User talk:WebHamster/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 →

Contents 1 Free Shiite Movement 2 importance and significance 3 Perhaps you'd like to retract your insulting messages? 4 Block notice 5 I hope this retirement isn't permanent. 6 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Phua 7 Dan Magnusson 8 Question 9 erroneous no source tagging 10 Award 11 Thanks for your input 12 Other user 13 Thank you 14 Difficult, not bad, role-model 15 clarification 16 Infringing Copyright Clarification Request 17 Spelling of cecum 18 Fair use of Image:JitneyJungle.jpg 19 False Vandalism Message 20 Stop that 21 Sami Kuoppamäki article 22 Please Stop Edit Warring on the Anti-Americanism Article 23 Notice 24 Please stay COOL 25 WP:POINT 26 Block notice 27 No more Bush 28 Image 29 ANI 30 Your sig 31 Three-revert rule 32 Wikipedia is censored 33 Anti-Americanism 34 A hand in the bush 35 User page vandalism and trolling 36 Just a heads up 37 WebHamster I hope you come back to edit. 38 1-800-273-TALK 39 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hamster Pilot 220.png) 40 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. J. Phillips 41 Female heavy metal singers 42 Orphaned non-free media (Image:BowserJr.SMG.png) 43 Orphaned non-free media (Image:DaisyMP8Official.png) 44 Orphaned non-free media (Image:ToadetteMP8.png) 45 List of Mario series characters 46 Fontana, Ca 47 Edit warring on Doctor Who and Torchwood 48 AfD discussion for Chris Pahlow 49 Brennan strawn 50 PlayRadioPlay 51 Orphaned non-free media (Image:DaisyMP8Official.png) 52 Orphaned non-free media (Image:BowserJr.SMG.png) 53 Removal of flags and 3RR 54 Children and nudity 55 Facial (sex act) 56 Attacking other editors 57 The Whip (band) 58 WP: MOSFLAG 59 Fair use rationale for Image:Bel Assis (cover).jpg 60 SWK

Free Shiite Movement

Hello. You requested page "Free Shiite Movement" to be deleted. I do not know how fine the article was but this movement is quite important in Lebanon (Hezbollah see FSM as a threath to its hegemony in shiite community in Lebanon). I think that article should be returnet to Wikipedia. --Totuus (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

importance and significance

how do i explain or assure that an article is important or significant to wikipedia? i will be honest, i'm surprised by some of the things on here that are even important, or at least someone lets it through, but i would like to know what steps should i take, or how do i get it IMPORTANT enough. --SLICKFINGERS (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

hey you know what you piece of shit, my drummer happens to be my brother and i don't find that funny at all... i never said anything bad about any of you so you are in the wrong for saying shit like that. i read all the lists, but still the page i am talking about refers to none of the criteria and no one has tried to show me how they did. all i wanted was the reason they are notable then i will understand better. so shut your fucking mouth before saying shit like that. --SLICKFINGERS (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

1. It seems you aren't that much of a muso if you don't recognise the 'drummer' joke,
2. You are well on your way for getting a second block, see WP:NPA.
3. You've had all your questions explained several times over at grade school level
4. Admin is not a euphemism for Docent.
5. I don't give a flying fuck who your drummer is.
6. Ignoring Admins and trying to delete the articles of your competitors is not the way to do things round here.
7. I suggest you go sit down, have a valium and give up on the idea of getting the band into WP. Meanwhile take the advice you've been given, add the info to her article, correct obvious factual errors (backed up by 3rd party verification) and stop being a dick.--WebHamster 06:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

wow very impressive words from the administrator i hope i can be just like you one day and talk down to people who don't spend their lives in front of a computer screen. :)

look i'm trying to be real with you guys... i have been honest from the start, so i fucked up my pages when i started them because i did not know how important the sources and references were. i did not know how they were because i looked at other pages that did not cite anything, so i figured i didn't have to, but it that's what you want then fine. I am again not trying to promote the band by putting it on wikipedia, me telling people we're on wikipedia won't make us anymore important but wiki seemed to be the best informative site on the internet which it still is and i thank you all for running it. the problem i am having is that by being an administrator or running a site or business you do need to put up with people and their attitudes, i never had an attitude until it was given to me or i was being ignored because i needed help which i have admitted to.

i have felt that wikipedia would be the best place for me to be informative about the band that christy hemme is in because it was mentioned 3 days or so ago on her article... is their something really wrong with my efforts other than trying to contribute to wikipedia for informative gain and not promotional??? --SLICKFINGERS (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

in addition i have tons of musical experience you can say what you want but you can not ever take that from me, and yes i know all the drummer jokes and views but i'm trying to be serious here and not joke around. --SLICKFINGERS (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How could I ever speak down to someone with such a self-professed ability on the 'net? A "wow" didn't you say? Let's get something straight once and for all. I'm not an Admin, I'm an editor just like you. I don't have any tools that you don't have access to. The only difference appears to be that I read up on what I'm doing before I do it. I also don't do things I don't know how to do until I've read up on them.

Whereas you have failed to take repeated advice, have willingly remained obtuse about following instructions purely because they don't suit your purpose. You've then gone on and on and on and on... ad infinitum to two well-thought of and very patient Admins. They have spent time and energy and no doubt a fair portion of frustration trying to deal with you. Meanwhle you've been awkward, beligerent, antagonistic and just plain awkward to them. They've given you all the advice you need to achieve what you've said you've wanted to achieve. Now if you can't be arsed to do the work needed to learn how to do these things then I think you've got a fucking nerve to expect them to lead you by the hand through it. My advice to you is get over yourself, you're not on stage and you're not a whizz here. You're a newbie, behave like one and do like veryone else has to. READ THE FUCKING INSTRUCTIONS. --WebHamster 06:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

dude i just tried to talk to you with respect and you lash out back at me. i will read the instructions but god damn it's so fucking long and you know it is. it seems that some pages were created on a whim and they didn't even have to read any rules, they wrote a couple sentences and left.

but i'm just not going to bother you anymore.

and about the on stage thing, don't worry about it, it's all i do all the time, you'll see me whether you like it or not. i'm out.--SLICKFINGERS (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, perhaps likening someone to a piece of shit is a local method of showing respect? Once again you are totally wrong. No one person wrote these guidelines. They were written as a result of the consensus of multiple editors and have evolved over a long period time. They are there for the benefit of the project and not for the benefit of someone trying to promote a startup band. And please don't insult me and try to tell me you aren't. I've worked in the music industry for longer than I care to remember and I know exactly how it works. The fact that these guidelines are long is immaterial. Just because you want to breeze in, get some free publicity (which FYI doesn't affect your Google rating one iota) then breeze out again is also irrelevant. If you want to play the game then you're going to need to read the rules. It doesn't matter whether you're a neophyte rock star or a housewife we are all treated the same, and we all have to follow the same rules/guidelines. I rather doubt I will see you, or hear you for that matter. --WebHamster 06:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to retract your insulting messages?

