User talk:TRAiNER4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Thanks for the.. well.. thanks!

Awww, thank you very much for your thanks on my PlayMania emall! I was rather pleased to have my email read, and I'm even more pleased that you recognized me. =) Chad1m 05:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] note to self

TRAiNER4 ^{[talk] [email]}

TRAiNER4 ^T_C

— JT (TRAiNER4) ^T_C

— JT (TRAiNER4) [^T_C][E]

—TRAiNER4 (talk • contrib)

[edit] A new userbox

Notes to self are usually good. ;) Anyway, I created a new userbox I think you might be interested in listing:

There's no shortcut for it, yet, but you can click the "edit this page" button to see the code if you'd like to use it yourself. Enjoy! - Chad1m 23:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Aww thanks. I took the liberty of making a shortcut for you. {{User:TRAiNER4/Playmania}} --TRAiNER4 ^T_C 01:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

--— JT (TRAiNER4) [^T_C][E] 16:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks again! =P

Thanks very much. And yes, I know I can't sing, but if Shandi Finnessey asks you to sing, you had better sing. =) — Chad "1m" Mosher ^Email Talk _Cont. 05:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oy!

Wow, have I been cursedly lucky this weekend or what? I got a call for the Missing Link game ???? STRING/HORN/LACE. I didn't make it into the Player's Lounge, but I was held on the line. I thought they might let me carry over into the next game, but sadly, they didn't. =( All well, that's more luck than I deserve. — Chad "1m" Mosher ^Email Talk _Cont. 07:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone down the sig html?

All that html that gets inserted when you sign a comment kinda clutters up the wiki page and makes it difficult for other editors to pick the comment from the sig. Any way you could compress it or use a bit less? Thanks. Gronky 22:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of changing my signature html. Is this better?  — JT (TRAiNER4)  [T·C·E] 22:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Playmania

Please review the discussion I have started on the talk page regarding the reversion of the edits made by me this morning. Erechtheus 18:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove maint. tags from articles (as you did to Playmania) without fixing the problem the article is tagged for. In this case the article needs to cite sources. You can check out verifiability, reliable sources, writing about fiction, and original research to see the policies on sourcing articles. Cheers. L0b0t 00:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the reversions by you and the other gentleman to the talk page (which is frankly pedantic in in and of itself judging by the majority of the talk pages on Wikipedia) is clearly missing the point. Yes, the opening paragraph describes the ostensible method of entry in the show. it does NOT address the question, however, of timing or any of the other issues raised in the initial talk comment. What exactly is it you find so offensive? There is valid commentary on people who have come up with ways to "game" radio contests and American Idol- how is this any different? ChrisStansfield 20:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't find it offensive in any manner, as it is fair, HOWEVER, it does not pertain to the article itself, which is why it was removed. —TRAiNER4 (talk • contrib) 20:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does potential rigging of entry into Playmania not pertain to the Playmania article? Explain the logic there. 20:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChrisStansfield (talk • contribs).

The reason no timing issues are addressed is because quite frankly, they are unknown. They change from episode to episode and unless one of us works on the show (which we do not), we will not. Your comments were removed from the talk page simply because they refer to the show itself and not the discussion of the Wikipedia page of PlayMania. This is standard for all television show talk pages and is not simply just to gang on you. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask. Thank you! — Chad "1m" Mosher ^Email Talk _Cont. 20:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So the simple semantic inclusion of the preface, "Should we talk about the issues of timing on entry on the article, because this seems to be an issue:" would merit the inclusion on the talk page? Because that clearly is the intent of the talk statement- that these things need to be addressed on the page itself. ChrisStansfield 20:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can find an applicable source for entries being rigged, or if you can find someone who works for PlayMania (highly unlikely), then by all means, include it on the page, in a Controversies section. Otherwise, it really isn't supposed to be included on the talk page itself, as it's general discussion, not about the article itself. —TRAiNER4 (talk • contrib) 20:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That's, well...kind of a snake eating its own tail for an argument, isn't it? You say yourself that it is unlikely that Playmania would offer a source regarding timing issues (even though most game shows in my experience like, say, Jeopardy, make it very clear to contestants how many seconds they have to ring in, how long the lockout is on a jump-the-gun buzzer answer, etc.) By the same token, if I wanted to ask on the 1,000 Flushes talk page whether anyone has ever tested to see if it really lasts 1,000 Flushes, that would be inappropriate as it's about the product and not the article. And any opportunity to look for evidence one way or another would be disallowed unless the people who make the product collaborate. :)

