User:Herostratus/hate mail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived messages -- criticism, corrections, etc.

[edit] {{needsinfobox}} template

Please put the {{needsinfobox}} template on articles' talk pages rather than the article page itself. Thanks. Slicing 01:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You used it here (just wanted to make sure I wasn't losing my mind :-) Slicing 03:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coit Cleaners

Here's my evidence:

My dad owns the company. My grandpa was the founder. My brother and my aunt are both employed there.

Is that enough?

Also it's already been tagged and people voted to keep it.

If you need any info on coit, I'm your man. Tobyk777 04:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just saw your sexual harasment comment

You should know:

• Lou Kearn is my Grandpa
  • My grandpa was a femenist
    • That was a BS lawsuit
      • He recently died and you are insulting his memory.
• Since you and the others who have edited this page you keep spreading lies and changing the vital information of the article, I put it up on Votes for Deletion.

I don't want to deal with this crap anymore. Tobyk777 06:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a suicide pact

This...doesn't even make any sense. I seriously think you should reconsider the little canned speech you have, because you don't have any call to go around telling people where they should or shouldn't be. If you don't care about something, then get away from it. Interaction among the users is a large part of the bigger picture of what Wikipedia is. The resources are volunteers, they go where they want to go, not where you think they should go.

If you want the conflict to stop...When it stops, that's when you can say It's already happening. --DanielCD 02:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't feel bad. It was difficult for me to say this and I didn't feel quite right about it either. Thanks for the apology, you are truly a man of honor to apologise so nobley.

PS. How the heck do you spell Nobley?? --DanielCD 03:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Aha! I found it ... it's "nobly". --DanielCD 16:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Another thing I'd like to share, an analogy I thought of. Wikipedia is like a pot of hot water into which a mass of freshly dug potatoes (wikipedians) are tossed. We bump around, knock into each other, roll over other potatoes. But when we come out, those of us that didn't fall apart in the heat, are a little cleaner than when we went in. --DanielCD 17:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BECKJORD

I am not recruiting people to trash wiki.

I am trying to work inside the system, and boy, is it hard.

beckjordBeckjord 06:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brandi Lyons

I think I can be pretty certain that a comment about creampies being disgusting counts as an attack. I don't know who put it in and I don't care. Stuff like that doesn't belong in an encyclopaedic article. As for fixing up the article, well, I suppose I could, but it is not particularly interesting to me. Were you watching the article? Nobody had edited it for about 2 months so I was somewhat surprised to get a comment about it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Claimed there is copyright violation for a short quote. What?

In my Jones Radio Network entry you deleted my two-sentence quote, pronouncing it a copyright violation. I checked out the rules which clearly indicate that short quotes are fine.

Your changes would have been welcome, except that your replacement text was not an improvement. It's not that big of a deal but I find it irritating that someone would work as a self-appointed censor even BEYOND what the copyright laws allow. They law is draconian enough without free roaming guardians self-censoring even more than the law requires.

[edit] Your personal attack on me

User:Haiduc's talk page (while I was tearing him a new one expressing a reasoned disagreement with him: I am moving this here because I do not wish to have any coverage of this subject on my talk page, where I won't be able to help seeing it again. Rhollenton 02:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Piece of work Certainly an intereresting and unusual colleague, isn't he? Herostratus 21:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The subject was illegal sex between men and boys. One user had great enthusiasm for it; the majority makes it punishable with long prison sentences. Rhollenton 20:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Helpful wiki edting hints

I caught your response to my comment at Wikipedia talk:Vanity guidelines. Ouch! I almost feel bad for Tobyk777 about Coit Cleaners. And I'll take your word on 1928 Jewelry. I have an unrelated request: could you please post comments on talk pages using the "Create a new topic" (+) tab, use section edits to add comments to a topic, and, above all, include a brief statement about what your edit is about in the Edit Summary? It drives me (and many other History and Recent Changes readers) nuts when people make edits with no hints in the history of what they're about. Using the + tab and doing section edits automatically provide some context by including the topic name, which can be clicked on to jump to the discussion. And edit summaries are always a good idea. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I must admit a mortal sin, though: I felt just a tad gleeful about the whole thing. I suppose that means I'm going to hell.

