User talk:SchmuckyTheCat/Archive 2

Welcome to my talk page. I recently archived a few years worth of people's comments. Feel free to leave me messages or even flaming bags filled with poo.

LJ Abuse

No problem. Don't want to remove peoples' right to criticize, just have some friends on the team and want to make sure everything is represented fairly and accurately.

Peas 21:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Corrigan Article

Hey Schmucky. What should be done about Melbedewy? He refuses to cooperate with the consensus and he also refuses to source his material. He doesn't qualify for 3RR since he, meticulously, reverts only once a day. Any idea what he qualifies for? It gets tiring having to revert his trolling all the time.

Natoma 14:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DYK

Done. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3

A final decision has been made in the above Arbitration case and the case has been closed.

For the Arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion request

Tony, is there a deleted article history at 5th Avenue Theatre? There is a talk page, which indicates there might have been material that looked like copyvio but was being added by the copyright holder. If there is a deleted article there, can you copy it to my userspace? I'd like to work on this article and that material might be useful. SchmuckyTheCat 16:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't copy it because it was a copyright infringement. I can, however, point you at the source of the material, which is: http://www.5thavenuetheatre.org/historyandphotos.shtml

It appears to be a word-for-word copy.

If you could write a clean article about this theater from that and other source material, you would be doing Wikipedia a great service. --Tony Sidaway 22:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a whack at it. Hopefully this elleviates any laudible cause for complaint. My writing thesis for such things is atrocious, however, so I'm certain it could use some copyediting.-Zero^Talk 19:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Sheung Wan; Hopewell Highway Infrastructure Ltd; Sai Ying Pun; Gloucester Road, Hong Kong; Government Hill, Hong Kong; Kennedy Town; Hong Kong, China; Belgorod Air Enterprise; Ocean Park, Hong Kong; Hongkonger; Stubbs Road; Aimeliik; Connaught Road Central; Skunkworks (album); Happy Valley, Hong Kong; Eurasian smoketree; William Thomas Mercer; Aberdeen Tunnel; Hong Kong Club Building

Cleanup: DBS Bank; Wing Lung Bank; Wah Fu
Merge: More (software); Yew Chung International School of Shanghai; Chinese Standard Time
Add Sources: Incivility; Wan Chai District; Evolution (term)
Wikify: Jardine Matheson Holdings Limited; Fisher Communications; Counter-terrorism
Expand: County Court; Igor Sikorsky; History of Montenegro

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). 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 ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: What are you doing?

Please kindly take a look at what I reverted, and see what the problem was with those articles. Read also who're the people, apart from me, reverting those articles. Meanwhile, please be reminded to mind your language. Thank you very much. — Top Ramen 09:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive response. Please do read what I've done. If he's not responding, what else I can do? I'd appreciate if you or anybody can give a hand, but not keep intepreting, in a superficial manner, some not entirely properly come up enforcements. — Top Ramen 10:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page blocks

As Instantnood is warring over legitimate content disputes I don't think these would be helpful just yet (IMHO). If he doesn't get the hint after a few blocks then permanent page blocks would be a good idea. Ashibaka tock 02:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cap Hill Massacre

No problem. It's not often I get a chance to work with current events in Seattle, and that's just the kind of story where rumors and speculation can run wild. Good writing otherwise. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caphillmassacre-weapons.jpg

Please make a reference when refering to a press release.

Thanks

--alfiboy 03:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Image speedy deletion

Regarding the article Image:Seattleshooting.jpg, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "copyvio, images found on CNN are not Public Domain. This picture at CNN is specifically labeled copyright Seattle Times/AP", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This image does not qualify for speedy deletion because only articles qualify for speedy deletion due to copyright violations, images do not. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:CP process. Thanks! Stifle 16:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you believe images aren't speedy deletable. WP:CSD specifically has a section for Images and Media. It is critically important that copyrighted material be removed from Wikipedia, particularly on breaking news stories where photos and graphics of the event made by news companies are considered vital property. This pic has also been deleted at least twice already, so it's deletion of already deleted material. SchmuckyTheCat 17:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images are speedy deletable if they meet any of the eight General criteria or any of the five Image criteria. However, Article criteria don't apply to images, any more than image criteria apply to categories, or redirect criteria apply to user pages. Stifle 17:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question

I would like to upload images of various bands, but can't tell if I can use the pics I found or not. Can you help?

