Misplaced Pages

User talk:Duchamps comb: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:27, 12 January 2008 editTqbf (talk | contribs)2,802 edits →3RR: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:11, 15 September 2021 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)Tag: AWB 
(207 intermediate revisions by 56 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:Rlevse/Talk Template}}
<br>
<!-- sorry for using -moz-border-radius, but.. too bad. --><div style="border: 1px solid #ccf; margin: 0 auto; text-align: left; padding:.5em; width: 100%; clear: both; background-color: #eef; -moz-border-radius: 1em;"> <!-- sorry for using -moz-border-radius, but.. too bad. --><div style="border: 1px solid #ccf; margin: 0 auto; text-align: left; padding:.5em; width: 100%; clear: both; background-color: #eef; -moz-border-radius: 1em;">


{| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk" {| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk"
|- |-
|] |]
|<big>'''GO RON PAUL!! ''' |<big>'''I AM THE MASTER!'''
]'''</big> ]'''</big>
|}{{WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America}}
{{User WikiProject Martial Arts}}<br><br><br>

==Don't be a ]!==
]


{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Pain in the Ass Star'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For consistently being a pain in the ass. Providing quality edit-wars for Fascists and COINTELPRO throughout Misplaced Pages.</sup> December 2007
|} |}

{{{icon|] }}}Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. You may not know that Misplaced Pages has a ] that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Moneybomb|, as you did to ],}} makes it harder to read. Take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-mos1 --> &mdash; ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] &#183; ] ]</span> 16:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

{{{icon|] }}}Please do not delete content from pages on Misplaced Pages{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Moneybomb|, as you did to ],}} without explaining the reason for the removal in the ]. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been ]. If you would like to experiment, please use ] for test edits. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-delete2 --> &mdash; ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] &#183; ] ]</span> 16:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I noticed you're not using any citation templates when you reference articles. In the future, please use the citation templates listed at ]. Thanks. &mdash; ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] &#183; ] ]</span> 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

{{{icon|] }}}Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you ] while interacting with other editors{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Moneybomb|, which you did not on ]}}. Take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-agf1 --> &mdash; ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] &#183; ] ]</span> 23:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

== Tea Party amount ==

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I'm a giant Paul fan myself, but you'll notice there are a lot of folks who will hold you to strict neutrality here, so be careful. It is my understanding the campaign announced $6.0 million actually raised even though the widget went up $6.4 million in the 24 hours. The $.4 million in offline receipts was not necessarily received on 11/16, and (being a Sunday) probably wasn't, given the campaign's statement; we have no source that it was in fact received 11/16 (HNN does not address this, relying only on the widget number). While we have sources for both $6.0 and $6.4, we should either state it as a conflict, or resolve the conflict unarguably. IMHO the evidence favors sticking with the $6.0, but if you want to use some neutral wording like "between $6 million and $6.4 million", that'd work with the sources cited. But we may not favor one number in the light of a conflicting number without resolving the conflict. Anyway, as a new editor, you would do ''very well'' for yourself to demonstrate your neutrality by picking some compromise version (or going right back to the $6.0) before someone else does. Trust me, that's a lot better than trying to defend a pro-Paul edit in the face of conflicting sources. I'll wait to see how you handle it, but I might step in tomorrow if nothing happens. Thanks! ] (]) 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:I'm serious, they will come after you if you keep it up, it will not help the "improvement of Misplaced Pages" to fight this battle on the article page itself. Your Ambinder source says $6.6 million, not $6.4 or $6.0. When you have conflicting numbers, don't insist on one of them without ''talking'' it out or demonstrating unarguable proof. Obviously only one of them is correct, and we cannot presume on which one without consensus. But "over $6 million" is correct regardless. I would strongly encourage you not to fight this particular battle and instead learn useful stuff like ] instead. It would greatly help your reputation to think of a neutral way of accomplishing your goal and revert yourself accordingly. Thanks. ] (]) 22:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
== Sign your posts! ==

