User talk:Chrishmt0423

Welcome to Chrishomingtang Talk Page!

[[File:|35x35px|link=User_talk:Chrishmt0423|Talk]]
Talk

Image:Penguin.jpg

Hi, just to let you know that I found your {{somewebsite}} tag on Image:Penguin.jpg. I have determined that this image is OK to use on Wikipedia as it was intended for widespread distribution and use by the media. I've added the appropriate copyright tag to the image. David Johnson [T|C] 01:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Capt.jak10712060744.indonesia_new_species_jak107.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Capt.jak10712060744.indonesia_new_species_jak107.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 08:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Diplogale_hosei.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Diplogale_hosei.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags.

Test

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. SushiGeek 00:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:800px-Golden Gate by CS2x.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:800px-Golden Gate by CS2x.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:449px-Bank of china night.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:449px-Bank of china night.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Shiloh.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shiloh.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey 18:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Lg blak.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Lg blak.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. howch e ng {chat} 17:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:DallasHighFiveSegmentalBridge1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DallasHighFiveSegmentalBridge1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Leonard

Needed on this image page:

Sign your contributions by entering four tildes "~~~~"
Link the original contributor as follows "Original image posted by [[User:usernamehere]]" -not strictly necessary if original image (from Wikipedia) is properly linked
Link the original source image - you can use the prefix "media", or an introductory colon or use a thumb image; use of colon as in"[[:image:imageReference]]
Describe the modifications that you made to the original image
Add an appropriate copyright tag. Using the original poster's tag is usually OK - if the tag requests a credit then that should be posted in the new image page. If you impose a more restrictive tag than that tag covers the derivive work only. A less restrictive tag is not appropriate for a derivitive work (I think). Read the info linked by the orphanbot above.

Contact me if you have other questions. Best wishes, Leonard G. 02:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Message

Hey -- kinda new to wikipedia -- but i'm pretty sure i didn't do anything wrong in the sandbox, I think this because of the message "If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Raymond Arritt 06:13, 7 March 2007" SO I DID. PLEASE correct me if i interpreted this wrong.

Money (slang terms)

I have responded to your comment on Talk:Money (slang terms). Feel free to discuss it there. --Bdoserror 20:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Money (slang terms)==

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Money (slang terms), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Money (slang terms). You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Bdoserror 09:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24

hi- are you sure it was Nadia who said that Doyle likes to hurt people? I could swear Milo said it, but I could be wrong. I don't have it on tape, so I thought I'd ask. Tvoz | talk 06:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i remember she says that to Doyle. I am pretty sure, not 100% though. Thanks for asking Chris 06:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if I find anyone with a copy on tape I'll have them check - it's not a big deal really. I'll let you know what I find out, if anything. Tvoz | talk 06:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cool Chris 18:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removed from 24 AfD

Hi, I removed your comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 season 6 episodes because the discussion had already been closed and shouldn't be edited anymore. Jayden54 11:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all right Chris 18:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:S06e7.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:S06e7.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NBA Divisions