RE: User subpage articles in wikipedia article categories

Keep your subpage articles out of wikipedia article categories. The whole point of keeping non-encyclopedic content in your user space is to prevent it from being linked to from the main Wikipedia. When you put your user subpage in a category, it appears in navigation templates and such.

Your being mentored is not a method to avoid playing by the rules until your mentor tells you to do abide by them. Instead, you should be paying attention to other editors and asking your mentor to clarify what you don't understand. SchmuckyTheCat 07:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What rules say we cannot have user-space articles in article-space categories? I need to read that rule, if such a rule exists.

By the way, I'm curious: How come you didn't notice this article until now? I first put it up under an older username's subpage months ago. --Shultz IV 07:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Block

Re: [1] - Sysops can look into the edit history of deleted articles. You can't, but user:ESkog can. First, user:Alanmak did it by a cut-and-paste move. Second, "HK" can be ambiguous, and the template has existed for a really long time at template:HONG KONG. It should not be changed without discussion, for it affects many articles (but user:Alanmak had even modified article using the template). Third, it was done as part of his failed attempt to change how the templates {{HKG}} and {{HKG-PRC}} are used, which has been reverted for many times by many other users. He never responded to messages at talk pages, and he had discarded my requests posted on his user talk page, deleting them by saying "bullshit" in edit summaries. If sysops are helping Wikipedia to be a better project, they should not disregarded the background of dispute, and react simply from what they superficially see. — Top Ramen 21:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITMFA

I've reverted your re-addition of ITMFA information and website link to Movement to impeach George W. Bush because it is about a commercial website. I'll ask you, as I did Rickpike, to please discuss this on the article talk page before simply re-adding the information and link. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template redirects

Re [2] - I'm interested to know if there's any official guideline or policy regarding the use of template redirects? If there's none, I'd like to know why it's necessary to avoid them. Thank you. — Top Ramen 11:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dubious

Please mind your language. As for the talk page, all the arguments are already presented. — Top Ramen 14:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One month

Re: [3] [4] - There were new posts on March 12. " [N]o conversation newer than a month "? — Top Ramen 14:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bridges

Re: [5] " rv POV re-organization by editor who claims everyone but him has been wrong for three years. this editor is under arbcom sanction for POV re-organizations of lists. " - What I actually said [6] was that if user:Alanmak's way of presenting the information is right, the list has been in a wrong way since April 2003. I did not claim everyone except I myself had been wrong. Please be reminded not to put your words in anybody's mouth. Thank you. — Top Ramen 15:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for passing along the latest "hen fap" occurrence. I have no idea how to stop this guy from IP hopping and acting like a big baby. (The guy's original account was permabanned awhile ago) I get this image of some obese guy sitting in front of his PC babbling "hen fap" over and over ... I guess you don't have to be sane to edit Wikipedia. Anyway, I've asked a few people to see if it's possible to create some sort of anti-hen fap "bot" that can catch future appearances of this type of vandalism. Thanks again. 23skidoo 23:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I can't do anything with that one as a legitimate user appears to be using the IP now (that's the problem with blocking anon IPs for too long) -- either that or the hen fap vandal decided to actually make some worthwhile contributions. I'd still double check the information, though. 23skidoo 01:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving talk pages

I undid your page move at talk:Republic of China. according to Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page, we should use cut and paste, or at least a consistent method (c/p has been used for archives 1-3). --Jiang 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood

Could you supply some page diffs at WP:AN/I regarding your complaints about Instantnood? I'm sorry if I came off as scolding before; that wasn't my intention. Truly, JDoorj a m Talk 22:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. JDoorj a m Talk 01:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overdone reverts

Please be reminded not to revert materials unrelated to what you disagree. — Top Ramen 18:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes.