I know what I'm doing. Suggest you look at the appropriate template to get output in International Dating format as opposed to the American Dating format you apparently prefer. You might also like to read up on the relevant MoS guidelines. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Perhaps if you had set your preferences correctly you wouldn't be on this rampage. If you don't like the end result then change the template, not the place it is used. FYI, I'm British and I don't use American format. --WebHamster 13:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to realise that most of our users are readers, not editors, and therefore have no accounts or date preferences. If you could take a moment to think rather than abuse other, more informed editors, you might have an easier road. --Pete (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're so informed you'd know that the date will display based on whatever their system settings are when a template is used. If you don't believe me logout, change your regional settings then visit any page that uses the template. Meanwhile leave the infobox templates alone until you do actually know what you are doing. Feel free to change the hard-coded dates as much as you like but leave the template derived ones alone. --WebHamster 13:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any date preferences set - that's how I can spot dates in the wrong format. I also know for a fact that you haven't taken my advice and informed yourself about how to use the template, which makes your gratuitious and insulting advice all the more amusing. Given your attitude in response to my information on date formats, I'm preparing a report under the three revert rule at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. --Pete (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't have any preferences set then as it's a template it will display whatever your system date settings are, are you really sure you are as informed as you say you are. I ask because you seem to be following one erroneous statement with another. Additionally, considering how well informed you are you'd also know that specific guidelines (infobox settings) trump general guidelines (MoS). As regards the 3RR threat, well personally I don't give a flying frisbee what 3RR report you file, but seeing how all-knowing you are you'd obviously realise that you've also transgressed the 3RR dictum or is your counting as bad as your understanding of date templates? Now toddle off, do whatever you want but leave the infobox date templates alone. I'm sure you'll have enough to do sorting out all those hard-coded dates. --WebHamster 14:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest, in a spirit of helpfulness, that you look at the guidelines etc. that I have indicated? You might also care to look up the "3RR dictum". Whilst I certainly don't regard three reverts per day as a right, I point out that you have reverted this article four times to my three, a clear violation on your part, but not mine. I also repeat my advice that if you were better informed, you would fare better. I certainly don't regard myself as omniscient in any respect, but in this case I feel with some justification that you know a good deal less than you pretend to, and the inevitable result of such pretence is disclosure and embarrassment. --Pete (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In my part of the world 3 = 3, maybe that's just another example of how well informed you are. Regardless I've answered your remarks at the 3RR report. If I'm wrong I'll take the punishment, I don't think I am, and no amount of pomposity will make you any more correct. So let's see shall we? --WebHamster 14:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you really mean to get my user name so charmingly wrong here? As for being wrong on other things, I quote from WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. You attempted to label my edits as simple vandalism, but clearly they do not fall within that definition, and I tiresomely point out that you've got it wrong yet again. --Pete (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a good chance I got your username wrong because it wasn't particularly important to me, and 3 is still 3. And I still do consider your edit to be vandalism. Now give my talk page a rest and say what you want to say in the 3RR report you so generously provided. --WebHamster 15:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that you get things wrong, as I have demonstrated in the case of my username. Clearly you aren't interested in following up the links I provide. I've quoted the relevant section of WP:3RR above, which boils down to stating that three reverts on an article within 24 hours is legal, if not advised, but four reverts is not acceptable. I made one change and three reverts. You made four reverts, which I have listed with diffs. You might have considered my edits to be vandalism, but if you read the definition indicated, your opinion happens to be incorrect. --Pete (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Will you give it a fricken rest, I'm over my quota for dealing with pompous people today. Like I said keep it to the 3RR report as I don't have the slightest interest in you or your faulty interpretations. --WebHamster 15:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry if you consider my contributions "pompous". I'm trying to stop you making a fool of yourself. But I'll now take your advice, desist from that, and keep my amusement to myself. Some unfortunate admin can look this over and be the diplomat that I clearly am not. --Pete (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I have no problem with you looking like a fool perhaps you should resist the urge to gloat, go to your beloved WP:DATE#Dates of birth and death section and look at the last paragraph. Then come and tell me how well informed you are. --WebHamster 15:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Block notice

Stifle (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As well as that, several recent messages you have given to other users have been inappropriate, particularly this one. Please consider reading WP:DTTR and WP:VAND#NOT while you wait for your block to expire. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• So much for blocks being preventative rather than punitive, so fuck the block and fuck the project. I've just about had enough of dealing with pompous idiots, obsequious and conniving pricks and thin-skinned fucktards who run off to teacher at the slightest rather than deal with it like a grown up. I've already wasted far too much of my time here and I'm fucked if I'm going to waste any more. --WebHamster 23:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RETIRED

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

• • I'm sorry that you took the block so negatively. I wish you well in your future endeavours and hope that you will return to edit Wikipedia again in the future. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• I was interested in the idea of some feedback-control of contentious editting by the old-fashioned embarassing-put-down method. Since it (contentious editting) seems to run ramapant, I'm open to ideas. Looks like for now, your approach was a failed experiement. If you come back, drop me a note. Pete St.John (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope this retirement isn't permanent.

I really do hope that you're just taking a break WebHamster, and that you will be back. Your block for 3RR was probably inevitable, but I'm sure it wasn't personal. But coupled with your recent RfC, I fully understand your anger.

Think of of this way. If all of the substantial content editors disappear, as is perhaps looking increasingly likely, then the administrators would end up like the ancient knight in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, kept alive by a power that has long since vanished. Go on, come back, and watch them turn to dust. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support but I must point out that the block was not the reason for my retirement. In fact that was totally inconsequential and didn't bother me at all. The reason I've ostensibly retired (though do do the occasional edit) is that I'm sick to death of the fuckwits and idiots I seem to attract. The crap that has gone with those encounters is not my thing. This project has gone from compiling a knowledge resource to power trips, gaming the system, an exercise in political correctness and an attempt to foist American values and blind and unthinking patriotism on the non-US editors. So fuck 'em. As you say, eventually all the productive editors without an agenda who do actually care about the information for its own sake will probably go the same way.

My value system does not integrate well into this rose-tinted project, there is no way that I can keep to the 'rules' (e.g. some fuckwit's idea of what civility actually is) and not say what I'm thinking and I have no intention of trying. So once again, fuck 'em and their view of how things should be. I'm more concerned with how things are. --WebHamster 14:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't patronise you (or at least I'll try not to), and thus I'll keep this breif, but having been informed of your intention to retire, I would really urge you to reconsider. The Wikipedia project is genuinely enriched by your presence and the knowledge you bring, and I would be sad to see you go, sincerely. I hope a wikibreak enables you to put this to one side and recapture your ethusiasm. Please don't go altogether. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Without wishing to antagonise anyone or appear patronising, I also add my voice to those asking you to stay and do good work. However, you need to reconsider your attitude. Going on your comments above, you should rein in your first thoughts and find alternate wording. I'm probably the world's worst diplomat, but at least I try to give an appearance of politeness. I apologise unreservedly for causing you any distress, but in my defence, your attitude in dealing with me invited retaliation in kind. Never try to kid a kidder. --Pete (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• What a load of WP:BOLLOCKS. You made edits that were wrong. The guideline you kept quoting said you were wrong, other editors said you were wrong. You are the type of person who cannot ever admit you were wrong. When you first deleted the transclusion template I reverted it and left a polite, but terse, message on your user page. You ignored me and reverted my edit. I reverted that and made a blunt response on your user page. You reverted my edit and again ignored me. I left a vandalism template on your talk page to get your attention in spite of WP:DTTR because I knew you'd bite. You then left a series of increasingly arrogant and pompous messages on my talk page. All the time insisting you were right in the face of all the contrary evidence. You even linked to the template docs (I already knew about the switch but wasn't about to tell you) that showed you to be wrong. You and tossers like you are the reason this project is going down the shitter. A quick look at your block log shows what sort of person/editor you are. Well put it this way, my dog knows what to do when I tell him to fuck off. I wonder if you are more or less intelligent than him? --WebHamster 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Join the boycott, leave the civil POV-pushers to the admins. Once they have Wikipedia being a laughing stock (well, more of a laughing stock depending on the articles) perhaps they will stop allowing WP:CIVIL to override WP:NPOV. See here for more details. Shot info (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yo, Hamster, remembering how much you used to enjoy a good AfD, I started one you might like. -- Hoary (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC) And if you did like that, here's one more and here's another. -- Hoary (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting - I wonder how long you will retire or were the revenues from marketing companies used to promote their interests. e.g.drake Circus shopping centre enough to keep you in retirement permanently or have you already morphed into one of your other identities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.101.157 (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Option 1: Swivel
2. Option 2: Blow Me.