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should ] by typing four ]s ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the ], and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button ] located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!<!-- Template:Tilde --> &mdash; ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] &#183; ] ]</span> 20:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

== First Warning re ] ==

{{{icon|] }}}Misplaced Pages guidelines dictate that you ''']''' in dealing with other editors. ], and assume that they are here to improve Misplaced Pages. Thank you.<!-- Template:agf3 --> Your language in your edit summaries, such as is inappropriate. Please discuss your edits ] and remember that edit summaries are not a proper venue for discussion. ] (]) 23:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

==Opinion on ]==
I dislike editing any political articles because it usually ends up very badly. In this case, I don't mind contributing with a neutral point of view as it does help. No problem! [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>]-]
</sup> 19:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
==Fair use rationale for ]==
Thanks for uploading or contributing to ''']'''. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to ] and edit it to include a ].

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice --> ] (]) 01:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

== Adding references ==

Duchamps, you need to start paying attention to your referencing. This is at least the third time I've had to clean up your mess. When you add references to something, ''cite them ]''. And if the article is already referenced in the page, just create another link to it rather than adding another ref tag. &mdash; ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] &#183; ] ]</span> 01:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

==AfD nomination of ]==
]An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:adw --> --] (]) 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Archived at: ]

== Re: AfD - Ron Paul Revolution ==

Thanks for letting me know. That article is a close call, but I think we should err on the side of caution for now and keep it, as I don't think we've ever seen anything as large and organized at the grassroots level as the Ron Paul campaign. And to think that we were amazed how well Howard Dean could use the Internet for campaigning back in 2004! --] (]) 10:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

] (]) 02:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Duchamps. I hadn't seen the article but had edited related ones. Now that I see it I like it. I voted to keep it. ] (]) 21:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{{icon|] }}}Please do not delete content from pages on Misplaced Pages{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008‎|, as you did to ],}} without explaining the reason for the removal in the ]. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been ]. If you would like to experiment, please use ] for test edits. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-delete2 --> &mdash; ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] &#183; ] ]</span> 17:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

--'''What an Asshat...'''--] (])

== Please read ] ==

One way to keep people from accusing you of canvassing to stack discussions is to make sure you notify people you know disagree with you. In the case of the ], which seems to be headed to "delete", you informed only editors you knew to be Ron Paul advocates.

I don't really care; AfD's aren't votes. But I thought you should know, it's pretty easy to tell what you're doing.

] 03:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. But I only contacted people who edited ]'s page. I have no way of knowing if they are pro or con. Or as to their political views.--] (]) 04:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


:That's not true- I am not anywhere close to being a Ron Paul supporter, and he contacted me just to take a look at it without any sort of impropriety, which I did. [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>]-]
</sup> 18:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
:: He only contacted people who had (a) edited Paul content and (b) hadn't added negative material about Paul. I'm sorry that I suggested you were a Paul supporter; I don't blame you for being irritated by that. ] 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

::: tqbf, that's not true. I did contact people who edited on ron paul's page (as I have already said) without knowing how they feel, to open up the Discussion. I am new here (this place is not like myspace) I contacted Monsieur because I bumped into him/her on another page, (and he/she seems to give unbiased feedack) as well seem to be rather pleasant, unlike other <s>DUMB FUCKS</s> like you running around here on some sort of power trip. -Keep your small-mindedness-idiocy off of my page...--]]]
:::: Nice. ] 05:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your comment above:

{{{icon|] }}}{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|With regard to your comments on ]:&#32;}}Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> &mdash; ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] &#183; ] ]</span> 05:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

:: ] and ] <span style="font-size: .7em> you both only reveal what YOU really are, "Cyber-bullies" who are weak-minded (and probably obese) that have nothing better to do but mess with the "new kid." On some sort of self-aggrandizing-power-trip deleting new articles, sending warning messages and being very Anti-Ron Paul. -I suggest just leaving me ALONE!<small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:31, December 28, 2007</small><!-- Template:Unsigned2 -->
::: ''Burned!'' ] 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

