User talk:Isotope23/Archive 14

Bill-See answer at bottom.

I don't know how to respond to you except to post her (please educate me...)

There is no copyright problem. The previous bio that was up for years was deleted some months ago, likely vandalism. I can confirm any information in the post, and can re-add the links that were there previously in the prior version. Just for my understanding, what is one fact in the post that you were not able to confirm. Finally, there are hundreds of articles and posts about Bill Lichtenstein and Lichtenstein Creative Media, so there is a lot of material out there. Please help! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.220.36 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bill, when I looked at it, there were full sentences lifted from the LCM website. Give me a bit of time to review the sources out there. What is necessary is multiple sources covering you that are independent of you (i.e. they don't come from LCM). Give me a day or two to work on this. If I can find the sources I will create a stub article and then from there I can assist you in creating a neutral and sourced article that won't be deleted.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I'm still looking into this. At this point I nearly have enough non-trivial coverage from reliable sources to start a fresh, sourced, stub article. I should get to that later today.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sengunthar

How curious, a bunch of Mudaliar (talk · contribs) socks get blocked, and a new editor shows up making the exact same edits.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't actually look at the talk page history or anything... I don't know what's going on. Is this a sock?

That's so page move vandal

Thanks. I don't know this show and am unsure what the true names of the characters are. I suspect that some have been messed with. --Jack Merridew 11:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but being how I'm decades out of the target demographic, I have no idea either.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

i noticed that you have left a few messages on my page, you must be watching my page...no problem i have nothing to hide, feel free to continue watching --Greenwood1010 13:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)(LLTWUAF)

As a practice, I pretty much watchlist any page where I've left a comment so I can see if someone responds to it... if I don't watchlist it I have a tendency to forget all about it. Rest assured that I'm not trying to police what you are doing here; any comments I left were intended to be helpful and you are free to ignore them or delete them if you wish. But, if you don't want people reading what you write, email is the way to go. Cheers! --Isotope23 ^talk 14:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I do this too... if I've ever posted on the talk page, then it's on my watchlist, and I check in from time to time to see if anything interesting is happening. That's why I sometimes chime in on Isotope's talk page, for example... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If only I could get Isotope to watch my page! I'd be happy to have him spy on me! ~*Grin*~ Ariel♥Gold 15:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Done.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh, I'm in the big time now! ~*Ariel struts her stuff*~ It's pretty quiet today, but that's probably because according to Wikipedia, I'm still sleeping! (Well, I will be soon, I hope, lol.) Feel free to join in the "mini-help desk" any time, now, y'hear? Ariel♥Gold 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's been pretty quiet here too. Nothing wrong with that though... --Isotope23 ^talk 15:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

???

What the hell did you do here? Looks like you hit the wrong button. WLU 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hell if I know... I'll fix it though.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you have a fan...

[1] Spryde 14:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just blocked him. I'm evil like that.

It's Dr. Seaweed (talk · contribs) who apparently is still upset that I blocked one of his (?) accounts for WP:3RR. Maybe with his new found free time he can start a blog about what a jackbooted thug I am suppressing the truth.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute?

Is a request to remove original research a content dispute? Mpublius 16:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage... but short answer = "yes".--Isotope23 ^talk 17:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Brief cameo appearance from an old acquaintance

Hey Remeber User:Jfell well i am back again!! i will time you to see how long it will take you to make the fact that i am a sockpuppet know. Jfellsback 22:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

...not very long at all, really. Indef blocked. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See, this is why FisherQueen is my favourite admin - cruel, yet amusing. WLU 22:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Joey Shabadoo

This article has been relisted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Shabadoo (2nd nomination). I am notifying all participants in the first AfD. Chick Bowen 20:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the creature shows it's spots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Foofiles&diff=167869973&oldid=167869765 HalfShadow 16:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, a troll... and not even a particularly amusing or interesting specimen at that. I didn't even need to see that to have him pegged.  :) --Isotope23 ^talk 17:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Isotope

