comments from talk pages
Hi, KoshVorlon. Please, don't remove my comments from talk pages, as you did in User_talk:Rebecca. I you think I said something I shouldn't, do like other users did and contact me for a civil and productive discussion. Thanks, --Damiens.rf12:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPI
Regrettably, I have had to revert your addition to this page.
New requests must not be added by copy and past to the main page. Please follow the instructions for creating a case subpage, and a bot will complete the listing process. Mayalld (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KoshVorlon, if you readd that userbox, I will protect your page and block your account. Such a userbox is divisive and completely unacceptable. Calling all of Israel murderers could also be construed as a massive violation of WP:BLP. Do not misunderstand what I'm saying: replace that userbox and be blocked. - auburnpilottalk20:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at [13], I see "* I try to respond rapidly to ANY message posted to me. If you don't hear from me in about three days, post again! "... Brilliant! How'd you do that? SQLQuery me!04:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting on the talk page! Of the 10 or so editors, including at least one admin, who have commented, you are the only one to recognize that the material is all sourced. In fact, every living person in the list publicly identified themselves as children of alcoholics. One editor even successfully argued that the sources were invalid because they were books and not online! Numerous editors reiterated that policies were irrelevant. This whole debate has been like bizzaro-wikipedia, I don't understand what's going on. Please take a closer look at the discussion. I feel that I've been ganged up on by a group of editors with complete disregard for policy. If there is anything you can recommend please let me know. Anyway, thanks again for being the only one to actually respond to my attempts to discuss the matter. --Elplatt (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to discuss your reasons, I have no opinion on the topic, and I even will not vote in the AfD. However, first and foremost, we don't "PROD" pages which have been existed for long time and edited by many people: "Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate". Obviously the many people who worked on it think that the page is deserving (I highly doubt that many experienced wikipedians would waste their time on an "uncontroversial" pile of garbage). It other words, it is your opinion against theirs.
As I may understand, you are relatively new wikipedian, otherwise you would not have written "I won't war and put it back in": the WP:PROD policy expressly forbids this. Therefore, here is my piece of advice: use PROD on articles freshly created by new accounts or IPs to kill obvious garbage which nevertheless do not fit speedy deletion. In all other cases bring it to AfD. - 7-bubёn >t16:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, please don't do that, especially not on the userpage of a Foundation staff member. WP:NOT is not a tool to bash contributors over the head with, and especially not to bash staff with. Daniel (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. Vandalism and blatantly illegal content aside, it's considered rude to edit somebody else's user page without their permission. - Jredmond (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In particular you will need to distinguish between article space an user space. For the latter WP:UP#NOT is the appropriate reading material. In particular Extensive self-promotional material that is unrelated to your activities as a Wikipedian. In this particular case even if it was to be argued to be self promotional it would be extremely related to to Mike's activities as Wikimedia's legal council. Please concentrate your efforts on article space rather than making pointy deletion attempts. Agathoclea (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Scientology, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --GoodDamon16:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to apply to the creation of article-space memorials, not to the creation of project-space (that is, pages prefixed with "Wikipedia:") memorials, and only to editors (not to anyone who happens by) who contributed to Wikipedia. And of course, again, this is a proposal. See WP:CCC. —Locke Cole • t • c14:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to misunderstand the application of policy. Policy does not preclude proposals which go against existing policy, please read WP:CCC as I suggested. —Locke Cole • t • c16:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I've seen fake messages bars discussed, the consensus has been the same. They're stupid and annoying, but not prohibited. Also, please note that calling the user an idiot in your edit summary isn't exactly appropriate. --Onorem♠Dil17:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what the page says. I also know what consensus has been in every AN/I discussion I've seen on the topic and in the archives at WT:USERPAGE. I'm not going to revert your removal, but I won't be surprised if someone else does.
Also, he's had it replaced by various users, and a note was entered into the block log to indicate that the block was not met with community consensus. --Onorem♠Dil17:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
False warnings
I object to being accused of vandalism. No good faith edit is considered vandalism, and under no circumstances was my edit made in bad faith. Please explain why you considered this edit (removing unnecessary weight being placed on awards by including them in the lead sentence) was vandalism. Finally, I shall be logging out in a moment, so don't be surprised if I don't respond to your response immediately. Acalamari17:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean: I didn't add any external links, and my edit wasn't a test...I don't really need to make test edits. As for why I thought that you thought my edit was vandalism, using rollback to revert implies an edit was disruptive. Acalamari18:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really isn't. Please see the appropriate guideline at WP:SIG which states that signatures must "Avoid markup such as <big> tags and <font size="3"> markup (which produce big text), or line breaks (<br /> tags), since they disrupt the way that surrounding text displays." Nakon15:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I second this, and urge you to cut down both its length, the number of line-breaks, the size, the box and the colour ASAP, please? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are line-breaks. Put it on a page, then edit the page and look at how much markup you've created. You really need to remove the box, the colour, and lots of the words, as well as the hidden text in <!-- tags --> as soon as possible. Please read over the signature policy for further guidance. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"PBUH" warnings
Hello, just one thing about the notices you give to editors who insert "PBUH" in Muhammed articles, like here [14]. I appreciate your polite tone and the attempt at a matter-of-fact explanation in that notice, but please do not make the mistake of calling Mohammed "your deity". For Muslims, Mohammed is a prophet, not a deity, and given the high value they place on the idea of monotheism, I'm afraid some of your addressees might take quite serious offense at this. I'm sure you can easily reword that bit. Thank you, -- Fut.Perf.☼15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Signature
I appreciate that you are clearing up vandalism, but you are going to have to change your signature so that it is less than 255 characters long, as per policy, before editing another page. The more talkpages you leave it on, the more mess there is that others are going to have to clear up. There are linebreaks in your sig. This is what it looks like if you edit the page.
what's with all the hidden anti-israel stuff on your user page?
i'm all for freedom of speech, but how are you supposed to project credibility on issues relating to anything jewish if you have flags with lines through them?
and do you really think linking to a thiering fan's blog is up to par for the dead sea scrolls article?
XKV8R (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your note on your userpage about finding copyright paranoia annoying - so I'm nervously approaching, hoping you won't hit me on the head with a large stick! :-) - I'm afraid that pages like this are probably not suitable for wikipedia - it's really better to keep the full text of articles in something like a 'notepad' file on your computer for reference, rather than actually here on the site (where they are available to the world via the web, thus infringing the copyright of the rights holder).
If I'd done my homework, I'd also be able to tell you how to put a tag on such pages asking a friendly admin. to delete them - but in the interim, would you mind blanking these pages (just remove all text, and hit 'save') - if you'd like some advice on how to do the notepad thing (which you probably know just fine!) drop me a line, and thanks for contributing to wikipedia! Privatemusings (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While placing the talkback notice, I couldn't help but see this. It is indeed a copyvio. Wikipedia's copyright policy is not more lenient on placing copyrighted material in user space, but actually less--for instance, we don't allow fair use images in userspace at all. Wikipedia's copyright policy is that copyrighted text can only be placed on Wikipedia if we are given permission to license it under GFDL and CC-BY-SA (as part of the upcoming licensing transition) or if it is handled in accordance with WP:NFC, which allows brief quotations of copyrighted text, but never extensive use of material.