==Moneybomb Conspiracy?==
To: &mdash; ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] &#183; ] ]</span>

Yeah, I saw that go by on my watchlist, but haven't had a chance to dig into it yet. I agree with you that it's getting tiring, fighting the POV-warriors there. My guess is that the increased activity is because of the weekend fundraiser. I'll try to take a look later. No matter what though, we can still wait them out, which is what I did last time. In a couple days when activity decreases, we can go in and re-neutralize the article without much fuss. :) --]]] 22:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

----

To:]

Hey. Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've listed ] for RfC. &mdash; ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] &#183; ] ]</span> 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

: Thanks. I responded, but I'm going to try to disentangle myself from this article as well. ] 21:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

----
To: ]
:I'm not sure about that. It's certainly big with the Paul community, and this may be ]. But we've been down the avenue of deleting it, and it came to no consensus. I think you'd hit the same with a move. &mdash; ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] &#183; ] ]</span> 01:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC) + +

----

To:--]]]
Hey Elonka. I know you were active on the ] page awhile ago, so I could use some help. A single-purpose account has been editing/hacking/butchering the article I'm trying to assume good faith, but the page is a mess now. I reverted it twice today already, but the page could use some help. Could you take a look at it and try to work out the kinks - or failing that, give me some advice on how to proceed? Thanks! &mdash; ] <span style="font-size: .7em;">] &#183; ] ]</span> 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

==White supremacist part==
I think you are wrong on the addition of the USA Today article regarding Black's donation and it being kept by Ron Paul. It is from a perfectly legitimate source, and I see no POV problems. [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>]-]
</sup> 18:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)




==Bow to Me==
I have no problem with, "Paul keeps white supremacist donation", USA Today, 2007-12-20
] (1775-Present) = 1,343,812<br>
www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-20-Paul-donation_N.htm
] (1970-2007) = 48,106,910


<br><br>
If you digg back far enough I even added to the criticism section.
I take issue with “unknown users” statements: “It is a well known fact that white supremacists- including the KKK and David Duke- support Ron Paul.” and to imply “he's on good terms with hate groups? “ --] (])


== Citation ethics ==
:I didn't see the part you were talking about- that sounds to me like vandalism that should have been removed ages ago... I'm sure it wasn't an intentional keep. [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>]-]
</sup> 19:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


It's about more than just Dog Meat!
] It is in the talk page.--] (])


Well, I could recon the reasons for pushing through the article your version of ] pistol designation, but I could not understand why you've ? That's something I would call a falsification, hadn't been ] to assume good faith. --ja_62 <sup>(]|])</sup> 12:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


== June 2010 ==
] Thank you for ]. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to ], as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with ], a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the ] of clear-cut ] and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-minor --> ×××]<sup>(])</sup>××× 21:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


== ] ==
== Re:Merge Proposal ==
Well, it's been pointed out to me that there is ] and then there is ]. On the other hand, there is no s article. Maybe if you want to have one central article, you can create one and then write a short section in the ].--] | ] 16:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Your recent edits to the article were reverted with the comment "We're not sourcing to birther websites". Please look through the ] policy to understand why this is correct. The site you used is not going to be considered a reliable source for information. ] (]) 19:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
<s>{{{icon|] }}}Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008|, as you did at ],}} is considered ], even if you meant well. Take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-tpv1 --> ''Your opinions about this candidate and the validity of this "white supremacist endorsement" claim do not entitle you to blank other users talk page comments. ] 08:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)</s> --- ''I had reverted this out less than 2 minutes after writing it'' ] 17:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
== July 2010 ==


==Orphaned non-free image File:Climategate.jpg==
== anonymous users ==
<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).