Please choose whichever option you prefer. --WebHamster 10:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah!....what he said! (whatever it is that he is saying) ... :-) Shot info (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Phua

Perhaps you will want to add Between Here And Then (EP) to your nomination. It's an EP by the artiste. Pegasus «C¦T» 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Dan Magnusson

Yo Hammy, Just re the deletion you did of my article on Dan Magnusson. I note that you say he doesn't qualify as notable in himself, depite the fact that he performs on an album with Seasick Steve (Cheap by Seasick Steve and the Level Devils) which is having considerable success here in the UK at the current time. Just so I can understand your rationale- the individual members of bands don't merit individual pages unless they have achieved something notable from a solo perspective? I only raise this as there are many bands whose members have produced no solo material at all. Are you therefore proposing to streamline wikipedia (or at least campaign for a policy) on this basis? Rob (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, just take 'em as they come. If they are notable in their own right then the cream will surface. There are many articles here of notable musicians who are session musicians or just band members. It doesn't matter who they've performed with they still have to meet WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC. And just for the record, I'm not an admin, I can't delete anything. I can only make suggestions and it's up to the admin to decide whether I'm correct or not. --WebHamster 19:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have had a chat to the admin concerned, no probs. It does strike me that there is a slightly erratic policy pursued here, but equally that your talk page isn't the place to do so. I am though interested in your opinion- do you think that it is more appropriate for a member of a band also to have an individual biography? (You may well refer me back to the notability criteria, fair enough, but they do strike me as fairly nebulous). Rob (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This unheard of band http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hamsters is permitted, whereas an article on Dan Magnusson who almost everybody on the Uk music scene has heard of - is deleted. This above all else highlights how certain editors (albeit one has retired from using the name webhamster) manipulate this encyclopedia for their own financial gain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.35.40 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Why did you undo my edit here? All I did was change two details that were wrong, remove some unneeded detail in the CR section and merge it into two paragraphs. The rest of your changes were untouched. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the grammatical changes, they were most welcomed, but the section does not need to be in more than two paragraphs. Also, as Scorpion said above, that detail in the cultural references section is trivial and uneeded. Gran² 17:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

erroneous no source tagging

You tagged Image:TAC creator.jpg as not having a source listed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:TAC_creator.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=192888750. It does. See the "Source" line in the infobox on the image description page. I've removed the warning tag. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• (ec):Yes I know, I had removed it myself and replaced it with the correct tag. Slip of the finger I'm afraid. I've also removed the associated template warning from the user talk page too. Sorry. --WebHamster 21:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• And why did you just now tag is as having a non-commercial license [1]? It doesn't. I've reverted you. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it's obviously a commercially copyrighted image for which he's used a GFDL license which he has no right to use. --WebHamster 21:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Then don't slap a non-com warning on it. That's not the right path. Regardless, I've asked for the uploader to be blocked for related reasons. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_willfully_violating_our_image_policies. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• CDS-I3 says"This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License"." which is what he's done. CSD-I3 does apply.--WebHamster 21:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• He tagged it as GFDL. Not under any CC license. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Just leave the image for now, until he's blocked. I'll put it up for CSD I9 violation once he's blocked, if the blocking admin doesn't delete it themselves. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I reverted the change before I saw this message from you. If you rv me I won't change it again even though I believe CSD-I3 does indeed apply. Either way it's a copyvio --WebHamster 21:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed on it being a copyvio. This person does not want to adhere to our image use policies. I've tried working with him, but he either doesn't understand (suspecting English might be a second language for him) or he doesn't care. Either way, the net effect is the same. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• You've given him far more AGF than I would, to me it reads that it's more a case of WP:DGAF. --WebHamster 21:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

•  :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• East718 deleted it. Poof :) --Hammersoft (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Special Barnstar
		For a display of candor and common sense that is all too rare in Wikipedia,[[2]] you are hereby awarded this Special Barnstar. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input

Thanks for your input to the incivility report that Rudget decided to bring against me. You summarised my opinion of the matter pretty accurately, and with a great deal more "civility" than I would have been able to muster; hence my decision not to get involved and to let the matter take its course.

I am not able to say publicly on wikipedia what my real feelings are concerning this episode, but perhaps with a little imagination you can guess. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Other user

There is another user who is part of this war and you dont seem to have warned him , he is removing information about the singles. Realist2 (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's because you are already up to 3, he/she's only up to 1 edit and 1 revert. I'm not an admin so my warning was just that, a warning from one editor to another. I didn't want you to get shit-canned for a 3RR. --WebHamster 13:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry i hardly ever get a 3 revert warning and when i do their always from admins. Its not a problem know i think its sorted. cheers Realist2 (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For reverting vandalism to my talk page. Much appreciated! Cheers, JNW (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Difficult, not bad, role-model

After we had talked some (e.g. this older bit from your Talk) I was inspired to try some harsher rhetoric myself; got me blocked, which was educational. Now I'm arguing with the admin. I'm pretty much getting my ass kicked -- pardon me, my buttocks -- but eventually I'll figure out a way to make progress. Glad to see you back. Pete St.John (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that all I can suggest is that the number of "incivility" charges are increasing because the open-ended wording of WP:CIVIL has become a comfortable weapon of those losing the argument. Invariably these sycophants who wield it with style eventually become admins who then can't get over their natural programming and defensiveness and so support those thin-skinned idiots with rose-tinted glasses (and most probably pocket protectors) who use it in a manner of a drowning man and a straw. I get the impression that the main type of editor to use the WP:CIVIL red button are middle-class individuals who have been smothered all their lives by either their mother or their social circle and don't have a clue what real life is actually like. The 'civilites' coming onto WP is akin to the old adage of bringing a knife to a gun fight. Then they find the 12-gauged, twin-barrels of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and all is well in their world. --WebHamster 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

clarification

Is it possible for you to check out this request for clarification? Thanks David D. (Talk) 20:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Checked it out thanks, but if I wanted to clarify what I was saying any more I would have done so in the first place. It's all in the eye of the beholder in these politically-correct times. Let's just say Boodles is trying to do an impression of Woody Allen--WebHamster 23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Making your comments even more blatant will not help anything. Sometimes saying nothing is better than getting involved. Alternatively knowing when to stop is useful too. I hope this does not blow up even more. David D. (Talk) 00:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the advice, but at this stage in the game I don't really care one way or the other. There is always someone wanting to complain about something. If they want to complain about me then fine, it just means they have less time to complain about someone else. --WebHamster 00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I too must admit I am baffled as to your reasoning here. I can only say it looks very, very bad. I wish you would consider striking through or ameliorating your comments in some way. They are highly offensive. IronDuke 23:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything is highly offensive to someone. I didn't invent the stereotype, I just described it. No I shan't be striking it. --WebHamster 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You did not describe it. You ascribed it. That's what's offensive. Is it really hard to see how a reasonable person could be offended by it? IronDuke 23:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If someone is looking to be offended then yes it is difficult to see. If someone wants to see anti-semitism around every corner then sooner or later they will find it. My comment was NOT anti-semitic, it was observational about Boodles behaviour. If he/she does or doesn't want to portray that image then that's up to them. Offensiveness doesn't come into it, accuracy does. --WebHamster 00:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The controversy seems to have originated with a user referring to "holohoax" in the discussion of an article about an (apparent) holocaust-denier. A second user seems to have misconstrued that reference as endorsement; e.g., if I said "WebHamster believes stern language is efficatious (we should use naughty words)" and someone construed that to mean "Pete says we should use naughty words". Part of the fault in the example would be my own, as better typography would have been "WebHamster believes stern language is efficatious, e.g., that we should use naughty words". Similarly the First user perhaps could have been less ambiguous, nevertheless, the interpretation made by the second user can reasonably be interpreted as a failure of AGF. That second user then put up so much of a fight over it that he got blocked himself, and then WH made his comment. The comment was insipid, IMO, but consistent with WH's view that the ridiculous should, in fact, be ridiculed sometimes (my interpretation of his view). As Woody Allen is well-known for a deliberate portrayal of a stereotype (more pertinent to 1970's NYC, when and where psychoanalysis enjoyed growing popularity disproportionate to it's therapeutic value), the allusion is more or less apt, and funny (but posed so vaguely as to be insipid IMO). It would be incorrect to construe that persons of Jewish ethnicity have a higher rate of neuroses than other groups, and I think it's also incorrect to construe that WH means for us to construe that. I don't think Woody Allen meant for us to construe that. Pete St.John (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It just tickles me that by describing someone as attempting to imitate Woody Allen it's described as a "vicious tirade" and "anti-semitic". Oh the irony. Yes folks it's looking like Boodles has finally gained his doctorate in hyperbole and is continuing on for a post-graduate in paranoia. I do hope for his sake that the chip on his shoulder is properly kosher (perhaps julienned or trimmed with a juniper-handled knife?). --WebHamster 20:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Infringing Copyright Clarification Request