I apologize for what I have said but I am sick of this reputation from this old user account I made following me around. Can't you look through my edits and see that I am not a vandalizer. I have never vandalized wikipedia. I only get angry when I feel other editors are being jerks. If you look at all my contributions, surely you can consider them vandalism like contributions I have just spent the night laboring over on wikipedia. LITERALLY! My eres are red from all the hard work I put into those articles of my favorite shows and you're going back and reverting all of my hard work hurts very much. Look, since everyone on wikipedia hates me this much, I won't evade the block. Just please don't revert all those edits. I worked so hard on all of that. You've reverted hours of sweat and hard thinking I have done for weeks to make those articles flow. You're just changing them because you're upset with me. You have a right to be upset with me and I am sorry. I just wish I could edit wikipedia without constantly being accused of being a sockpuppet. Yea, I am everybody hates chris, but I NEVER once vandalized an article. I know I need to control my feelings. Anyway, as much as I love editing those articles, I won't come back. Just please don't go all the way back. I worked my ass off on those articles. I wish you adminns would just give me another chance. Let me edit :( All my contributions are in good faith. Please go back to the everybody hates chris page, rochelle, and julius page and bring it back up to the correct edits Yourboyfriend 18:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• This is a one time offer. I will restore your edits. If however I find that you evade your block again, I will revert them all back to the cleanest version I can find free of your edits, policy will allow me to do this, and I will aggressively watch them and revert any changes you make to these article on sight. If you want to return to editing, email unblock or post an unblock template on your original account. I can't guarantee that will work, but it is the only way you are going to be allowed back here to edit.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mold (mould?) me!

Hi Isotope,

See, FQ may have the more entertaining talk page, but who do I come to for advice? If that's not flattery, what is? Incidentally, don't read the parts for FisherQueen. It's totally irrelevant.

(FisherQueen - if you're watching, this is totally insincere, I'm just buttering Isotope up. You're still my favourite. And don't bother reading the comments for Isotope, it's not important.)

(Isotope - I'm totally lying to FisherQueen, YOU are my favourite admin, evar!)

Can you have a brief gander at Talk:Bipedalism? Could I have handled it better? I value your input, because you're my favourite admin. (Note to FisherQueen - except for you!) WLU 21:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind sharing. There are so many wonderful admins (and so many wonderful not-yet-admins) running around, who could choose a favorite? It's like having a favorite ice cream. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Pralines and cream. Everyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. No wiggle room. WLU 23:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the article talkpage tomorrow.--Isotope23 ^talk 04:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

At your leisure, it's a favour I appreciate. It's a bit long, usually I'm more convincing than this, and I'm wondering what made this case exceptional. WLU 14:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK... so what is the issue there? I mean, I understand the core diagreement (i.e. number of external links), but I'm not sure I see a problem. You have an opinion. The other editor has an opinion. You've both expressed your opinions. Neither of you swayed the other. That happens. Did I miss something else? The whole conversation seemed completely civil and there was very little blood shed.

On a side note, removing dead links is always a good idea and despite what that editor contends, it isn't the responsibility of other editors to try and figure out why the link is dead (be it due to a mis-typed URL or just the site being taken down). Remove dead links and hit the talkpage of the article or the editor who added it with a courtesy, "link was removed because it points to a non-existent page; please review when you get a chance".--Isotope23 ^talk 17:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's more that I don't usually run into this much opposition for what I see as 'pedestrian' edits - things that appear very clear to me via policy but I'm still getting pushback for reasons that seem irrelevant to me. It seems like a lot of electrons were wasted on what should have been a simple matter and I wanted to make sure I wasn't mis-reading the situation. Secondary to that, I appreciate any feedback on my comments - if you think it's good, I'm reassured that the issue doesn't lie solely with me. Plus, I always get little tidbits like your side note. Gracias! WLU 18:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

After nearly 3 years here I'm no longer surprised what people will argue over.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember my LAME edit war over Sole (foot)? I'm king lame, stubborn and convinced of my own inability to be wrong. Bad combination, which is only made up for by my considerable charm and full, succulent thighs. That's why I like these little checks to make sure I've still got at least one toe still in line. WLU 00:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent, continuation>Bipedalism is starting to tickle my adrenal glands. Grrr... I'm posting a reply on User talk:Nicolharper. I don't think I'm being unreasonable, but a blanket revert is maddening. WLU 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

why

Why would having a tilebox be a problem?--Greenwood1010 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sock?

