User talk:Nardman1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


Hit the wall Nardman1 is currently wikibonked and is operating at a lower edit level than usual. Hitting the wall is a temporary condition, and the user should return to normal edit levels in time.



Contents

[edit] AIV

I'm afraid that the IP is correct. The link is a violation of WP:EL, as it links to a site that's only purpose is to sell something. We are an encyclopedia, not a directory of links, or a shopping helper. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In that one case he might be right, but he's doing it across dozens of articles, and he can't be right in all of them. Nardman1 02:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The admins have spoken. Second, I've been removing spam links from wikipedia for years, I just happen to be on a different connection lately (hence the different IP addy), and I've gotten plenty of kudos for it until you decide to reverse everything. I'm not going to respond to anything else you have to say, but I'm going to leave it at this: look up "made for adsense" on here or through Google. I can spot an MFA site from a mile away, I'm not going to have those people generate a profit by spamming wikipedia. If a site has ads, fine, but when its over the top and the ad locations or number of ads suggest its an MFA, I'm killing it and leaving sites that weren't created for the sole purpose of getting clicks rather than displaying content. Take a look at a link I removed: http://www.syvum.com/cgi/online/serve.cgi/recipes/drink/alcoholic/hurricane_cocktail.tdf?0 It's got Adsense ads disguised as a menu (to trick people into clicking the ads), Adbrite ads on the left, Yahoo ads, more google ads before you even get to the recipe, ANOTHER set of google ads after the recipe and two sets of AOL ads. 85% ads, hardcore MFA, yet I left the recipe (only one is needed) that wasn't a blatant MFA. I'm also killing off spam references, where people only include a reference to 1. generate ad clicks, 2. absorb link value from a wiki article to boost how they are ranked in search engines. I'm killing of commercial links which involve online stores, unless (maybe) the link is to a page on that site which involves some useful history. Bottom line, I'm making sure links provide encyclopedic value without someone only posting the links to line their pockets. I'm not going to bother reading any response you have so don't reply, this is just so you understand what constitutes spam links, why I leave some quality links but kill off the spammy ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.0.104.154 (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Please relax/Notes

There is no need to make a personal attack such as "Keep, But just because that asshat doesn't want the link.", even if it may be appropriate. Also, you can't simply permanently block an IP address. And finally, remember to subst your templates! User:Logical2uTalk 20:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Cocktails

Hello. As an Active Participant in WikiProject Cocktails, you may be interested to know that a name change is being considered from Cocktails to Mixed Drinks. Please add your opinions to the discussion and vote. Also, check out the recent changes to the WikiProject area. We appreciate you being an active Participant. Thanks! --Willscrlt 08:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Skiing in New Zealand with List of ski areas in New Zealand

It might have been polite to make a suggestion on the articles' talk pages, or even my talk page, before merging these two articles. They actually cover quite separate topics and should remain distinct:

See the difference? Stevage 04:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary in creating Skiing in New Zealand was "create stub (it's about time)"...this leads me to believe you want this article to exist just because you like skiing in New Zealand. Please see WP:ILIKEIT Nardman1 04:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Huh? You based your decision on that? Please, next time you're going to leap to conclusions based on an edit summary, check with the other person before you act on it. For that matter, next time you're going to replace anyone's newly written stub with a redirect, check with the other person first. And we'll all be happier. Stevage 06:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Deletion contested

Hi Nardman1,

I'd like to know why you decided to Speedy Delete the stub page that I added about Pocketdish. It's now in AFD. Jaysbro 15:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources on images

The two images I notified you about (and I'm sorry about not linking properly to one of them), were tagged for 'no source' and 'no license'. Adding a license tag does not mean that a source is no longer needed. I don't care if the uploader found it on the web or scanned the cover his/herself, we need the information stated. -- Donald Albury 13:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's fine, I was just trying to clean up sourceless images. Nardman1 21:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

The pictures of Bronze of China are free picture, why would you try to delete by many means????? I have my account and verificable address that I will be 100% responsible for any copyright consequences of these pictures.Dongwenliang 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Because I don't believe that they are copyright free, and I won't stop until you link to the page on bronzes.cn that says the images are free or licensed for redistribution with no restrictions (other than attribution). This is required by Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Image_guidelines Nardman1 03:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I sent a letter to the website, I will let you know if I can get an answer, or if they never reply, please remove your stop sign.Dongwenliang 17:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joke edits