I have blanked the page to prevent our publishing copyrighted material out of process. Privatemusings's suggestion is a good one. Wikipedia can't store raw, copyrighted text in this way. Since this is a different matter than the below, I'll be watching your talk page in case you'd like to discuss the matter further. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot leave it as it is. Wikipedia's policy is to immediately remove copyright infringements, wherever they appear. Your only option, if you must work on it is here, is to blank it between rounds. Placing copyrighted text on the project puts it in legal jeopardy. Please understand that this is not negotiable. You can view our policies on using copyrighted text at WP:C and WP:COPYVIO. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just poke my nose in to make one more suggestion? Google Docs[15] is a free system where you can store written documents, etc., and work on them, online – so it's accessible from any computer. That might be the best solution. Good luck! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 12:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be "further bothering the text on the scratchpad" so long as it remains blanked. But I am also not going to stop talking to you about it while you seem not to understand our copyright policies. I would not wish you to inadvertently violate that core policy and get yourself in trouble. If you work on articles on Wikipedia, you must still follow our copyright policies. You may only use brief quotations of copyrighted text in accordance with WP:NFC—whether you are publishing this in userspace or anywhere else. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, they apply to all spaces on Wikipedia. As I said above, userspace is actually more strictly regulated, because it is harder to assert "fair use" (and comply with WP:NFC.) But I noticed that you had requested deletion, and I have already deleted it for you. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this, I'd suck the fuck up if I was you.
Hi there - thanks for your comment about this article on my talk page, and sorry for my slightly late reply. I took a look at it, and I think most of my concerns have been satisfied. However, one problem still hasn't been solved - the lack of incoming links. There's no strict rule on this, but generally a Wikipedia article should have at least two relevant incoming links from other articles (and the more, the better). You can see what links to a page by clicking on the 'What links here' button - as you can see here [16], this article does have too incoming links from other articles, John W. Peterson and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. Unfortunately, only the first of those is actually relevant - the second article seems to be about an entirely different person called Bill Pearce. I suggest you try to find some other articles where Pearce's name can be mentioned, and add him there - for example, on the list of people at Pearce (surname). That would be enough to remove the template. If you have any other questions, let me know; goodbye for now, and happy editing! Robofish (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I reverted it (I did not use rollback), because it was a dog's breakfast, full of formatting and other MOS errors that were not there before. – ukexpat (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not be so petty. You don't own this article and the form it's in now after my second reversion of your recent edits is perfectly acceptable and properly formatted. – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By MOS errors I meant, for example: forcing the ToC to the top of the page; unnecessary hard line breaks (<br />); unnecessary <code></code> tags; butchering the infobox. – ukexpat (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Betacommand
Kosh, thanks for asking about this. The IRC Bots that Beta runs are well-known, including by the Arbitration Committee. Because they don't edit the project, and are simply reporting tools on IRC, I don't believe they are affected by the restriction. Also, as Beta mentioned on my talk page, ArbCom's restrictions don't apply to his use or development of tools elsewhere such as the toolserver and Commons. I appreciate your concern, and thank you for asking about it here rather than a noticeboard, but I don't think it's an issue. I'll let MBisanz know about this so he can chime in if he wants as well. Hersfoldnon-admin(t/a/c)18:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Karyotype
Why are you reverting my edits when I am in the middle of a session? I am a main contributor to this page, and my work is backed by reliable references. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason that this:
<!-- This signature doesn't fit in the signature box, and it prints the same amount of text as I had before -->
<!-- Therefore I'm observing IAR and placing it here -->
<!-- Talk to be before you delete or blank this page, please -->
<span style="color:#333;font-face:Trebuchet MS;solid #FAECC8;background-color:#FAF6ED;padding:5px 5px;letter-spacing:2px;text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><sub>[[User:KoshVorlon|'''Naluboutes, Naluboutes''']]</sub><i>[[User talk:KoshVorlon|Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris]]</font></sup></span>
needs to take up at least six lines on my screen and requires the use of a template and hidden text to place it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your signature does not meet current requirements. The requirement is that signatures are fewer than 255 characters and less than "two or three lines" long (yours is 521 characters and six to seven lines long). It is, in fact, practically identical to how it was when you were directed to alter it last time. Read the policy itself if you don't believe me.
So, what do we do from here? Two things. Firstly, please do not post anything on my talkpage until your signature is fewer than 255 characters. It is disgusting, and messy, and distrcting, and against policy, and I will delete it on sight.
Secondly, you need to immediately change your signature so that it is within the policy that I linked to above. If you don't, I will have to take this issue to the administrators' noticeboard once again.
<< Ah, I see that you've already changed it – and at least your message to Ryolung was relatively civil; alas the same can't be said to your note on my talkpage. You might also want to consider renaming the subpage that your sig is on. I don't know if you're aware, but the word "git" is a mild insulting word in British English, and it might cause offence to some people. Perhaps you could call the page something like /signature – this has the benefit of letting people know what's on the page, too. Thanks in advance! ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 17:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"GITS" is an abbreviation for Ghost in the Shell, the opening theme of which the primary text of his signature comes from. Not to mention it violates something regarding not actually mentioning his username in normal text.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Messin with other users talkpages.
Messing with other users talkpages is a very poor idea, especially if they are blocked. Edits like yours at WebHamsters talk will usually inflame the situation not calm it. Please take care not to escalate disputes. Ta. Off2riorob (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit there was reverted almost immediately, what you removed as uncivil had been there for a very long time. I am offering you advice and suggest at times like this a back seat is advisable. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you closed it with a closing statement saying 'keep' when closing it that early is a speedy keep.
you didn't provide any reason apart from 'BitchX is definetly notable', which is just another vote by itself and has nothing to do with the AFD discussion.
Obvious bad faith nominations don't get delete votes and have active discussions about the sources of the article. Take a look at WP:SK to see when it is rarely appropriate to speedy close AFDs. On a separate issue, in my opinion your signature violates the signature guidelines(WP:SIG) so will be adjusting your signature every time you leave it on my talk page.--Otterathome (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I may interject; in general, revert-warring over an early, non-admin close of a deletion discussion [17][18] is a pretty bad idea... And (in my humble opinion), since both your closes were early and inappropriate, reverting them was perfectly proper – as Sarek points out, DRV is in no way necessary. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, KoshVorlon. You have new messages at WP:ANI. Message added 07:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, KoshVorlon. You have new messages at WP:ANI. Message added 13:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
In May, an ANI thread held that you had a disruptive signature and that you should reduce the padding from 5px to 2px. You agreed but recently reverted the change last month [19] and also increased the wikimarkup length of your signature beyond the allowed length. Please consider this a formal warning that persistent disruptive signature use is a blockable offense.