Hi there, I just want to query the decision to exclude The Goon Show site from the external link of the Goon Show page for infringing copyright. Does this specifically refer to MP3 downloads available? I was under the belief that broadcasts are copyrighted for 50 year only - is this correct? BAsed upon this issue, should other sites should be removed as well? The Goon Show Depository contains Goon Show scripts still under UK Copyright and illegally sells Goon Shows on CD. The Goon Show Archive contains copyrighted images, scripts and audio clips. The Goon Show YAQ contains lyrics from Goon Show songs and copyrighted extracts from the book entitled 'The Goon Show Companion'. Please could you confirm this so I dont make the same mistake again? Many thanks. Lee 82.19.44.161 (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I removed the link was of the MP3 downloads on the site. The Goon Show is not out of copyright so therefore the downloads are copyright infringements. As regards the scripts well I'm not too sure, from what I gather because they are transcriptions rather than actual copies of the script then it becomes a grey area. I do know for a fact though that the BBC has made an effort to get Goon Show MP3 downloads stopped and have served cease and desist notices on a few sites., whilst at the same time ignoring the script pages. As for any of the sites selling disks of the shows, well that isn't covered by WP:EL as the site itself isn't breaching any copyright or linking to copyright breaches. As far as the images go then I believe WP:EL#Restrictions on linking covers that and is okay. --WebHamster 22:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for confirming that. As mentioned I am under the belief that UK copyright for broadcasts is 50 years and the creator of the site I have ensured downloads are passed the 50 year mark. I may be wrong in my facts (and suspect that I probably am), if so I appologise. However, I have worked hard on the site, making it as fuller resource for fans as possible allowing people to enjoy the Goons and encourage them to buy the official releases. In the last 2 years alone thousands of official goon CDs have been purchased via links from my site. I think the site does more to promote the Goons (and benefit the BBC) than any other site on the web and deserves to be on wiki. I am obviously biased, but I think I can claim some kind of moral high ground - even if it is not legally accurate. I must admit, the fact that the site link has been removed, yet the 'what time is it eccles' sketch mp3 originating from the site appears to be copied and added to wiki (albeit in a different file format) adds insult to injury. I suspect I have not changed your opinion at all, and I still smell double standards when comparing the content of the other sites that remin linked. I guess rules is rules etc, but I hope you will give it a second thought. I know the BBC hasn't complained to me about the free advertising and money made from CD links on my site. Thanks for your time and response anyway. Ying-Tong-Iddle-I-Po! 82.19.44.161 (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that you've admitted to being the site owner I must warn you that there is a possibility of a breach of the conflict of interest guidelines in adding the link to your site, but to clear up the copyright on the shows. No doubt you have a collection of the GS CDs. Have a look on the back and you will see the copyright date of BBC Worldwide. My copy of vol 9 says © BBC Worldwide 1992,1997. As for the audio sample on the page, that is there under the Fair Use guidelines in that it is a low resolution portion of the show. It is only a 10th of the show and has a justification that it demonstrates directly the words on the article. This is acceptable under the copyright laws of the US where the WP servers are housed. I'm truly sorry if you feel aggrieved but as you said I don't make the rules and Wikipedia is quite specific about this one. Alternatively you could always not offer the files for download then you could replace the link with no problems. --WebHamster 00:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel this is simply incorrect. Copyright lasts 50 years for broadcasts. This has not been contested with so I assume it can be agreed. Released CDs have undergone restoration and as such are considered new releases and subject to copyright. The downloads on the site are sourced from original recordings, not these CDs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.44.161 (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's only one problem with that summation. Wikipedia is subject to US copyright laws, not UK ones. The US copyright is 70 years for broadcasts before 1 Jan 1978 (§302. All of which is irrelevant as WP policy is quite clear on this. The other thing to take into account is the fact that 1. you are pushing your own site, 2. Its inclusion doesn't really add anything the others links don't 3. With the copyright problem being added to the mix from a WP standpoint it's just a grey area but with no advantage to WP. In any case the traffic to your site would not be counted for Google purposes as WP uses no-follow for all its links. As I've said though I'm just following what it says at WP:EL. If you have a problem with it may I suggest you file a report at WP:ANI or the Village pump. --WebHamster 21:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. The site wont get back in Wiki. Lots of perfectly valid WP policy quotes as to why(except the "doesn't really add anything the others links don't" comment - plenty of good stuff amoungst the standard info i.e. authentic script scans, collectables, up-to-date news, pictures and corrected transcripts). Please dont belittle me with remarks about Google traffic. The site is well ranked in Google for many Goon related search terms. My reason for wanting the site in wiki is that I believe it is a vaild resource. Anyway, end of wiki inclusion discussion. Is there a WP policy on me just being mundanely annoying for the sole purpose of provoking another authoritative yet knowingly condescending response, full of fact but low on love? (Notice the irony in my message being authoritative, yet knowingly condescending - just to provoke an authoritative yet knowingly condescending response). Gissa kiss. 82.18.127.138 (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you read that as condescension, I can assure you it wasn't meant as such. I was merely being factual. Remember I was talking from a WP standpoint, ie as an information resource. Scans of scripts and such is all fine stuff for the Goon Show trainspotter (of which I am proud to be one) but from an encyclopaedic POV it's not important. Again, my comment about the linking to Google was not a personal slight. Many people attempt to add links to their sites purely for that reason. I was just explaining the no-follow factoid as a technical reason for it not being a useful strategy. I have no idea what your intentions are so I merely commented on the usual reasons. I should point out that this isn't personal for me, it actually makes no difference which links are there and which links aren't. The only reason yours was deleted was because of the MP3 downloads, so as I said before lose them and there's no reason at all why your site link can't go back (even though there are probably already enough links on the article). --WebHamster 23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of cecum

Hi there. I thought you'd want to know about this. --P3d0 (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the "wikilawyering". I just thought I should check my facts and back up my position, given that I was reverting your edit for a second time. I didn't realize it would start the whole discussion off on the wrong foot. --P3d0 (talk) 03:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of Image:JitneyJungle.jpg

The summary section for the image clearly reads: "Jitney Jungle Supermarkets logo (now-defunct chain in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama and Florida)." It is a corporate logo. What further explanation is needed? I am really growing quite weary of those who seem to be hung up on bureaucracy concerning images, especially those whose fair-use rationale is quite obvious. Furthermore, the company no longer exists, and there is no successor company which acquired the use of the name and/or corporate identity. I think this is quite clear. Thank you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Your weariness is immaterial. Rules are rules. Any copyrighted image must have a fair use rational your weariness does not absolve you from the responsibility of your upload. --WebHamster 19:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

False Vandalism Message

I was sent a message saying vandalized the page for Red Bull Energy drink,when I removed the vandalism that I saw. I would like this removed from my talk page please. 66.24.19.64 (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

_{Thank you!}

Please accept my apologies. A slip of the mouse I'm afraid. I clicked on the wrong diff link. I will of course remove the vandalism warning. --WebHamster 10:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop that

Stop baiting VigilancePrime. Personal attacks are not allowed. Play nice. Herostratus (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are on about. He's the one doing the stalking following me around and undoing my edits on pages he's never been to before, he's the one making accusatory edit summaries. I have made no personal attacks although I've been sorely tempted to by both his attitude and his behaviour. --WebHamster 10:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

He's on about what everyone else is on about. Your manner of dealing with people, especially in disagreements, is generally uncivil. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:15, 3 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Didn't take long for you to show up... now bugger off there's a good little sycophant. --WebHamster 23:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

^...for example. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:28, 3 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you've noticed but it says "User talk:Webhamster" at the top of the page, ie it's 'my' talk page, additionally there was no mention of anyone asking you to comment one way or the other. Now you know and I know that you are doing it to bait me because you know damn well what my response will be. Now for the second time this paragraph... bugger off somewhere else. You may actually find a place where your presence is desired. May be under a bridge somewhere? --WebHamster 23:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So your point is that users shouldn't speak on other users' talk page? Unless they are requested to? I haven't heard of any rule or even a practice like that thus far. Whether or not my "presence" is "desired" is of little consequence. I'm showing concern for another user who seems to not understand the rules. That's something user talk pages have always been used for. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:43, 3 Mar 2008 (UTC)

What a load of bollocks. You know I know the rules, there is no need for you to come here to tell me them. I've been here 5 years I'm pretty sure I know most of them by now. Showing concern my arse, it's yet another dig/bait. I have no interest in anything you have to say anywhere on WP but especially here. Now that you know that there is no need for you to return is there? I don't want your concern, your advice or your attention. The only thing I want from you is your departure. U understandee da eenglishh? --WebHamster 00:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Herostratus (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sami Kuoppamäki article

