User talk:Caper13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Caper13, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

bibliomaniac15 Review? 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Award

The Exceptional Newcomer Award
Wow! You've demonstrated a remarkably quick understanding of Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! bibliomaniac15 Review? 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Assistance please

Your report at WP:AN/3RR looks just fine. As to why no admin has responded to it, I have no answer better than response times can be aggravatingly inconsistent on Wikipedia due to the all volunteer nature of the project. I have not not performed a block myself due to my previous encounters with User:Eleemosynary having made me less than objective in this issue. Hopefully a neutral admin will see your post soon and take appropriate action. --Allen3 talk 17:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries about not doing the block yourself. I saw you had a history with the user and didnt ask you act on the request for just that reason. I might like to be an Admin myself one day and understand the care a good Admin has to take when dealing with issues or people they have some connection to. Since I havent done it before and there seems to be a specific format, I just wanted a verification that I didnt enter the request incorrectly :) Thanks for checking! Caper13 18:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rush Limbaugh edit summary [1]

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

By the way, I have blocked User:Eleemosynary for the 3RR violation. Cheers! --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 22:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for everything, including your advice. I'll try to stay more Zen in the future when dealing with people and situations like that. I could have used another edit summary that would have conveyed the same message without sounding as snotty. Live and learn.Caper13 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Kiski

Thanks for the comment and for jumping into that mess. I have to say that this was the most frustrating vandal fight I have been in yet. By the time I reverted one thing, one of the IPS had jumped in with something new. It was impossible to get a clean version. Thank goodness for the cavalry. -Kubigula (ave) 05:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


I dont understand why you took out that student piece of the kiski article. i am currently a student at that school (Edward Poon, class of 2009, check if u dont blieve me) and all of what it said was true or stated directly from teachers.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edpoon (talk • contribs).

Hi Ed. See your talk page. Caper13 06:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good response to the above question. He asked a similar one on my talk page and I was working on a reply - but, you were first, and I got edit conflicted. I guess I'll have to save my pearls of wisdom for another time.-Kubigula (ave) 06:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing paragraphs without reading their sources

Caper13, you have repeatedly edited paragraphs of the Rush Limbaugh article that you admittedly have not read the sources for. As can be expected, this has the end result of making it so that the paragraphs do not say what the sources say. This has the effect of both putting misinformation into the article as well as attributing the misinformation to the source. This is not acceptable. You can't write encyclopedia articles based on what you wish sources said. You can't attribute things to sources that they never said. Including your unsourced misinformation is not appropriate, and sourcing it major news organizations makes your edits even worse. I will continue to correct this. As the top of the talk page dsays, "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." Please, try to edit this article based on what sources actually report rather than your own personal point of view. WillyWonty 01:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I havent read the sources is because they are your sources, not mine, and you have been unable to cite sources that are verifiable on the web to back up your claim to the lasting impact and importance of this event. I am trusting you that the sources refer to the incidents you claim and have asked you several times to find sources that are verifiable. Subsequently blaming me because your sources are not verifable is hardly fair. My edits arent even contradicting your sources. I am just condensing the section because consensus believes that this section is far too large and undue weight is being put on this event. Having three seperate people saying essentially the same thing in three seperate sentences is a little bit much, especially for an event that is barely notable on its own.Caper13 01:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Your personal point of view is that this event is not notable. You are also trying to remove the sourced analysis from people expressly stating that the event is notable. This has to be about the clearest possible example of editing to promote a personal point of view. You state your point of view, and then try to edit out anything that does not conform to your point of viewe. Just take a step back and think about it. I also disagree with your ideas about what is verifiable. Any decent local library should be able to find you these sources if you can't find them yourself. Is there some Wikipedia Law that all sources must be on the web soemwhere? This seems like it would make it extremely difficult to find any source that meets your idea of "verifiable" for any event before 1995. And, yes, your edits do contradict the sources -- you are attributing things to Sajak that he does not say. WillyWonty 01:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I retained the statement where Sajak said that the confrontation was legendary around CBS... How is that me trying to push my POV? (my POV in fact is the opposite: that the event is not notable or legendary). I just removed statements from two unrelated people who said essentially the same thing. Consensus found that we did not need all the quotes. I kept the quote from the primary source. What incorrect statement am I attributing to Sajak?.Caper13 01:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

No problem! Me too I'm doing sometimes those mistakes.--JForget 02:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

Dude are you sreious I got my picture of Lil Jon up! I have been trying to findout how to upload pictures like forever. Sorry, I'll use the sandbox next time. By the way it was not my idea for the picture to be of Lil Jon.

[edit] pointlessweb

I know the domain is only eight dollars, but the domain isn't the only problem. I am only a teen. I have very little money. A ebsite also requires a web server. THESE COST AT LEAST 600 DOLLARS! THAT IS MORE THAN I HAVE!!!!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pointlessweb (talk • contribs) .

