User talk:CamperStrike
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] Immigration article
I have redirected your article on illegal immigration to Illegal immigration to the United States, as there is already a robust article there on the topic. Feel free to focus your editing efforts there. Thanks! FCYTravis 22:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] General Kelley's article
Hey, thanks for creating the redirects and the attempted article for General Kelley. I did some digging and found that we already have an article on him (weird spelling) at Paul X. Kelley, so I just redirected them there. Cheers!--Kchase T 08:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edit summaries
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. -- JHunterJ 15:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:Ford2005CarLineUP.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ford2005CarLineUP.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. 23:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:St. Lucia Estuary, South Africa.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:St. Lucia Estuary, South Africa.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:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:YoungAnandLalShimpi.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:YoungAnandLalShimpi.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nusbaum
Please do not create articles that have external links only. Academic Challenger 00:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tsvi C. Nussbaum
Did you even look at the 2nd link (deathcamps.org/occupation/gunpoint.html) under External Links in that article? I suggest you read section 1.2, as it clearly shows that it is unlikely that Tsvi Nussbaum is the boy in the photo. I have no past bias in this case, as I knew nothing about Tvsi Nussbaum until yesterday. In the future, resolve disputes on the talk page, not by reverting. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-29 11:32Z
- Hi. Both death-camps.org and deathcamps.org links are being blacklisted and deleted due to copyright concerns and complaints to the Foundation.[1] I'm one of several people going around disabling these links on a rush basis. --A. B. (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Yellowstone National Park
I appreciate your efforts to cleanup the article, but it is already too crowded with images. I will remove a few that can be found in the commons link at the references.--MONGO 09:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Camperstrike...I'm sure you think you're doing the best thing for the Yellowstone article, but I am the one who has been removing images that aren't helpfull and causing the crowding whereby you're reducing them to the point where they are not even visible...that doesn't help at all. I know you just want to help and I encourage you to do so, but you'll have to be more standard with your contributions if you expect them to stick around. I would also like to remind you to use timestamp signatures whenever you make a comment on a talkpage, and to use edit summarys by typing a quick not about your editing in the summary window that always appears below the editing window. Thanks.--MONGO 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Rusty Humphries Small.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rusty Humphries Small.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:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rusty Humphries Small.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rusty Humphries Small.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
- On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. --Chowbok ☠ 02:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me if I make a mistake in this area, I am still learning how wiki works. That photograph is the one rusty distributes to all the radio stations for advertising, promotional, and publicity use.
[edit] Yellowstone again
HI...mind using only this account to make edits, instead of an IP as well? I have asked for the Yellowstone article to be protected from editiing and then you'll be forced to duscuss changes on the article talk page. Thanks.--MONGO 09:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Camperstrike, I just reverted your revert, the edit summary "Reverted destructive edits" you used was not really adequate as there was nothing destructive there.
What screen resolution are you useing? I have mine set at 800x600 (lowest available) and have no problem with the images set at the 250+/- range. Only in one or two spots is there a bit of text squeeze which can be solved by slight repositioning.
Also please log in when you edit - I'm assuming that several of the anon. talk page comments are yours. We need to work together to improve the article, so please cease and discuss specific changes on the talk page to avoid any need for page protection. Thanks, Vsmith 11:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Yellowstone once again
I looked for you message on the article you mention and it's buried somewhere...leave new comments at the bottom of talk pages, not the top...please start signing your posts on talkpages with ~~~~...please stop insisting that I am the one who is being a nonconformists...look at three featured articles that are a part of the protected areas project...Banff National Park, Glacier National Park (US), Redwood National and State Parks. Notice how all those featured articles have set image sizes...about 250px...notice how they have lots of text and aren't dominated by images? Notice how the text is well cited with references...that is what Yellowstone National Park should look like...but I can't get it to look like those articles because you spend all your time insisting that everyone has to do it your way...the articles are not free web hosting for images...too many images and they can go into the commons subpage. Either work with me (and, by the way, I am not following you around...I edit the same articles you have been, and I have been editing them for some time now)...or expect to see your work reverted if you are going to continue to be disruptive.--MONGO 10:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Non-conformist? I doubt that.
Before I started editing and cleaning up this article, it was a huge mess with irrelavant photographs of a tree stump and pictures that were cascading all the way accross the screen and were covering and pusing text all over the place.