What's wrong with a little satisfaction for a job well done, eh? ☺ Seriously, I'm happy whenever I see editors who aren't too lazy to do some actual research, instead of just writing from their own "knowledge". I'm trying to do more of that myself these days. Keep up the good work. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US$100

The format above is more common internationally - would you consider reverting your recent change otherwise. Thanks, novacatz 03:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RJII arbitration

As another uninterested third party, I'd urge you to withdraw your arbitration request. For one thing, RJII isn't displaying the barnstar on his user page, but rather on his talk page—where it was placed by another user. I imagine that it will disappear whenever he gets around to archiving his talk page.

Barnstars aren't regulated by anyone; they're informal awards that can tolerate a bit of silliness now and then. Let the matter drop and it will probably go away by itself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Mostly it's because the ArbCom is quite busy, and the presence of one image buried (without comment or citation) in the middle of a long talk page just doesn't seem to do appreciable harm. There are no policies regulating barnstars, and so the ArbCom doesn't have any grounds to intervene.

I was hoping that a voluntary withdrawl of your request might save the ArbCom a bit of time, and give you a little time to consider if the issue is really important enough for arbitration. If you really want to proceed, you could seek advice on the Village Pump, the Administrators' Noticeboard, or file a Request for Comment...but I suspect that you will hear what I'm telling you now: this matter isn't worth pursuing, and trying to remove the image is causing more trouble than the image itself was. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"Permanent ban"?? Sorry Herostratus, I don't want to be part of a dogpile, but isn't that a little extreme? --Malthusian (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject notices

Please note that templates linking articles to WikiProjects should be placed in the articles' talk pages, not in the articles themselves. --Fritz S. (Talk)

[edit] Echo Helstrom (band)

An article you started, Echo Helstrom (band), has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Universal placeholder for missing band picture.jpg listed for deletion

Royboycrashfan 06:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] perverted-truth.com

Please don't add "perverted-truth.com" to the Perverted-Justice.com article without further discussion on the talk page. We've already talked about it, and consensus was that it added nothing, was poorly written, and made by what amounts to an attention seeker. It's a non-notable link, basically. If you disagree, please let us know why on the talk page. Fieari 21:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Charmmy_kitty.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 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea, shame on you. What on earth were you thinking? ;) --DanielCD 14:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] trollling

think twice before calling anyone troll. --tasc 10:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Coffee cup drawing.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Coffee cup drawing.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTDAY}}#Image:Coffee cup drawing.jpg|the discussion]] if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ~~~~ --Casper2k3 00:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Icon eye3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Icon eye3.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 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. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rory096_(block) 17:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Icon eye3.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Icon eye3.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images 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. Rory096_(block) 17:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Caroline2_8.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Caroline2_8.jpg. 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps too blunt?

Suggestion. #2 on your list. Perhaps too blunt? I see trouble from some of your crtics. Funny thing, probably not him though! FYI. He is the patron saint of the Wikipidia rouge administrator cabal which you will be promptly inducted into when nom passes. FloNight talk 01:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a Wiki. Consider editing it out. Also, look for an email from me in the next little bit. FloNight talk 04:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman
You have been spotted climbing the Reichstag building dressed as Spiderman. At least one editor has reported this behavior as being in relation to a content dispute. As clearly stated in WP:NCR, you may not climb the Reichstag building dressed as Spiderman in order to campaign over a content dispute. This is your last warning. If you climb any further up, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please do not erase this warning. Doing so is considered vandalism.

I see that you discontinued your climbing but please be aware that partial climbing of the Reichstag building dressed as Spiderman is also not permitted. I wouldn't want to see you run afoul of policy. Thanks and happy editing. --Gmaxwell 06:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad day, or what?

