User talk:TigerManXL
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] License tagging for Image:JohnVogel4Life.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JohnVogel4Life.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:Vogel24.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vogel24.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] John Vogel
Whoops! After I looked at the page, I didn't see any vandalism, but when I saw you calling a person a 'Mortal Kombat character' I thought you must be the vandal. I have to say that I do not see any vandalism and, in fact, perfer the other version. What do you disagree with? It seems to be clearer. Prodego talk 00:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Based on this edit, you may want to read WP:OWN. This other user's edits seem to be positive, making the article clearer, and there is no reason to believe the IPs are related. Removing the image could be seen as vandalism, but the page had two pictures in it already, and it does look a little crowded. Technicly, niether the Reiko image nor the Cage image should be on the page, because they are both Fair use images. Prodego talk 00:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please stop reverting. If you continue, you will be in violation of the three revert rule. Discuss changes you disagree with, don't undo them without discussion. Prodego talk 00:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
He/she did discuss the changes there and you blanked that discussion. I suggest using L T Dangerous's version, I think it is easier to read and looks better. What is it you dislike about it. Prodego talk 00:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, good. (P.S., I just checked, L. T. is a he). Prodego talk 02:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Preview
Concerning your edits to John Vogel, it would be much more productive if you used the preview button when editing pages as extensively as you are - you are filling the edit history with dozens of edits that make the history unreadable and makes it difficult to compare your edits to other versions. Also, edit summaries would be much appreciated as well. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 04:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked
I have blocked you for thirty minutes for restoring copyvio images on John Vogel - please stop re-adding those images, and once again I must plead with you to use the preview button. Your edits have made the edit history unreadable at this point so that it is very difficult to compare different versions of the articles. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 04:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Warning
Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to John Vogel. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
You don't own the John Vogel article. Do not remove the {{sources}} flag from the article until you have addressed the problems the article has (as you have done before [1]), and do not blank out the comments of others (as you have also done [2]), especially if they are in disagreement with you; it makes it very hard for other editors to assume good faith about your edits.
You have a trouble history of Wikipedia editing, and if you continue making such single-minded edits, you will likely be banned again. Assuming you don't want that to happen, I would recommend you alter your behavior. EVula 19:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Changing other editor's talk page comments
Do not change other editor's comments to talk pages, as you did to Talk:John Vogel here. Such edits are vandalism, and if you continue, you will be blocked. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 16:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] John Vogel
Hi. I noticed your commnent on the AFD debate for the John Vogel article.
On the one hand, you'll no doubt be pleased to learn that the article was kept; in fact, we decided that the article was nominated in bad faith, and the user in question (a repeat vandal) has been blocked indefinitely.
On the other hand, your statement "This is my article and you have no right to delete it" is inaccurate; I would like to suggest that you read WP:OWN, which is official Wikipedia policy.
You do not own the article. Wikipedia owns the article. You created the article, yes, and that's very good, but it's not yours in that sense.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. DS 17:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anti-Vogel
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the person who nominated it for deletion did so because he was being a jerk. I read through his list of contributions, and just about everything he did was vandalism (even falsely adding "protected" tags to articles, to deter people from fixing them!). The one thing he did that wasn't vandalism was adding a "needs sources" tag to an article about Mortal Kombat... and, given what you've just told me, I'm going to check to see if he's the one who removed the sources in the first place.
So he's blocked, and if he shows up again with a new account, that one will be blocked too, and so on.
As for a way to deter vandals... um. That'd be really nice. Short of chopping off their hands, well, put the article on your watchlist, and whenever it gets vandalized, just revert it. If it gets vandalized a LOT, you can request that an administrator protect it and/or block the idiots responsible. DS 18:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