I would use the term "Champion" for the Division Champions because there is plenty of published evidence of that usage, and teams routinely raise banners in their arenas saying the same. I would not use it for the Conference Regular Season because there is no published evidence of that usage (that I can find) and teams do not raise banners saying the same (to my knowledge). That standard (of published usage) is all I've asked of you. 76.10.24.245 16:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Championship does not mean "first place." For example, in 2001 the St. Louis Cardinals and Houston Astros tied for 1st place in the NL Central Division. MLB did not recognize co-champions, allowing only Houston to raise a banner indicating that they won the Division Championship and print the same in their media guide. By contrast, in college athletics in the United States it is routine to recognize as co-champions any teams that finish tied for 1st without applying tiebreakers. This is because the recognition of a champion is in the hands of the organizing body. Here is a great example of the phenomenon I'm talking about: http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=3033084. The story says that the "Detroit Pistons clinched the Central Division and the No. 1 seed in the Eastern Conference." Consistent usage here: http://www.democratherald.com/articles/2007/04/11/sports/national/6nat01_nbawest.txt. And here: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2007-04-11-pistons-magic_N.htm?csp=34. And a variety of other sources. In short, I know that my usage is right (they have clinched their Conference's No. 1 seed). I've yet to see that the further innovation you suggest (that they are properly a "Champion") is in fact officially sanctioned. 76.10.24.245 19:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is not making a great deal of sense to me. The example regarding co-champions was offered as proof that the concept of a "championship" depends on the organizing body choosing to recognize it; the ability to choose to recognize co-champions (as in college sports) or not to (as in pro sports) is within the hands of the league, just like recognizing a Conference Regular Season Champion in the NBA is in the hands of the league, irrespective of whether the team finishes in 1st place or not. As for the published evidence (which is a requirement at Wikipedia): if the team was properly styled the "Conference Champion," the articles would say that. It would say the Pistons clinched the Eastern Conference Regular Season Championship (which is the proper and official styling in the NHL); the fact that the article makes a point of saying the Pistons won the Central Division Championship, but the East's No. 1 seed, is strong evidence that there is a distinction between the two, since the more natural wording would be to say they won the Central Division and Eastern Conference Championships (emphasis on the plural). Dictionary definitions don't particularly interest me, since they are more generic than the specific usage we are dealing with here. We do not say that the track athlete with the fastest time at his distance in a given calendar year is that year's champion; we say that the winner of that event at the World Championships is the Champion, irrespective of whether it is actually the fastest time recorded in the year. This is because it is not official. Cf. MLB's definition of an "official" perfect game, irrespective of other potential dictionary definitions of "perfect." The use of "clinched Conference" on the NBA standings page is obviously ambiguous and is not evidence one way or the other; the omitted material could just as easily be "No. 1 seed" as it could be "Championship." Finally, I note and concede the "compromise" usage you've implemented on the main article, but it is a worthwhile exercise to get to the bottom of this one way or the other (as it comes up in many contexts) and the compromise language is (in my opinion) sub-optimal although not incorrect per se. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.10.24.245 (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

NBA Season

When should we add that template? Don't you want to say never add it again? 太搞笑啦掛? kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 17:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should never add it again since it is unnecessary. Good day. Chris 18:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary? So why don't we delete that template! The template should not be added UNTIL somedays. kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are whining about. The template is already deleted and there is no reason to put it back there. If you don't like it, go protest on the 2006-07 NBA season talk page.Chris 19:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 screenshot

http://koolbirks.com/category/tv-series/24/

Stars wedding

Just google it. You'll get some 300 links regarding this issue. And please Wikipedia is not America-centric. So keep all your BS to yrself. --128.210.105.155 20:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 Death Counts

I had already taken it to the talk page once and received only one response so don't criticise me. I have written my reasons for deleting the death counts and pieces of trivia that I did and would appreciate a response from you. Algebra man 16:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 Death Count

I wasn't saying that I felt one person was consensus enough. As I detailed at the bottom of Talk:24 (TV series) earlier today I had already brought up the issue and I wasn't going to wait arounf forever. And I do feel that my arguments for egtting rid of the death counts are entirely valid - more so than yours in my opinion. Algebra man 20:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Thank you for making a report about 70.127.34.160 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Sandstein 22:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History merge

Could you help me with this, please? Ghost Yacht 00:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

--199.71.174.100 23:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:S6e19.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:S6e19.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIV report on 217.14.217.242

Thank you for making a report about 217.14.217.242 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. —dgies^t_c 06:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Chrishomingtang! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Ale_Jrb^talk 17:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Wikipedia:NBA invite Chensiyuan 05:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Hi, I notice you've been making some fine edits pertaining to NBA basketball, particularly the 2006-07 NBA season and 2007 NBA Playoffs. Please accept this token of appreciation, and if you like, you can join WP:NBA too. You'd see quite a number of us there also striving to improve all the NBA articles out there. Thanks, Chensiyuan 05:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Look here