If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] ''(])'' 18:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't like anonymous users much but it seems pretty clear that the powers that be at wikipedia aren't going to take away their editting privileges en masse.
as such i don't think it is productive to tell one that "soon this article will be semi protected and you won't be able to edit" as you did on the talk page for the lakota article, respond to his points (even if they're wrong( not his being an anonymous user. thanks ] (]) 21:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


::The article only states "(dubbed "Climategate" in the media)". Their is not a section as to the Etymology, yet there is over 2 million hits on Google. NFCC #1&8 states, "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The screenshot clearly illustrates the media (FOX News) using of the phrase. So if there is no written section about the media "dubbing" the Incident it can only be represented by a photo, how are we to get one that is for free/fair use (Note: that almost half of the ref used in the article use the word climategate). As far as Contextual significance Climategate became very controversial and garnered lots of media coverage, a screenshot of that term in news coverage would likely be appropriate.--]]]] 22:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
==SSP case==
] VanBrigglePottery is a username violation, so I've blocked it for that reason, it matches a company name. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 14:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


== Repeated copyright violations ==
==]==


You have just re-uploaded ], which was speedily deleted on 30 November 2009 as a blatant copyright violation. Please do not do this again, as repeated copyright violations are likely to lead to an automatic indefinite block. -- ] (]) 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I restored the you cut out because Misplaced Pages should probably '''not''' make an impression in its articles that Chi energy is a scientifically proven and really existing phenomenon. If you can rewrite the sentence in such a way that it reflects this doubts, naturally I have nothing against other wording. happy new year! ]|] 21:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
* ...and I restored the brick breaking image, which is relevant and useful for tameshiwari article. ]|] 21:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


==Climategate image==
:: Thanks! I'm not arguing whether it exists or not, I'm just saying that it has not yet been scientifically proven, and this is more or less the encyclopedic requirement. It will definitely be sufficient to write that in many kung-fu styles there is an assumption or belief that Chi can improve the hit. The image indeed is not very impressive, but still relevant, and alas there is nothing much on commons to substitute it with. take care ]|] 21:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi can you tell me why the file Climategate.jpg had a copyright violation? I took the screen shot myself. Also can you tell me why you speedy deletion the file? File added on 18:37, 23 July 2010 deleted on 18:50, 23 July 2010 looks like the file lasted a whole 13 minutes? --]]]] 19:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
:OK, I'll explain this for you. There is a long policy page at ] and a set of criteria at ] which you should read but I'll give you the gist of them.


:Fair use images are permitted on Misplaced Pages but only in certain very limited circumstances. In the case of television screen shots, they are acceptable for critical commentary about television. An example might be a screenshot from a particular TV show, which is used in an article about that show. However, the usual presumption is against using any fair use images where a free alternative might be available. In the case of your Climategate.jpg image, it failed ], specifically criterion 1 - that the information it contained (which in this case was just the text of the ]) could be represented in the article text. When it was deleted on 30 November 2009 by ], he wrote: "]: Violates ]: Screenshot which will never pass ], any information can be given in text." NuclearWarfare deleted it under the same rationale, but he could just as easily have deleted it as a re-created version of a previously deleted file. Restoring deleted copyright violations is strictly not allowed. -- ] (]) 19:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
::ChrisO I was not seeking your answer. <b>Please do not post again on my talk page regarding this issue</b> as you seem to be on a ] that is ]. You comments will thus only fall on deaf ears. I will await ]'s answer as well as other admins who would like to answer.--]]]] 21:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry you feel that way and I apologise if I've given you that impression. I'm simply trying to give you some advice and pointers to Misplaced Pages policy, since I've been involved for many years in dealing with copyright issues on Misplaced Pages. I don't think NW or any other admin would be likely to tell you any differently. -- ] (]) 21:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
:::I agree with ChrisO's original statement of 19:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC). You may wish to ask ] or ] for a third opinion, both those admins have been uninvolved entirely with climate change as far as I know and also work in NFCC enforcement. ] ''(])'' 22:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


