User talk:Kevin Breitenstein/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] World Wrestling whatever

Wow, good job on catching all that vandalism! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message in Talk

Hello, Kevin Breitenstein, did you make a mistake?

[edit] Hey...

I just stated why there should be no "no source." The guy took it himself. How hard is it to believe if he lives there. Is it such a problem to climb a hill and take a photo.

Thanks, Kseferovic 03:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they uploaded it with the words 'FAIR USE' as the summary, there's a problem. There would be no need to put those words if they are the creator of the picture as they are cable of licensing it under an appropreate license. However, most likely the uploader understood this and insted put a 'nice' license so they could upload the image, but then put 'FAIR USE' to explain it. For this, there is still no source to the image as the original submitter didn't even explain why it was fair use, and it can't be guarenteed they didn't do as I said in the previous sentence. I hope this explains why it needs a source. You shouldn't be bugging me, but insted the uploader for more convincing something than 'FAIR USE' and gfd Kevin Breitenstein 04:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baby Mario

Baby Mario is Mario. Just like Dr. Mario is Mario. They're the exact same entity. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Qur'an

Kevin, thanks for drawing that to my attention. I'd meant to revert the changes to the etymology section, but I have no idea how the rest of the article got cut off. I'll be careful when I edit it again. f(x)=ax²+bx+c 06:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism in my userpage. --– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 05:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Warnings - Thank You!

Thank you for your notes to me on User Warnings - most useful. havin signed a few of the warnings, and found that they then came and vandalised my UserPage - I guess the conclusion is the depth's of depravity of Vandals! Keep up the good work - Rgds, - Trident13 07:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your VandalProof Application

Dear Kevin Breitenstein,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.2 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that that although you have been here for a long time, you havn't made quite enough edits to be seen as a trustable member of the community. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. --Xyrael ^T 08:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Note to self 360 < 250. Kevin_b_er 23:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I managed to count you incorrectly. I've approved you now, sorry. --Xyrael ^T 16:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Kevin Breitenstein! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Xyrael ^T 17:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:JapaneseStopSign.gif listed for deletion, as imported from User Talk:Cool Cat

Err, first off, sorry for not signing that. I'm replacing it by a PNG version, basically, per {{Template:BadGIF}} Kevin_b_er 05:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You actualy saved me the work by replacing the .gif -> .png I thank you. .gif be damned! :) --Cat out 05:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi! & Thanks

Thanks for weighing in on the G. Patrick Maxwell article, RfD. I think it is hopeless, though. May I borrow you 'electrical engineer' userbox? I like it very much, and I am an electrical engineer. It's much nicer than th e one I have on my talk page. I am still quite new to Wikopedia, and not familiar with all the notations yet. The articles on Breast Imlants and BI surgeons are intended by a few to be advertisements. That is what I have been trying to avoid. It may be a losing battle. Ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch, aber ich habe zu vielen vergessen. MollyBloom 09:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, its a modification of an electronics engineer userbox I found at some point. The userboxes are all free licensed I'd hope anyways. Kevin_b_er 09:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: DrOliver Self Promotion

I responded to your questioning of the charge with a little history about the good doctor. He was instructed to unlink, BTW.Gfwesq 14:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin, this is in response to Oliver who continues to rant

DrOliver was busted for writing only positive information on silicone implants, deleting negative information and then linking to his business website the wikipedia article he wrote on implants with only positive info. So if you were a prospective patient and you wanted an "unbiased opinion" and you looked at his plastic surgeon website, you would see a "helpful" link to a article on implants with nothing but positive info and if you were not very sophisticated, you wouldn't know he wrote it and deleted any entry with negative information.Gfwesq 15:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did ask for outside input. And I daresay so did Oliver. This surgeon is Rob's mentor, and is not more notable than any other academic. And everything I wrote there is true. And in fact,these are not votes, but comments. And it is important, because Rob has attempted to fill Wikopedia with puff pieces that advance his agenda. He was banned for edit warring; he was told to lay off, he was warned against blanking, told by another plastic surgeon that his edits were too biased, and told that he could not link to his own personal website. If this isn't enough, I don't know what is. Rob Oliver is a menace.MollyBloom 15:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and for the record, I am also an electrical engineer and mathematician in addition to being a lawyer. So while I do not have a degree in medicine, I think I am capable of reading, reasoning and analyzing. Just as you are.MollyBloom 15:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ok...