Oh my gosh, i was actually complaining about that just yesterday!! It's insane of how he copies our entire user page instead of the sections that he wants and then modify it to make it not have our information on it. He really is a sick person! KeybladeSephi ^(Talk)_{(Contributions)} 00:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know, because the GNU license says that anything we put on our user pages or articles can be copied; but it still pisses me off to know that he took everything on our user pages; our personal information, our userboxes, and even current events that happened to us. It's sick and it must stop. KeybladeSephi ^(Talk)_{(Contributions)} 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed that I've reverted your edits to Matthew's user page with the following edit summary: "rv - whilst Matthew may have copied your user page, you don't have copyright here - everytime you click "save page", this is next to it: "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL", which is the point Keyblade has made. However, I have also left him a note about what he did on his talk page. I understand your feeling of annoyance and I hope that he behaves more politely in future. Clearly a lot of hard work has gone into that page design and courtesy, if not copyright, would have respected that. Regards, Bencherlite 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

postscript - I've just got your message, before hitting "save" on what I'd written here, so much of what I've said above is redundant. I don't think WP will introduce such a rule, but I can see why you want it. It might have to be one of those situations where you "rise above it" and find something else to worry about for a while! Best wishes, Bencherlite 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really sorry for you and KeybladeSephi. He relies on taking others code to make his own but yet has adopted several people. Also he has deleted Bencherlite's message to him. Just to let you two know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sodaplayer (talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

HEY!!!

Nmviw took the barnstar I put on one of my friend's user pages as vandilism. Please use that thing with restraint. -- Μ79_Šp€çíá∫íš† ^{tell me about it}

Allegations

What are you talking about? His userpage does not even remotely resemble yours. He's a nice guy and he adopted me, I don't see why I should ignore him. I'm rather new here and don't want an argument, so cant you two please figure it out alone.

Bobber0001 12:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TyrusThomas4lyf

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TyrusThomas4lyf and feel free to contribute. Myasuda 13:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current event

Please don't place news on the portal if you can't provide a legitimate source. Your edit has been reverted. Happy editing. Chris 04:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted. Sorry, I forgot to add the source in excitement. -- Cat ^chi? 04:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting back to vandalised state

Rooot has vandalised that section multiple time. If you look back at the straw poll there was decent (not complete) consensus for keeping that section. Rooot has completely removed the section against the conclusions that reasoned discussion reached. I will leave your reversion for one day since you "are working on it" (even though one would think that you would require the section to not be deleted to be able to work on it), if your working takes longer than that it would be appropriate for the old version to be placed there until your new version can be considered. You inaccurately said in your revert comment that I had been reported for vandalising the article - that is incorrect, Rooot has had multiple independent editors warn him about revert wars. Sad mouse 00:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, I am not sure who you were responding to (me or Rooot) due to the rapid speed of edits. My apologies if I misread. Sad mouse 00:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:S6e19.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:S6e19.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:S6e18.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:S6e18.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:246e21.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:246e21.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24season 6

Those were not my headings - I didn't like them either. Someone else added them - all I did was move text so that if the headers stayed, the text made sense. In other words, Palmer stuff is not CTU. But I agree with removing the headings - don't know why they were added in the first place. Tvoz |talk 03:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it - it's not a problem, I just wanted you to know that I agreed with you! Tvoz |talk 04:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - your changes to "overview" are a good consolidation, but it's only about 75% of the day - are you planning to add any more in? Tvoz |talk 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Request for Protection

Just so you know, the request will be likely to fail as there is not a lot of vandalism at the moment. -- Warfreak 02:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just request semi protection as that will stop new users and have under a reason to prevent vandalism. If you have full protection, it will most likely be dismissed. -- Warfreak 02:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it is nice to see a user trying to stop vandalism, although there are more vandals than anti-vandals. -- Warfreak 02:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding scores

THANK YOU!!!! Soxrock 01:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Game Bracket Updates

I know that the game is pretty much over now, but it's still not official when you made those updates. SO please hold off on these edits until the game is OFICIALLY over, please? Dknights411 03:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ClevelandCavaliersMainLogo.svg removed from your user subpage

An image or media file, Image:ClevelandCavaliersMainLogo.svg has been removed from your user subpage User:Chrishomingtang/sandbox because it was licensed as fair use. Wikipedia's fair use policy states that fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. As a result, although users are often given a great amount of latitude in the type of content that is allowed on their user pages, it is requested that you abide by this policy. Feel free, however, to add images and media files licensed under other terms. For more information, see Wikipedia's fair use policy and an accompanying essay on the removal of fair use images. Thank you for your cooperation.