As the show is hardly even on the media radar, no news source is going to go to lengths to investigate this sort of thing, so any "controversy" (something I did not at all mean to allege, by the way) would come from message boards and the like, which we agree are not acceptable sources. So how exactly does one start any discussion of these things in order to FIND sources if not by use of the talk page? I'm really startled by the notion that no questions can be asked regarding the subject of an article BEFORE a person goes in and just starts editing it. I was under the impression that someone making a good faith attempt to get answers prior to referencing them in the article itself would use the Talk page for that purpose. If it really is that limited, how does one suggest possible additions to an article at all without falling afoul of the concept? ChrisStansfield 21:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about this anymore. It doesn't contribute to the article. It doesn't have any relation to the article or show any signs of it being helpful to the article, thus it was removed. If you want to discuss this further, argue with Bmitchelf as he removed it first and knows what he's talking about. —TRAiNER4 (talk • contrib) 21:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:100-Winners-PlayMania-block.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:100-Winners-PlayMania-block.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksi_great (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 100 Winners

Hi, Just a heads up, I was working on the speedy delete candidates backlog and I came across 100 Winners, which is obviously not a speedy candidate. I traced the problem to your last edit on the page. It seems that if you use a tag starting {{web...}} rather than {{cite web...}} you put a speedy request on the page. Dsmdgold 16:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

whoops, my bad. sorry. TRAiNER4 16:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image overuse

Greetings! Earlier today I removed a DVD cover image from Kyle XY [1]. Subsequent to this, you re-inserted the image indicating that it "was not necessary" [2]. Please be aware; there have been multiple, substantial discussions regarding the issue of album covers, book covers and DVD covers used in the manner in which you desire on this page. All such debates have resulted in usages such as this being deprecated due to our policy on this issue which may be found at WP:NFCC items #3(a) and #8. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. But, simply re-inserting the image is not appropriate. Thank you, --Durin 15:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:ChrisOlivero.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ChrisOlivero.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Our image copyright policies

Hi, can you please make yourself familiar with WP:NFC and Resolution:Licensing policy before you do any more removal of tags from images or addition of images to articles. You have already been informed of our image copyright policies by Durin. If you deliberately violate them again, you'll be blocked. If there's anything you don't understand, I'll be happy to help, or to find someone else who can help you, but constantly re-adding non-free images of living people to articles, or re-adding non-free images for decorative purposes, after you've been made aware of the policy, is not acceptable. To avoid accidental violation, I suggest you don't add any non-free images at all to articles or remove tags others have placed on images, without first seeking clarification from someone experienced with image policy. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have and all the rules are being followed. They have the proper rationales, and it follows all the rules, and I'm working with an experienced Wikipedian and he agrees with me. —TRAiNER4 (talk • contrib) 14:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say an experienced Wikipedian; I said a Wikipedian experienced with image policy. There is a difference. ElinorD (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• You have now been blocked for deliberately violating our policies on the use of fair use images for depiction purposes on biographies of living persons. This is a blatant violation of Resolution:Licensing policy, which you were directed to read earlier. --Durin 14:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you go and block me, yet you all seem to only go after the pages I have on my watchlist, which I find *HIGHLY* suspicious. So I revert them due to suspicious activities. I understand where the block came from, but that seems highly suspicious, whether coinidental or not. —TRAiNER4 (talk • contrib) 15:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've performed literally thousands upon thousands upon thousands of edits in support of our fair use policies. You're not being targeted individually. Please see User:Durin/Removal_of_fair_use_images#Stop_stalking_me.21. If despite this, you still think my editing patterns with regards to you are "suspicious" then please make a report of same when your block expires. My offer to assist you in any way I can to place my edits under review, given below, still stands. --Durin 15:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not accusing, or going to accuse anything as I have no evidence. However, I'm just stating it's highly coincidental, that's all, and I'll be glad to take you up on the offer in the future. —TRAiNER4 (talk • contrib) 15:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Just let me know. Thanks, --Durin 15:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review

