User talk:Piemanmoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello Piemanmoo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  BlankVerse ∅ 11:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Dunce.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dunce.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags.

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Leeroy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Leeroy.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 10:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Turd.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Turd.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 04:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Hi there. I think you should withdraw this. The fact that you have blanked out the RfA template and put your own sentence there, and added yourself to the bottom instead of the top, will get you a lot of hard criticism. Also you have done less than 100 edits when the usual requirement is about 2000-3000, and have uplaoded pictures without proper tagging which is frowned upon. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I did this guy a favor and fixed up his nomination. Let's see how it goes. Mostly Rainy 06:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Some kind folks have helped you to set up your nomination. Please answer the questions if you still want to apply. Remember that you can withdraw the nomination at any time if you feel that the odds are against you. (And be aware that other people can do it as well!) Conscious 06:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to say, but your first attempt fail miserably wither a final vote of 2 positive and 24 negative. Try again in a few months. Mostly Rainy 02:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Image talk:Scorpionwithyoung.JPG

Thank you for experimenting with the page Image talk:Scorpionwithyoung.JPG on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you for your understanding. --Hughcharlesparker 23:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobia

hi -- I reverted your {{npov}} tag addition to this article, since adding the tag without explaining why doesn't help us fix the problems. if you really have specific issues with the article, please explain them on the Talk page, describe passagess you find NPOV and discuss ways that they can be rectified, and then put the {{npov}} tag back up. otherwise, you're not giving us anything to work with. thanks. bikeable (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobia

Your reasons for putting the npov tag on homophobia:

I agree with adding the {{npov}} tag back on the page, reason being that the word itself is probably one of the most know loaded words. Ergo, I suggest that the tag remain up until the article reaches a neutral level, without any bias.

are not sufficient to add that tag to that article. Here's why: You're saying, essentially:

1. The word itself is probably one of the most loaded words.
2. Therefore, I suggest that the tag remain up until the article reaches a neutral level, without any bias.

Your reasoning is presented in the form of an deductive argument, but the premise doesn't relate to the conclusion at all. Further, both are just your opinion. What would work better is going through the article and copying-and-pasting examples of the bias you think is there, so that it can be addressed. If a dialogue like that were going on on the talk page I would wholeheartedly support your readding the npov tag. -Smahoney 04:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] we could use your help standing up to ...

... User:Exploding Boy at the homophobia article. i tried to insert the word "pejoratively" in a sentence that says that homophobia may be referred to "opposition to same-sex activism on religious, moral, or political grounds". he won't have it. i already reported him as a WP:3RR violator. r b-j 05:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

in regards to the comment you left on my user talk page, I would be glad to help out by standing up against exploding boy, and taking away the bias of the article. --Piemanmoo 01:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
we can converse here, since i first contacted you here (and i'll watch this usertalk page). a lot happens in 6 days here at Wikipedia. we already had our little edit war and E.B. essentially withdrew. but i didn't want it to appear superficially to the admins that i was the only editor that understood that the unqualified use of "homophobia" to mere political opposition really is a pejorative with no support in the basic definition of the word. he would stand for it at first, but eventually he realized that, if he played by the rules (and i was seeing to it that if he didn't play by the rules the admins would know about it), he was not going to be able to stop that qualification of that particular use of "homophobe" in the article.
it would be good to keep an eye out on the article so if there is a contest of support, you will be able to add your voice. sometimes reason and logic and the simple facts are not sufficient. r b-j 02:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refs removed

I don't understand why you removed all the dialogue refs from Star Fox: Assault. Now the Story section has no refs at all. Lots of other games have story refs, such as Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater and pretty much every video game FA. Thunderbrand 17:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

because if people really want to read the dialog, they can go to wikiquote. I find it unneccesary to have it go "Slippy later finds that the aparoids are vunerable to apoptosis[12]" and then it says "^Slippy: I have just discovered that the aparoids are vunerable to apoptosis!"
as if I was thinking to my self "What? Why do you expect me to believe that Slippy said that in the game? I want PROOF, dammit!"
--Piemanmoo 21:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional technopaths

I noticed that you've started repopulating the category Fictional technopaths. The result of the CFD discussion was "Listify", and the category was depopulated. Was a decision made to restore the categories? TomTheHand 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actualy, the decision to get rid of the catagories was decided against on the March 7th discussion. The current one is about whether or not to listify them. The only reason they were depopulated was because Cyde jumped the gun and he and his bot had begun to depopulate a good chunk of those catagories before he stopped. I'm just correcting some of the damage until everybody comes to a decision to get rid of which catagories.--Piemanmoo 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you really should provide an edit comment to explain what you're doing. Otherwise, it appears as if you're restoring categories against a CfD process, which could easily be misinterpreted as vandalism. Just a suggestion... --Ckatzchatspy 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks an awful lot to me like the March 7th decision was "listify." Where do you see "keep"? TomTheHand 13:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the March 13th deletion review, you'll see that Radiant! had gone against the consensus, and he decided to do it one more time, thus starting the March 14th decision, which as of currently, is pointing towards organization rather than deletion. --Piemanmoo 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks, and sorry. TomTheHand 14:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Nofish.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Nofish.PNG. 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. 08:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for alerting me to the new vote. I hadn't noticed. Not all categories that were on the first list are on the second and I hadn't yet been to the page of a category which is on the second. -- Noneofyourbusiness 20:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/i/e/User_talk%7EPiemanmoo_50a8.html"