User talk:BlastOButter42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Image:WQXR Listen Now.gif

[edit] Image:WQXR broadcasting range.jpg

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Stlukes.jpg

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

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

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.

[edit] Your GFDL question

Greetings. I answered your question at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Can I use this copyright template? All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:NYCS-R4-1.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:NYCS-R4-1.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

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

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Stan 12:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: um...how exactly do you play?

Peep.

[edit] statue of liberty picture

I' m glad that you like the picture. Feel free to use my picture of the Statue of Liberty embellished by golden sunsetand with credit and don't forget to forward me the link of your website I would like to see you! Geographer 09:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You could simply go by my wiki screen name User:Geographer, thx. Geographer 21:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NotTired.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Ceilingcat1.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Ceilingcat1.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Today's featured article

Just wanted to let you know a featured article you worked on, 0.999..., was featured today on the Main Page. Tobacman 00:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IP block

Hi there! Thanks for your message.

The blocking administrator wasn't me: I was just the one who reduced the block from full to anonymous only to prevent collateral damage.

• 19:55, 9 October 2006 User:Redvers blocked "72.14.194.31 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 727 hours (please log in if you wish to edit, thank you)
• 19:54, 9 October 2006 User:Redvers unblocked 72.14.194.31 (contribs) (Collateral damage; will reblock AO)
• 03:00, 9 October 2006 User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me blocked "72.14.194.31 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 744 hours (please log in if you wish to edit, thank you)

You'll need to contact User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me about the block.

Thanks! ➨ ЯEDVERS 07:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you want to change your username...

Hi. I saw on your userpage your comment that you don't want to be "User:WindowsWizard12" anymore, but you also don't want to delete the account and start over. Pardon me if this is obvious, but are you familiar with Wikipedia:Changing_username? There is the ability to change you to a new name of your choice while retaining your contribution history to date. Hope that might be helpful. Newyorkbrad 05:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No I wasn't familiar with that, I'll check it out. Thanks. Robert 13:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your userpage

Hi, I suggest that you remove the sentence "To not leave messages for this user, screw off" from your userpage. That's not acceptable language or behavior on Wikipedia, whether it's directed at one particular user or at the community as a whole. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert. I appreciate it. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Web Accelerator

You do not need to disable it wholesale, only for this website. See Wikipedia:No open proxies for an explanation why. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

As requested, I have renamed you as User:BlastOButter42. You should now move your userpages to the new name. Warofdreams \'\'talk\'\' 00:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Account

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thepresident1

[edit] Brakspear

Hi there. I'm wondering why you reverted my change to {{Infobox Brewery}}? Mike Dillon 04:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It was probably a mistake, since I've been reverting vandalism with some automated help that may have flagged your edit as vandalism, though it puzzles me why I didn't catch that it wasn't. Anyway, sorry. Robert 04:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Mike Dillon 05:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Maybe I can help...what are you trying to accomplish with Template:Peurile? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I asked was that you posted it to User talk:85.154.20.244. It looked like you were trying to warn him about his little vandalism spree; I just wasn't sure what template you had in mind! If you want to just get rid of Template:Peurile, the quickest way is to add {{db-author}} to the top of it. That template says "Oops! I created this page by mistake. Could you delete it, please?" -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] speedy deletion for Template:Puerile4