Please also consider using a signature that is not distracting in its rendered form (i.e. consider using one without a background). –xenotalk13:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - just wondering about this page and its compliance with point 10 of WP:UP#NOT, given that the page was created in 2008. If you no longer need the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}, or otherwise can you explain to me why the page needs to be retained. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you did say, "I didn't touch it," read over it again. Those were your exact words. If I misinterpreted them, that's one thing, but your denial stated that you didn't say, "I didn't touch it." ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 12:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there is an implied afterthought, "I didn't touch it [subsequent to your changes]". Anyhow, the sig is even better now, so let's let this drop. –xenotalk12:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Ani medjool @ ANI
I note you removed my reply to Supreme Deliciousness as "NPA redacted". I apologise if it came across as a personal attack. That was not the intention. I was merely pointing out the fact that SD is known to have a pro-Syrian POV. I also made it quite clear that the accusation of sockpuppetry was found to be a false one. Anyway, it can stay redacted. As I stated when raising the case, I felt out of my depth dealing with it myselfa and it looks as though consensus is that generally the recent editing of Ani medjool is not such that any admin action will be necessary this time. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google translate
It may well do , but that still doesn't make it of any value to anyone imo, do you intend to use this any comment to add to the biography ? Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AN/I thread
I had to adjust your collapse tags because they made navigating more difficult. (It's one thing to collapse a thread, another do that so one knows it's there but can't quickly find it.) Hope you don't mind. -- llywrch (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just go there and revert you revert, at the end of the day you have to say to yourself, even if it is the ciitation is it of any value o the article,no , it is only derogatory. Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries it was in the archive. I just went there and deleted it, forget about it, it is only as a polite request to remove and so why not, it is gone, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peripitus, please undelete this file. The prior image showed Sam Giancana handcuffed to a chair and is not the same image.
Now, I don't claim to have a complete understanding of the image policy yet, however, I am aware that if there is no free equivalent of an image, a copyrighted imaged can be used in a limited way (example, to provide a photo of an individual on their wiki page (not a userpage ) ). Sam Giancana is dead, and there is no free equivalent, therefore, as far as I know, this image is suitable for use at least on his wiki entry. I won't re-upload the image, but please be aware it was not the same image of him and again, he's dead , so no free equivalent exists of him.
Thanks Naluboutes,NalubotesAeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris13:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peripitus, the original image was on commons and it showed Sam Giancana handcuffed to a chair, that got deleted.
Not sure if someone uploaded another image (like the one I uploaded) Either way, there is no free equivalent of his image
and as far as I know, even though Wikipedia strives for free (not copyrighted) photos, if there is no free equivalent, it's
acceptable to Wikipedia to have it for use in an article, for that very reason. I'm requesting undeletion on that basis, no free equivalent. Check WP:NFC, the policy section. It appears to meet all 10 rationale that would allow the image to remain. Naluboutes,NalubotesAeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris17:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The commons image (which was different though I don't have access to see it) was deleted as the image was not free, and so not suitable for hosting on commons. This one was deleted as there was no real source (which makes it fail WP:NFCC#10a) and it appeared to be a news photo that may still be being sold (which makes it fail WP:NFCC#2). What we need is an image of him, where we know who took it, that is not a news photo or where the news copyright was not renewed - Peripitus(Talk)20:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My signature's been discussed and pared down already over here , and I am using subscript and superscript to place parts of the signature above the others. The signature is within guidelines (As I understand them) however I welcome any comments about my signature as well. Thanks
(Replied here rather than on my talk, to keep discussion in one place)
Your sig uses a fixed size for the font, which may be bigger than the size of text use by the reader, so the first step is to get rid of the fixed size. (It's a lot bigger the rest of the text on my setup, and specifying abolsolute font sizes is bad practice for screen display)
If you are going to use superscript, then make the text smaller and lose the shadow effect, because it increases the height.
There are several examples of complaint signatures at the ANI discussion. Please use one of them, or a minimal variation thereof.
Also, it's a nuisance for other editors that your sig does not display your username, because the text seen on screen does not match the username seen in the revision history. Please consider displaying your username. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your sig on this pageYour sig at CFDHere's what your sig looks like on my setup: highly intrusive. Please just make your sig simpler. Its purpose is to identify you, not to place a big piece of art on talk pages. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made it comply with the guidelines - that doesn't mean I personally don't find it a little annoying. I think you should include your name and get rid of the shadowing (though the latter isn't a problem for me because I block shadow effects in my .css). The comments by BHG about the hard-coded sizes are also relevant. And why do you put it on a newline? –xenotalk21:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Include the name, lose the shadow effect and the fixed font size, and get rid of the verbose text ("Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris" is much longer than "talk" and less informative). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. I had a hard time figuring out who "KoshVorlon" was in these comments, and that's just obfuscation. I'd also point out that the text "Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris" makes even less sense as it doesn't seem to be a link to the talk page (or to anything else, for that matter). Mark Shaw (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading File:Aeria.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
"Myth" is a technical/scholarly word that fits in this context. It's also the title of the article, so it's definitely proper to use the article title in the article itself in the first sentence. Your concern is valid, however. There is actually a debate about this exact issue on Talk:Genesis creation myth, so its resolution will determine whether the terminology will be changed--feel free to contribute there. In the mean time, it's not appropriate to unilaterally change it during that discussion. DMacks (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As above, that is the articles title. Calling it something else in the lead does not change the articles titles. If you believe the articles title should be changed, you can discuss that at the talkpage, but altering the lead to fit your idea of what the title should be, whilst the title is something else, is not productive. Weakopedia (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to your message at my talkpage. You might also want to take a look at the discussion about this that took place over at Jim Wales' talkpage [20]. Weakopedia (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A minor point about this debate, with regard to your edit summaries- WP:NPOV IS a pillar, but those pillars stand by general consensus. If consensus holds that they should change, they can. --King Öomie17:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oomie, not to disagree, but look at WP:NPOV. It actually states that NPOV cannot be changed by consensus:
"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.'
I took that to mean that even if 100% of editors at an article decide "We don't need to abide by NPOV", they still have to. The current text of WP:NPOV was decided by consensus, and it can change. It just won't be removed. The issue of whether "myth" is NPOV as a term is not clear-cut, and frankly comes down to opinion. There's more than one definition of the word. This debate is much longer than your tenure here. --King Öomie 19:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC
The article-name is the trouble in your (and many others') view then. The first sentence just states what the title is, and other links to the article similarly go with that. However, others do not think it is POV. It's your (and perhaps Jimbo's and others') opinion that this wording is hopelessly/inappropriately biased (and others have scholarly research and other sources supporting that it is the correct word in this context), and the ongoing discussion is aimed at resolving that issue. NPOV is policy, but there's no "...and it must be fixed immediately at all costs" component, especially for cases that are not clear-cut non-disputed, no urgency that supercedes normal dispute resolution, etc. Again, feel free to join in that process in the appropriate article talk-page forum. DMacks (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, when you put the template in, you accidentally removed one of the opening brackets from the image call. Anyway, no harm, no foul -- just thought I'd let you know. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Photo mentioned on AN
The photo of the painting would probably be acceptable as a non-free fair use image on an article about the artist himself. It would almost certainly not be acceptable in an article on someone else. It is definitely not a free-use image for the reasons I stated at AN. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sanger
Block's over
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
NLT is policy. I have been blocked for enforcing the policy, further the admin is involved and should not have issued the block to begin with. I will appeal only once and not abuse this page with repeat requests. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris13:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Yes, WP:NLT is a key and important policy. It applies to users, and never to articles (unless you're removing something from an article that also implies a legal threat). AFD'ing an article based on a user-based NLT is inappropriate, as you have already been notified. Be happy with 24hrs, as this type of misreading of policy and disruption usually incurs longer rests. (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
What were you thinking of?! Do you not think that you should at least have consulted people about your alleged interpretation of WP:NLTfirst? I seriously don't think you're likely to be unblocked! ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 13:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear KoshVorlon, please be more cautious next time before removing referenced text... if my english is so uncomprehensible, please do it yourself... But this little improvment of the article add somes references to an article that yet haven't a lot... Also, perhaps you've not search some information about me, Im 'NOT experimenting Wikipedia... --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me19:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I double this question from my talk page: Could you be so kind as to explain why do you call my edits "test edits", and where was any vandalism or any other wrongdoing in these edits? What is the reason for your revert of entries (often referenced) that are no worse than other entries in this timeline? With my respect, Greyhood (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what are you gonna do i dont even live where you "said" i did. I should have you kicked for thretening me and trying to learn where i live.