Hey Isotope23, check this user out. He's got all the trademarks of Nintendude going: the name, inane categories, one-line unsourced additions like this and this, and POV edits to regular targets of other his other socks, like Music Radio and a radio station in Detroit. It's got to be him. Thanks -- Torc2 19:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Torc2 19:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

One more, though it looks like this was only used for a day: User:Green Pipe. The clue was the same kind of edits to Music radio (like this and the use of the (now deleted) Category:Songs that radio no longer plays. I'll scan Music radio to see if I can find any more obvious ones. Torc2 23:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a single purpose acount, but I took care of it anyway.--Isotope23 ^talk 01:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but some constructive advice needed

Sorry the spat over WAS 4.250‎ got so out of hand, and I would appreciate some advice on a better way to handle this in the future. I was quite discouraged from trying to start a convesation when the first thing I got was a fake "warning", though after his second blanking on the Agriculture talk page, I made one comment on WAS's talk page that he immediately blanked and didn't respond to, so figured there was no hope there. WAS kept blanking things I posted in other areas, calling them all "personal attacks", and so I got a bit spooked and tried to give a heads up to people in places where he might not be looking and blank the comment before it was even read. I wasn't intending to spam, I just panicked trying to find someone who was online. I hope Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ the right place for me to go? In 18 months or so on wiki, I have never seen someone blank comments on other article discussion pages and call them "personal attacks" before, then put a "warning" on my talk page about it. This really did spook me. I am so sorry that things escalated. Usually when there is a problem, I just give a heads up to one of the admins who has helped me in the past, they say a quick word to the other person, and it all blows over. This was really different. I am rather shaken that suddenly what I thought were good faith attempts to find someone who was online who could help was misinterpreted so badly. OK, I've gone on a bit here. But I hope that any misunderstandings can be remedied. Montanabw^(talk) 20:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And after today, I think I wholeheartedly agree with your comment to FisherQueen that "Wikiproject reform or dissolution would be a good thing." I wasn't even a major contributor to the project. Sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 06:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, if there is any advice I could offer, it would probably just be to try and be mindful of how your actions could be interpreted, and try not to take stuff too personally. I don't think any of you were trying to be malicious, it appears this is just a big misunderstanding where actions were misinterpreted or blown out of proportion. It happens. Mostly I would just say to let it blow over and go back to editing. No harm no foul.

I've long been of the opinion that Wikiprojects are a noble idea in theory, but in practice they seems to always result in abuse. I don't watch every single project and perhaps there are some out there that work, but the ones I've observed eventually run into WP:OWN issue on articles or somehow get the idea that the consensus they reach on their project talkpages somehow can be applied to articles as if it were a guideline. In my view it contributes to the balkanization of Wikipedia and promotes small groups lording over fiefdoms of articles. I however would guess that my opinion is very minority on this and I expect Wikiprojects are here to stay for the foreseeable future.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Workable advice. I guess everyone needs to remember AGF. I wasn't really accusing WAS of being a troll, I was more trying to get the others to just disengage because I though the whole debate was silly. (sigh) I was also surprised at how a couple of the other admins were so quick to go after me for basically trying to find an admin! I have never had that happen before. Just a bad day, I guess.

