User talk:Mofomojo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Mofomojo, 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! Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 11:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Comment removal

I removed your comments on the talk:Iraq War page, feel free to add them back in a less hostile tone. They were removed for your repeated cursing at the editor you were replying to, as well as for not being directly about the improvement of the article. Please remember wikipedia is not a political chat forum. Again please refrain from cursing at your fellow editors. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, wikipedia doesn't have a particular censorship standard for the discussion board. Cursing is alowwed, as well as free speech. Thank you -- I'll speak as hostile as I see fit. And I say speaking in such a tone of hostility was suitable. Thanks. And I'll be reverting the comments now.--Mofomojo 19:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Regarding your comments here: [1] --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:

I reverted your comment to my talk page. Feel free to comment on my deletions, but continue with the insults and you'll be blocked. -- Steel 00:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You know it wasn't even me who deleted the article. Another administrator did, after determining that there was consensus to delete it. -- Steel 00:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Aha -- but you slandered information in the article as "trivial" and from "youtube" -- which manipulated the public consensus. Which is why I put you to blame for manipulation and slander.--Mofomojo 00:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to go to Wikipedia:Deletion_review. -- Steel 00:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that's your responsibility now -- you're the one responsible for this whole ordeal and ruining my work -- I shouldn't have to clean up your mess, YOU SHOULD!--Mofomojo 06:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's not my responsibility. -- Steel 15:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't request the article to be deleted, you did.--Mofomojo 03:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] /b/ rules

Could you crop this screenshot so that it shows just the /b/ rules? It would make it easier to see. Ashibaka tock 02:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hrmm, you can do it, can't you? Image editors are so ubiquitous today, if you can't use one, you aren't intelligent nor deserving be operating this fine piece of machinery we call a computer.--Mofomojo 07:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Snake struggle crabbattle.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Snake struggle crabbattle.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nilfanion (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, yes, well, that specific image there was once a part of a thoroughly worked on article called "MGS 3 : Crab Battle" documenting a flash video originally uploaded on Newgrounds that has become a tenant of Internet Sub-Culture. However, some amatuers, not neccesarily to Wikipedia, but to the Internet Sub-culture, thought that it wasn't significant and promptly organized a group of several individuals to vote to remove it. Lately, I haven't had the time to bring back the article to fully document the video in question again for the public to see, and maybe I can watch it a little closer and defend it from hordes like that who seem to think that they can deem via mob what is significant and isnt.
If you feel like restoring the original article from wherever it currently lays in the death pit of deleted articles, feel free. This is a free wikipedia, where unfortunately, the users not only write, but destroy collectively, too.
sigh...--Mofomojo 07:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming

Please quit spamming user talk pages or you will be blocked from editing. Naconkantari 03:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly spamming, call it mass mailing, or writing an open-letter. I've got a message, not just advertissement. I'm pasting an essay I wrote on the deletion of the Clock Crew page, on the talk page of everybody who voted to delete it. That's not spamming.--Mofomojo 03:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Posting the same message to multiple pages is indeed spamming. Naconkantari 03:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Historically spam has been considered junk-mail in e-mail boxes that have been automatically sent out by a machine, do you consider passing around pamphlets or handing out fliers on a street corner spamming?--Mofomojo 03:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see WP:SPAM. Naconkantari 03:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, this site sucks then...I'm going to go make my own online Encyclopedia.......with hookers and blackjack!!!! Joke's aside, it's generally unfair however, how many sites get unfairly deleted when in fact they do contain insightful information about particular individuals and groups. Mostly due to the ignorance of one particular user who doesn't really know too much about one article and therefore deems it unimportant and delete-worthy. Especially for the somewhat underground internet culture that exists today. I mean, we just don't get noteworthy representation on Wikipedia. So you can see where I'm coming from by posting this piece across various talk pages, just trying to raise awareness about that one particular issue.
For newgrounds members, at least, ClockCrew is a significant crew or club on newgrounds, along with the Star Syndicate, amongst others - that post flashes collectively. They even have a holiday on newgrounds for the Clock Crew, and the Strawberry Clock has become an icon of the wikipedia.
Essentially, this open-letter was to be planned to be a part of what would eventually become a greater discussion on the existance of the article and the deletion of articles of lesser known groups that are deemed to be unimportant by the upper-echelon of users with the higher-number of edit-counts. I hadn't known that this kind've canvassing was illegal on wikipedia, sincere apologies, officer.--Mofomojo 03:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
In other words, I thought free meant free speech, but apparently - it just means free of cost. Way to go. In fact, according to the GNU License, I am actually allowed to do it, and you may who has just broken a law here... read on... and since the talk pages are under that license...
"The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially."
Freedom to copy and distribute, with or without modifying it If there's any supreme legal document regulating the content on Wikipedia, it's the GNU License, so, I suppose I can continue on with what I'm doing or what?--Mofomojo 04:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:NLT. This is your only warning. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing. Naconkantari 04:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
What the hell dude, are you going to continue this discussion with me or are you just going to redirect me to a bunch of pages. I'm just telling you the precise license that which these very pages are under and how you are violating these licenses through these rules of yours. Seriously man, what the hell. Ever consider that your autocratic enforcement of rules through bans and blocks, which are essentially gags on free speech, is - in whole - uncivil upon itself and pisses people off? If you ban me, I swear this site will never, ever, see the last of me.
So do you wanna debate or talk like a human being? Or put a suck in my mouth and redirect me to rules pages like a robot?
Beeeep -- blooop -- last warning before total extermination -- beep -- bloop -- silence user!! No yelling in the Wikipedia zoone --- bleep blop -- BANNED!!!'.
Your rules are conflicting, on one end, you have demands for civility amongst other things, on the other end, you have demands for free speech and free editing through your GNU license and other policies. Which was my point all along. I'm pretty sure that this argument here is nothing new to Wikipedia. And I'm pretty sure that the idea that an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", would be more accurate with "anyone can edit, however, if an admin deems your contribution insignificant, he may move to delete it or can possibly ban you". Of course, politically, for the entire so-called wiki movement, that would be disastrous, right? --Mofomojo 04:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
From WP:FREE, In short, Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right; there is no right to edit Wikipedia. As difficult as it is to accept, and as harsh as it sounds to say it, there are only two rights on Wikipedia: the right to fork and the right to leave. and Wikipedia is a private website, hosted by the privately incorporated Wikimedia Foundation, and governed solely by the Board of Trustees. As a private website, Wikipedia may block, ban, or otherwise restrict from editing its pages any individual, with or without reason. Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation which sponsors and regulates it, is free to establish its own policies and practices regarding who may edit here, and is not subject to regulation by the governments of the United States or the State of Florida in this respect. Naconkantari 04:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I never knew Wikipedia was such a wholly evil enterprise.--Mofomojo 04:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that it's such a wholly lawless website, too.--Mofomojo 04:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
So, in this context, Jimmy Wales here could post child pornography?--Mofomojo 04:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
And the entire issue with copyrights, too, can I post copyrighted information? That's a law of the United States, I believe...--Mofomojo 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
So, can I copy all of the information from Wikipedia - since it's free to redistribute - , using wget or some other tool, and make my own wiki called AnarchyOpedia and maybe, oh I dunno, let the users go crazy and hack it and shit.. and hopefully it all turns out nice?--Mofomojo 05:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
AnarchyOpedia - Figure it out your goddamned selves!
The text says that Wikipedia is not required by law to provide you editing capabilities, not that Wikipedia's editors can break the law. And yes, you can copy all of the text from Wikipedia for use on your own website. See WP:FORK. Naconkantari 05:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha .. ZING!!!

[edit] Clock

Please make requests for undeletion on the deletion review page. This page was deleted about a year and a half ago so excuse me for not remembering the exact specifics, but note that Wikipedia does not have articles on everything, nor is that desirable. We are an encyclopedia, after all. >Radiant< 11:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Godwin's Law rears its head again. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, well, Internet culture is notable. Newgrounds is notable, and the well established groups on that site, such as the clocks, locks and other groups - are notable parts of newgrounds culture. I'm not aware if I compared anybody to hitler or if it was appropriate at the time - who knows. Anyways, the purpose of talking to guys about that article was to say.... get you guys to be aware that access to reliable empirical information on the Internet - such as the clocks, is important. It's eye-opening for people who are relatively new to the net, like say, have had it for about 1 or 2 years. And find out about Internet culture, such as Newgrounds, has been perpetuating and flourishing since the mid-90s.
God save me if I want to help people be aware of what else is on the Internet, thanks. The Clock Crew website IS popular, and is well known on the circles inside Newgrounds and those who regularly visit that site for information. Wikipedia is a site for all types of people, including members of the Clock Crew. Which probably number in the thousands as far as I know, so, hey, if you want to white-wash these people with a huge eraser as if they don't exist or are not important - fine!
Also, the fact that an article has been deleted previously is not a reasonable policy for re-deletion. I've had many, many people vote for deletion when not knowing absolutely anything about the article and the people involved in the groups in article. Because you've never heard about it before does not make it unimportant. And since that Wikipedia is frequently considered a final source of knowledge for many, many individuals, it's important that the Clock Crew is recognized. Wikipedia, along with Google and YouTube and several other prominent websites have similar crazy autocratic and frivolent policies regarding deletion.
At any rate, however, it is vital that in the information age that honest, accurate and AVAILABLEinformation is protected and absorbed. Which is perhaps, the sole motive for me wanting to protect the article. I know it's prominence. I've interacted with the group before, hell, I'm probably even registered to their website (It's been a while since I've hung around with the NG guys..).Give free information a chance, huh? You might learn some thing by chance.--Mofomojo 06:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pier57Inside.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pier57Inside.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pier57LyingDown.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pier57LyingDown.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:4chan Brules.png}

Thank you for uploading Image:4chan Brules.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)