Ok, its painfully obvious that there's a conflict of editors on that article. Please don't use my talk page as another place to argue with someone other than myself the merits of that article. I've already made my opinion on the article, and preceeding to post comments Kevin_b_er 20:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EasyPizza

Just as a note, it appears the creator of this article has decided your non-advertising version that saved it from AfD won't work, and has reverted to his advertising-laced version. I just tried to revert it, but he changed it again within minutes. Not sure how to approach it beyond that, but thought I'd drop you a note and let you know. Cheers. Tony Fox 05:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

hello what advertising? please check your facts i am not going to allow you to redirect my article about easypizza limited to another company

not sure how to approach it? stop telling lies then

Persistent, isn't he? (Politakis: please see WP:CIVIL.) Tony Fox 06:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly 3RR warning. I actually checked that my latest revert would be legal before making it. Not that I was trying to game the rules — concensus really seems to be for the current version. lowercase 06:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to stir all this up - I really did just stumble over it doing RC patrol, and didn't expect a fight to break out. =P Tony Fox 15:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC) please stop vandalising the easypizza page. Whatever the rules are i have contacted Wikipedia and if it carries on i will not accept the constant vandalism. EasyPizza have a high court order protecting them and this can conceivably include the Wiki page. I dont want to disrupt wiki because their are alot more pages i can create and alot of edits i can also do because in my opinion the easygroup pages are pure spam and SEO so please please stop vandalising the easypizza we are not going away.

I'm sorry your page is interpreted as WP:SPAM by several other people, including me. Kevin_b_er 23:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to mediation, not arbitration. If I typed "arbitration" somewhere, I apologize. I hope it doesn't have to come to either, however. lowercase 00:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that's what Politakas(sp) said, that he was willing to go to mediation or arbitration. I just wanted to make sure he didn't attempt to go to arbitration first without going through the standard dispute resolution process first. Kevin_b_er 00:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfCU clerking

I'm aware of his removing your comment but I felt I was on safer ground because 1) Prometheuspan had already been denied once two days before, 2) Mackensen had said much the same thing in the denied case of TJive and YINever, and 3) the clerks guide page says we can remind people who have presented no evidence but should not judge the sufficiency of evidence if some is offered. I'm sure this will be a learning experience for all of us, Essjay included. (I do find it hard sometimes to not make the obvious opinionated comment, such as admitted socks don't need checkuser (Rex) but I'm learning too.) Thanks for the support. Thatcher131 02:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC) (I'm a little confused about what Prodego's doing. I hope it works.)

[edit] X-men 4

Haha, nice intro. Yea, thanks, someone closed it for me. It was marked as a speedy so I didn't see the AFD. Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 18:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fun integral

I don't know how to insert the signs, so bear with me:

[Integral] asds, where a is a constant. What do you get?MollyBloom 07:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

given above where C is a constant of integration. Kevin_b_er 23:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kitteneatkitten

Kevin_b_er, I think that you may be misstating the facts and being overly harsh with User:Kitteneatkitten. Blocks are not suppose to be punitive. User:Kitteneatkitten last edited on May 19. I don't consider this edit made today as invading a block. [1]. Did someone ask this user why they have two accounts. Also which account is the primary account and which one is the sock needs to be discussed with the user. Mistakes have already been made in this case. I think we need to use extra caution to make sure that we are all on the same page. FloNight ^talk 02:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you put the lies on the Tony Alamo page?

I don't understand why you are suddenly involved. As the other person mr freak of whatever. The lies that someone has put in Wiki against Tony Alamo are indeed slanderous.

Are there not guidelines in wiki about deliberately lying, distorting, and withholding the truth of history because of disgruntled and vindictive persons using an encyclopedia to viciously attack another person?

Why don't YOU check out the Truth?

Do you not want accuracy?

Is this what Wiki is turning into? Just falsely accuse someone You don't like, subverting the very existence of the constitutional rights into monarchy?