Thanks for your contribution to Your Mom, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do a bit seriously here. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started. I hope you can help us out! —Dgiest c 21:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saber's Beads

This is not a repost. The article has been rewritten and updated with additional canon sources. It has also been an accepted external link for New Moon for several months. -saberscorpx

Regardless, -you- invented this so called phenomenon and self-aggrandizement is not allowed on wikipedia. Nardman1 10:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How does an astronomical glossary term not rate WK? God invented it. I just discovered and reported it. And I did not name it. Also, why is *my* additional bio info considered self-aggrandizement? (If it's personal, I understand. I get it alot.) -saberscorpx

  • Would you stop editing my user page just to make your comments seem better? Nardman1 03:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You invite me to discuss the article here, and then delete my responses? Lol. I thrive on such contempt from nobodys like you. Btw, my sister's kid learned about Saber's Beads in school just the other day (3 states away). Thanks for your continued support. -saberscorpx

[edit] Uberfic

Please pay attention and don't revert good faith edits as vandalism. I removed that sentence for a good reason, which was explained in my edit summary: its references did not support the claim made, or have anything to do with the subject of the article at all. —Celithemis 14:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kalanidhi Maran

I added some references to Kalanidhi Maran, which I think demonstrate notability. --Eastmain 02:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate comments

I've removed your comment on Talk:Dicta License with a highly inappropriate edit summary of "taunt the anon". WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL apply when you're speaking to any editor, anonymous or otherwise. Seraphimblade 23:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Hi Nardman1, Do you mind to give a second thought to your comments here? I really don't see any notability in this case.

Regards. Mr.K. (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: Don't go mad with the userboxes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs).

She invented a new tissue type! Anyway someone has to play Devil's Advocate. The article will probably be deleted without y changing my vote. Nardman1 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pentecontagon, and so forth

Please read WP:DELETE. A no consensus result at AFD means only that there is no consensus to delete an article and its edit history altogether; anything else, including merging, is a normal editing decision. When, as here, that non-consensus is divided between those who would delete, and those who would merge and redirect, that's consensus that we don't need a separate article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably submit it to deletion review later. Nardman1 22:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Please let me know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I still see an overwhelming majority at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hectagon for delete, merge or redirect, which is consensus that Wikipedia does not need these as separate articles. Pilotguy is right that there is no consensus between these alternatives, but that's chiefly whether it's worth keeping the article histories.

I do not see any suggestion of Mediation, but I would be willing to accept it; I would expect the mediator to tell you the same thing.

These articles consisted of a dictionary definition of the alleged term as an n-sided polygon, and a diagram of a regular n-gon.

  • I have no objection to having the diagram of a 100-gon added to Polygon; I wouldn't do it myself because I don't think it adds anything to the article; it's barely distinguishable from a circle; but I won't contest it.
  • I will object, remove, or mark as dubious any use I see of Hectagon. It's a non-word, use rarely and in error; it is used much more often as a misspelling of Hexagon or Heptagon.
  • One of the articles also had a sentence about Michelob using a 30-sided prism as a beer can. I doubt this will add anything to Polygon either; it belongs it Prism (geometry), but I won't contest if it is added.

Regards, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You should be contacted by WP:MEDCAB soon. Nardman1 03:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China Copyright Tag

Thank you very much for creating the new copyright tag for works from China!! Enjoy stay on wikipedia!!!Dongwenliang 02:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your VandalProof Application

Dear Nardman1,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this 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 at this time you do not meet the minimum requirement of 250 edits to mainspace articles (see under main here). Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. Prodego talk 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers!