I noticed you are getting seriously pissed at Instantnood; if that's the way you approach your disputes at this point, it might be time for a Wikibreak. Of course, I won't be taking any action since you at least try to communicate with him. Ashibaka tock 01:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{unsigned}} is not harassment. Ashibaka tock 15:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking others in edit summaries.

This is in regards to your recent edit to the Encyclopædia Dramatica article.

Please do not attack others in edit summaries. "Don't be stupid" can be seen as a personal attack. Please try to keep cool and comment on content, not the contributor. Thanks.

Oh please, get a grip. SchmuckyTheCat 03:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the edit was stupid (I am not the person who said that--I suspect it's an admin who forgot to log in with their gay memorized links to WP:NPA and who remembers that {{crap}}?). Seriously though, you should not keep chuck norris down. I mean... The Great Wall of China was originally created to keep Chuck Norris out. It failed miserably. FurryiamIAM 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification

You said " rv, Instantnood returns from a ban and immediately sets to reverting the article that got him banned. " [7] Could you please provide the evidence that I got banned with that article? If that's not the case, could you please kindly clarify what you've said and apologise for that. Thank you very much. — Insta ntnood 21:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[8]. close enough for government work. SchmuckyTheCat 21:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What government work? Was I actually banned for edit to that article? Thanks for the WP:AN/3RR link, by the way, but I'd expect being notified simultaneously when it's reported there. — Insta ntnood 22:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese naming conventions

I just made a new proposal on NPOV treatment of the different Chinese languages/dialects on the Chinese naming conventions. Please take a look and comment if you will. Thanks.--Yuje 19:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Flag

Instantnood keep stating there is something wrong with the "new" flag, something wrong about its stars and color. However I really can't find such thing. Also, I can't see any differences in a side by side comparison of the two flag. Hunter 18:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, me neither. I thought there was some reasoning there, but as usual, there isn't. SchmuckyTheCat 19:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tfd Template:Republic of China

Yes, I will propose deletion now. Brenden h ull 21:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hong Kong (PRC)

You are banned for one week from Template:Hong Kong (PRC) for edit warring. Instantnood is banned for two weeks for more excessive reverting. --Jiang 06:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Flag

It's pretty obvious they're different. Before it's clear which is the correct one (and in fact both can be wrong) please preserve the status quo before your and user:Winhunter's edits. I myself know nothing about image editing so I'm afraid I'm not able to help. What I can tell is that the two existing images are different. — Insta ntnood 07:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you can't actually identify what's wrong with it, or which is correct. Wonderful thing to revert war over then! I do know something about image editing, and was willing to load the two up and fix the SVG version but you can't tell me what needs to be fixed. SchmuckyTheCat 14:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When it's uncertain which is correct, shall the replacement drive be continued? Obviously not. It had been peaceful before user:Winhunter came around, and she/he is not listening at all. What I can only do is to halt the drive. That's hardly warring. — Insta ntnood 20:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't identify what is wrong with the SVG image, and the Wikipedia guidelines specify that SVG is preferred THEN YES, it is ridiculous and warring to "halt the drive". It's like you don't even know why you're doing it. It's preposterous. SchmuckyTheCat 01:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only when the .svg image is an equivalence should the .png one be replaced. — Insta ntnood 19:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you, if you could state with certainty that the png image accurately reflects the specifications for the flag. SchmuckyTheCat 21:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly either one of them, or both, is incorrect. The status quo prior to his edits should be kept, unless there's evidence to show either is the correct one. — Insta ntnood 22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no wikipedia policy respecting the status quo. SchmuckyTheCat 22:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By common sense the status quo should be preserved until things get certain. Using the right flag (i.e. accuracy) is the top priority for an encyclopædia. Replacement of .png by .svg (i.e. stylistic and format issues) is far less important. — Insta ntnood 22:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo, as a policy, has been explicitly rejected. Consensus and verifiability, not accuracy, is Wikipedia's fundamental guideline. Since you haven't actually made a claim of innacuracy, even your own argument fails your own test. I have asked you to identify what is incorrect (verifiably) and you haven't. If you would do that, I'd probably agree with you, helping to form a consensus to your POV. SchmuckyTheCat 22:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not discussing which is the correct one. Rather, we're discussing what we should do and what we should not do when it's not yet certain. By common sense inaccuracy already exists. If you couldn't verify the .svg one is accurate, you cannot replace .png with it. — Insta ntnood 23:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hong Kong (PRC)