I find it rather hard to believe that I just saw a WP admin go off on a rant and call someone's personal opinions bullshit, all over the mostly irrelevant comments of some random user. Especially considering your prominent display of the NPOV Wikipedia Userbox on your Userpage. What possible threat does Zorndyke present to the integrity of Wikipedia to warrant such an assault? Even more suprisingly, you lashed out at an anonymous user with cutting sarcasm for something he said a week ago, with no indicators whatsoever that he was not editing in good faith. Remember the guideline don't bite the newbies?

Seriously, you're an admin. Could you try being an example of level-headed and even-handed dispute resolution to the rest of us? --tjstrf 07:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Also, I apologize if my message to you was a bit harsh sounding, but I was attempting to test how you responded to relatively harsh criticism. (Don't worry, you pass.) --tjstrf 15:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] afd top

Hey, good work closing some of these. Are you aware that there's an {{afd bottom}} as well as {{afd top}}? You seem to have been using the top one twice, which breaks the log page. Flowerparty^☀ 03:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem - it seems to be quite a popular mistake, actually :) Take care. Flowerparty^☀ 04:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-admonition

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Herostratus 19:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• OK. Herostratus 21:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • OK. I'm asking you to recuse yourself from editong WP:SNOW or its talk pages for n months, where n=some number. Herostratus 21:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • OK. Herostratus 21:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of User:Defax

In the block summary you stated that this user is "writing fake blocked templates to userpages, probably to cover puppet creations." However, the users are indeed real users and are blocked. --Chris (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is continued at User talk:Crazycomputers. --Chris (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

You just made a highly incivil comment on Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause, comparing the people you disagree with to fascists. Such a comparison is wildly inappropriate. You have lately been resorting to personal attacks in other debates as well, such as on the children's privacy issue. Do not make personal attacks. You are supposed to be civil to other editors and follow wikiquette in order to keep a friendly atmosphere here. >Radiant< 09:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying. >Radiant< 21:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pulling the switch

If you'd read the Richard Edwin Fox article more closely before commenting, you'd see that Mr. Fox died by lethal injection, and not electrocution (or termination of life support) as "pulling the switch" seems to suggest. Due both to tone and factual inaccuracy, I chose to give your comment lesser weight in the discussion. I can only echo TruthbringerToronto's concerns regarding tactfulness. Happy editing. — CharlotteWebb 18:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Squirrel Had To Die

Hi Herostratus. Two little things:

1) When performing a merge, you MUST leave the page you're merging from as a redirect to the destination article. This is to ensure GFDL is maintained.

2) Please make sure you use {{subst:ab}} at the bottom of an AFD discussion you close.

Sorry to nag ... Proto::type 11:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. You're not even the only one who forgot a tag on that day's AFDs :) The GFDL thing is to ensure that all necessary author attribution is maintained - all contributions to Wikipedia must be attributable (even if it's to an anon IP). Proto::type 14:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X-ray specs

It's pretty obvious you keep adding that picture to the article because it is your own picture, and not because it brings any value to the article. Because it does not. If it looked like the specs were real it might be different but your picture is so poorly photoshopped it makes Wikipedia as a whole look stupid. Also realise your bias on this subject and leave it to others to decide. Mackan 07:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D-list University comment

Saying my article isn't notable is fine. I can live with that. But I really don't appreciate you calling Winthrop University a D-list school. Coming from an administrator, this kind of thing is just not acceptable. Administrators are held to a higher standard and you have clearly fallen below that point with your comment.

Comments should be left to the article in question and not used to take shots at other aspects of life. Theichibun 15:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel St. John

Why are we salting Rachel St. John when it keeps getting recreated by the same user? Just block him/her. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your prod of Border fence

Try to have your prods cite wikipedia policy better with links so that article creators can understand why the article is being deleted. I was going to prod2 it, but I can't bring myself to vouch for the reasons for deletion. i kan reed 07:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Daniel Carrington

While I'll be the first to agree that every minor character in video games doesn't merit encyclopedia entry I don't believe "rubbish" is a legitimate CSD. Perhaps a cleanup tag would have been in order. RichMac (Talk) 07:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I had the same inclination and was going to nominate it for a Speedy Deletion but went to clean it up as you deleted it. Thanks for the restoration. RichMac (Talk) 07:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)