Hi! You said that a discography isn't enough to establish notability. But take for example the article for Jeff Porcaro - in addition to a couple of statements about his talent, the completely unreferenced article is basically a list of people he has played with, combined with biographic trivia. Still, anyone who knows something about popular music wouldn't think of putting a notability tag on that article even though he has released nothing in his own name. I think the same goes for Kuoppamäki - anyone who has some knowledge of Finnish popular music or jazz would never put a notability tag on the article. Liffey (talk) 07:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the Porcaro article, WP:WAX applies. Your guy may or may not be notable in Finland the point being that is he notable from a Wikipedia standpoint? If this is the case then make the article comply with WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC and I'd be happy to remove the tag. Personally I'd prefer it if you did as I work in the music business for several independent artists and session musician so know only too well how the notability guidelines within WP aren't exactly kind to the lynch-pins of the music biz, the session musician. --WebHamster 12:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please Stop Edit Warring on the Anti-Americanism Article

I know this is emotional topic, but you can't just delete warning tempaltes because you think the article is good. Many people think the article has a lot of problems, including people who didn't vote to delete it (that's me). Wikipedia has the templates for a reason and you can't just declare that reason wrong and delete all the warnings. Your name calling and antogonistic attitude doesn't help either. Rachel63 (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't called anyone names, and "antagonism" is subjective, I consider it to be debate. As I've said, don't just put generic tags on an article and then refuse to be specific on the talk page. If no-one will elucidate on what they are referring to then the tags go. It's a simple as that. The fact of the matter is that the people putting tags on it simply do not like the thought of an article expounding the dislike of their country and as such are attempting to be disruptive. --WebHamster 13:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice

A) You shouldn't call content disputes 'vandalism'. You especially shouldn't call something 'vandalism' if it's done by an administrator.

B) For god's sale, man, learn what's appropriate and what's not. I dislike GWB as much as you do - that's why I gave you a picture of Bushes Being Burned - but you can't expect to have that sort of thing not cause problems on an encyclopedia project. DS (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a user page not an article, and admins are just a capable of vandalism as anyone else. Now I don't give a flying fuck what you think of Bush, I haven't broken any rules with that page. Now unlock it and have the decency to take part in the ANI duscussion before unilaterally blocking someone's user page. You are well out of order. --WebHamster 05:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Vandalism" implies a certain degree of malice, in my opinion. Incidentally, C), that image is now on the Images Blacklist: images that, due to their high potential for abuse in vandalism, cannot be used except on specific articles. DS (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So unprotect the fucking page then. --WebHamster 05:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Not just in your opinion. Vandalism is an intentional act of disruption, in Wikipedia terms. This edit was good-faith and therefore not vandalism. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:20, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I don't give a fuck, it was an admin action against the consensus on ANI, it's worse than vandalism. --WebHamster 05:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree there somewhat. DS should remove the protection until the ANI discussion completes, in my opinion. It hasn't been determined yet whether or not the image is appropriate, so until then this is basically a content dispute, a simple disagreement between an admin and a user, and in those instances the admin shouldn't invoke protection. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:26, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Might i recommend that you remove the image right now, until the discussion at ANI is over, just to attempt to cool this situation off? Tiptoety ^talk 05:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The complaint was that the image was "pro-paedophilic", not that I have a nude on my page. This is quite obviously a women above the age of consent. --WebHamster 05:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)There just seem to be quite a few users upset over this rather small incident and removing such images might save you a headache. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pedophilia wasn't the admin's complaint. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:36, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)

That's his problem, so far it only appears that he didn't like it, not that I've broken any rules. Frankly I don't give a toss if he's a bible basher who goes bright red when tampon ads come on the TV. He overstepped the line, whereas I haven't. This is not a pornographic image, in fact if you look at it properly, you can't actually see anything that would get a girl arrested on a beach. --WebHamster 05:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, but nevertheless, the request was that you remove it for the time being to cool things down until the issue is settled. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:41, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)

"To ask a question is to invite a refusal". I didn't start this bullshit, I have no interest in it whether it heats up or cools down. I'm not changing my user page just because someone doesn't like it. Prester John is only pissed because of that MfD on his page ages ago and now he's started this disruption to make a point. Fuck him over, not me. --WebHamster 05:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stay COOL

It does not matter if you are right or wrong, but if you show frustration and indignation is not good for the discussion. So avoid volgarity in order to better present your case. Igor Berger (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't give a shit about the discussion that's the whole point. It's a waste of time complaint by a right-wing Aussie who thinks he's a Yank, who wants payback for when his user page got deleted. --WebHamster 05:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth getting a block? Lose a battle to win a war, never heard of that? Go back to editing anti-Americanism. Igor Berger (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is worth getting a block over. --WebHamster 06:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Up to you, but you are missing a bigger picture! Igor Berger (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

actually, this is quite a big picture. And as for anti-Americanism, well I'll probably get a block for that too. When there's 2 editors reverting against my one, then it's me that ends up in the shit. --WebHamster 06:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Webhamster, I'm not familiar with your recent editing disputes. I'm just a little bit troubled by the apparent timing of your addition of this image to your userpage. This all seems geared towards making a point, which, quite honestly, is a waste of our time and yours. Check out WP:POINT, please. alphachimp 06:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't bring this to ANI and I didn't create all this furore. I put it on there because it made me laugh. It was up there for 6 hours before a pissed off right-winger came along and thought he could get some payback. --WebHamster 06:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to go overboard trying to discern your intentions, but I'd think anyone in their right mind would see that creating a userpage like that is both inflammatory and divisive. Whether a person is right or left leaning shouldn't really have an effect. alphachimp 07:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I see it as a joke, nothing more nothing less. I don't see it as disruptive, I don't see it as divisive. I'm sticking to my guns because I think I have a right to put something which I consider to be harmless on my own user page. If you have a problem with it then send it to MfD. But I've already had enough of admins doing whatever they like when I haven't broken any existing rules. --WebHamster 07:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, quite honestly my time is worth more than what it would take to bring this to MfD. If another wants to do so, more power to them. What specifically are you referring to with "admins doing whatever they like"? alphachimp 07:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing the image to one they chose, then locking the page so I couldn't edit it, then blacklisting a perfectly innocent image. In spite of the consensus that was being shown on ANI at the time. --WebHamster 07:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Block notice

Stifle (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No more Bush

Maybe you should change the image to this one. Some may think it is more appropriate! Igor Berger (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Then it wouldn't be the joke I wanted to tell. Sort of like the guy in the bar who finishes the punchline of a joke you are trying to tell. Anyway, I'm off to bed, I'll see what stain on the wallpaper has been left by Prester John when I get up--WebHamster 07:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I got the joke! And I know the meaning of it! Do not take it so serious. You know Prester John baited the whole ANI with his POV. Igor Berger (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind. It's a pretty amazing picture :) alphachimp 07:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I glad you like it, I got it off your page..:) Igor Berger (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should let the chimps edit Wikipedia! They would not have edit wars..:) Igor Berger (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• WebHamster, as one who rather enjoys a joke (especially at the expense of the smirking chimp), I think the inline link is actually funnier. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that this whole mess over a picture is entirely unbecoming, and the censors should go hide in shame under a slimy rock somewhere. "Bring the project into disrepute". Feh! You have my support (for that, at least). — Coren ^(talk) 21:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the project is already in disrepute, because we are perceived as a strong-arms fashion! Igor Berger (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Image

Hello WebHamster. I want you to know that while I am involved in the RfC regarding the image on your userpage, I do not intend to modify your userspace inappropriately, and have all due respect for you and your position in this debate. I reverted someone here (see combined diff) who had tried to change your userpage, but now it seems to display incorrectly (at least for me). I have no intention of changing your userpage, and did not intend to change how the image was displayed (see here, your version - identical to mine - where the image also does not show up, at least not for me). I apologize if I have inadvertently done something unwelcome to your userpage, and want to make it very clear that that is not what I have done (at least according to the combined diff) nor what I intended to do. Best regards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added a link to the image similar in content what you originally had, from commons. here It is from commons, here is the link Image:Vulva.jpg The image is of a legal age adult woman as stated by the license, taken by Dutch artist Peter Klashorst This file is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 here is the license Igor Berger (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Igor, how many times have we told you, that's not the original image. Don't drag this nonsense from the RfC here. Go back to discussion at hand and try to contribute something that isn't redundant and factually incorrect. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The image also doesn't show up for me, and never did (but the original one that got deleted did). I'm not sure why this is, as everyone else seems to be able to see it. Cheeser and I must have some system setting or browser bug in common. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:54, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

It showed up for me earlier. I can't explain it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It does not show for me either, that is why I replaced the link to the similar one that he originally had. Igor Berger (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser, go to Wikipedia:SERVICE and look down at the senior editor award. That image never showed up for me either, yet it does for everyone else. Just out of curiosity, can you see it? Equazcion •✗/C • 04:01, 8 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see it. It appears to be an error specific to a user and a specific image. I can see both if I use IE (where I'm not logged in). So it appears to be a non-issue. I suggest we let it drop and Webhamster can keep the version of the controversial image that he likes until the discussion is over. Let's keep the remainder of this conversation at WT:UP since it's really not an issue to discuss/fork here - I hadn't intended to spur any discussion until Igor decided to copy-paste his posts over to here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Another image shows up on his user page here but the one that has the image link now does not!