Check this out. [2]. this is a place that will allow you to set up a website and have a domain for free. Hope that helps you. That is sort of outside the scope of our initial discussion though which was that your can't promote your site on wikipedia. Sorry. It ain't gonna happen and not just because I say so. Anyone else here would say the same thing. Hope the solution I suggested works out for you.Caper13 00:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] give America9 more chances

I think it was unfair to give America9 his only warning immediately. He is a new user and his offense was not serious enough for a last warning.

You can leave me a message at my talk page.

THank you. WmCliff 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: America9

many new users will vandalize as there first page. i think that might have been how i started, and now i check for vandalism. you are coreect though that Veinor gave him a chance and directed him to the sandbox, and he didnt change.

lol. i retracted my warning as well because Veinor was doing it at the same timeWmCliff 04:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible edit war going on with you and Malber!

It appears you and Malber are in an edit war at Ann Coulter. See the edits (Consensus hasnt formed to use THIS image. I for one am still searching for alternates and consensus was to leave the page blank in meantime. It looks better blank than with that free photo.) -- 11:13, December 1, 2006 and Revert to revision 91339154 dated 2006-12-01 08:06:49 by Kizzle using popups -- 13:24, December 1, 2006]. -Will Pittenger 21:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have only made one edit to that page today which you have referenced above (and three edits ever). Are you suggesting I am engaging in an Edit war or have I misunderstood you? Would you elaborate on just what you mean? Caper13 21:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No. The two of you disagree. The revert did not appear to be due to vandalism. So if you are not careful, you will have an edit war. Will (Talk - contribs) 22:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, as it was him that reverted me then I guess I am in the clear. Personally, I am waiting for others to chime in before I make any more edits concerning that particular point. That page has enough edit wars going on as it is. Caper13 22:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to YouTube video in the Marvin Heemeyer article

User:69.107.89.200 has re-inserted the link to the YouTube video. Could you put a longer explanation of your objection to the link on the Talk Page? I think you said it was non-encyclopedic. I'd like to understand why you think so.

thanx.

--Richard 02:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

On of the clips was set to heavy metal music in the form of a music video, and as such it was non encycplopedic. If I'm not mistaken, the guy in the bulldozer was eventually killed wasn't he? The second was a direct copy from some TV newsmagazine show (as was presumably the first which had heavy metal rather than the announcer's voice), and was a copyright violation (both were probably copyright violations). The video was interesting, I'll grant that but I dont think it qualifies for inclusion in the form that it was in. Caper13 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: East Bay High School

I marked the East Bay High School article for speedy deletion because it is a vanity page. It also lacks notability. The reason I say that only those directly involved with the school (students, parents, teachers, administrators, et. al.) would ever read the page is because, for the most part, these are the only people that are even aware of the school's existence (note the usage of the words "for the most part", I am allowing for the possibility that there is a small exception, but I can at least guarntee that there is not a huge base of unrelated individuals that even know of the school's existence)

If I am still in the wrong, please explain, in detail, why on my user talk page. --Segin 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally a vanity page is a page someone writes about themselves or their group (in the case of a small club or musicians). As a large High School, presumably one of the main schools of the community, the school would be notable for that fact. No one deletes articles about small villages or towns even though they may have fewer inhabitants than that school. I'm not saying the school has a huge amount of notability, but in my opinion, it has enough to stay, and its not hurting anyone in the meantime unless the students put some stupid stuff in there. It may also be notable because some noteworthy people went there, and in time that information may get added. In general, the db-school tag is more likely to apply to small schools (beauty schools, trade schools, etc) that few people attend, has little standing in the community, etc. In any case, it doesn't qualify for a speedy delete even if you feel it is not notable. Caper13 05:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This makes sense. Also, if you're for a few laughs, check the article revision history. For example, check the References on revision 86532116, the General Inforation section in revision 80834109, and the intelligence of the editor of revision 80833216.
Articles like this do tend to attract more than their fair share of either vandalism, or well intentioned but enencyclopedic entries. It sort of goes with the territory. Caper13 17:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Matt Drudge Portrait JPEG.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Matt Drudge Portrait JPEG.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Provided. Caper13 23:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather that add the comments you added, you might investigate {{Promo}}. As such, you could probably remove all the copyright discussion that is there. Otherwise, people that never scroll down would conclude the rational was never given. -Will Pittenger 23:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you use Image:Amygrant2005promo.jpg as an example. You might move your comments to Image talk:Matt Drudge Portrait JPEG.jpg. You certianly should remove the other license template. Once it is gone, you should be able to dump the licensing section. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dinosaurs in the Bay

Ok, next time i'll cite where reports of dinosaurs come from. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.193.117 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

No prob, as long as you dont say they are coming from The Hub. haha. Seriously, dont waste your energy making joke edits. They will usually be reverted pretty quickly anyway. Why not make valid entries that will enhance the article and stay there. Caper13 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/p/User_talk%7ECaper13_5157.html"