== ] ==
== Your uploads ==
Please don't upload images with incorrect license tags. If you need help figuring out what the correct license for an image is, ask at ]. --] (]) 23:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:Please read up on copyright law. In regards to your edits , there is no magical "10%" rule, you can't claim ownership of an image simply by making changes, ] and ] have nothing to do with each other, and "educational purposes" is not a blank check for using other peoples' work. --] (])


Hello. I'm writing to let you know that I found ] on this new article. There are whole sentences copied from a . This really isn't OK. We must use our own words. I want to give you a chance to fix the problem before anything else is done. We must not have major portions of articles that duplicate the contents of their sources. ] 17:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
== protection templates ==


:I see something other than direct quotes as the problem. These two sentences are a ''direct copy'' of the New York Times article: <blockquote>One of the most gripping and, increasingly, controversial television images of the violence was a scene of two Korean merchants firing pistols repeatedly from a military stance. The image seemed to speak of race war, and of vigilantes taking the law into their own hands.</blockquote> We must use our own words. I see that there's a history of copyright problems with your additions. Thanks for your invitation to work on the article but I must say that I'm not interested in helping out there. I'm only interested in keeping the articles tidy and to build this encyclopedia by the book. Can you please re-write the problem areas using your own words? ] 17:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
]. The admin will add the templates. ] (]) 00:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


==Question==
==Ron paul presidential appearances==
Is the Korean armed resistance during 1992 L.A. riot necessary? It's covered in the riot's article. ] (]) 15:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
Can you add back the appearances? Tracer doesn't know the difference between merge and delete. And you were one who said it's best to have it all in one article. ] (]) 05:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:Can you revert Tracer's last edit? He's disruptive and has already started insulting me on my talk page. He can't revert again without violating ]. ] (]) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks! I'm working on writing him up on the admin board so he's banned. The last thing we need are disruptive editors. ] (]) 05:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:::The section looks good. Thanks for putting it back. Now the others can get to work turning it into prose as they wanted. ] (]) 06:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>The article ''']''' is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to ] or whether it should be ].
Interesting.. maybe you should look at the time stamps on the article... I have not reverted since the first warning...what gives? as a matter of fact your boy here reverted again after being warned.I stopped editing the article. Its obviosly going to stay as a wikipidia propoganda piece anyway..I know your a ron paul fan by your userpage but thats a bit silly to give me a warning for no reason. -] (]) 05:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Tracer's been blocked for vandalism and harassment. ] (]) 06:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ] ] 01:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Look. I've reminded you about your adding of references, and I've reminded everyone on that page about them. I just had to fix the reference you added . That article is already cited on the page; rather than just adding a ref to the article, why not take a minute to look through the page and find the source? &mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 06:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


==Deletion of ]==
==Copyright==
*The article was renominated ] and I closed it. However, I don't see that you were notified of the second nomination, so I've undone the deletion, for now. ] 16:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
::: I've brought the discussion to ]. ] 16:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
:::: Based on that outcome, it's back on the table at ]. ] 20:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


== ] ==
Please read up on the fundamentals of copyright. I don't know where you got your ideas of how copyright works, but they're about as wrong as possible. Some good starting points would be Misplaced Pages's articles on ] and ]. --] (]) 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


I've modified your Obama-related topic ban, as discussed at the AN thread you initiated. Your topic ban from all articles and discussions related to Barack Obama will expire 1 April 2015. Due to repeated near-identical unban requests, showing a lack of understanding of the problem, you are limited to one unban appeal per year. To avoid a Catch-22, this decision to limit unban appeals can be appealed directly to ArbCom at ] without falling afoul of the limitation on unban requests. But the AN thread is closed, and I will consider it a violation to post to it further. --] (]) 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Making Changes to Photographs
The 1976 Copyright Act grants the "fair use" of copyrighted materials for a variety of purposes, for the creation of new works, for educational use, and for personal use.


== ] ==
QUESTION: What if the student or teacher were to change the attributes of a picture.