It is also not working here. Igor Berger (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Igor the use of this image is controversial, but posting it in someone else's talkspace is probably not appropriate. If you want to test it, make a sandbox for yourself and do it there - other people's talkpages are not the place for you to make test-edits. And please, stop taking up Webhamster's talkpage. Move this issue back to the RfC instead of turning my courtesy note into a ridiculous fork of the RfC. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You the one started this thread, not I. You reverted me, and I objected at RfC but I did not revert you. So please go back to RfC for further discussion on this matter. Igor Berger (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

ANI

FYI - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:WebHamster Equazcion •✗/C • 05:04, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)

L....O....L....Neal (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC).

Your sig

Hi WH, with ref to the recent kerfuffle over your user page and particularly to my opinion in the ANI thread, would you consider changing your sig to add a direct link to your talk page? That would bring it into line with the more standard formats and save editors the extra click to contact you. Disclosure: I personally think your user page is hilarious and I check it regularly just to be sure it's still not offensive; checking now...nope, still good :) - but that's just me... Franamax (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anti-Americanism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please try looking at the edits instead of the summaries. You will see that the edits you seem to be referring to were part of legitimate copy edits. Perhaps if you familiarised yourself with the article in question instead of merrily handing out blocks and templates (WP:DTTR) you'd have more of an idea that it's not me being the disruptive one. --WebHamster 11:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is censored

Wikipedia is censored I am told by a bunch of editors who disagree with what I am saying that I am not allowed to comment in Wikipedia mainspace. Is this not censorship? If we do not like someone for what ever reasons, we just GAG them? Igor Berger (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the message that I posted on User:Jehochman page here Igor Berger (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Recently my user page has been protected by admin User:El C because I wrote Wikipedia is censored and Wikipedia totalitarian regime He deleted this from my user page and protected it. You also had your user page censored. And the Anti-Americanism article has been protected from editing. I think there is a problem of censorship on Wikipedia. I invite you to come and join the discussion on my talk page about this User_talk:Igorberger#Wikipedia_is_censored Igor Berger (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This what I wrote on my user page here. It is in protestation of a Wikipedia namespace community ban that was imposed on me in the name of disruption. This is what amdin User:El C wrote wrote. I requested him to unprotect my user page here Igor Berger (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

I tried talking to User:Bsharvy But he is not interested in listening here. After I even sent him an email acknowledging that the definition of Anti-Americanism as hatrated and hostility towards American people is worng, he accused me of being disruptive editor to the article here Ebenthough I only did one edit to the article. Also he accused you as such!

I recommend this to be written to the article, but as you know the article has been protected from editing!

Anti-Americanism is not being prejudice against American people but a political ideology opposing American Imperialism.

Replace this, and it will make the article more encyclopidic--->

It is not, "Anti-Americanism, often anti-American sentiment, is opposition or hostility to the people or culture of the United States"

Please read, American exceptionalism

It is like anti-zionism. It is an ideology that opposes a zionist ideology, not a hostility and hatrated towards zionist.

I think even if the article gets unprotected arguing with User:Bsharvy is a waste of time, because it clearly looks like he is bent on deleting the article. He belives that no matter what the article is not encyclopidic and it is just a dictionary definition! WP:HORSE

I recommend to walk away from the article and let him WP:OWN it. Unfortunatly in the present atmosphere of neoconservatism on Wikipedia it makes it almost impossible to edit controversial articles. Wikipedia editing process has been hijaked! 05:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Check out this satirical poem by Kipling, The White Man's Burden. It will help you understand the Anti-Americanism political idiology.

Igor Berger (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Equazcion got involved in mediating the article, and he knows you and me are not the problem. Please do not edit war with Bsharvy. If he continues to revert in support of his POV, go see Equazcion and he will help you with the problem. Igor Berger (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A hand in the bush

A hand in the bush Maybe you should add this link to your "Repeat after me, No more Bush!" The article was just nominated for AfD, but was kept...Have no idea why, because it is only two sentence descrption of the definiton of what, "Hand in the Bush" means! Irony! Now that is a punt. But who knows, if you put it on your user page, it may get censored as being uncivil, immoral, and disruptive. Igor Berger (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I retired from WP a bit back then thought I'd give it another try. It's not working out. With stalkers, fuckwits, prudism, gamers of the system and in-house politics I'm getting nothing out of this but grief. As such they win and I give up. I'm off. I may be back, I may not, I don't know, but for the time being as I'm getting nothing back for the time I'm putting in, not even fun or satisfaction it seems a waste of my time when I could be doing something far more fruitful instead. I hope you stick with it. Have fun. --WebHamster 15:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I know how you feel. I am a bit adicted and sometimes wish I would have never gotten envolved with the project. It is very consumming. I am neglecting many other important things just to contribute here. Actually trying to pull away, so I can go back to my life. There is more to life than just Wikipedia. And if we have to expand so much energy to contribute to it, it is just not worth it. I hope I am able to find balance and not become obsessed with "This thing of Ours!" A few hours a day would be best. Igor Berger (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User page vandalism and trolling

Regardless of the other user's behavior towards you recently, the most recent edits to User:Prester_John are vandalism and blatant trolling, and are blockable offenses. Please remain civil. - TheDaveRoss (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up

MediaWiki:Bad image list is how they filter images to only appear on certain pages. It will also show you who did added the images to the list. -- Ned Scott 07:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WebHamster I hope you come back to edit.

User:Bsharvy and her sock User:Rachel63 have indef blocked and we could use your help with Anti-Americanism article. Please reconsider and do not worry about the image on your user page. I know the guy who started the ANI thread did not do it in good faith, but we need to respect the community consern. So if it is removed, it is not the end of the world. Please come back to edit. Igor Berger (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

1-800-273-TALK

Hi Webhamster, Why did you take out '1-800-273-TALK' out of the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline article? The Lifeline is a number and 1-800-273-TALK is apart of their name. Also, I believe an entire section was taken out of this article about 1-800-SUICIDE but I do not see who did this in the edit history. Do you know how I can find out who did or why this would be taken out? I'm assuming there is a WP about numbers but, in this case the numbers are information about the organization.LoiseLaner (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hamster Pilot 220.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hamster Pilot 220.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. J. Phillips

Just letting you know that the article was evidently vandalized to make the dates incorrect on the article. The info that's there now checks out, but he still doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. (By the way -- nice pic on your userpage.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Female heavy metal singers

The list of female heavy metal singers was originally titled "List of female metal singers", with the "heavy" omitted. I just noticed that someone changed the title, and I am changing it back now to avoid further confusion. Asarelah (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BowserJr.SMG.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BowserJr.SMG.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:DaisyMP8Official.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:DaisyMP8Official.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ToadetteMP8.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:ToadetteMP8.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Mario series characters

Didn't I just ask that if someone has a certain problem with it to revert only that one thing? Would you please mind reverting yourself, and then add the pictures back manually in that revision? Also, for your information, that is too many random images to actually have in the article. Per WP:NFCC point 3a, those images can be replaced by group images, so they fail it. I'll deal with the images later, but if you could please do what I requested for now to keep the image of edit warring away, that would be appreciated. TTN (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you didn't do such sweeping edits especially when you knew there was dissent about your image removal then selective reversion could be done. I'm not about to spend an age of my time picking through your edits to find the ones that should have been done and the ones that shouldn't. Where do you get the impression that the images are random? They aren't. They are specific to the character descriptions and they are located correctly to the corresponding list entry. Now if you want a group image then either find one or create one then replace the single images. Don't just delete the single images and leave the article with none. Show a bit of common sense eh? --WebHamster 00:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

