Rockstar915

Template:Supplement

Thanks for catching the image size! :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem!  :) —David Levy 06:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

There is a discussion on the talk page, please contribute to it. Also there never was consensus to make it more than an essay so please revert yourself until such a consensus forms. 1 != 2 18:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. How about this: until consensus is formed on the talk page to either describe the page as an essay or supplement, we leave the page without template. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving it without templates is a reasonable compromise for now. Though unless a consensus forms for it to be more than an essay in a reasonable amount of time it should go back as an essay. The reason for this is that an essay does not need consensus to be an essay as they are an exposition of opinion and it is made clear it is advisory not binding. 1 != 2 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, the whole {{supplement}} discussion is a strange thing. I would be fine to delete the template if we weren't so quick to give every single page a tag. Would it kill us for a non-mainspace page not to have a template? There are certain pages which have advice or behavioral guidelines that we must follow (unless we desire to be blocked or desysopped), but aren't necessarily appropriate for inclusion in the policy page (IAR/WIARM is a perfect example of the policy/supplement relationship being formed).

See, tagging a page like WIARM with {{essay}} gives the wrong impression to new users who are confused about exactly what "Ignore All Rules" means. We've had many instances of someone coming along the IAR talk page (and other users' talk pages) asking "What exactly does this policy mean?" and we've pointed them to WIARM. They read the page and understood the policy better. If we were to tag the page with the essay template, the new user would read the template and be confused -- why are editors pointing them to a page that says that they're not obliged to follow it? I think excessive {{essay}} tagging to otherwise very useful pages is unhelpful to new and otherwise inexperienced users. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is a rather strange dispute, I can imagine an outsider not understanding what it is all about. A user being sent to WP:WIARM is well advised that the information is an essay and not mandatory. To tell them otherwise would be misinforming them. If the community wanted that pages content to be policy they could do so, but they have not.

That being said, I think our fundamental disagreement may be one of semantics. Your comments have led me to believe that you feel the wording of WP:IAR, without further qualifications, will lead users into performing actions that will lead to them being blocked. I disagree, as WP:IAR nowhere says that others need to accept you actions or that you will be immune to the results.

If one reads the policies as a whole it is clear that certain actions such as disruption will lead to certain actions such as blocked. While WP:IAR invites you to violate those rules for the benefit of Wikipedia, it does not state any immunity to the consequences of your actions.

Our disagreement about how the policy should be aside, I would like to talk about how policy is decided upon.

My primary concern is that policy should not be written by well meaning people who are sure they are correct. Using the "supplement" to replace an essay tag does two major things: 1) It removes the statement that the page is advice and is not mandatory, 2) it labels it as a supplement to policy which gives the impression that it is policy.

This is all well and good if there has been a consensus to do so, but that is not how it is being used at all.

All told, I am not opposed to changing most policy. I think that if there is to be an explanation of WP:IAR that it should be on a different page. I think that if that explanation has consensus to be policy it should be. But I do not think there has ever been consensus for that explanation of IAR to be policy.

While I did agree to the addition of the supplement tag, I will point out that at the time it was worded as such: "This essay supplements Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects the opinions of some of its author(s). Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page."

With this wording it is really no different than an essay accept it has an associated policy. But with the current wording: "This page is a supplement to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules" it appears to be policy, and that was never agreed to. 1 != 2 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position, and for what it's worth, I liked the old wording on the supplement tag, too. And don't get me wrong: I'm not wedded to {{supplement}}. I guess my big problem is that tagging a page with {tl|essay}} is that a) on occasion, it does give out advice that is absolutely necessary and useful to new users, and that tag gives the wrong impression, and b) it puts a page such as WIARM on the same level as WP:Five pillars of evil. That is unacceptable.

We really do need some kind of consensus about what to do with the pages that are in between an essay and a policy/guideline. Maybe that tag is {{supplement}}; maybe it's not. Maybe the answer is to not have tags on articles like WIARM. I don't know. What I do know is that tagging a page that dispenses very useful advice and then states that no one needs to adhere to it is disruptive. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In respond to point a), If the community felt the advice was necessary it can make it policy if it so chooses to, if they do not choose to do this than its necessity is an opinion not a fact. In response to point b) Just because some essays are not good advice, does not mean that anything tagged an essay is diminished, nor does it mean that a good essay is suddenly more than an essay.

You seem to be under the opinion that "essay" is a diminutive term, it is not. It means an exposition of opinion, and however good the advice may be it is still opinion until consensus decides to call it more. Wishful thinking or really thinking it should be so is not a basis for making an essay policy. Make your argument and reach a consensus, if you fail to reach that consensus then that must be accepted. The creation of this vague quasi policy state called "supplement" seems to create the illusion an essay is more than it really is, and I dare say there was some intent behind that.

This whole matter has been confused by the fact that while consensus was reached for the supplement tag to be used, that tag at the time labeled the page as an essay and has since changed to give the impression that it is part of polict. There was never a consensus for it not to be an essay. If you think users disregarding the essay may have a bad result, then state that in the essay. But it must be clear that the page is opinion based advice until there is consensus for it to be more. 1 != 2 19:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Feh. We'll be twirling around in circles for days if we continue here. The thing is, on Wikipedia, "essay" is a diminutive term. In their current form, essays mean nothing. Opinions? No necessity to adhere to the text? We might as well add "Sure, you can write an essay on Wikipedia if you want to feel better about yourself, but it won't do any good or improve the project" to {{essay}}. Would that get the point across?

That's the great thing about the supplement tag. It allows for certain pages to exist that help to explain a part of a policy that wouldn't otherwise fit into the policy page. Wikipedia is expanding, and with it, so are the policy pages. It's just as simple as that. And I think that one major problem we're dealing with here is the fact that it's nearly impossible to enact a new policy or guidelne. It would be all great and good to spout out the cookie cutter response ("Don't use {{supplement}}, use {{proposed}}), if the process actually worked, but as Kim has noted on many occasions, it doesn't. As it stands right now, we have a process that needs to be fixed. {{supplement}} helps fix that problem. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

Those black and blinking versions of the projectpage back in 2007 looked awful, tho I can't recall which particular diff was most outrageous. However, I do have some saner diffs showing the oldest, and older versions of the page, looking pretty much like the current revision. Cheers! Newbyguesses - Talk 00:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually thought the black version was rather eye-catching. Good compilation, though! Although now that I refresh the page it looks as though you deleted them... to bad, I had some additions to some saner (and, for a while at least, consensus supported) versions. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Those diffs are still at the link above. Just scroll down to the bottom of the page. If you want to make a list of revisions that are sane, you can do it in your userspace, that would be cool, I think. I wasn't involved in that episode, which anyway is well in the past now. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is well in the past. That said, a chronicle of change is always a useful resource. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

I was wondering if you ever did a checkuser on this guy. I was going to put one in for one of the puppets (which is how I found your page) and thought I ought to check with you first. I notice you haven't edited in almost a month so I don't even know if you'll be reading this. You can reply here, I'll watch this page. If I don't hear from you soon, I'll just go ahead and put it in. Thanks —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Comedy Horn

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Comedy Horn, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. triwbe (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zykos (album)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Zykos (album), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. triwbe (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Theneinpromo.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Theneinpromo.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:ShutUpStella2.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:ShutUpStella2.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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Rockstar915! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shut Up Stella

The article Shut Up Stella has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable band.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Zykos for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zykos is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zykos until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Rockstar915,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RUBBISH listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:RUBBISH. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:RUBBISH redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Vermont (band)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Vermont (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Vermont (band)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Vermont (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)