Please kindly response at its talk page. — Insta ntnood 22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Insta ntnood 23:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit

[9] [10] You're not reverting only the flag image. You've got the option to revert only the flag image [11]. — Insta ntnood 18:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Winhunter/xsomeuser

You have the obligation to preserve useful edits, and revert only what you disagree. — Insta ntnood 19:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits stopped making sense. When you mix in a few worthy edits with a whole bunch of crap into a complicated page, I'm not going to bother to salvage the good bits from the bad. When I can, I do. I'm not the first person to tell you this same exact thing. If you want people to stop reverting your good edits, then stop revert warring over crap, the same crap that got you banned from other articles. SchmuckyTheCat 19:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other persons are user:Alanmak and user:Winhunter, who're doing more or less the same thing as you do to my edits, and respond in similar ways to my messages on your user talk page. You do have the option to revert only what you disagree [12], but apparently you choose not to do so. — Insta ntnood 20:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck off.

hi

Hi, I want the recent changes/enhanced changes war in the ED article. Also why do you say 7-11 is still important? I thought that was too old of a meme to be important to the site. 22:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What war? huh? Slurpees are a foundational issue at ED. They are as important as NPOV is to Wikipedia. SchmuckyTheCat 22:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well mostly the war can be seen by following the edit links on my edit. Quasidian and Aussieintn are major players. And of course "don't spam recent changes" thing is on everyone's talk page who doesn't use it--replacing the "preview is for pussies" policy of before. DyslexicEditor 22:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That must be some kind of insider joke that only makes sense if you are involved with the site. Because I don't get it after following your links. I mean, I see what the pics say, but I don't understand the point. And, it's not a "theme" of ED even if it is some major policy war. SchmuckyTheCat 22:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should look at the talk pages of most people there, "Don't spam recent changes" it always says. I thought you were an admin there. DyslexicEditor 22:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User instructions aren't themes. SchmuckyTheCat 22:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of Hong Kong SAR.png

It seems the the retiring effort of the said image is finally coming to the end, and it is in use only in your user page. If you remove it from your user page and thus orphaning it, I think it's possible to propose a deletion in commons. Hunter 15:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horse - oops

Oops, reverted Horse back to the wrong version. Thanks for catching that. Horse needs about ten reverts a day, and a request for partial page protection was refused. --John Nagle 03:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV reorganisation?

Could you please kindly explain what you were trying to do with this edit [13]? — Insta ntnood 22:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no legitimate reason could you please undo what you've done? Thanks in advance. — Insta ntnood 23:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be informed that the simple vandalism has been reverted. — Insta ntnood 18:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your picture is being voted for deletion

The picture you uploaded, Image:Tai O San Ki Bridge.jpg, is currently being considered for deletion, in both English and Chinese Wikipedia, because you have chosen not to release it under a free license (e.g. GFDL).

It was noted that according to your description for the picture, you have taken the photo for Wikipedia (by me, for Wikipedia), but the current license does not satisfy Wikipedia's picture licensing policy. Perhaps you have chosen an unsuitable license by mistake? Your picture is a highly valued one and it would be a loss to Wikipedia if it has to be deleted because of a mistake in choosing the right license.

If you would like your picture to be kept, please make haste to the picture page and update the licensing information from {{PermissionAndFairUse}} to a free license (e.g. {{GFDL}}, {{cc-by-2.0}}). Otherwise your picture might be deleted in no time.

