User talk:Ivymike21
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Harvard
Hi! Thanks for contacting me. If the Harvard article is, in fact, public domain, it needed to be listed as such. I'll make a note on the copyvio page. Chances are it'll be reverted back to your original version as a result. Best, Lucky 6.9 17:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Simpsons
I'm glad you made your "conservatives like The Simpsons now" addition to The Simpsons. I was just watching it today (the "rancho relaxo" one) and was just thinking "this show really is incredibly conservative, deep down". The article could use a quote or a link to a reference of some notable conservative or conservative group praising The Simpsons. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 20:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Public domain
Hi. In response to this edit of yours, and noticing the above conversation, I wonder if you are confused about what public domain means. It does not mean "made widely available". Please refer to linked article for more information. If you actually have proof that those press releases have been released into the public domain, please provide it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems instead of removing the copyright-violation warnings. Jkelly 19:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you would like to work on an article that has a copyvio notice on it, you can do so by following the copyvio-notice's link to the Temp subpage. In this case, it is at Hannah_Teter/Temp. I have already moved your contribution there. Jkelly 21:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hannah Teter
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Jkelly 21:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Jkelly 21:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for beginning to discuss the matter, even if that beginning wasn't a stellar model of assuming good faith. As I noted above, I have raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Please feel free to chime in there in an attempt to convince other editors that I should break with process and not wait a week before removing the copyright infringement. Jkelly 22:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
As a courtesy for other editors on Wikipedia, please sign your talk page and user talk page posts. By adding four tildes (~) at the end of your comments, your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added. Jkelly 22:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikiality and The Simpsons neologisms
List of neologisms on The Simpsons is a pile of crap, isn't it? AfD it and I'll absolutely vote delete. In regards to your notions as to my motives, well, you're wrong, but your assertion is largely non-falsifiable so I won't waste much time trying to refute your opinion. JDoorjam Talk 19:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I suppose I misunderstood your point about the Simpsons neologisms. Wikipedia doesn't keep a list of "The Word" subjects; why would we start with this one? What makes this one stand out? JDoorjam Talk 20:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- You're absolutely wrong. People add things all the time, and they're deleted all the time. Have you seen WP:AFD? or [WP:CSD]]? Just because people add a thing, or because a group swarms an article, does not mean a subject is worth including. Notable secondary sources need to comment on anything for its inclusion to even be considered on Wikipedia. If they don't, it's grounds for removal from the project. Anything not rising to that standard should have citations added to it, or should be removed altogether. It's not up to a small, dedicated mob to decide whether something is notable. That's why we have WP:CITE. If you want a site where anyone can enter anything they want because they found it interesting, put it on antiwikipedia.com. JDoorjam Talk 20:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sockpuppetry case
 |
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ivymike21 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. BostonMA talk 23:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- You have removed the sock puppetry notice from your user page. Please reread the "notes for the suspect" where it states:
- If the accuser has listed evidence against you, you are not allowed to remove the notice from your page for ten days. You are allowed to respond to each and every accusation on the evidence page but are not allowed to remove accusations.
- I am restoring the notice. --BostonMA talk 06:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Nov 12 then. Though that seems silly. The matter is settled and they've blocked my other account indefinitely. I'm pretty aggrivated since I didn't break any rules with the other account.
- The rules that you broke with the sockpuppet account are:
- sock puppets may not be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint. This includes ... using more than one account in a discussion at ... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, ..., or on talk pages.
- Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail.
- All users, ... are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of policy violations or disruption.
- You used a "good hand" account to make safe edits, then used your "bad hand" account to remove an AfD tag.
- You stated an untruth with your alternate account in this comment
- "I categorically deny that I am a sock puppet or meat puppet of utzchips, or any other wikipedian." (emphasis added)
- I hope that you will reflect on these issues so that you may improve as an editor of Wikipedia. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 15:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