Ill stop messing around, but you should know that this was quite disappointing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.85.195 (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for reverting Phil judd to a neutral point regarding Conviction section
Bold text Thankyou for reverting the last edit on Phil judd Conviction Section to a neutral perspective. The last sentence which I edited was not relevant to the reported case, implying that a recent situation had to do with the 'stalking charge' which it did not. This sentence had an unreliable source that was from a personal blog written by a prejudiced party, so thank you for reverting it .
SweetDreamz 05:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
I just noticed this. I'm being labelled as making a personal attack for mentioning, anonymously, that someone called themselves a creationist on their talk page. I strongly object to the label, and just as strongly object to being attacked (which is what I see this is) and yet there's been no discussion with me. Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do this. It just causes wikidrama and distracts from the topic.
If you really feel it necessary to take it upon yourself to chastise users over such "personal attacks" on third parties, do it on their own talkpages, not in the midst of a busy thread. --dab(𒁳)18:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WierdWiki
Hi there. I was recently pointed to the collection of pages you have in your userspace documenting some incidents in Wikipedia's history: User:KoshVorlon/WierdWiki. I'm leaving this note to ask if you would consider doing this collection a different way, as copying large chunks out of archives can be problematic for several reasons. For example, if the userpages are not WP:NOINDEXed, then the text will show up in Google searches. Also, it is difficult to verify if the contents have been copied accurately. One of the pages you created is an incomplete copy: compare User:KoshVorlon/WierdWiki/BLP with the full arbitration request and motion that can be seen here. My comments at the bottom, and that of several other arbitrators, are not present in your version of the request. Also, one of your pages refers to a user by name, and it would be courteous to consider the feelings of that editor before placing that incident in a collection such as this. It is possible that other editors will take a stronger line than I do and ask you to remove those pages as serving little useful purpose, despite the disclaimer you have placed on the index page, unless there is a good reason to keep them in their present form. My advice would be to at least noindex the pages, and use links to the motions or cases, rather than copying out the full text. Carcharoth (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thanks for inviting my to contribute my opinion on your merger proposal. I note that the talk page for the merger is not the actual talk page for the relevant article. I'm going to move the merge discussion content to the appropriate article, flag the talk page created for deletion, and apply the appropriate Merge tags to the two articles. Let me know if you have a problem with any of this. Thanks! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb18:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the message you left for people to contribute to direct them to the appropriate talk page. Looks like all is set now. Thanks. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb18:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for your good faith attempts to redact the "horse manure award" left for admins in general at ANI. But I think at this point, it's best just to let it stand. Redacting it and replacing it with unsigned commentary may confuse readers as to who is saying what. Admins have thick skins anyway. –xenotalk13:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to this, I think removing a perceived "personal attack" with the comment "Malleus you're a jerk" is pretty ludicrous. Aiken♫12:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
Browsing through User:Pooktza's Talk page, I stumbled upon an encouraging comment User:Okip had written to support him in a dispute. I was surprised to find out that you had taken upon yourself to delete it. All this is of course none of my business but I am curious by nature and would like to know why you did that. I am also surprised every time I find out that an article has been deleted, speedily or otherwise. I simply don't understand why some editors take the initiative to delete what another editor has written. Can you please give me a clue. As the price of hard drives is constantly coming down, the cost of storage cannot be a compelling reason. I would understand if the deleted comment or article was clearly offensive, but in the cases I have witnessed it wasn't the case. Oclupak (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings!
Hi KoshVorlon! Please exercise the utmost of caution and care when removing or editing other editor's talk page comments. There is usually a very bright line when it comes to when it is appropriate to do so. When in doubt, always fall on the side of not altering them, especially since letting them stand makes it clearer to other users (particularly administrators) that their behavior may be escalating to the point of needing addressing. By the way, nice username! Cheers! :-) Thorncrag 21:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.
We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.
We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hi, KoshVorlon. I speedily closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:In the news because templates should generally be nominated for deletion at WP:TfD. But before you jump to nominate it for deletion there, I want to advise you that it will almost certainly be kept because it is a longtime part of the Main Page and is supported by a longstanding community process, WP:ITN. If you want to propose shutting down ITN, WT:VPP and WT:ITN are both possible venues for holding a discussion. However, I will warn you that it is exceedingly unlikely that such a discussion would result in ITN being shut down and removed from the main page. Make sure you read this, as well, before deciding to proceed. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Thanks for uploading File:Mustargen.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Kosh, your recent conduct regarding Santorum (neologism) is deeply troubling. I understand that you believe this article to violate WP:ATTACK. However, your belief that immediate and decisive action is necessary to enforce WP:ATTACK on this article is difficult to rationalize. There have been three previous deletion discussions, none of which found grounds to delete the article. There have been various discussions at WP:BLPN, none of which found consensus that this article was an attack. Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, did not support deleting the article: he said he appreciated SlimVirgin's proposal because "she's not talking about censoring or removing the information". [21] Iridescent, a member of the Arbitration Committee—Wikipedia's equivalent of the Supreme Court—told you that your attempts to remove the content was inappropriate. [22] These are not just random editors; they are among Wikipedia's ultimate arbiters of policy.
There are already discussions about the future of the article taking place: The RfC on the talk page and an ArbCom case. Calmly and productively registering your opinion in these places, and working to build consensus, is productive. Single-handedly campaigning to delete the article, in the face of all opposition, is not.
So, when I say to you that your attempts are difficult to justify, it's not merely my personal opinion, and it's not an attack upon you, and it is not a statement on the merits of the article. I am concerned that, if you continue to pursue this quixotic quest for deletion, you will find yourself sanctioned for willfully tendentious editing. I don't wish that on anyone. However, your actions are adding chaos and disruption to an already painfully contentious topic, and the only reason I haven't asked for a formal WP:RFC/U on you is because the last thing Wikipedia needs is for the santorum issue to snowball any more. So I ask you: Please, please, put down the stick and work with us. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kosh, I understand your interest in upholding policy, and I share that. The difference is, I don't believe that WP:ATTACK applies in this case, because I see a distinction between writing a page with the intent to attack someone and writing a page describing someone else's highly notable, verifiable, and encyclopedic attempt to attack a public figure. The former is a WP:ATTACK; the latter is not, per WP:WELLKNOWN among others.