WP:OWN gets abused too, I was rather surprised at getting that little blast laid on me for things like "multiple page edits in a day" when the problem is that my eyesight is poor and even when I use "preview" I miss errors, resulting in multiple page edits when I am working on something. (That and not clearing off my watchlist enough, thus spending a lot of time reverting true vandalism and commercial linkspam; but that has gotten me accused of ownership too. sigh). I fess up to "ownership" feelings about a couple of articles, but can always be swayed by verifiable data, which is something that is not often understood. AGF really is the most important thing here, and probably the quickest forgotten, including by myself at times. Lesson learned, I guess. Montanabw^(talk) 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, don't sweat it... Given a week, nobody will even remember what happened :) --Isotope23 ^talk 01:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

More Seaweed puppet would-be-stalkers?

Hi Isotope23, you blocked Cyril Reid, who a.o. wrote this: "Denveron and DVdm are clearly not yet mature enough to be editing encyclopaedia articles." and you also blocked this Catsiam, but I don't find their names on category listing. Can you insert the {{blockedsock|Dr. Seaweed}} tags on their userpages?

By the way, see also:

• Tempus Krilly with this: "Walk away now otherwise you will perpetually torment yourself. This game is tailor made for the likes of Denveron and DVdm and all the sympathetic kindred spirit administrators"
• Benzit Fingo with this: "What seems to be annoying him is that fact that two students (Denveron and DVdm) want to stand in front of the article holding up placards claiming that Dingle was wrong.", and this: "How about if I start vandalizing the Eric Laithwaite pages by constantly inserting 'Laithwaite was wrong about the textbooks being wrong because the textbooks say that the textbooks are right'? Would I get the VIP treatment that is afforded to DVdm?"

I find this rather amusing and I really don't mind him doing this, but you might be interested in ip-checking this. Mind you, I'm still 100% convinced that Seewead really is Swantzsteve himself :-) Cheers, DVdm 10:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You can boldly tag them if you wish. I, as a rule, don't usually bother to tag obvious throwaway accounts like the Doctor is using. You can also submit a request for checkuser if you wish, but he is using a fairly broad IP range from what I gather so I don't think an underlying block is the appropriate action here. I'll also say that Checkuser cleared Swantsteve and I agree with those findings; unless Steve has a jet stowed away somewhere or knows some super secret TOR nodes, Seaweed and Steve are separate individuals. Peeking into my crystal ball (since it is Halloween), it is also very unlikely that Dr. Seaweed's allegations that Denveron is a physics student are actually correct.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these are allegations. He's just trying to tease and annoy. I actually find it a bit sweet :-) - Cheers, DVdm 15:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

True... it's much nicer than most of the stuff said about me on the internet.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Webcomic CSD

Greetings,

I respect and appreciate your comments but I disagree with the notion that removing the CSD tags was tantamount to disruptive editing. The CSD policy says that anyone but the creator can remove them (and if you are the creator, they need to use hangon). Based on the fact that mass tagging with little discussion, seemingly single purpose, and even tagging articles that do assert notability reeks of vandalism to me. We have indefblocked named accounts for less which is why I did what I did. Anyway, I have said what I feel needs to be said. I respect your opinion but I disagree with it. Spryde 17:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem... you are absolutely free to disagree with me. The problem wasn't the initial removal, the problem was continuing to go back and forth on these, particularly on the articles where no assertion of any notability exists. At this point I have no plans to issue an additional blocks in regards to this matter, though I think the articles in question either need to be updated to show why they are notable or they stand the risk of deletion.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I was planning on going back through after the issue was settled to recheck what needs to be done if anything. I just wanted to make sure one issue was settled first before dealing with another. Anyway, cheers! Spryde 17:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not going to review them for a week or so. I'd rather let whatever furor still exists die down and give interested parties some time to source them.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to mention it at the incidentboard, but I was a bit miffed at your accusations of foul play between me and Spryde, which came close to a personal attack in my opinion, especially after you accused me again of disruptive behaviour. What really happened was that I noticed this person was tampering with a page on my watchlist, I investigated and checked the guidelines on speedy delete and removed the notice, checked further and saw this guy on a troll through the webcomics pages. So I warned them, started to undo their damage, noticed they continued and were undoing my undos, warned the administrators and after this Spryde started pitching in as well. Only after the troll was blocked did I undid the rest of their reverts of Spryde. --Martin Wisse 11:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