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! --Computor 11:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fork?

Re " I don't create POV forks. " [14] - Is it a fork if what you propose were useful and might serve different purposes? — Insta ntnood 00:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AE

Thanks for telling. — Insta ntnood 11:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful

I bet in this revert [15] you meant to deal with this edit [16], but you've removed materials added in this edit [17] altogether. I've fixed it for you [18]. — Insta ntnood 18:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing [19]? — Insta ntnood 18:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:CHN

I think I know the reason behind, you both are referring to different things. I'll try to sort it out in Talk:CHN in a min. Hunter 18:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Protected Template:Hong Kong (PRC)

Instantnood's ban expired last month. I don't really see a definitive guideline or policy on this. If there is, then please quote. I also don't see where we endorse the Chicago Manual of Style, though the Chicago Manual of Style can be quoted to arrive at a definitive guideline.--Jiang 04:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion on a single, relevant talk page. It's not useful to convince me alone because once I unprotect the template, the edit war will resume. According to Wp:mos#When_all_else_fails, there are several options (including discussion itself): let's discuss and decide on an option. --Jiang 07:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reverts

I'd say it is you who has kept implementing and enforcing your own point of view without prior and fruitful discussion. Why can't you stand with the status quo ante while discussion is in process? — Insta ntnood 19:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no end to discussions with you. You filibuster. SchmuckyTheCat 19:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make your changes before or right after you start the discussion at the talk page, or you don't discuss at all. You show no intention at all to discuss.— Insta ntnood 20:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images not identical

Re [20] - Please kindly take note of the fact that the .gif and the .svg images are not identical. Sizes of the lotus are different on the two images [21] [22]. Make sure which is the accurate one before replacing one with another. And please stop replacing unless .svg is proven to be accurate. Be noted two users have expressed that the .gif image is incorrect [23]. — Insta ntnood 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help convert the .gif image from government website into .svg format, to upload and replace the inaccurate one? Thanks. — Insta ntnood 17:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re [24] - Is this edit telling everyone you're ignoring what have already been pointed out? — Insta ntnood 19:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discrepancies were actually pointed out in the previous discussions. Simply convert those flag images from official sources into .svg format, or correct the existing .svg images according to the ones from official sources, will do already. — Insta ntnood 20:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fyi

Thanks for notifying. — Insta ntnood 20:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

automated tools

Careful with those automated tools! Sometimes helpful bots rise up and turn against you. [25] SchmuckyTheCat 14:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, thanks for pointing that out to me. I think this was in the middle of a massive AOL vandalism spam about an hour ago, I think I must have been in full revert mode... thanks again for your time. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 14:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

medcabal

Hi -- please see Talk:Foie gras for a mediation in which you are involved. Sdedeo (tips) 20:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC), from WP:MEDCAB[reply]

Transportation in Beijing

[26] - If there's no valid reason to revert everything no matter you disagree or not, please restore those you don't disagree as soon as possible. Thanks. — Insta ntnood 21:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania

Hello there! We met ages ago at the last Seattle meetup. I was the girl who came up from California :) I'm reminding folks about Wikimania this summer [27] and if you're coming, to register soon, before prices go up [28]. We have a fabulous program planned, and it should be fun times. Hope to see you there! Brassratgirl 19:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting AfD decision

Do not revert AfD decisions as you did at Ho ho ho and Talk:Ho ho ho. If you disagree with the Admin decision and you think you have a case, take the issue to Wikipedia:Deletion review.--Ezeu 20:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was my error from the beginning having linked to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ho ho ho instead of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ho ho ho (2nd nomination). You were merely trying to correct me. I'm sorry. --Ezeu 17:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willy on wheels

There is nothing notable about Willy on Wheels. Don't make self-referencing links from the main articles to Wikipedia: articles. Don't make dab links about non-notable crap. SchmuckyTheCat 03:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about?? Micoolio101 03:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Micoolio101[reply]