You've made your opinion known. But so have a lot of other people, and in the specific instance of your actions, your opinion seems to be in the minority. People who want to keep Santorum (neologism) obviously disagree with your quest, but so do several that would just as soon see the article go away or change radically. A person who was elected by the community to be one of our ultimate deciders of what is and is not policy disagrees with you. You haven't even addressed why, if this page really is a cut-and-dried example of something that absolutely positively must be deleted under WP:ATTACK, Jimbo or ArbCom hasn't done it these past six years. I hope you understand how this would have other people looking at your statements that you're just carrying out policy and think "Yeah, clear case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT".
Look, you and I must have some common ground; I've got all fifteen volumes of the scripts, as well as Straczynski's Scriptwriting book. I don't want to think of you, "you have that look on your face that says, 'hold my head to your ear, you will hear the sea'", but I need you to work with me on that one! I don't demand that you change your opinion, although I still disagree with it and wish that I could persuade you otherwise. Just... if you want to avoid unwanted attention... consider that this page has been a point of contention for some time and most of the policy gambits have already been tried. Disrupting things, especially when ArbCom is looking into the subject area, is Not Likely To Be Wise. (And yes, the case is "political activism", but ArbCom is not constrained to a single question like the Supreme Court; they're more like Sebastian. If they take the case, everyone's behavior surrounding santorum will likely be under scrutiny.) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And today you've created yet another RfD? Clearly you'r'e determined to be as disruptive as possible and not work within the system with the rest of us. You need a time-out. Flatterworld (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KV, do you intend to find another venue to pursue this agenda, once the DRV is closed (inevitably as endorse)? I would appreciate knowing your intentions -- and you should be aware that if you carry on I will request that you indeed spend some time on the naughty step. (reply here, please -- not on my talk page) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Nomoskedasticity's concerns and caution. I suspect that, at this point, there would not be much question that an WP:RFC/U would be certified if one were requested. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Reply Nomoskedasticity - I would hope you wouldn't "place me on the naughty step", as that's for folks who violate policy. I'm upholding it. It's simple, the S@nt#r*m page is an attack page (and it concerns a living person), the policy on attack pages calls for them to be blanked and deleted. I have followed that policy (as I'm able. I did blank the page, but I cannot delete, hence the AFD (which Sarek incorrectly closed ) and the DRV). Further, I have remained civil (Hey, I got the block , and know better than to mouth off) through the entire course of this event despite rather [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&action=edit§ion=10 | incivil remarks from a certain arb.
That's because they link to each other and one links to User:KoshVorlon/window, which you asked to be deleted. Just to let you know, it can takes ages for transcluded templates to get sorted out in WP cache. The pages will drop out of the category slowly, and we admins will check for the CSD template before deletion (hopefully) - which of course these pages don't have. Ronhjones (Talk)12:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, KoshVorlon. I'd like to ask a favor of you: please do not do this again to my comments at AN/I. The only reason I didn't undo your collapse is that the thread was archived. I don't comment at AN/I so that a non-admin can come along and decide that it's "off-topic & not relevant". It is relevant. I've got a pretty good intuition on whether an IP user is a sock or not, and your collapse was really not needed. Cool? Cool... Doctalk04:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Closing that DRV
It should be obvious that someone who argued for deletion in an MfD cannot close a DRV of that very same page with the result that they were in favour of. They are clearly not a neutral person. Closing it early adds fuel to the fire. Given that it's the userpage of someone you are engaged in separate disputes with adds insult to injury. Do not do this sort of ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 01:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Community portal
I did seek consensus: I posted the proposal to the talk page over a month ago and received only one reply, which didn't care much either way. I also linked to the proposal from the village pump. — PretzelsHii!07:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carnildo, your Image tabbing Bot has placed a flag on this link. I understand the bot absolutely needs to see a tag declaring what kind of copyright an image has. I created and uploaded this image and flag it right away.
Your bot has flagged my imasge, right underneath the copyright tag I placed it in. I've removed it flag twice and placed a note on the image bot page. I'm placing one here as well so you'll understand why I've removed it's tag twice.
thanks
@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Narn (Loyal Bat Squad Member)-@ 18:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bot is correct: there is no copyright tag. I don't know what tag you're trying to use, but when you applied it, you used "subst:" to insert the tag's source code rather than the tag itself, leaving a mess that the bot is unable to understand. --Carnildo (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carnildo, I saw your message. There's a tag there asserting that the image is copyleft, and I checked the code for the tag, subst is not in the code, so I'm not sure what your bot is seeing. The tag itself is:
{{imbox
| type = license
| image = [[Image:Copyleft.svg|90px]] <br>
| text =
''This work is licensed under the [[Copyleft]] system. Free use permitted, all rights reverted. }}''
[[Category:Copyleft images|{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{free media}}<noinclude>
It's got a tag on it, so the bot's not accurate in this case. I have use the copyleft tag in past on other images I've created and the bot hasn't mentioned those (they're still in the file section. Anyrate, I'm willing to do my part and put in whatever the bot needs, however, I don't believe the bot is acting properly as it's insisting I have no tag on my image, when in fact, I do.
@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Narn (Loyal Bat Squad Member)-@ 11:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made a slight change on the page. I'll monitor and see if Image tagging bot re-tags it.
Carnildo, looks like you bot has stopped tagging my image. (yesterday it was making runs at least once an hour).
I'll tell you what I changed, but I'm not convinced this isn't a bug:
Right above the licensing, I had a hidden comment
<!-- Licensing information -->
That got changed to
== Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot ==
[[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
{|cellspacing=10 style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
|valign=top|
;Stubs:<!--'''[[Wikipedia:Stub|Stubs]]:'''-->
:[[Eurydice I of Macedon]]
:[[Greg Kraft]]
:[[FC Oskil Kupyansk]]
:[[Crunkcore]]
:[[Nightmare Alley]]
:[[Explosion crater]]
:[[High School Showcase]]
:[[Jess Winfield]]
:[[Indietronica]]
:[[Interactive (band)]]
:[[College rock]]
:[[FC Obolon-2 Kyiv]]
:[[Mark Beaufait]]
:[[Lou Angotti]]
:[[Afro-rock]]
:[[Ralph Blair]]
:[[Cock rock]]
:[[FC Olimpik Donetsk]]
:[[Bruce Driver]]
|align=top|
;Cleanup
:[[Lewis and Clark Expedition]]
:[[Datsun Bluebird 910]]
:[[American Revolutionary War]]
;Merge
:[[Tu Er Shen]]
:[[Scanning acoustic microscope]]
:[[Prohibition in the United States]]
;Add Sources
:[[Richie Bayes]]
:[[Hooley Smith]]
:[[Harry Meeking]]
;Wikify
:[[Focus on the Family Singapore]]
:[[Asymptote Architecture]]
:[[Pandel Savic]]
;Expand
:[[List of AMC Transmission Applications]]
:[[Blackburn Bluebird IV]]
:[[Vitebsk Raion]]
|}
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on [[User_talk:SuggestBot|SuggestBot's talk page]]. Regards from [[User:Nettrom|Nettrom]] ([[User talk:Nettrom|talk]]), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- [[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] ([[User talk:SuggestBot|talk]]) 23:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
== Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot ==
[[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
{|cellspacing=10 style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
|valign=top|
;Stubs:<!--'''[[Wikipedia:Stub|Stubs]]:'''-->
:[[Vinca alkaloid]]
:[[Education policy]]
:[[Dinxperlo]]
:[[Rory Carroll]]
:[[Bryce Salvador]]
:[[Fight Batman Fight!]]