criteria for external links

Hello, I am curious about your criteria for removing external links. You stated the reason for removing my edit on Neutral Milk Hotel was that it contained a link to an opinion piece. If you would be so kind as to read the external link's article, I think you'd find it is full of careful research about Jeff Mangum's life, most of it reiterated from Jeff's own words (see Pitchfork's interview, for one source and the official Neutral Milk Hotel press pages for another). Any opinions presented in the article are really nothing more than a colorful view on the facts that don't stray very far from the general consensus of the record. I respectfully disagree with your removal, and would like to know your thoughts on the matter. I sincerely only want to add to Wikipedia's integrity, not take away from it. - - Jamesrejoyce 31 October 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 20:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

EverybodyHatesChris

Sorry to bother you, but why on Earth was this user unblocked? He or she was blocked originally, then resurfaced at least once (as User:Foofiles) and was blocked again. The editor is now back as User:EverybodyHatesChris doing exactly the same things as before. (As "Foofiles", the editor also demonstrated several instances of following editors who disagreed with him to unrelated articles he had never visited, and reverting their edits without explanation.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. This editor has been operating sockpuppets non-stop ever since he was blocked. How did this happen? Who thinks this is a good idea? ➪HiDrNick! 23:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It happened because I spoke to the original blocking admin and the editor in question. The blocking admin had no objection, so I unblocked. The editor created multiple accounts because they were blocked; no block = no reason to edit through other accounts. Blocking is a preventative measure, not a punishment. As long as the user behaves themselves, there is no reason for them to be blocked. If they don't, they will be reblocked. If you have a problem with this, you are free to request a review of this at the appropriate noticeboard. Thanks.--Isotope23 ^talk 01:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Butt Out

What does it have to do with you eh?

If you can tell me what it is all about and what pages it occurred on I would move off into the ether never to bother you again.

--LPWRHR 17:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Afd about best TV shows

I hope you'll reconsider you decision about this AFD. I'm sorry I didn't see it, I'm on a wiki break. I think your reasoning is flawed. I don't think the article tried to quantify the citations for which shows have been called the best. It just listed them. I've spent the last 3 years looking after Films considered the greatest ever and find this and many similar AFDs very disheartening. The beauty of a wiki is that someone can create a flawed list or article, and over time it can get better. The Films article went through two AFDs and was kept. People do study which films and TV shows are acclaimed. A wiki is a great way to collect this information. Collectively it may be original research to have some shows mentioned and others ignored, but this criticism can be made about virtually every article in Wikipedia. To delete articles and lists because they are not yet comprehensive is like throwing the baby out, not with the bathwater, but because it doesn't yet know how to walk. I hope you'll reverse yourself. Thanks, --☑ SamuelWantman 05:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I won't reverse. I stand by my closing notes that the article comprised [[WP:OR|original research because it is predicated on the idea that these sources or criteria equate to these shows being considered the greatest ever, and I think that is a flawed premise that goes against policy. It has nothing to do with being comprehensive; as I stated in my notes I can see a case for a series of articles that would meet all applicable policies, but this hodge-podge that existed had no redeemable value (though if someone were interested in using the raw data to create articles that would meet policy I would be open to userfying content for them to start from). You can always request a deletion review if you disagree. Thanks for your message.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you think the article should be renamed something like "Television series selected as the greatest ever in different ways", or something similar. I think the article is very clear that these shows are "considered" the greatest by some measure, and the measures are clearly stated and cited. So what make this OR? There is a long precedent for citing other's opinions as long as the opinion is cited and not misrepresented. What is wrong with Wikipedia reporting which TV shows (or films -- which is why I'm here advocating reversal) have been selected in a poll, are the longest running, have the most awards, etc...? The articles do not claim that the films or shows ARE the greatest ever, just that they have been selected as such at some time or by some measure. If this needs to be further clarified to keep these articles alive, then I'm all for it, but I think this is already clearly stated. Of course, as I am closely involved, I'm willing to listen to suggestions. Also, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion about Films considered the greatest ever. Do you think it has the same problem? If not, why? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, if you feel the close was improper, please open a deletion review, though as I said in my closer notes at the AFD and above, I think the content should be refactored into multiple articles tied by a list, but that is simply my (very nonbinding) opinion. As for Films considered the greatest ever, to some extent it suffers from the same problems (the In particular genres section in particular is a mess in my opinion), though I've absolutely no intention of initiating an AFD there... beyond the fact that I'm not looking for stuff to delete (other than the usual nonsense speedy candidate articles people seem to add here), it's already survived 2 AFDs.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