Hi. Philvarner and I have various thoughts on how to restructure the entire mixed drinks and bartending section of Wikipedia, and that also squarely ties in with WikiBooks. Some of these are pretty sweeping changes, and as a sometimes active WikiProject Participant, I value your input on these matters. You are very good at spotting cruft from good stuff, and you are familiar with some of the things we have gone through to get to where we are now. Please visit the Restructure Section to read, discuss, and hopefully help plan these important changes. Thank you. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 11:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NB87ASS-226.jpg

This image is under Crown Copyright. Thus is non-commercial use only. Non-commercial use images are not allowed on Wikipedia. Cavenba 04:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is if it's fair use. Click the link and read it. Nardman1 22:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
That page says nothing about Non-commercial use only images. Cavenba 19:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The specific image license DOES NOT MATTER. We can use the image on wikipedia under fair use regardless. Nardman1 23:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, so you know I've contacted the GNB for a sample plate in public domain. But, how could this image be used in a commercial product (i.e. German Wikipedia DVD) and not infringe on Canadian Copyright Law? Cavenba 01:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If you can't understand what fair use is then I suggest you stop editing wikipedia. Nardman1 02:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I do understand the concept of fair-use (which is not mentioned in the Canadian Copyright Act, at least not by that name). You suggestions will go unheard. Cavenba 00:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Image:ON96ST.jpg and Image:NB87ASS-226.jpg

Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and they have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Cavenba 01:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You're the one making nonsense edits. I will revert everyone of them. Nardman1 11:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Because you reverted to CopyVio after solution was made? [1] Cavenba 19:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ebony Anpu AfD

Hello. You recently commented and/or voted on the AfD for the Ebony Anpu article here. FYI, the AfD has been reset because the discussion was not about the merits of the article, but instead about procedural issues. You are welcome to leave a new comment about whether or not the article should be included here, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu. In order to be as fair as possible to the article's creators and those who feel it should be deleted, all comments about Wikipedia deletion procedure as it relates to this specific AfD are being directed to the AfD's talk page, here. Thanks for your time, and sorry for the wikispam. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi images

I responded to your point on military-insignia for Image:French uniform emblem.jpg & Image:Iron Cross Charlemagne Division Officer.jpg and explained why I think it had zero validity. 82.29.229.116 20:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Hectagon

I can help mediate this situation. Can you please leave a note on my talk page letting me know what your current view on the situation is and what your desired outcome would be? Hope I can be of service. Best, JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 04:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. To clarify, your position is that there was no consensus to delete and at least one person other than you wants the articles kept instead of just being redirects. You seem to concede that hectagon was misnamed, but you believe the other names contained in the Polygon article are correct. Let me know if this is an accurate summary of your position.
In terms of compromising, except for the fact about the 30-gon being the basis for a Michelob Gold can (which has been included in that article and in Prism (geometry)), would you concede that it would be difficult to write a non-stub article about each individual polygon, given that the pictures are not illuminating and that the information could be summarized in a table in the Polygon article? I mean, I think the principles of WP:NUMBER come into play here, and keeping them as redirects for now means that someone later can come and write a good article if there's sufficient non-trivial information to do so. On the other hand, in terms of the names of the polygons, there's a verifiability, not truth argument to be made that works in your favor. Let me know if this would be an acceptable compromise or if you have a counter-proposal. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 07:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Upon thinking it over it would seem my position is very weak. I think I just let my judgment be clouded. Your proposal is more than acceptable. Nardman1 10:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Please indicate if this compromise offer is acceptable or if you would like to suggest changes. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 23:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shi Tao

I recommend translating it into Chinese and including that in the Chinese version of wikipedia, rather than infusing a bunch of foreign characters into the English version. If you need help translating it into Chinese let me know. Lordvolton 05:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CheriDiNovo180.jpg

Hi, it's besides the point we are giving free press. Permission only images are not allowed under wikipedia, only in some cases under fair use. In this case I think it fails Wikipedia:Fair use criteria but that's another issue. You could probably assume from the fact that it was for media purposes that the image can be redistributed. But not all the other options of the {{attribution}} tag. That's legally incorrect and also goes against our image policies. Garion96 (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Nardman1! 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. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image:Df 2.jpg