Hi Du - please don't edit anything in to the article about Pieczenik that you don't reliably source. I'm reverting your latest set of edits, because any contentious claims absolutely require sourcing (and those are contentious claims, because both me and the other people looking at the AfD have failed to find any evidence for them and doubt their veracity.) Please edit it in if you can find any confirmation that he *did* work for the state department in that capacity or that the clancy characters were in fact based off of him, but only if you can cite it to a reliable source that is intellectually independent of Pieczenik. ] (]) 15:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
ANSWER: Yes. This would be considered fair use for education, comment, criticism, or parody. One must inform the audience that changes were made to the photographer's copyrighted work.


== ] of ] ==
Fair use normally entails copying and is of three kinds:
]


The article ] has been ]&#32; because of the following concern:
1. Creative fair use by authors who copy from other works to create their own work.
:'''Most info directly lifted from source material. Merge to ] and delete'''
2. Personal fair use by individuals who copy from works for their own learning or entertainment.


While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ].
3. Educational fair use by teachers, scholars, and students who copy for teaching, scholarship, or learning.


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
The fair use statute is section 107 of the copyright statute, which is printed in full in Part IV. It provides that "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies," is not an infringement of copyright. As exemplars of fair use, it lists "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" and provides four non-exclusive factors to be used in determining whether a use is fair. They are:
(1) the purpose of the use, including whether the use is a commercial use or for non-profit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the work;
(3) the amount used; and
(4) the effect on the marketing of the work. These factors are discussed below.


Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. The ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 12:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair Use and New Communications Technology
The application of new communications technology created by computers developed after Congress enacted the 1976 Copyright Act. Consequently, application of fair use to the transmission of material by computer, e.g. on the Internet, merits special mention.
Originally, fair use was a judicial doctrine that one author could make fair use of another author's work in creating his or her own new work. If the amount used was fair, the method or scope of distribution made no difference. If, for example, Author X made a fair use of the work of Author Y, the fact that Author X's book sold a million copies did not divest the material of its fair use status.


Today, fair use is a statutory right that applies to all copyrighted works and all rights of the copyright holder, and whether a use is fair is to be determined by applying the four factors listed in the statute. Since the method of distribution is not one of the statutory factors, it follows that the distribution of material by electronic rather than print media is not the decisive issue. The important point is that if the amount used does not unlawfully interfere with the copyright holder's marketing monopoly, it is a fair use.
The Fair Use Doctrine, which was codified in §107 of the 1976 Act, excuses certain infringing uses of a copyrighted workThe exception is for materials put to work under the "fair use rule." This rule recognizes that society can often benefit from the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials when the purpose of the use serves the ends of scholarship, education or an informed public For example, nonprofit educational purposes.
--]]]] 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


{{WikiProject Conservatism invite|Signature=] (]) 09:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)}}
== Image licenses ==
Unless you took the photograph that ] is based off of, you cannot claim it as self-created, and even if you did take the photograph, you might not: it depends on the freedom of panorama laws in the country the photograph was taken and the copyright of the statue. Please don't upload any more images until you have a basic understanding of copyright. Misplaced Pages takes copyright seriously, and persistent problematic uploaders can be blocked. --] (]) 02:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


==Climatic Research Unit email controversy==
== Your comment on my talk page ==
You've just tried to introduce material defaming scientists using an unreliable source, and then a blog source. This clearly violates ] policy and contravenes the ] sanctions which apply to the article. You'll also note that the article is under a 1RR restriction as highlighted by a banner above the editing box. Please don't ] to introduce fringe views, present your proposals on the article talk page with reliable sources for discussion. Thanks, ], ] 22:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


== Notification ==
In moving stuff around to maintain coherence, I may have pasted in an outdated version of your comment. Please restore it to what you meant to say, as I certainly didn't mean to falsify your civil comment. --] | ] 16:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


Hello. You are receiving this notification because you have made a number of edits within the Climate Change topic area. This notification does not necessarily imply that there is any problem with your edits.