I don't agree with the proposed speedy deletion of this template. It is a warning to users who have committed serious vandalism to articles that is probably "divisive and inflammatory" in itself. -- Robert 05:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how vitriolic the vandalism committed by a user to whom a warning is issued, warning templates should be written in civil language. Describing a user's edits as "puerile" borders on a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and is entirely unnecessary in any case, as template:blatantvandal is quite adequate for warning users who commit serious acts of vandalism. Nonetheless, if you disagree with this proposed speedy deletion, you are welcome to add <noinclude>{{Hangon}}</noinclude> to the template, and to describe why the template shouldn't be deleted on its talk page. John254 05:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand that policy, but I don't think that describing vandalism as "puerile" constitutes a personal attack. Under Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Examples that are not personal attacks it states, "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." -- Robert 05:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Describing vandalism as "puerile" might not actually amount to a personal attack. Indeed, I've seen editors use stronger language in their reports on WP:AIV. However, the language employed in templates placed on user talk pages is held to a high standard of civility, since the templates will be issued to a large number of users. A description of vandalism as "puerile" could be seen involving a user's personal character, by asserting that the user is "puerile". In any case, there is no need to employ this term in a warning template, as the term "unconstructive" employed in template:blatantvandal is quite serviceable. John254 05:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it might be seen to involve a user's character (and even if it did, a user that committed the type of vandalism that would warrant this template is in my opinion most likely a puerile person) but I suppose the other template serves the template. -- Robert ^See Hear _Speak 06:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert, on a completely different issue, you might want to choose a different color for "Speak"; yellow isn't readable on a white background. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now is this color better? -- Robert ^See Hear _Speak 07:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's better; the orange is still a bit hard to read (low contrast with the white background). -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User inquiries

I've been wondering, and since you're an administrator i thought i might ask you, what's an easy way to check how many edits a user has and how long their account has existed? Thanks, -- Robert ^See Hear _Speak 00:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Robert!

I'm probably the editor on Wikipedia who cares least about edit counts (they just don't measure anything useful IMHO) but I think most people use Interiot's wannabe Kate's tool for general edit counts.

As for when an account was created, for users created after (I think) December 2004, if you go to their logs (User page > User contributions link > Logs) there's a log for "User creation". More useful, perhaps, is first edit date - to find this, go to the contribs and click "oldest". At the bottom of the list is the first edit they made.

Hope this helps! ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what i was looking for. -- Robert ^See Hear _Speak 21:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the "Nonsense"

Oh no, thank you good sir. However, that particular event is of great importance to the school. It would be a shame to have it removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lesserlights (talk • contribs).

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I don't think your edits (1, 2) qualify as encyclopedic, even if true. If you continue to vandalize pages in the manner you have, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Robert ^See Hear _Speak 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of edits

Earlier you reverted these edits here [1] and [2]. I was wondering if you had any particular reason why because I was following the Wikipedia:Citation templates format and updating the article. Personally I don't see any reason why these edits were reverted and would like to know why they were changed because in my point of view those edits expand on the citations used and follow wikipedia policy. SirGrant 01:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I just read your thing at the top, if you could respond on my talk page that would be preferable. Thank you SirGrant 01:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sincere apologies. I did not intend to revert those edits. I'm not sure what happened but what seems most likely is that I was trying to revert this vandalism (using User:Lupin's Anti-vandal tool and User:Gwernol beat me to it, and for some reason the tool did not alert me that someone had already reverted it. Anyway, sorry about that. -- Robert ^See Hear _Speak 01:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool cool, don't sweat it. I've had the exact same thing happen to me when I was fighting vandels. Glad we could get that cleared up :) and good hunting! SirGrant 05:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Celingcat2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Celingcat2.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 {{fairusein|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 you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 11:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what's your problem

hey man, what's your problem. Stop vandalizing pages. Janechii 15:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to. I've never, ever (purposefully) vandalized a Wikipedia page since joining two years ago (or, for that matter, before that). Please send me the link to the change you're talking about so I can sort this out. -- Robert ^See Hear _Speak 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] myg0t notability

Hi, while I appreciate the efforts expended by editors like you making sure that non-notable subjects remain off wikipedia, the myg0t page was created only minutes ago, before I had time to add appropriate references detailing the notability of the group. I again thank you for helping, but do you think the article could have a bit of time to develop and establish notability before adding the tag? Please continue discuss any issues you have regarding the subject on the myg0t talk page. I hope you don't mind me removing the nn tag until the issue is discussed further? cacophony ◄► 04:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, sorry if I jumped the gun a bit here -- I've had some experiences with articles about online boards/forums/groups etc. in the past that 99% of the time turn out not to be notable, so I guess I sometimes assume too quickly when it comes to articles about them. But please, if it is notable go ahead and remove the tag and work on the article. -- Robert ^See Hear _Speak 04:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, see [3]. He has had two years to produce reliable sources for this article. It just gets repeatedly re-created and, being the same junk, gets deleted again. —Centrx→talk • 10:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)