:[[Richard Ballantine]]
:[[Head]]
:[[Leo Moceri]]
:[[United States Army Garrison Heidelberg]]
:[[Bighead]]
:[[Marty Munsch]]
:[[Alea, Greece]]
:[[Vic Howe]]
:[[Chrysaor]]
:[[Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology]]
:[[Punk Rock Records]]
:[[Fred O'Donnell]]
:[[Jon Sim]]
|align=top|
;Cleanup
:[[Pantera]]
:[[Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act]]
:[[Motion City Soundtrack discography]]
;Merge
:[[Clementi New Town]]
:[[Windows Phone 7.5]]
:[[Prohibition of drugs]]
;Add Sources
:[[Ireland]]
:[[Odyssey]]
:[[Christina Kim]]
;Wikify
:[[Hamish McGlashan]]
:[[Qorvis]]
:[[Medical Psychological Assessment]]
;Expand
:[[2002 Florida Gators softball season]]
:[[Cambridge University Lawn Tennis Club]]
:[[Nickelback]]
|}
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on [[User_talk:SuggestBot|SuggestBot's talk page]]. Regards from [[User:Nettrom|Nettrom]] ([[User talk:Nettrom|talk]]), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- [[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] ([[User talk:SuggestBot|talk]]) 04:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
== Caz "outing" ==
The user self-identified in everything but name (identified personal history in unambiguous manner) on their userpage. It's not a violating of OUTING, as far as I can tell. I've reverted...
They're also named in the ANI discussion which led to their indef block.
If you feel it is outing you can raise it at ANI and if you get consensus, get it fixed in all locations, but I think it's likely you won't get others agreeing with you on the point.
Thanks. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 19:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
== Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot ==
[[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
{|cellspacing=10 style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
|valign=top|
;Stubs:<!--'''[[Wikipedia:Stub|Stubs]]:'''-->
:[[Jan Victors]]
:[[Húsavík Airport]]
:[[Violet Farebrother]]
:[[Húsavík, Faroe Islands]]
:[[Miyazu Line]]
:[[Réka-Luca Jani]]
:[[The Mark of Athena]]
:[[Sucker (parasitic worms anatomy)]]
:[[Yoav (musician)]]
:[[Henry Denham]]
:[[Lawton Public Schools]]
:[[Daniel Burley Woolfall]]
:[[Estadio Romano]]
:[[Rainmaking]]
:[[Tosa Kuroshio Railway Asa Line]]
:[[DWI court]]
:[[Jökulsárgljúfur National Park]]
:[[Miyafuku Line]]
:[[Eccellenza Abruzzo 2008–09]]
|align=top|
;Cleanup
:[[History of FIFA]]
:[[Elizabeth Fry]]
:[[NY Ink]]
;Merge
:[[Hazel Levesque]]
:[[Shout It (Mitchel Musso song)]]
:[[Pure cinema]]
;Add Sources
:[[United States presidential election in California, 1960]]
:[[Tales of Innocence]]
:[[Hosni Mubarak]]
;Wikify
:[[Péter Csermely]]
:[[Topcon]]
:[[Necator americanus]]
;Expand
:[[Xbox]]
:[[Robin van Persie]]
:[[Juscelino Kubitschek bridge]]
|}
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on [[User_talk:SuggestBot|SuggestBot's talk page]]. Regards from [[User:Nettrom|Nettrom]] ([[User talk:Nettrom|talk]]), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- [[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] ([[User talk:SuggestBot|talk]]) 18:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
== File:V logo.jpg listed for deletion ==
A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:V logo.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 December 20#File:V logo.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 16:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
== Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot ==
[[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
{|cellspacing=10 style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
|valign=top|
;Stubs:<!--'''[[Wikipedia:Stub|Stubs]]:'''-->
:[[California gubernatorial election, 1958]]
:[[FC UNA Strassen]]
:[[Vodafone Germany]]
:[[California gubernatorial election, 1986]]
:[[Miyuki Matsushita]]
:[[Pisces (astrology)]]
:[[Flowerbed]]
:[[Greg Frey]]
:[[Dolphins cricket team]]
:[[Ghazl El-Mehalla]]
:[[Bertrange-Strassen railway station]]
:[[My Favorite Accident]]
:[[Violin Concerto in E major (Bach)]]
:[[Jim Karsatos]]
:[[Kevin Montgomery (ice hockey)]]
:[[Tom Byrum]]
:[[The Marmite Sisters]]
:[[Highveld Lions cricket team]]
:[[Customer Service Excellence]]
|align=top|
;Cleanup
:[[Big Oak Tree State Park]]
:[[Hendrickje Stoffels]]
:[[Mark Vonnegut]]
;Merge
:[[Climate of Green Bay, Wisconsin]]
:[[Share housing]]
:[[Deep water source cooling]]
;Add Sources
:[[Catalonia Government 1992–1995 term of office]]
:[[2008 CSIO Spruce Meadows 'Masters' Tournament]]
:[[Japanese New Year]]
;Wikify
:[[YMCA Frost Valley]]
:[[Infra-Red (song)]]
:[[Twenty Years (song)]]
;Expand
:[[Athletics at the 1988 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon]]
:[[List of films considered the worst]]
:[[2008 Michigan State Spartans football team]]
|}
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on [[User_talk:SuggestBot|SuggestBot's talk page]]. Regards from [[User:Nettrom|Nettrom]] ([[User talk:Nettrom|talk]]), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- [[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] ([[User talk:SuggestBot|talk]]) 03:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Scott MacDonald]] ==
I have closed the discussion. Please do not make any further removals to that page. Thanks, <font face="Arial"> [[User:PeterSymonds|<font color="#02e">Peter</font><font color="#02b"><b>Symonds</b></font>]] ([[User talk:PeterSymonds|<font color="#02e">talk</font>]])</font> 19:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear god, how have you not yet been blocked for [[WP:CIR|competence]] or something. What you did was clearly inappropriate and everyone (but you, apparently) saw that — whether for or against the blackout. I would suggest you stay away from Scott's userpage if you dislike it that much. [[User:Strange Passerby|Strange Passerby]] ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strange Passerby|cont]]) 21:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
== Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot ==
[[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
{|cellspacing=10 style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
|valign=top|
;Stubs:<!--'''[[Wikipedia:Stub|Stubs]]:'''-->
:[[Sreenath Sreenivasan]]
:[[Catalan Campaign in Asia Minor]]
:[[Hopetounia]]
:[[Yolk plug]]
:[[Fiji Football Referees Association]]
:[[Nippon Music Foundation]]
:[[Sunday league football]]
:[[Chris Gray (American football)]]
:[[Materiomics]]
:[[John Noyes]]
:[[Al Conway]]
:[[The Future Freaks Me Out]]
:[[Castletroy College]]
:[[Mika Kaurismäki]]
:[[Tristan Plummer]]
:[[Bobby Kirk]]
:[[Canadian Environmental Protection Act]]
:[[Anopheles stephensi]]
:[[Walla Walla Football Club]]
|align=top|
;Cleanup
:[[Saudi-Egyptian Super Cup]]
:[[Musco Lighting]]
:[[Democratization of knowledge]]
;Merge
:[[Vampire (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)]]
:[[Trichuris trichiura]]
:[[Tree of Peace]]
;Add Sources
:[[Non-League football]]
:[[MMR vaccine]]
:[[Gary Speed]]
;Wikify
:[[Nights of Reckoning]]
:[[Asymptote Architecture]]
:[[Pandel Savic]]
;Expand
:[[Snowboarding]]
:[[1966 in association football]]
:[[List of Yu-Gi-Oh! characters]]
|}
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on [[User_talk:SuggestBot|SuggestBot's talk page]]. Regards from [[User:Nettrom|Nettrom]] ([[User talk:Nettrom|talk]]), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- [[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] ([[User talk:SuggestBot|talk]]) 03:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
== Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot ==
[[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
{|cellspacing=10 style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
|valign=top|
;Stubs:<!--'''[[Wikipedia:Stub|Stubs]]:'''-->
:[[Nabopolassar]]
:[[Homerton Cricket Club]]
:[[Connecticut Center for Massage Therapy]]
:[[Nihon Kaifuku Anma]]
:[[Beef Shorthorn]]
:[[Chaunskaya Bay]]
:[[John Andrew Gallagher]]
:[[Kalasalingam University]]
:[[Philips Intimate Massagers]]
:[[Trimmer (electronics)]]
:[[African Episcopal Church of St. Thomas]]
:[[Joel Dalgarno]]
:[[VC CSKA Moscow]]
:[[Carlos King]]
:[[Silver monkey]]
:[[Karl Moline]]
:[[Bitterscote]]
:[[Institute for Physical Problems]]
:[[Age grade]]
|align=top|
;Cleanup
:[[Sherwin B. Nuland]]
:[[Allen Gregory]]
:[[Kentwood High School (Washington)]]
;Merge
:[[Napa cabbage]]
:[[University of California, Los Angeles]]
:[[New Testament]]
;Add Sources
:[[Dielectric absorption]]
:[[Janet Paschal]]
:[[Lakewood, Ohio]]
;Wikify
:[[Philip Wentworth]]
:[[Loudoun County Public Library]]
:[[TEA laser]]
;Expand
:[[Matt Forté]]
:[[Slava Moscow]]
:[[Ohio State Buckeyes baseball]]
|}
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on [[User_talk:SuggestBot|SuggestBot's talk page]]. Regards from [[User:Nettrom|Nettrom]] ([[User talk:Nettrom|talk]]), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- [[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] ([[User talk:SuggestBot|talk]]) 04:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
== Hello! ==
I saw your new message on my talk page and I shoud say I thought my edit was correct but you say it's not and I think you know more than me. thank you for your help--<span style="font: 24px 'Pristina'">[[user:Keivan.f|<span style="color: #1E7HDC">Keivan.f</span>]]</span><span style="font: 18px 'Pristina'"><sup>[[user_talk:Keivan.f|<span style="color: purple">Talk</span>]]</sup></span> 20:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
== MfD nomination of [[User:KoshVorlon/uw-cluepon1]] ==
[[User:KoshVorlon/uw-cluepon1]], a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for [[WP:MfD|deletion]]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KoshVorlon/uw-cluepon1 ]] and please be sure to [[WP:SIG|sign your comments]] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:KoshVorlon/uw-cluepon1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —GFOLEYFOUR!— 17:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That template
Hey, I laughed. ;-)
I wanted to leave a note here, I can't speak for the opposing editors, but it occurs to me that some of their concern stems specifically around the word "troll". I think in context it's fine, but I do wonder whether the template would be just as funny if it said "messin' around" (or something else) instead of troll, and if that might allay some of the concerns. I didn't want to bring it up at the MfD because it doesn't really change my !vote there. Also, I'm also hesitant to get in the way of editors trying new things that might be constructive at dealing with problematic editors, and I actually think this might be. So, consider this a friendly "what do you think?", without connotations of "warning" or "the cabal is going to get you if you don't".
Just to let you know, I reverted your closure. Partly because it was a supervote, partly because the issue of paid editing is one that needs to be sorted out sooner or later. I'm informing you to give you an opportunity to re-express your opinion on that page, should you wish. Regards, —WFC— 17:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I felt it was a supervote because it ignored the arguments of those who oppose the proposal. Without clearly defining the difference between disclosure and advertising, a lot of people believe it is impractical and counterproductive to say "paid editing cannot be advertised". —WFC— 17:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you completely: policies are the strongest statements of consensus that exist on Wikipedia. However, a high-profile consensus discussion refused to delete a form of blatant advertising in relation to paid editing, which throws the policy's relevance to paid editing into doubt. That is why the RfC was considered necessary. The proposal in the RfC won't pass, but if the discussion helps us agree on the line between "disclosure" of paid editing and "advertising", it may help us enforce the policy better in future. —WFC— 17:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. If you want to AfD any more list articles based on WP:NOTDIR, could you please indicate why you feel the list breaks the policy? In all three cases you've posted today and yesterday, not one of the eight reasons in WP:NOTDIR seems to apply. Please ensure that you understand the policy before AfDing articles under it. Dricherby (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but.....
How is this [23] vandalism? A user removed talk page comments which I resorted. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I am pretty sure I vandalized nothing whatsoever. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Talk:Osama bin Laden, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. (Re: Dbrodbeck's edit. Also, please do not misuse the Last Warning template.)θvξrmagξspellbook05:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your signature
Your signature is (visually) incredibly long. Such a signature can be distracting when participating in a discussion. Just a heads up.—cyberpowerChatOnline16:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually your signature is totally inappropriate. Please change it now. The sig limit is 255 characters and you have 461. That's 204 characters over. Having such a signature can get you blocked.—cyberpowerChatOnline16:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your comment. You need to remove at least 204 characters from you signature as it currently going against policy. You can get blocked for having that long of a signature. User:Worm That Turned, the user you just had a chat with, is one of the stricter admins in regards to WP:SIG. He will block if you repeatedly use highly inappropriate signatures.—cyberpowerChatOnline16:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May or may not be appropriate length, but it's definitely not the correct transliteration of the lyric :) The word in Russian is "kruzhyli," not "krushil." (Apologies for butting in; just saw your comment and sig on VPT and wanted to let you know!) Accedietalk to me22:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I basically came here to say the exact same thing that Cyberpower did several days ago. Your sig is (still) very distracting and abnormally long. Whether it fits the letter of whatever is written at WP:SIG is one thing, but it certainly seems to be violating the core ideas behind it (which is keeping signatures from being overly long and not distracting). Killiondude (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another +1 from me as well. Please change your user signature as soon as possible (if you haven't already). The version I came across (reprinted below) is obnoxious and simply unacceptable. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The top part of the message (on your diff ) is wiki php code.