The way I understand it, photographs of three-dimensional works are exempt from the originating item's copyright, or does the presence of the logo negate that? Alternately, if the photograph were to be of the backside of the image (where there is no logo) would that not then be acceptable? GarrettTalk 02:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The Coke bottle design /itself/ is copyrighted. I think if you took a picture of a guy drinking a Coke and the focus of the image was the guy, the Coke in the picture would be incidental and implicit fair use. If you take a picture of a Coke and the focus is the Coke, you have some 'splainin to do (Lucy!) Nardman1 02:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's right, I got a bit confused for some reason. Copyright law and I aren't the best of friends. :P Anyway, the point is to use images that come without any additional copyright claims from the photographer (e.g. Image:Nintendo DS Lite side.jpg). Since this is a collector's item that was available from ordinary stores I think it would be quite possible for someone to photograph it and release it under a copyleft license. This particular image was taken by some random eBayer (rather than the company) so they could theoretically lay some claim to it, and, additionally, the camera watermark (in the bottom right corner) is in itself a protected logo of eBay or one of their sister companies. While it may not be possible to find a copyleft version of this, at the very least one could be found (or made) that eliminates the watermark issue. GarrettTalk 02:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the original uploader. I just hate to see good images deleted because people are copyright nazis. I see your point about the ebay logo. I'll remove my fair use rationale from the image. Nardman1 02:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 207.166.7.208 (talk • contribs)

Your views go against Wikipedia blocking policy. School IPs are not always used to vandalize by one or two people. There are usually a number of different people who do this. Given that the person may or may not be different than the person on the 23rd, they can only be blocked if they vandalize after the t4 warning. It's blocking policy, sorry. Nishkid64 22:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do remember that bit of policy, but the user was last blocked in May 2006. Two blocks in the history is not a lot for a school IP. There have been some good faith edits made, and I would only do a long block if they went past the t4 in the first place. Nishkid64 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Livejouranl links

I've removed the same links minus the "offical" journal page of the Funday PawPet Show. I've also created a section in the articeel talk page to discuss the matter if you find this to be inappropriate. NeoFreak 03:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Before I revert you again please see the article's talk page, I'm tired of tlaking to you in edit summaries. NeoFreak 03:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I give you, Nardman1, this Barnstar as a sign of my gratitude for refraining from calling me an idiot when you should have done just that. NeoFreak 03:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not treat proper edits as vandalism.

In the Haunted Mansion article, you undid an edit which attempted to contribute to the article's fact/fiction separation. 'Fancruft' is a serious issue with a lot of Disney articles and fiction-based articles in general. Please do not let your personal formulation preferences overrule encyclopedic necessities. SergioGeorgini 15:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction and the source. SergioGeorgini 15:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:24DNTV.PNG

I gave this some more thought I decided that it does make sense for this image to be in the public domain, however I feel that if used to represent the show 24, it retains its copyright status. I would like to propose removing this image from the userboxes but not deleting this image and leaving it under the public domain. Let me know your thoughts. I have also withdrawn my request for the image's deletion. --24fan24 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Removing it from the userbox defeats the purpose of having it on the Wikipedia. Unwithdraw your nomination and let the admins decide it. Nardman1 19:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American High (disambiguation)

I realized that you have changed the links for American High and American High School so that they point to the disambiguation page instead. I just wanted to address that perhaps that at least American High School redirects to American High School (Fremont, California).

If you simply look at the articles themselves, there is definitely a lot more substance and effort that has been applied in the case of the Fremont school's article, where as the Miami-Date County school's article contains very little information at all. Additionally, if you look at the edit histories of the 2 articles, the Fremont school has nearly 250 edits, of which a majority are actually useful and a significant number have made a noticeable difference to the page. On the other hand, the Miami-Dade County school has been vandalized several times, and the majority of the edits appear to be by vandals, or editors reverting the changes made by these vandals.

It seems very likely to me that an individual, when searching for "American High School" will be much more likely to be searching for American High School in Fremont, California, quite evident according to its notability as a California Distinguished School, receiving a very rare 6 year accreditation from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) twice in a row, as well as receiving a large grant from the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative (BASRC) as well as grants for its innovative Smaller Learning Communities (SLC) reform. I see very no mention of notability on the behalf of the Miami-Dade County School however.

I respectfully ask you to consider what is much more likely to be searched for, and edit the Redirects to reflect this. I believe that this is a very straightforward and obvious decision, I hope you come to the same conclusion.