USB Cool Devices

You don't think there should be a section showing how cool USB is! Cole31337 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think wikipedia articles should be a link farm to improve the google page rank of some gadget. There are multiple "odd" and parody devices already in the article. SchmuckyTheCat 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alexa info on ED article

Please do not remove this info. It is sourced and valid and needs to be addressed on the discussion page prior to deletion. rootology 00:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know on my page, that it was a mistake. rootology 00:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

This is a proforma warning to comply with the new 3rr page. I assume you know the rule, but as a reminder:

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions were done to undo damage done to the article by you in violation of AfD policy. You were in error on making those edits. rootology 00:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would warn both of you that good faith edits are never vandalism. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about AfD rules? rootology 00:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking isn't good faith, it is disruption. If you really want to play it then the two of us together have 6rr to go through. SchmuckyTheCat 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR rootology 01:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI rootology 16:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[29] made on July 19 2006 (UTC) to Encyclopædia Dramatica

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

This is all a bit of a mess, but you should know better than to edit war like this.

William M. Connolley 10:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just trying to do what seems right... good luck. Oh, and you may find this of interest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Karwynn/Compiling_Evidence/data_dump_to_be_sorted rootology 20:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Brought over from my talk page....Can you provide some more rationale for these two blocks: [30] "uploaded png image that is blatant personal attack, sleeper account" and [31] "sleeper troll account". I am not an admin, I do not see contributions to deleted articles or images. Looking at the user histories, I cannot see either account uploading images or any rationale to being sleeper accounts. Both appear to be very casual but honest editors. In fact, I once questioned Keystone23 and the response was "don't bite at newcomers". SchmuckyTheCat 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you don't see the edits in which they uploaded the PNG is becuase once it is deleted, the edit disappears also...get it? [32], [33], [34]...the last one was the old PNG which was re-edited with the new png image...In fact, I can find zero evidence that you "once questioned" Keystone23...anywhere...[35]...look at the editing history...no edits for 7 months, after all of them being on Jan 4th 2006, and, lo and behold, a vote for the last time the ED article was up for deletetion March 28, and then the PNG image harassment, and another vote of the existing Afd for the encyclopediadramatica....don't come to my page and spread lies...JeremyJX makes not one edit in 7 months and then "magically" reappears to post personal information about me...wake up.--MONGO 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unable to view the admin actions since you may not be able to without admin tools, ask any admin to verify it.--MONGO 21:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you have a minute

I'm hitting a couple people with this note, looking for input. Could I persuade you to take a cruising pass at, or at least leave me a note of your thoughts on, my project? Timeline of Internet conflicts.

For what its worth, my notes on what I envision the growth of that page as/scope is on the talk page. Basically a factual chronology of the online conflicts that shape the internet and its growth, ala how someone may do a break down of real world physical wars (which I actually would like to do after as a project if it hasn't been). Anywho, let me know what you think if you get a chance. rootology 23:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Direct me?

Hi, could you direct me to the page where the comment that prompted this can be found? I'd appreciate it, thanks. Karwynn (talk)

Harassment

You're bordering on harassment at my usertalk...I said "and" spineless moronic trolls...read the comment.[36] Interesting that you try to put words in my mouth. I don't wish to recieve one more comment from you on my talk page. Thank you.--MONGO 06:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a list of three with "spineless moronic trolls" and an arbcom banned member, it's obvious where the inclusion was meant.

You also did not address the more serious attack that I have never contributed anything worthwhile to Wikipedia. I used your talk page in a good faith attempt to let you know that maybe your words were too strong. That maybe you should re-think the light in which you have cast your opponents. Instead you've called it harassment. You are a shame to the admin community. I guess I will have to take your personal attacks a little higher. SchmuckyTheCat 14:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to contact Karwynn additionally. rootology 15:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plz check

... your email. Karwynn (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and? SchmuckyTheCat 00:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link Deletion