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 NBA Playoffs

I have seen one of the recent edits you made to this page. What you have done, editing a sporting event currently in progress by updating the score mid-game violates a rule, WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. Soxrock has violated this rule several times before and he has been promptly warned. See his talk page for said warnings. Please refrain from doing this again. Thank you. --Ksy92003 (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand... a discussion between users on the matter on an article's talk page can't overrule an official rule. WP:NOT#PUBLISHER is an official rule and users can't ignore it because of a discussion they had.

And about this comment on that talk page that you left,

“

Sports score is not news report. Besides, the rule title indicates that 'Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.' His edits are not 'original thought,' but rather they are based on a legitimate source

”

That is news report. It's news report to give up-to-date information on something like that. It's not the same as something like the death of Anna Nicole Smith or something like that. That can be "news" because information continues to come in about it and needs to be added to give an accurate explanation of the event which occured. But scores to sporting events change... a lot, especially basketball. If it were something like adding something to the article, then that's fine, but a basketball score changes constantly, therefore making it a sports report.

Case in point, a discussion between users can not overrule an official Wikipedia policy.

Soxrock has indeed been warned about this and I have brought that to Wizardman's attention. Wizardman is an admin and also believes that what Soxrock did is wrong; he agrees that he violated WP:NOT#PUBLISHER by updating the scores of games when the games were still in progress. I don't want to have to resort to this, but should this happen again to this or any other page, I will have to talk to Wizardman about it. --Ksy92003 (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to ignore a rule is a better way? Anyway, updating the scores during the game isn't helping the encyclopedia. It doesn't do anything at all. What, do you honestly think that if people want to know the score of a basketball game at halftime that they would come to Wikipedia to find that out?

If I could somehow get a "major consensus" to vandalize all pages, could I ignore WP:VAND then? No. Consensus is used to determine the "best way" to work based on compromise and opinions from users who contribute to those articles. You can't just use a consensus to ignore a rule. How is your consensus to surpass WP:NOT any different than my supposed consensus to surpass WP:VAND? Please answer me that. --Ksy92003 (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this rule, coming directly from WP:NOT:

“

Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recent verified information.

”

"Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories." This is the part of this rule that updating scores mid-game violates. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to update current events exactly as they happen unless it is for the purpose of adding newly-discovered information. A score of a basketball game that is going to change numerous times is different. Putting a halftime score, for example, is not "adding," rather "changing." The score is definitely going to change in the future; we know that for certain. That's what makes this a news report; it's always going to change until it ends. Per this rule, we aren't allowed to add "incomplete" information like that. We aren't allowed to put any score until we have the final score, alright?

Also, WP:NOT#PUBLISHER isn't only for CONSTANT updating of the scores mid-game, just the single update of a game.

And I think that they don't improve. It's incomplete. It's like if you are taking a math test. You know how to get to the final answer to a problem, but you don't want to put it on your test paper for whatever reason. If you know the answer, are you gonna stop halfway through the problem or are you going to solve it and put the final answer? If you are working on a basketball game's article, are you going to stop halfway through or are you going to wait until the final score? Do you see my point? Why include something that's incomplete? The game isn't over yet, so why post the score? This violates WP:NOT#PUBLISHER.

And if you really want to argue about this so badly, talk to Wizardman, who agrees that this violates that rule, or talk to Michael Greiner, the user who first pointed out that this violated that rule. I only knew that it was an official rule because Michael Greiner pointed it out to Soxrock in this edit: [1]. Don't complain to me that you're not violating the rule when you are violating the same rule that an admin duscussed with Soxrock because he violated it. --Ksy92003 (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just found a major flaw in your argument. In-game sports score aren't verifiable. There isn't anywhere you can go to find the score of a basketball game with 5:47 left in the third quarter for example. That can't be verified. Also, the Virginia Tech Massacre isn't the same as updating sports scores. For the Massacre, that's an event. It's something that happened once. It's not like there was an article for the massacre during the shooting saying "He shot one guy... he shot another... etc." It happened, then the information came. It's over, which is different. The event occured once and stopped happening. Information about the massacre itself isn't going to change at all; only information will be added to what's already there. For sports scores, it's like the score os 57-52, then 57-54, then 60-54, etc. The score continues to change before the game ends. That's not the same as the VaTech Massacre. Can't we both agree that these are two completely different events? Something that changes almost constantly over a 2-hour, 30-minute time span is different than an event that occurs over a 2-minute time span and doesn't change at all until after the event has come and gone.