Thank You, --Sukh17 Talk | Contribs 21:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • P.S. I would appreciate it if you could leave a note on my talk page upon your reply.

[edit] Jiahu Flutes: Chinese fair use tag

Nardman1, I believe the picture of the bone flutes is under fair use according to China Copyright Law.

Please see here the definition of the word "comment":

"1. a remark, observation, or criticism: a comment about the weather. 2. gossip; talk: His frequent absences gave rise to comment. 3. a criticism or interpretation, often by implication or suggestion: The play is a comment on modern society. 4. a note in explanation, expansion, or criticism of a passage in a book, article, or the like; annotation. 5. explanatory or critical matter added to a text. 6. Also called rheme. Linguistics. the part of a sentence that communicates new information about the topic. Compare TOPIC (def. 4). –verb (used without object) 7. to make remarks, observations, or criticisms: He refused to comment on the decision of the court. 8. to write explanatory or critical notes upon a text. –verb (used with object) 9. to make comments or remarks on; furnish with comments; annotate. ".

Writing an article on Wikipedia, is a remark, an observation, an interpretation, a note, an annotation, an explanation, a rheme, a communication about the topic. So using this image is commenting something per definition #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8 and #9 of this word.

Please also see the definition of the word "archive":

"1. Usually, archives. documents or records relating to the activities, business dealings, etc., of a person, family, corporation, association, community, or nation. 2. archives, a place where public records or other historical documents are kept. 3. any extensive record or collection of data: The encyclopedia is an archive of world history. The experience was sealed in the archive of her memory. –verb (used with object) 4. to place or store in an archive: to vote on archiving the city's historic documents. "

Writing an article and store it on the server of Wikepedia, is a record of document, a public storage of data. Specificly, the dictionary quoted that the encyclopedia is an archive. So using this image is archiving somthing per definition #1, #2, #3 and #4 of this word.

So I strongly believe it falls into "fair use" of Chinese law and Jeffrey O. Gustafson Shazaam should not delete this image.

Thanks for your support! Dongwenliang 14:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Replied on talk page. Nardman1 21:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

2005 or not, that link is full is advertising and I don't believe there is not an acceptable alternative link that could replace it. --Spartaz Humbug! 06:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, you say revert, AGAIN. The guidelines say NOTHING about pages with ads. Please refer to WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided then look at number 5 which refers to Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. Please do not use agressive edit summaries that accuse other editors of editing in bad faith and if you are going to make assertions about guidelines, its a good rule of thumb to actually check that you are correct. --Spartaz Humbug! 06:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

I am a real person, with real experience and knowlegde to add to wikipedia. Thank you so much for sticking up for my right to add a link that I feel is quality material that readers would like. I have repeatedly been labeled as a spammer and it just makes me sick that these wiki-police think they own the place. So anyway, thank you for your effort, I do appreciate it! Mexicanfood 03:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Edited to add- I also took up the matter with Spartaz on his talk page. Mexicanfood 03:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sorry

My brother used my account when I was watching TV and is doing stupid stuff. He does this alot and I'm always trying to fix what he does.--Animasage 02:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your warning against User:Dakotathomas

I put a strikethrough on your vandal4im warning on his talk page. Quoting the reason I posted there:

Canceling out the above warning. I had placed a comment on the talk page stating that the comment written above it was falsely signed. This user removed my comment, and offereed a very reasonable explanation that he'd copied the text from another (non-Wikipedia) wiki website dedicated to the band in its place. I don't believe that's vandalism, and shouldn't warrant a vandal4im. Newest users take some time to adjust. Play easy :)

Just giving you a head's up of what & why. If you wish to reply, please do so on my talk page as I don't intend to check back here for this issue. Thanks for your help, nonetheless. --Auto(talk / contribs) 03:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help Me

I think some body might be using my Username against me. You keep saying that i have vandilized but i just added some links to webpages inside wikipedia please help me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vcolin (talk • contribs). Some one is sockpuppeting under my name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vcolin (talk • contribs).