I dont understand your deletion of the link in the barebacking article. It seemed entirely appropriate as an example, of the same name, of the content of the article and as such, it would seem to be of interest to someone who is reading that article. Yes, it is a commercial site but so what? Other commercial sites are referenced, where appropriate. I know that i'm really new at this, but i'd like to understand why you felt it was innapropriate. Does wikipekia have an adult censorship policy?? Pup2006 12:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo RFC

It was deleted, check WP:AN/I for info. Do you still happen to have the evidence portion of it around? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reverts that are like blackened eggs

That's something you should be told. Nobody would want to do so if all parties are willing to have the problem sort out through real discussion. — Insta ntnood 21:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as thou Instantnood dosent need to be told at all. Something tells me he gets a high out of the daily reverting exercise...sort of like the to-and-fro action which gets most normal folks high too. And "real discussion"? Gawd...tell me about it. Since when is Instantnood capable for having one? ;)--Huaiwei 17:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

This made me laugh, a rare instance lately. Thanks! Karwynn (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Misc.

Am I not using edit summaries, and recreating anything for no reason? — Insta ntnood 20:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Caphillmassacre-weapons.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Caphillmassacre-weapons.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn 11:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfD

Thanks for the reminder. — Insta ntnood 21:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Sorry for your being pulled into this, but you're named as an involved party. It'shere. rootology (T) 00:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you weigh in on this?

I'd like to bring forth a more definite agreement on what to do about archiving the current events article for Hong Kong. Could you join the discussion and vote?

Talk:Current_events_in_Hong_Kong#Concerning_the_archives

Thanks. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup

Looks like Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle4 will be happening September 9, 2006. - Jmabel | Talk 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup notes

Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle4. Edits welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 08:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Macau_International_Airport.jpg

Hi, can you move this image [37] to the wikicommons? I want to use it in another wikipedia.--84.57.47.211 16:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mv misplaced comment from your userpage...

Please help I know this is NOT the right place to reply but I can't find the right place after two days of trying to find a direct link to contact you.

your question Can you please explain their relevance on the article talk page and provide a reliable source that Kyle Huff ever heard or purchased the song you are referring to? SchmuckyTheCat 13:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

my answer I am not sure where Huff heard of Owen Tate NOW KIDS NOW but I do know he was on the owen tate myspace page where the song was on the player. I could see about getting a paypal record for the purchase of the cd but I am not sure how to go about that without turning over private banking info. Again, I am sorry to post this here so please forgive me and direct me to how to reach you in the future. thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.64.84.231 (talk • contribs) .

No personal attacks, please

Calling another user a 'weasel' is unacceptable. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OH BULLSHIT. If MONGO can call me a spineless moronic troll then he can stand up to being called a weasel too. He's a big boy, let's all grow up. SchmuckyTheCat 20:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Let's focus on content and not on contributors. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood

Hi Schmucky. I have read the extensive past histories of Instantnood with increasing concern, as well as his past ArbCom bans, etc. etc. Rarely have users who have been blocked so often been so persistent in editing others' opinions. Nevertheless, even if it seems a little exasperating, I don't see why we can't give the public poll thing a try? Jsw663 21:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been tried, and polls aren't always helpful. — Insta ntnood 21:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republic of China as an emerging superpower

There were other changes in my edits [38] unrelated to what you disagree with, but you've reverted them all [39]. Please sort out those changes you don't disagree with, and restore them. Thanks in advance. — Insta ntnood 21:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've similiarly reverted useful changes to the list of indoor arenas [40]. Please be reminded that such reverts are simple vandalism. " If you undo legitimate, uncontroversial edits, such as by deliberately and recklessly inserting spelling errors, you are committing simple vandalism. " [41] — Insta ntnood 21:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What did you actually want to revert [42]? — Insta ntnood 06:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Edit warring, be it on the same day or over a long span, is disruptive to this encyclopedia. If you continue in this manner you will be blocked. Joelito (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are engaging in content and POV disputes. It has little to do with WP:Verifiability. If you believe that verifiability is an issue why not engage in talk page discussion or simply tag with {{fact}}. However I believe that verifiability is not your agenda. You are well aware that edit warring is disruptive and wiki-lawyering will not work with me. Again, please stop the edit wars. Joelito (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeFRaG

