User talk:OneSixOne
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome
Additional tips:
- Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
- Always use wikiquette
- Write from a neutral point of view
- If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
- Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
- You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
- Always use edit summaries when editing pages.
- You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
- If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language
- Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.
--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 04:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Michael Jackson
Don't remove pictures without justification. Leave it where it is.--Crestville 17:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, no? Don't need justification to add pics. And By the By, I didn't add it. Read the talk page for more info. Girl.--Crestville 16:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC) --Crestville 16:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Reported you to Admin, do it again and they could block you. You are a cunt.--Crestville 18:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your retaliation
Just because Crestvilla attacked you doesn't mean you get a free kick [1]. Please don't engage in personal attacks; you can be blocked for it. --Tony Sidaway 21:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Picture
Why don't you like the picture? I would like to know. It is an honest question. Wallie 21:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, I notice that you have taken the picture out 3 times. Did you know that they can block you for doing this. I am not an official, and am telling you this to try and help you. I think it would be best to have a rest, and then discuss on the talk page why you want the picture removed. I'm sure you have a good reason. You have to be patient. There's plenty of time. The article will still be around in 5 or 10 years. Wallie 22:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, unlike Wallie I am official. I do agree with him that you should probably explain why you're removing the picture. If other people want to put it back then they will and your attempts to remove it will have been pointless, and eventually, if you keep it up, you will be blocked, probably by me. So please be nice and explain politely, on Talk:Michael Jackson, why the picture should be removed. You should try to get the others to agree with you. --Tony Sidaway 16:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay mate, firstly I'd like to apologise for calling you a cunt, I genuinely thought you were a vandal. You're not supposed to remove images/infomation without giving an explaination and in repeatedly doing so I simply assumed you were a vandal. I did leave the door open for you to give your reasons by starting a discussion on the talk page, but perhaps you didn't see it. Right here's the problems resolved:
It sounds like it it's O.K. to mount such attacks on 'pedia, cos I got a warning whilst he got nothing what so ever.
Actually I got blocked, and rightly so. I heartily apolgise.
Secondly, I removed that image because I don't believe that it serves any purpose on that page. Michael jackson has performed literally hundred's of events, so why that image.
Because it corrolates with a particular story from Jacksons life which is included right next to it in the article and it's legal for us to use.
What if user A adds another image of MJ performing at wembley, user B adds another image, user C ... adds, and so on and forth. Imagine what the article will look like.
True, that would be undesireable, but ONE picture is actually beneficial and as it stands, that is the only one. The article needs at least one image of Jackson on stage seeing as he is a prolific stage performer. For a good article you'd need one of each notable stage/aspect of his life, so, say, one from his Motown years, early, mid and late solo career, dancing, on stage, that big statue, and a recent one. And maybe one with the monkey.
That image wasn't there to start with... It is clearly obvious that crestville is nothing more than someone who is there to stop the progress of the article.
Of course the image wasn't there to start with. There was nothing there to start with. It was a blank page to start with. The whole point of wikipedia is that users add to it an attempt to improve the quality of the article. It is an ever-moving, ever developing thing. If I were trying to stop it's progress I would start deleting things.
he put it there.
No I didn't. User:Manboobies did.
Dont have to go very far!. Today ... Goes as far as comparing Michael Jackson to Hitler! Talk about launching personal attacks!
That's taken out of context so I'll disregard it.
It is clear that there are more pressing images that are needed. E.g. Not all images of his albums are present (which is what primarily the article should be about).
Actually, if you look at most musicians articles, you will find that album covers tend to be consigned to their own articles about the album. One or two album covers may be included, but only really if the contain an clear image of the artist(s). Look at featured articles like The Beatles, Bob Dylan and Louis Armstrong. Granted, Pink Floyd uses lots of album covers, but then there are few good pictures of PF. There are, however, an abundance of
I don't like him, I make no secrets about it, but I'm not trying to harm the article, and, as I've sed, I didn't add it in the first place. I don't like Smokie, Shack and Tony McCaroll either, but I've created good articles on them. Again, sorry I kicked off, let us not fight. My reasons for keeping the picture are on the Jackson talk page somewhere but the crux of it is that the article lacks original images of Jackson and I think that one should say (it also helps that I like Jarvis Cocker and find that particluar story quite interguing)--Crestville 21:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of picture from the Michael Jackson article
You do really need to start discussing this issue on the talk page. Another removal or two and I'll probably block you from editing for a bit.
On your wish to have the article protected, I suggest that instead of adding templates as here you go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Tony Sidaway 19:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jackson
Will you please stop messing about with the pictures on the Michael Jackson page? Yes, we know the other picture looks better but it is NOT FAIR USE so we CANNOT LEGALLY USE IT. Is that hard for you to understand? You are disturbing the working of the article by constantly reverting other peoples hard work without the deasency to explain your actions. The admins have warned you about this. Do you think you have some divine right to undo the work of others? And before you accuse me of hating Jackson, or putting that picture there myself, I did not put it there, I merely restored it after you moved it. Fact of the matter is, that's his face. It's what he looks like. It goes.--Crestville 14:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Michael Jackson vandalism
I've blocked Jyank91 indefinitely as a vandalism only account. He might be back so watch out. Let me know if there are any problems, or if I'm not online, report to AIV. Also leave templates on vandal talk page {{test1-n|Michael Jackson}} or a more general one {{test1}}. Start with that then each time increase the number, so the next time there's vandalism add another template but with the number 2, ad then the next time 3, then 4. Vandalism after no.4 will result in an immediate block when reported, possibly after 3. You can miss early numbers in certain circumstances, e.g. when they've already got warnings, as with this user, or if vandalism is very serious. Make sure it's genuine bad faith vandalism and not just an annoying but good faith edit conflict. Tyrenius 23:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