And what happens if you add the score when the game's almost over and a team scores? The score would change, right? So you'd have to change it again.

I agree that you have the freedom to edit as long as you don't violate any rule. But you did violate a rule.

Anyway, go to WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. Scroll down to "Journalism." It says, "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories." It's right there. So don't tell me that it isn't. Look more carefully.

Please think about this. I know that you don't think this is a big deal. But after Soxrock had to deal with this, I'm not gonna give you any special treatment. He violated this rule, and he was warned. You violated the same rule, and you are now being warned.

(This is my formal warning notice below):

“

Please refrain from updating scores to basketball games and other sporting events unless the game has been concluded and the final score/outcome has been officially determined. You are in violation of the official Wikipedia rule Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Journalism, number 6. If you ignore this warning and continue to violate this rule, admin intervention will be necessary.

”

--Ksy92003 (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't threaten me. You did the same thing as Soxrock and he was warned several times. I'm not going to back down and give you special treatment for whatever reason. It's my responsibility to warn you if you violate a rule. Wizardman agreed that my warning to Soxrock was valid, and since you two did the same violations, my warning to you is valid. I don't want to have to report you for threatening me, also. But I will if it comes down to that. --Ksy92003 (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't threaten you. I warned you that admin intervention may be necessary should you ignore these warnings. I didn't threaten you about it. I'm telling you that if an admin sees the edits that you made and also sees them to be in violation of that rule, than he/she can and possibly will take actions towards you. If you feel that you didn't violate a rule, then continue these edits. We'll see what happens. But trust me; I've been around here long enough and experienced enough rule violations from other users I've collaborated with. I know that what you are doing is violation. You have the right to not believe me and I have the right to warn you/report you to an admin. It's up to you. The decision of what to do is your's. If you want to violate a rule, go ahead and I may report you. But for your sake, simply stop and get on with your life. --Ksy92003 (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did threaten me; I took this sentence, "How dare you warn me like you own wikipedia," as a threat.

And I read WP:IAR. It says, "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." I am aware of that. But what you don't understand is that editing the score of a game halfway completed isn't improving the article. What that is, besides violating WP:NOT#PUBLISHER, is adding information that you know is going to change in about a minute. Sports scores can be treated as breaking news as it's something that happens right away and then people try to cover it. Information about "breaking news" is not to be added to Wikipedia unless it contributes to describing the event in the article, as information can be added as it is revealed. Sports scores aren't the same. Listing only the sports scores doesn't give information about the event. It's like if someone was building some new baseball stadium or something. The stadium won't be completed until the final cement block is layed )or what have you). If that stadium has its own article, it's most likely not gonna say "The stadium currently consists of the walls, the stairs, the levels, and press boxes." It's most likely not going to give a description about what has been done so far; you'd wait until the building is completed before explaining its features, right?

Scores are the same. If the score at halftime was relevant, then okay. But in sports, the only score that is of any importance is the one at the final buzzer; all other's are irrelevant. Even if updating didn't violate WP:NOT#PUBLISHER, then it is considered irrelevant information, anyway, and therefore shouldn't be included. --Ksy92003 (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how did I assume ownership? I'm trying to prevent another user from violating a rule. How is that asumming ownership? You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to talk to Michael Greiner. Since you don't want to, I'm gonna ask him to tell you why what you are doing violates that rule. --Ksy92003 (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is warning another user assuming ownership? I don't get that. Also, I'm not trying to get Wizardman or anybody else to ban you. I never said that was my target. All I'm trying to do is get other users who agree with my reasoning behind the violation of what Soxrock was doing and asking them to explain to you that what you have done violates that rule, also, since you don't seem to like believing me.

I'm just trying to get you to believe that you and Soxrock did the same type of edits and I'm trying to get you to realize that Soxrock was warned and stopped his edits calmly; he hasn't done these edits again nor complained about it. You did the same thing as Soxrock, so I suspect that you will calm down, as well. According to an admin and another user, what Soxrock did was wrong. You did the same thing as him. And you think that you're any more right than he is? We'll see what happens when other users/admins give their opinions. --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my opinion. It's what Michael Greiner said. It's what admin Wizardman said. They both agree with me. Fine, then please tell me why you think that what you and Soxrock did isn't wrong? --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's our opinion. And anyway, you didn't answer my question. Why do you say that you and Soxrock didn't violate any rule? --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this edit you made violated Wikipedia is not a: crystal ball, [2]. --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But WHY? I mean, if you tell me why you don't think this violated WP:NOT, then maybe I'll agree with you. Just please tell me. It's important for me to know your opinion on this discussion. --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you still haven't answered why you think that you didn't violate WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. Now, I can't be held accountable for any rule violations you make in the future. --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finally telling me. I still don't agree with you. Btw, the Crystal ball edit, don't worry about that. But even though a game is almost over, you still can't put any info until it is official and the outcome is done. Even if they were up by 32 with two minutes left, that's still crystal ball.