"you spend all your time insisting that everyone has to do it your way" "look at three featured articles that are a part of the protected areas project" "Notice how all those featured articles have set image sizes...about 250px..."'
We all know that you may have fixed a few spelling errors in some featured article and I have done the same, now get over it! I feel that every time I contibute fresh information you are the one who reverts it. An example is the Wildfire article. You went in and changed something that had been part of the article for over 9 months and with stood the test of 500+ edits. It belongs there and why would you delete it? (I did not add the panarama in the first place).
Todays user article features mixed size pictures
- Notice how all those featured articles have set image sizes...about 250px...
I highly doubt your claim that having a 250px Image size will get you a feature status. Here are a few random samples I have pulled from the past-
Randon Past Featured Article that has Jumbo Sized Images.
This article has a comparable amount of photographs in large and mixed sizes, none are 250px and it features a panaramic shot.
The Article on Mt. Saint Helens has 16 photographs, the page is plastered in them and it too was a featured article.
The history of Arizona article is dominated by a large 600*875 map of arizona and it was also a featured article.
Others
Lots of images here, none are 250px
Do I need to give you more examples of how may be incorrect in your "featured article" theories?
Ok, one more. The japanese imperial navy has more photographs than Yellostone.
CamperStrike
- I started 2 featured articles adding the vast majority of the text to them. I completely re did two other articles that were a big mess and made them featured with assistance since this is a collaborative effort. I deepy resent your comments (that are false) that I did a few spelling corrections. All you have added is images...that seems to be your facination. In some articles you reduce them to a point where they can hardly be seen, while in others...ie:Roosevelt Arch...the image is the entire page! You add text on rare occasions that is mostly unreferenced...so do whatever you want. If other see your work, they can decide if they agree with it. Just respond here rather than at my talkpage so the conversation is in one location.--MONGO 12:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I deepy resent your comments (that are false) that I did a few spelling corrections
I meant that in a metaphorical kind of way. Weather it be big or small (i.e. spelling) all contribute to articles and everyones input is equally important. As soon as the edit war is over, I will have more free time to add to the article in a postitive manner.
[edit] Yellowstone human history
Why did you remove the Human History section for Yellowstone without any explanation?
- I thought I did sign my name, I apologize for that. But anyway, this indicates that is was your account. Whether or not it was actually you, I do not know, nor do I care. It was your account, thus your responsibility. But nevertheless I was justified in my question since the edit was obviously done under your name. And please check YOUR facts before you go accusing someone of doing something who had just cause to do so, or at least offer an apology when you realize you're wrong. Phaldo 19:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ArbCom
If this is you leaving this message, can you please login to your account and give some indication that you did in fact leave that message. Thank you. Right now its attributed to you but logged as by an anon. --NuclearZer0 20:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Explanation requested
Can you explain why you removed the entire human history section from the Yellowstone article [2] and deliberately mispelled the words in the remaining section, including changing "built" to "bult", "many" to "may", "National" to "Natioal", "Service" to "Srvice" and "prescribed" to "prscribed"? I would not be bothered had you removed the human history section by accident, but altering the spelling in the remaining sections is just vandalism. Just respond here if you can. Thanks.--MONGO 20:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like MONGO is accusing other editors of vandalism again, I can't keep up with all of his WP:NPA attacks. In only examining the last 10 days I have 3 pages of evedience of his behavior.
- CamperStrike, I appreciate you adding your opinion to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence#Evidence_presented_By_CamperStrike. Can you please add links to the accusations you make? That means you have to go through your edit history and cut and paste the internet address in the address bar. for example, my last edit on:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence
Can be found by pressing the history button:
I then click the "last" button next to the edit I want to add to the evidence page:
I then add [ ] around this address, which creates: [3]
I am currently finding and compiling evidence of another brand new editor User:MONGO WP:BITE, User:Cplot who was indefinetly banned by him. And I can't add those edit differences here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence#Evidence_presented_By_CamperStrike without your persmission. Further, even if I had your permission, you know the edit war between yourself and MONGO better than I do. Travb (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested Arbitration Links
I will work on the links over the next few days, but It wont be happening over the next few days and that is because of my job and the holiday season. - USER:CamperStrike
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:The-Pirate-bay-dot-org-NOV 22 2006 5am-est.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:The-Pirate-bay-dot-org-NOV 22 2006 5am-est.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 14:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:TomsHardwareDE-AUG-09-2006.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:TomsHardwareDE-AUG-09-2006.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