I presume this edit summary was intended for me? If so, please let me know how I can assist you in placing my edits under review. Thank you, --Durin 12:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 24 hour block

Following your repeated refusal to abide by instructions given to you by other editors, specifically regarding our policy on nonfree content, I have blocked your account for 24 hours. You may ask for a review of this block by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on your talkpage. Regards, ~ Riana ⁂ 14:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiring

Yeah, it gets very annoying seeing all the vandalism. I'm sure not allowing anonymous users to post would help the situation out greatly. Is there a way to get it protected? - zachinthebox 18:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother

It sure is fun changing those back to TBA every 5 minutes...isn't it? - Rjd0060 21:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not in the least... atleast the page is protected from anonymous users so it has winded down quite a bit... —TRAiNER4 (talk • contrib) 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is a good thing. And just to make sure you know, I WAS being sarcastic with that first comment. - Rjd0060 16:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to look up some of the Wikipedia rules:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

Live feeds would be considered ORIGINAL RESEARCH:

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RMThompson (talk • contribs) 20:40, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

For years, the Big Brothers have been created and monitored through live feeds. I don't know what your problem is, you need to lighten up. —TRAiNER4 (talk • contrib) 20:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm here at school...

...and I want some info on last night's quiznation. How much was given away? How many games in total? How much did the crossword get to? Hurry up - I've got 30 minutes. =D — Chad "1m" Mosher ^Email Talk _Cont. 14:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Alienating Our Audience Kyle Hamilton (rower) John Kyle Brooke Burns AustNet Kyle Janek Contradiction WWSI WTVE List of United States presidential vetoes Kyle Bay, New South Wales Kyle Chavarria List of people pardoned by a United States president Kyle Airport Elaine Joyce EsperNet Big Ticket Entertainment CBS Outdoor Kyle Brandt

Cleanup List of United States Presidents by military rank Supermarket Sweep Cornerstone Television Merge Commander in Chief (TV series) List of United States Presidents by date of birth Announcer Add Sources Kyle Switzer The Crystal Method United States presidents and control of congress Wikify Studio 7 Milton Bradley Medical prescription Expand XHDF-TV Facebook WCW Thunder

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: I went ahead and...

Thank you. I wasn't sure what to do/how to do it. - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 10:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PlayMania-block.png

Thanks for uploading Image:PlayMania-block.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ratings revert

Hello... I left a link in my edit summary, but didn't type it correctly - so here is the explanation I was pointing to. Weekly ratings charts are not considered encyclopedic and as such they have been removed. Discussions about ratings should reflect an overview of the series, rather than a string of numbers that only apply to a specific market. (This is in line with how they are treated on television series articles.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So how about a regular Neilsen ratings chart? Most shows I've seen on wikipedia have it. —TRAiNER4 (talk • contrib) 16:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Quiznation-PlayMania-block.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Quiznation-PlayMania-block.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CompUSA

Hey, Trainer: Where did you hear the rumor that they were gonna close them all down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.56.246 (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's talks amongst me and my coworkers and sales associates at the CompUSA in Mt. Laurel... Nothing is confirmed as of yet —TRAiNER4 (talk • contrib) 21:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. It seems as if your store isn't the only place where this rumor comes from. Right now, word has spread all over the Web, with rumor of an announcement on December 7. [Dirty shame that they closed 10 in Jersey to begin with, and left only one.]

If it is true that they have no restocking shipments planned anywhere for February, then this announcement on Friday can't be good.

[edit] Your Website

Hey TRAiNER4,
Just checked out your website. You might want to upload something more than a firefox logo. But cool profile anyway. (Found you from the Kyle XY talk page).
YoungWebProgrammer^{Msg me} 02:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)