<?php
<?php
class template implements Iterator {
class template implements Iterator {
private $name;
private $name;
private $params;
private $params;
private $pos;
private $pos;
public function __construct ($name, $params) {
public function __construct ($name, $params) {
$this->name = $name;
$this->name = $name;
if (empty($params)) {
if (empty($params)) {
$this->params = array();
} else {
} else {
foreach ($params as $key => $value) {
foreach ($params as $key => $value) {
s->params[] = array($key,$value);
>params[] = array($key,$value);
$this->pos = 0;
$this->pos = 0;
public function getByKey ($key) {
public function getByKey ($key) {
if (!isset($this->params[$key]))
if (!isset($this->params[$key]))
return false;
return false;
return $this->params[$key];
return $this->params[$key];
public function __toString () {
public function __toString () {
return $this->name;
(click on the diff you left for me and you'll see it in there as well ) I actually can't see that code when I'm writing a message , nor can I alter it. Apparently, being a sysop lets you access that code
Never touched that section. I edited only the section near the bottom about the "Gadget" tab not being avail.
Hmmmm.....must be a system glitch.
Interesting
UPDATE That spacing your seeing on my page is possibly the same thing you saw on the village pump , right ?
If so, check my page history.... it's showing up under your name (Don't worry, I know you didn't do it) Looks like it is a system glitch
You really should have your user name visible in your signature. And after all the complaints you've received about your prior signatures, I would think you'd go for something far less ostentatious and far more clear than the name of a TV series in shadow lettering. postdlf (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further: your signature as used here leaves unbalanced HTML. Ignoring the attributes and the textual content, the HTML is <span><b><b></b><b><i></i></b></span> - there is one unclosed <b> and this causes subsequent text to be broken, as seen here (search for "2012 (UTC) I believe the standard Wikipedia diffs"). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your responsibility when using automated and semi-automated tools.
You are responsible for all of your edits, regardless of mistakes tools make in showing you content.
In this edit and this edit, labeled "copyedit," you reverted appropriate copyediting by Mogism, and placed level 1 [24] and level 4 [25] vandalism warnings for Mogism. There was no vandalism, and your reverts were in error.
When approached about these obvious errors, you deferred to what appears to be eronious output from some automated tool you are using ([26]), and then stated that your reverts were not in error [27]. In fact, your reverts, as demonstrated above, were in error.
Please assure me that you will be responsible in future use of automated tools, and carefully evaluate future questions regarding your editing before becoming reflexively defensive - in this case, you were clearly in the wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the subject, you might want to explain what exactly you thought you were doing here (in an edit made long after you were warned that your tool was malfunctioning). Short of going through your history checking every edit, there's no way of knowing how many of these "vandal reverts" you've made, but even if these are the only instances you're well over the line into outright disruption. Mogism (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm even more troubled by his edit summaries when he reverts actual vandalism; here he reverted vandalism of the most obvious and worst kind, yet his summary makes it seem like he just removed something just because it wasn't cited. Worse, it suggests he thinks it could be cited! postdlf (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I used that because I was advised not to use harsh wording. It's meant to be tounge-in-cheek. Realistically, nothing like that would be sourced to any reliable source. "....We are all Kosh...."<-Babylon-5->18:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please use standard edit summaries. Review the edit summaries used by Mogism, as he's doing it right. Your attempts to be "cute" are failing. Hipocrite (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're leaving escalating vandalism and block warnings for experienced editors who you thought removed some text without explanation, and you even insist you were correct in doing so after being shown you were wrong in the edit history. Yet you use a tongue-in-cheek request for a citation for obvious vandalism about someone raping children, because you're concerned about using harsh wording? Something is very wrong here. postdlf (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
......You do see I stopped editing when this started up,right ? It's not like I'm continuing. I'm testing the tool I use right now (and have been ) to see if it's buggy. Stop alraedy, you're beating a dead horse at this stage. I won't edit again without verifying this tool isn't buggy.
Hi, thanks for helping to revert vandalism, just a quick note about Royal Enfield and the warning you left on User talk:124.30.187.33.
If you have a look at the article history or on the user talk page you will notive that it had been going on for a while and warnings up to (and including) level 4 had been left (and I had reported the user to WP:AIV). So whilst there isn't anything wrong, per se, with adding a level 1 warning (as you did) it would have been more appropriate to add another level 4 (or only warning (level 4im)) to have left what was there and check that the user had been reported to WP:AIV.
Once again thank you very much for helping to fight vandalism on Wikipedia. Callanecc (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't repeat the actual content of the vandalism in your edit summary that removed it.[29],[30] This just perpetuates the problem by making it a blatant part of the article's history instead of just leaving it in the old version, consequently rewarding the vandals. It's enough to say "remove vandalism" or "remove nonsense" or "remove test edit" in your edit summary. postdlf (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
For future reference, the OTRS ticket number referenced in the hidden notice is #2008091610055854. I am going to add that to the other pages where the hidden notice is placed. If I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to let me know. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not edit anything in my user space
Civility is policy....no one's exempt
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2nd warning, get off my damn user page. It was upheld at MfD recently, so you are going to get no traction on this. I have seen your eccentric little wiki-gnome antics taken to ANI over the years where IIRC they do not look very kindly upon you. You are not a cop, you are not a judge, I do not value your opinion in the slightest. Please stop. Now. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kosh, while I sort of agree with you about the character of Tarc's edit notice, you are edit warring over this and that's not ok. I know you're familiar with the concept of edit warring and how it's unacceptable. If you have a problem with Tarc's notice, you need to pursue community processes to get that issue resolved. Continuing to revert isn't going to fix anything, and if I see you do it again I will block you to force it to a stop until you're ready to discuss the issue instead of war over it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Thank you for addressing me as Comrade Stalin. However, I disagree with your sentiments that my correction was destructive. Aslan is in fact Homosexual. Ergo, I will not allow this barbaric form of censorship to abound, and I denounce you for the corrupt individual that you are. If you wish to become a respected member of wikipedia again, I suggest you reconsider your opinion on the definition of constructive edits.
Yours Truly,
Comrade Joseph Stalin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalin332 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should be more knowledgeable about undoing other people's comments. You obviously disagree that moderators at xplane.org are rude and abusive and ban people for minor reasons.
Perhaps you'd like to elaborate, as I don't believe you are a member there, otherwise you would realise that my comment was the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.26.103 (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Thanks for the heads up, i respect rules over here. I'm going to re-add the last addition without (PBUH) and i dont think there is another reason to delete it since i wrote what i wrote with citations. thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliSartawi (talk • contribs) 19:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We see that you need a little more understanding of Counter-Vandalism before you're granted Rollback. The Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy exists to help users, like yourself, understand the way to identify and handle Vandalism through one-on-one instruction. Perhaps you'd like to ask a question of our instructors, or perhaps Enroll in the Academy.
Hi Kosh,
I'll be your CVUA instructor and to start with I'd like you to read WP:Vandal. Let me know if you have any questions, and I can't wait to here back from you! Dan653 (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1 - We deny recognition to trolls because it feeds their ego, as a result, it encourages them to continue vandalizing. "....We are all Kosh...."<-Babylon-5->11:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