  • I'll remove my warnings from your talk page because I think you mean well. Nardman1 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 63.161.208.174

Well, I did not block because of the t2 warning, and the fact that the user has not vandalized in over five hours. Also, I believe what you're citing is a justification for long-term blocking, not blocking, in general. Say, if I was dealing with a school IP vandal that has vandalized for many months, and after many blocks. After the user violated a t3 or t4, I would probably block that IP for a period of 3-6 months. I feel that part of the policy serves as justification for blocking for extended periods of time, and not for general blocking. Nishkid64 23:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Deeporiginal@hotmail.com

I have unblocked - the user that reported this user apparently didn't look at the creation log, and neither did I, which was my mistake. Yargh. Natalie 01:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • replied on talk page. Nardman1 01:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I actually saw a different user report that to AIV. I removed it from the list and left them an explanatory note. Then minutes later another user reported it. I wonder if maybe WP:UN should be reworded to make the '@' prohibition a bit less prominent and the disclaimed more visible. —dgiestc 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate 747

Hi Nardman1. Thanks for your support on the ultimate 747 article. But guess what - the Editor to wants to delete this article has now undone your revert to undermine the article again. They would like nothing more than to block me under 3RR so could you oblige? many thanks NBeale 22:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:120 Days of Sodom (role).jpg

  • omg,I can't recollect. But come on, that document is older than the age of your grandfather plus my grandfather. anyone who take picture of it should be in public domain. Can u do something about it? Davilaser 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • English, definitely. Davilaser 21:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your speedy of A Week in the Woods

It's at DRV if you wanted to chime in, but please be careful of your speedy deletion nominations in the future - CSD A7 in particular (what this was deleted under) does not apply to books, and db-repost is only for articles that have been AfD'd. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the reverting of the vandalism on my userpage. I have requested it for semi-protection, and I will see what happens it has been approved and semi-protected. I'm going to back on my vacation. :) Thanks again. Chickyfuzz14(user talk) 01:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backdoor deletion: blanking content

If at TfD one doesn't suceed, then ....

I may not always be around to catch such changes. From your comment at the failed TfD, I hope you're the right person to ask this: would you please add {{Notcensored2}} (and maybe {{Notcensored}} as well) to your watchlist, and keep an eye on them for further such, um, "amendments", whether piece-by-piece or all-at-once?

Thanks! -- Ben TALK/HIST 06:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Added to watch list. We'll get em. Nardman1 21:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another sockpuppet of Hinomaru

User:Hyper nell bomber is vandalizing articles in the exact same manner as user:Hinomaru, who you already know has dozens of other sock puppets. I would appreciate it if you would add that user to the list of suspected sock puppets. I have no experience with this sort of action, and don't think I can do this myself. Thanks for your help. Parsecboy 20:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Done. Thanks for the notice. Nardman1 21:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just came across this one too: User:B5N Kate, same vandalism style as Hinomaru. Thanks again. Parsecboy 13:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image query

(Can now be ignored, resolved...)

I've posted this to User talk:Majorly and noticed you've left a message on User:I Shook Up The Pedia's page and thought you might be able to help. Thanks. Gretnagod 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Possible image dispute

Hello there, I'm really just looking for a second opinion and/or clarification on what do do next.

My trouble is with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lesnar_Hogan.jpg

User:I Shook Up The Pedia keeps adding it to Hulk Hogan. I have asked User:I Shook Up The Pedia about the image and the user has claimed on their talk page that it is indeed their image from an event. However, while I want to assume good faith, I cannot fail to think the image is in fact from a WWE photographer and therefore copyrighted.

I don't normally get invovled with image disputes, but this one keeps being added to the page and I just wanted to know where to go from here.

Thanks in advance Gretnagod 21:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:LegoAxiom1007

I would recommend taking this up at the main administrator's noticeboard. What the user is doing is not vandalism, per se. Not simple vandalism anyway. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you thought of filing a request for check user on this individual? I really don't think he is new (since he is using templates, and knows how to do userboxes), but I could be wrong. Real96 23:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I notified the user about this. I also doubt he'd be returning since he seems to ask questions about certain things pertaining to WP. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 01:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't think this one is a newbie, either, and I'm trying very hard to AGF. I've got piles of it stacked in the garage. I think it's somebody trying to push us as far as possible without actually doing something outright disruptive. – Riana talk 16:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Accountready