Hi. You have recently voted for deletion of DeFRaG article. I have cleaned up it and added some references. I also added some proofs of game's notability here. Please, check out this article and discussion about its deletion once again and reconsider your vote. Thanks ;) Visor 14:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Windows-3.2-desktop.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Windows-3.2-desktop.png. 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. jd || talk || 18:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft software screenshots are all used with permission: [43] SchmuckyTheCat 18:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But "You must include the following copyright attribution statement: "Microsoft product screen shot(s) reprinted with permission from Microsoft Corporation."" dosent sound like fairuse? They simply allow usage provided all those conditions are met.--Huaiwei 17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is a defense against infringement. Permission means infringement never occured, that's a vast difference. SchmuckyTheCat 18:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfB With A Smile :)

Windows XP

Hi - you recently undid something I added to the Windows XP page. I'm afraid I'm not very experienced at Wikipedia, and I wasn't sure why (you put something like 'rv OR'). Could you give me a clue please? Dogbert 17:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for the quick reply. I see what you mean, but what I posted isn't just a theory of mine - it's an incontrovertible fact. I thought it might be an interesting and suggestive piece of trivia to add to the page, but if it's not suitable then meh. Dogbert 17:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

PrivateEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)and Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed. Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it. Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 02:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this arbitration case, of which you are obviously aware, I have removed the link from your user page (again). Please do not re-insert it. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Enforcement by block.--Konst.able^Talk 07:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I am not going to go revert warring over this link with you. But there are editors who feel strongly about this and the ArbCom has decided in their favour. As it is a blockable offence now, I strongly advise you to reconsider having that link on your user page.--Konst.able^Talk 08:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible departure

If you want to talk about it, I'd be more than willing, but I'd rather do it in person rather than through an exchange of online messages. If you don't have my email, just drop me a note through the "e-mail this user" feature, and I'll give you my phone number so we can hook up. - Jmabel | Talk 08:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of ArbCom ruling

As you are probably well aware, links to ED may be removed from WP as a result of the ArbCom case in which you were involved. Inserting such links is prohibited:

"Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it."

Please take care not to violate the ruling, which states:

"Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users." [44]

Consider this your warning. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ED Links

So this link [45] in that context is a bannable offense? Humbug. SchmuckyTheCat 18:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you insist. Fred Bauder 18:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you restore it, or create any more links, I will block you. Clear enough? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taunting

SchmuckyTheCat, Please take care with the way that you word your complaints about the removal of ED links. Of course, you can express your opinion and ask questions. But please do not taunt other users, make personal attacks or use highly uncivil language. Please assume good faith toward the users that are carrying out the Arbitrators decision. If you are not able to follow Wikipedia policy because you are upset, please consider taking a wikibreak. Take care, FloNight 19:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SchmuckyTheCat, please do not take offense by my remarks. I'm concerned about you because you are upset. I fear that you are going to say and do things that you would not do under different circumstances. Whenever this has happened to me, I took a break from editing for a few days and found it quite helpful. This was just a suggestion. Of course, you know what is best for you. Take care, FloNight 19:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected your user page

Schmucky, I have semi-protected your user page. You, another user, and then two different IPs have been repeatedly adding a link to an attack site, in spite of the ruling from ArbCom. I hesitated a little between semi-protection and full protection, but it does seem that registered users know that they will be blocked if they add that link again. When my right to display what I wish on my user page comes into conflict with another person's (or several people's) right not to have attacks against them publicized, it is NOT difficult to understand which right must take precedence. I will unprotect your page as soon as I feel that there is no need for semi-protection, and will upgrade it to full protection if it turns out that there is a need for that. I hope you can understand the position of those who are trying to prevent, discourage, and generally combat harassment, and I hope you can agree that the harassment in question is of a particularly vile nature, even though you're not the victim yourself. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 09:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]