How hard is it to copy and paste seven times? It's not like you would have to do anything more than that. I have to ask, did not not see the part about the number of images not being up to standards with a policy? I've never understood the rational that I have to go find a group image if I'm removing ones that fail policy. Anyways, seven is still too many, so I'll compromise with the four that have actually played major roles in recent games. I hope that'll be good enough for you. If not, please just manually add the three images back. TTN (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's 7 times easier to revert once. As regards the group image, now wouldn't that depend on whether there actually is a group image or not now wouldn't it? so 4 images are okay but 7 aren't? You're making this up as you go along aren't you? There is no policy that gives a maximum number of images in an article like this. So be a good little pedant and put all of them back until a group image is available to replace the single images. There's a good boy. --WebHamster 10:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And you're the one complaining about the way I edit... Anyways, four images is still too many. That's why I referred to it as a compromise for now to avoid any needless edit warring. There is no arbitrary number, as it varies, but good lists generally never have more than three anyways. I'll try to grab the Mario Kart Wii character selection screen if I can find it. TTN (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually no I'm not complaining about the way you edit, I'm just reverting it. Some arbitrary notion of "too many" is not in my view a justifiable reason for deleting helpful images. There is no policy that says that there can't be an image for every single entry, so every time you delete an image I'll just revert it. When a list article is describing something, in this case characters, it is always useful to have an image to portray something raw text can never do. Their inclusion is therefore helpful and justified and does not break any WP rules. Simple as that. --WebHamster 03:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, you didn't follow the link I gave you. WP:NFCC point 3a - Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. One image can easily be placed (note that it does not say that "Multiple images may be used if someone doesn't provide an image to replace them").

The article just hasn't been hit in the past because the images are switched around so often that the number falls under the radar a lot. Both Characters of Kingdom Hearts and Characters of Final Fantasy VIII (Featured articles) had many images in the past, but against the complaints of many people, they were removed. If there was no backing here, they would still have them. There was also a long discussion (hundreds and hundreds of kb) on one of the Administrator noticeboards that ended sticking with that decision. I'm not going to remove them again for a while to avoid edit warring, but they're going to be removed eventually anyways. TTN (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fontana, Ca

Hi. I am wondering what your rationale is for undoing my revision of the Fontana, Ca article (specifically the prominent placement of the Hells Angels info and methamphetamine use. I listed my rationale for the revision, but your undo had no explanation. Shall I simply undo your undo? (Mracew (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

Prominent? No it wasn't prominent it was merely part of the article. The information is correct therefore is justifiably included, you don't delete stuff purely because you don't like its inclusion. Whether you like it or not the genesis of the Hell's Angels culture is historically significant. --WebHamster 03:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, huh. Sorry, I just don't agree. After all, I didn't delete the reference to the H.A's, I moved it. It can be in the article, but it doesn't need to be in the first few lines. Unless that's all you know about the city? And shouldn't you state your rationale when you undo? Mracew (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Doctor Who and Torchwood

Please stop edit warring on Doctor Who and Torchwood. I have protected the two articles until you and TheProf07 can reach an agreement. Thank you. — Edokter • Talk • 13:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like that's going to happen. --WebHamster 04:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD discussion for Chris Pahlow

I noticed you had done some editing to Chris Pahlow. The article has been nominated as an article for deletion. If you'd like to participate in the deletion debate, it can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Pahlow (2nd nomination). Dgf32 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Brennan strawn

As the subject of this article is a member of a non notable band, he is not inherently notable. The article has been deleted without prejudice for recreation should reliable sources demonstrating notability be found. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

PlayRadioPlay

Sure is funny how only the fact that he's an atheist gets deleted. What about all the other uncited garbage on that horrible article? Mmmmmm, biased much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.163.231 (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely hilarious. Now go look at WP:BLP before adding any more uncited, irrelevant and potentially libellous crap to the article. --WebHamster 08:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, should I go ahead a delete everything that's uncited in that article? Why is the fact that he's an atheist picked upon. I read what you told me to read. Now my question to you is, why is it that when a person is relgious it's always mentioned in an article, however, just because he happens to be an Atheist it get's deleted....HMMMM...kinda strange, eh? Something against Atheists, perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.163.231 (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What's more likely is that you have an axe to grind as this is the only thing you attempt to add to wikipedia. Now, if you did indeed read aboyt BLP then you would understand that you cannot just throw in negative accusations without some form of backup citation. Even so "he is an a atheist" is somewhat superfluous, unencyclopaedic and just plain irrelevant for an article on a rock musician who isn't in the Christian music genre. And no, I have nothing against atheists as I am one, but I do have something against vandals trying to cause trouble. --WebHamster 04:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Being an Atheist isn't something negative. I don't know how you could consider it a negative accusation. Also, I've found many articles on rock artists which mention their religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.163.231 (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:DaisyMP8Official.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:DaisyMP8Official.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BowserJr.SMG.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BowserJr.SMG.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of flags and 3RR

I'm sure that you are aware of 3RR - I see that you have been blocked recently because of it. Fair warning: continue edit warring over the use of flags without discussing it at Template Talk:Infobox Television#Flag usage first, where there is an ongoing discussion, will probably result in another block. _TalkIslander 12:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur... your behaviour is becoming unaceptable. Stop edit-warring and discuss you concerns instead. — Edokter • Talk • 12:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Bollocks to unacceptable. You are doing the very same thing with much less grounds for doing so than me. For those that can't tell time or count I am not contravening 3RR. And for the blind amongst you I've already taken part in the discussion. The fact of the matter is that a MOS guideline trumps an arbitrary instruction by a template writer. Now quit with the threats because I really don't give a fuck whether you are admins or not. Oh and btw Islander, if you are going to bandy around the expression "consensus" at least learn how to spell the fucking thing. --WebHamster 13:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see that you are being civil ;). I'm sure that I needn't remind you that you can also be blocked for personal attacks (which calling someone blind or unable to tell time certainly is). Fact of the matter is that whilst consensus is yet to be reached, we continue to uphold the template instructions. As WP:FLAG is no more than a guideline, the template instructions are more relevant to the template. Now, quit reaching your own conclusions and wait for a consensus to be reached. _TalkIslander 13:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to force the situation, and your remarks just lost you your credibility. — Edokter • Talk • 14:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Blow me. --WebHamster 15:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As you are well aware of 3RR, I'm sure that you are aware of this particular clause: "The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive". Your behaviour is clearly disruptive. Wait for consensus. It's not hard. _TalkIslander 11:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins are just as much at risk of 3RR as us proles. So stop being holier than thou when you are just as guilty. Now let's get something straight. Show me the consensus that put the usage of country templates within the infobox template and I'll cease the changes. But if you can't back up your so-called consensus with facts then I suggest that you shut the fuck up and go back to your mop and bucket. meanwhile quit with the "pathetic" remarks and act like an admin instead of a spoilt child. --WebHamster 11:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"I suggest that you shut the fuck up..." OK, last warning. The next personal attack aimed at me or indeed anyone will result in a block. It is completely unacceptable to behave like this to anyone. Also, on a lesser note, while Wikipedia is not censored, there's absolutely no need to fill each sentance on your talk page with as many explitives as possible - clean up your language.

Now, I am well aware that admins aren't immune to 3RR - I have never suggested otherwise. I have possibly reverted a bit too much myself, and plan to stop, but that has no bearing on your behaviour at all. Just as I am at risk of breaking 3RR, you are too, be clear on that.

With regards to consensus - there is no consensus one way or the other, clear? As there is no consensus one way or the other, the practice that has gone on longest (i.e. placing one flag in an infobox) carries on, until consensus is reached one way or another. The infobox instructions outdate the Flag guidelines by more than seven months (The template instructions reagrding flags were written on 10/03/07, whilst WP:FLAG became a guideline on 14/10/07), hence it makes sense that, until a consesus is reached, the instructions continue to be followed. In addition to that, WP:FLAG itself recognises the use of flags in infoboxes "The flag icons were created for use in lists and tables (especially of sporting and other statistics), and have subsequently found widespread usage in infoboxes.". Now, please point out exactly what part of WP:FLAG the use of flags in Television infoboxes breaks? _TalkIslander 13:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear I'm shitting myself at the prospect of an admin who's in an edit war threatening to block the other side. My legs are trembling. As far as NPA goes who's the one calling another editor "pathetic"... twice? A bit hypocritical wouldn't you say, but something I'm starting to expect from you.