Please don't misinform users about removing warnings from their talk pages, as you did on this user's page. There is currently no policy or guideline prohibiting users from removing any content whatsoever from their talk pages. While it is frowned upon, it is most definitely allowed. There is even a school of thought which says that deleting a warning is a de facto acknowledgment that the warning has been read and understood. Jeffpw 10:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I know a vandal when I see one, and I will warn them against their misdeeds as I see fit. PS:Accountready is indef blocked Nardman1 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:I Shook Up The Pedia

Please do not acknowledge this user, he is a sock puppet (at least the 85th) of the community banned vandal Verdict, Thanks. Bmg916 Speak to Me 12:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Already indef blocked, man, what is it about people warning me about already blocked vandals today? That's how good I am, I fight the vandals. Nardman1 20:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fair use images

Hi, just wanted to say I very much appreciate your effort with weeding out bad fair-use images. Just a note: please don't use the {replaceable fair use} tag on things like book covers or logos - they are, by definition, never "replaceable", because any replacement would be just as unfree as the original. Also, "no source" doesn't make too much sense for book covers - the source is, by definition, the book; any intermediate electronic image versions found on the web don't establish separate copyright and can therefore be ignored. - As for the legitimacy of the book covers, that's a grey area - the policy seems to be saying we should only use them "for critical commentary" and not just for identification, but there seems to be a silent consensus to allow them for basically every book article. I think if we wanted to change that, it would be better to get a centralised discussion going rather than to tackle individual book articles piecemeal. But I think there are categories of claimed fair use images that are much worse than this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A comment

Obviously it's up to you whether you want to stay active on Wikipedia or not, but please don't leave out of exasperation because of one either very ill-governed editor or, as appears more and more likely, troll. Some of us were prepared to assume good faith a bit more than others, but if it turns out you were right, the appropriate action will soon be taken (see the warning I have just added to his talkpage, on top of the one already there). Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • After this case is over I'm going to go away for a week or so. I'll change the retirement template. Thanks for the support. Nardman1 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If this is about LegoAxiom then I don't know, are we trying to discourage his use of those tool altogether or just the prank ones. this revision was legitimate. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 23:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Multiple admins asked him to stop using it altogether. Nardman1 23:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know he was asked not to use it altogether, sorry. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems neither of us could get to the fellow. He was blocked for a week. If he still bothers you just let someone else handle it so he doesn't target you. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 07:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism by User:MikeMcGD

Thanks but I think all of this user's moves were cleaned up by User:ReyBrujo including the removal of the sock puppets. I don't know if there's anything left to be done so you might want to contact Rey. -Enviroboy (Talk|Contribs) 17:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: socks

I blocked him indef as a sock of User:Jj0909jj, good catch. Like you said, let's keep an eye on the ips. John Reaves (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for the information about the photos. I am new to doing edits on Wikipedia, and I need all of the help that I can get. Thanks again. - Hmwith

[edit] James Madison Middle School

Just out of curiosity, was there any particular reason you chose to deprod the article? RGTraynor 03:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • It's on my watch list. Nardman1 03:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And that's grounds to contest a prod why ... ? RGTraynor 03:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Re-read the prod rules. I don't have to give a reason grounded in policy. Nardman1 03:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No, you don't, any more than you're compelled to give a reason when making an AfD !vote, but that mitigates against your POV being taken seriously. Sorry for troubling you. RGTraynor 03:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy keep of your MfD

I have speedy kept Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LegoAxiom1007/My templates, as this user was only blocked yesterday, and is appealing the block on his/her talk (using {{unblock}}) with what seems to be a good-faith reason. As I noted in the close, please let the dust settle on this - whether he/she is unblocked or not - and re-MfD them in a week or so. If you have any further questions or comments about my action here, please don't hesitate to leave a message on my user talk page. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 02:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China Fair Use Tag

What happened to the China Copywright Law tag you had created?

Again and again same questions are asked.

Who created this image? This image was created by bronze.cn, which is a public domain. Who owns the copyright to this image? This website owns the image, and we got permission from the owner, we had back and forth so many emails with him.Dongwenliang 15:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • replied on talk page. Nardman1 15:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks Nordman.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/r/User_talk%7ENardman1_f0dc.html"