Anyway, I didn't warn you because I thought that you got the info from somewhere other that internet. I assumed that you got it from tv and internet. That's not the problem. The problem is in the updating of scores of games that aren't over. That's all. I still believe that violates the WP:NOT#PUBLISHER rule. But believe me, I will be monitoring your edits to see to it that you don't violate that rule again. Good day. --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then a better person to discuss this would be with User:Michael Greiner. He's the first user who said that this violated that rule. Discuss with him the meaning of this rule and please leave me out of it until you have discussed it with him. I believe him, but he is the one who initiated me monitoring that policy. Please ask him if what you are doing violates thar rule or not and why/why not. And please don't discuss it with me until after you've talked to him. --Ksy92003 (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. This is a reasonable compromise. But that might be hard for you, as even if the game may be over with 2 min left, the score may still change. Just please try to avoid updating the scores of games if the game is still going on. Let this be a truce. --Ksy92003 (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't update until the game is over. Ever hear the old saying, "It ain't over, 'til it's over?" Apply it here and just wait the extra two minutes. BTW, my wiki activity will be a lot lower than it has been until June 21 (end of my school year), so don't expect a quick reply. Michael Greiner 00:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope that you do not believe I am directly involved in a personal battle with you. Ksy92003 brought me into this because I was the first person to bring up the subject on the Baseball Wikiproject with Sockrox's. I have no connection to the NBA playoff articles (I don't think I have ever edited them), whatsoever. (I'm not a professional basketball fan) Michael Greiner 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ksy92003 has mentioned my name throughout this discussion but I really don't know why. I the only connection I have is I was the first person to bring up the rules, on Template:2007 New York Yankees season game log with User:Sockrox, not you. My help desk question was on Sockrox, (which I clearly stated) not you. I didn't start this discussion and wasn't involved until "dragged" in. I haven't edited any NBA article outside of revert some vandalism on New Jersey Nets. I don't want any fights, just people following policy. Michael Greiner 00:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 2007 NBA Playoffs

Man, sorry to hear about that Chris. To be quite honest, I don't know the specifics about this fiasco yet, and I have to review the whole debate. What I can tell you right now is that in these types of debates, it's better to be more considerate than confrontational when you're dealing with these types of users. If you want some administative help, try talking with User:Johntex. But if I were you, I would get back to KSY and try to get a calm discussion going about this issue (keyword: CALM). I'll do my best to help you at all possible in this issue, though. You have my back! Dknights411 23:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

???

What? I don't believe this... I saw on Greiner's talk page that you had agreed not to edit. How come when I told you not to do it and asked you not to, all you said was "this doesn't violate any rule?" I also said "It isn't over 'til it's over" on Talk:2007 NBA Playoffs. Why do you conform for him, but not for me? I hoenstly don't get that. --Ksy92003 (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure, now you stop? Why didn't you just listen to me? You would've saved a lot of time and discussion. I don't see what I did wrong. I only warned you and "threatened" you with admin intervention because you were being so cynical. I politely asked you at the beginning to not do what you did and told you that actions would've been taken against another user who made similar edits (action would've been taken if he had made more of those edits), yet you continued to say that you weren't violating any rule and would continue to do it. Now, all of a sudden, you decide to back down? I don't get it. What happened to change your mind? Can I at least get an apology from you? --Ksy92003 (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh... whatever. But still, don't you agree that if you had just listened to me and my calm response to your initial edit, then this whole incident would've been avoided? In the end, after all that argument, you eventually backed out, which is something I calmly asked you to do at the very beginning. --Ksy92003 (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just... forget about it. Let's just move on with our lives. --Ksy92003 (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]