Narrow is the way

They are not lies. They are mearly points of view that do not agree with yours, but have been accepted by other editors as neutral point of view. A common problem with controversial figures is that they have groups of people who believe in absolute heniousness of person or the absolute angelicism of him or her. Both claim to be right. And that is the nature of attempting to form a neutral point of view, by not giving in to either side. Your continued edits to that page to a different version seemed to be in direct retrospect to many of the other editors. He seems to be a controversial religious leader; you should make your case fully and carefully on the talk page to that article, with factual backing. Kevin_b_er 06:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

to:Kevin If a point of view, that is not the truth coming from an angry, disgruntled person or persons, is not a lie, then tell me what is? by reverting to the wrong version, You are giving-in to one side. That is the wrong side. The Case has been made, and it is there already, have you not read the information I put there? You say I have to have factual backing, the factual backing is already there, the reverted side you are on, doesn't have the factual backing. It is simply opinions of people that claim they are somebody. So if they have a name you heard before, that makes them factual? Nay, they are just eloquent speakers! Narrow is the way

[edit] merge

Sounds reasonable. Then am I confusing it with deletions maybe?--T-man, the wise 03:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Delete, block, and page protections are some technical actions that only admins can do. There's more than that, of course, but merge isn't one of them. Merge is a form of actual editing rather than a singular action that can be clicked or the like. Kevin_b_er 03:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for reverting the changes that idiot did to my User page. Ryulong 05:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Corporate espionage

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. Rompe 07:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagging an article with G4 is not vandalism. And the article is now salted. This misunderstood and out of place warning will be removed(well, archived actually) from the talk page in a week or so. Kevin_b_er 07:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:THISISME

I looked at the older edits also. Like you, I can't confirm or deny the changes in chart positions made to those articles; it simply isn't my area of expertise. I'd recommend that you check with some of the regular contributors to those articles. Joyous! | Talk 16:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Hello, the user User:Leyasu is evading a three month block to edit the article, he had blanked by evidence on the page using an anon to cover his tracks, blocked users aren't allowed to edit articles as per blocking policy it stated such edits are viable for removal (plus I am reverting blanking) _ Deathrocker 03:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

OK, but I don't think you understand, the user is blanking the evidence I'd already typed, BEFORE he added his own, how do I get around that. He is also evading a three month ban. - Deathrocker 04:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker attempted to blank my evidence, reword large sections of it to insult and belittle me, and also made personal attacks and defaced my Evidence. He also attempted to use a protect page on it so i couldnt post evidence, and also at one point tried to blank out all of my evidence on the basis its his right to do so because im blocked. So sadly, im forced into using a sock puppet just to protect the evidence in the ArbCom case. I also logged all of Deathrockers current escapade in my current evidence, and ask if the section can be protected so Deathrocker and his myriad of Sockpuppets he is known for cannot vandalise it again. 03:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Ley Shade

From the Arbcom page itself; If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user. That is vandalism, and im allowed to edit the Arbcom bored. It doesnt count as block invasion when im posting evidence. 04:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Ley Shade

You don't remove what they put. I know you removed some sort of content in their section. You put back your content in your section, you leave theirs alone. That's the general premise of the evidence page. You shouldn't need to be modifying any other section but your own unless, of course, someone else goes against the premise that each user's evidence is separate. That's my philosophy on the evidence section. I see the IP adding a new section, and you modifying it. But who knows, you should be going to an admin about this, before the history gets too convoluted. Not that a banned user should be editing.... Kevin_b_er 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource...

You should join us! >:) Jude (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me fix repeated vandalism to Winston-Salem and similar articles. If you know how to block the guy, do it. Gooday.1 01:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re your revision of Image:Engineering.png

Kevin, it looks fine to me. Thanks for letting me know of your change. - mbeychok 07:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing my Stuffup

Thanks for fixing up that Boomerang page for me. I'll get the hang of Wiki eventually :P

Also, is that EE image something run through Wiki, or is it just a picture you've posted up on your page? I'm an electrical engineer too. RiSkE 15:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, you left me a message

But I don't understand what you are trying to say. The proceedure for uploading these images is VERY confusing! I don't know what GDL or whatever means.

What option should I select if I created an image and wish to claim copyright for it?

Thanks for your help.--§p¥ÐêR ÇÅñض܊ 01:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You've been very helpful. Thanks for the suggestion that I use Cc-by-sa-2.5. Great idea. ^_^v--§p¥ÐêR ÇÅñض܊ 01:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving CU requests

Don't forget when archiving off CU requests you need to add the case to the index page at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case. List page as named and include the names of suspects (whether confirmed or not) following the others. I took care of Iloveminum for you. Thatcher131 02:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partial blanking of pages

I've responded to your message on my talk page. This is very strange! Starwiz 01:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've responded again. Starwiz 01:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)