Making the rules up as we go along are you? When there's no consensus we revert to the guidelines, that's what they're there for. So show me the guideline that states "no consensus one way or the other, the practice that has gone on longest" What total bollocks designed to shore up your very shaky argument.

As regards WP:FLAG, well let's start with WP:FLAG#FLAG#Do_not_emphasize_nationality_without_good_reason or how about WP:FLAG#Help the reader rather than decorate. Additionally an infobox is neither a list nor a table, let along a long one or multi-entried so one of your arguments falls apart right there. When the wiki-linked words "United Kingdom" are there for all to see then a Union Flag is superfluous, it doesn't help the reader any further (especially a reader who isn't up on national flags) all it does is "decorate" unnecessarily.

Re my swearing... Tough shit. --WebHamster 17:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I did actually notice that after I suggested a halt to activities you did stop, and I thank you for that. Thanks also for your 'support' addition - I still stick to my point of view, but unlike (in my opinion) your earlier posts on the matter, this one made sense, and was actually quite convincing. Thank you. _TalkIslander 13:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Children and nudity

Have you noticed the latest prudery at this article? SqueakBox has removed all the images, characterizing them as "cp" (child pornography). --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Facial (sex act)

Thank you for your attention to the article. You stated: "Discuss first then edit. Unilateralism just pisses people off." Forgive me if I am mistaken, but, Wikipedia's editing guideline hardly discourages "unilateralism". Furthermore, due to another revert, the merger proposal notice has once again been deleted. If a BRD is requested, then fine; let's have one on Talk:Facial (sex act).

Thanks. DeeKenn (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Attacking other editors

Please do not attack other editors about adding CSD tags to articles you created, you do not own the article, and other people are entitled to their own opinions on the value of that article. May a suggest having a polite discussion with User:WebHamster about why he/she put that tag there and how you could possibly fix the article so that it can be removed.  Atyndall93 | talk  12:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Whip (band)

Stop vandalising this page relentlessly you good for nothing troll. The band's notability is asserted within the article as outlined in the talk page. Therefore I have removed the speedy deletion tag, regardless of the fact I have created the article. It is ridiculous to wait for someone else to remove the tag, if I have asserted the notability of the band there is no reason for it to be there anymore, what possible difference can it make if I do it instead of someone else. Idiot. Antic-Hay (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Try reading WP:BAND before making more of a nuisance of yourself. A debut album is NOT an assertion of notability. Now as regards the tags. An admin will review the CSD request and will do what he/she deems necessary. Follow the rules, quit vandalising the tags, and read up on what you obviously don't know with regard to WP. --WebHamster 12:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A debut album on "one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).", namely Southern Fried Records, Fatboy Slim's record label that has been around for almost 15 years and has plenty of big names on it. I would have thought this would have been enough information to stave off the Speedy Deletion and Notability vultures but obviously not. Delete the article if you hate it so much. I thought in my naivety that I could contribute to the start of an article that the whole world could read and be educated from and enjoy, but obviously not. I'm done with this ridiculous encylopaedia and its miles of red tape where magnitudes more effort is spent in stopping one's article from being deleted than actually contributing. I wouldn't be so pissed off if it weren't for the fact that I saw to my surprise that such a famous band were missing from the encyclopaedia and swiftly went out of my way to find the minimum amount of information on them that would provide a reasonable defense of their notability and created an article with it. I don't have time to spend all day writing articles, but it's a real spit in the face when I try to contribute and I'm told that I'm vandalising wikipedia. And let's face it, anyone who knows anything about popular music has heard of The Whip, which makes the adders of these tags either purely malevolent vandals or ignorant. Perhaps you could have done more good by a polite request on the talk page to add a reference or some such, but no, you chose the passive aggressive route of adding these revolting unsightly tags to my article, and then claiming I was the one in the wrong for cleaning it up. What a godawful state of affairs. Antic-Hay (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

oh boo-hoo. --WebHamster 15:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WP: MOSFLAG

WebHampster, I did an "undo" on your recent removal of flags in the infobox in the article Victor Albert Bailey. I carefully read WP: MOSFLAG and found that the flags are fine where they were because they were not in a birth or death field. The usage of the flag at present is consistent with many other infoboxes and I see no problem. Please explain your concern. QueenAdelaide (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bel Assis (cover).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bel Assis (cover).jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

SWK

I have reverted your edits and protected the page. There is extensive consensus that including his name is unnecessary and violates WP:BLP. If you believe this consensus should be overturned, please begin a discussion on the talk page. FCYTravis (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what we like to see, an admin who uses his extra buttons to win an edit war and get his own way! Consensus is not required to make this edit, it's factual, is legal and does NOT contravene WP:BLP. Now unprotect the article and be a proper admin or get a neutral admin to do the job. Admins like you use their tools improperly really piss me off. Incidentally, being an admin does not make you right, it just makes you an editor with extra buttons and an admin of your length of service should know better. --WebHamster 07:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It is established that WP:BLP allows users to remove BLP-violating material without recourse to 3RR. However, it is also considered best practice to refrain from engaging in edit wars, and it is preferred that the page simply be protected on the non-violating version until further discussion and consensus. I note that you have not even attempted to discuss the issue - instead, you launched an edit war. My use of the tools served to prevent a BLP edit war, and that is a proper use of them. A long-established editorial consensus on that page has concluded that we do not need to republish and further disseminate his name. If you wish to modify that consensus, you need to discuss, not revert. FCYTravis (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WP is about information, not about obfuscation. As for the "edit war", well bub, you started that with your reversion. Entering factual information into an article is not instigating a war. You know as well as I do that an involved admin should not protect an article he is involved, especially when that admin starts the edit war. As regards the BLP, there is no BLP issue, the kid's name is all over the 'net, there have been no complaints or requests from the parents or the courts and he is now 17. Leaving out the name is tantamount to censorship, especially when hair-trigger admins revert its inclusion. Now quit blowing smoke up my ass and unprotect the article so that legitimate information can be added. You can't protect it forever and I will be re-adding the name whenever it is so you may as well get it over with. Your use of your admin tools was not proper, you were involved, you should have handed it over to a neutral admin, instead you choose to exert your "power" to achieve the article YOU want. To me that makes a bad admin. I'm patient, I can wait. --WebHamster 09:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You have here established your clear intent to thwart and ignore established editorial consensus on that article. You have established that you are entirely uninterested in discussing the issue. Instead, you appear prepared to engage in a perpetual edit war. This serves as your only warning that I will block you for disruption if you persist in inserting privacy-violating material into a biography of a living person without discussion and consensus to do so. FCYTravis (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bollocks. What's the point in discussing it ad nauseum when we have admins like you abusing their tools? As for the warning... my knees are knocking at the prospect. Grow up for fucks sake, do you really think that concerns me? What concerns me more is abuse of privileges and censorship for no good reason. Like I said, WP is about supplying information, not hiding it. --WebHamster 16:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your view is legitimate. I disagree with it, but it's a legitimate view. What's not legitimate is edit-warring material in violation of long-standing consensus. Like I have said over and over again, take it to the Talk page. Your refusal to do so establishes that you are more interested in drama than the encyclopedia.

I don't really care whether or not your "knees are knocking." I am simply ensuring that you understand what will happen if you continue edit-warring instead of opening a Talk page discussion. FCYTravis (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I really expected more of a supposedly educated admin. I'm not edit warring, you are. I made a legitimate edit per "be bold" and IAR, you are the one who chose to revert that edit, ergo take your own fucking advice (I don't take advice from youngsters who have more "power" than they know how to handle) and stop edit warring with me. As for wanting drama, don't talk like a pillock, if I wanted drama I would be holding this conversation in 'public' on the talk page. Remember I'm the one who didn't want to talk remember, you're the verbose one turning a legit edit into an acto of war. Christ I hate hypocrites! --WebHamster 17:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bold. Revert. Discuss. You were bold in inserting the information. I reverted. The next step is to discuss. Not revert again. Especially not with biographies of living persons. FCYTravis (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)