ANI thread re; EverybodyHatesChris

Hello Isotope23. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you are be involved with. Your contribution to the discussion is welcome. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 05:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam blacklist

Firstly many thanks indeed for helping out here, it is needed. However could I ask you to look at logging the entry you made on the list. I do realise that this may seem tedious but from experience on the Meta equivalent pages (m:Talk:Spam blacklist & m:Spam blacklist/Log) if any entry is challenged in a year's time it is much harder to deal with if the record cannot be found. I'm happy to help but really the log page should actually be protected in the same way as the blacklist page (per Meta).

If anything is unclear let me know but if you check the snippet at the top of the talk page and what I have done before it should be fine. Many thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Big thanks - maybe knock autosigning/sinebot off on that page?? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Might have fixed it - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering why we had only blacklisted sites that started with "b"... -- John Reaves 21:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image on my Page

You're telling me that I can get banned for having a picture of Cartman on my user page? WHy can I use it in an article, as an AIM icon but not in here?--Cartman005 20:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What if I take the screenshot myself?--Cartman005 20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Threatning and vandal behaviour

Hi, Isotope23.
Few minutes ago, I got this message from user Giovanni Giove "'If you do not cease to insult me you will be properly reported" [2].
He repeats his behaviour pattern, as he behaved before the RFARB.
When opponent gives arguments, then Giove finds him as the "the attacker, insulter, vandal".
My warnings and explanations of my actions on the article talkpage, Giovanni Giove qualified as "personal attacks" and "insults".
See what he did on the talkpage of the article Jakov Mikalja [3], an hour ago
Sincerely, Kubura 11:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Right! You have accused me of "ignorant behaviour" and "editslaughter". Those are insulting personal attacks. It is my right to delete your usual personal attacks from the talk pages. Anyway I will wait for Isotope's answer. On the other side you have provided no reasons at all, for you total revert of several SOURCED. I can understand that some of them could be disputable (I am no perfect), but a total revert is simply destructive, furthermore my version reported BOTH POVs, about the linguistic problem, you have imposed just your own POV.--Giovanni Giove 11:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Dreamery

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Dreamery, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dreamery. Thank you. --B. Wolterding 15:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Brett Favre

Thanks for all your hard work again on SW1955 and the Brett Favre article. Appreciated! Skybunny 17:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Im trying not to reply to him, just give him warnings, revert his changes, and then request WP:AIV. Its really sad tho, I just wish we could focus our energy on making the article better. Good luck!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that is the way to go. Frustration makes people do odd things.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I just reported him to WP:AIV for this. Thought you should know.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

For what? I don't see anything at that link ;)--Isotope23 ^talk 20:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha weird, well it wasnt a nice edit summary. But another admin blocked him so its all good...for at least a couple minutes :P.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your kind offer to explain

No, Clown never got back to me. I didn't see a way to email you, so hopefully you can explain to me here or my talk page why I got the block that had nothing to do with me.--Moon Rising 21:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Sock, New Tactic

We appear to have another sock at User talk:Teri Aulepp, and also at User_talk:71.129.234.151. Instead of changing the Brett Favre page, they're working at a new page, List_of_career_achievements_by_Brett_Favre. What do you guys think? Snowfire51 01:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Mark_of_Cain.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mark_of_Cain.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih 03:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)