Just as the topic of Climate Change is highly disputed in the wider world, the Misplaced Pages articles on the subject have also a been the source of many difficulties. Consequently, the ] has authorised administrators to impose sanctions at their own discretion. The purpose of this message is to ensure that you are aware of the additional authority accorded to administrators within this topic area. The full decision can be viewed at ]; subsection 23.3.1 gives full details of the discretionary sanctions arrangements.


] (]) 23:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
== Images yet again ==


== Blocked ==
When you uploaded ], you marked it as "copyrighted free use" and linked to the ONESITE terms of service page as proof, specifically the section that says "ONESITE does not claim ownership of Content you submit". All this means is that ONESITE does not hold the copyright of the content in question; it says nothing about who the copyright holder is or what the copyright status is. --] (]) 02:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


For two weeks. I strongly considered making indefinite. There is nothing at all acceptable about . ] ''(])'' 00:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
==Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 Criticism==
:You really don't get it, do you? I have blocked you indefinitely for ] editing, as exemplified by . If you wish to appeal, please see ]. ] ''(])'' 18:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
]
A ''']''' template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the ] process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ]. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add <code>{{tl|db-author}}</code> to the top of ]. <!-- Template:PRODWarning --> ] 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


:Is there some reason you tagged your own article with AfD? If you want to delete your own article, use one of the ] tags. &mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 17:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:I was trying to create a talk page of it's own. Oops.--]]]] 17:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


{{unblock reviewed|1=I would like to ask to be unblocked. I did push the flagpole a bit on 12-11-11. However I received an indefinite block on 12-27-11 for making ONE SINGLE edit (on a protected page with 1R) so I don't think i am a menace to the wiki project. I took a long break to even post this reply. I think NuclearWarfare may have over acted a bit. If you look at my history I'm really not such a jerk but I do sometimes get passionate about politics. I intend if unblocked to not make edits to the ] page again unless approved first on the talk page. I will also take criticism as to how to be a better editor, and play better with others.
== January 2008 ==
{{{icon|] }}}Your contributions history shows that you have been '''aggressively cross-posting'''{{#if:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 Criticism|, in order to influence ]}}. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that ''"The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Misplaced Pages's common practice."''<sup>]</sup>, such cross-posting should adhere to specific ]. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that has resulted in blocks being issued. It is best not to ], and instead respect Misplaced Pages's principle of ]-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-canvass --> &mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 17:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Username: Duchamps comb
==AfD nomination of ]==
First edit: Dec 17, 2007 15:34:41
I have nominated ], an article you created, for ]. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.<!-- Template:AFDWarning --> &mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 18:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Unique pages edited: 292
Average edits per page: 8.02
Live edits: 2,148
Deleted edits: 194
Total edits (including deleted): 2,342
|decline=If you think that your latest edit was anywhere near acceptable, you are definitely ] to edit the encyclopedia. ] (]) 06:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
}}
{{unblock reviewed | 1=Hi It's been almost a year I was wondering If I could join the project again? | decline=I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
*the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, <u>or</u>
*the block is no longer necessary because you
*#understand what you have been blocked for,
*#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
*#will make useful contributions instead.


Please read the ] for more information. ] (]) 22:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)}}
== 3RR ==


If you really want to report me for a 3RR violation --- and I think that's petty and unproductive, and won't go where you want it to either with admins or with the article you're editing --- then you're going to want to ''actually warn me on my talk page first''.


What's changed since the last unblock request? ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
As it stands, you've gone behind my back and tried to ambush me with a 3RR warning on a page where something like 5 other editors are also over their "revert limit" for the day. But 3RR doesn't work that way. You have to actually ''be'' in an edit war, and you yourself have to actually demonstrate that you are trying and failing to resolve it.
* What can change if I am blocked and cannot edit? I'm really not a fan of psycoanalisis/talk therapy. If you have a point or question please be direct. --]]]] 16:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
** I thought that ''was'' pretty direct. You were blocked after a prolonged pattern of disruptive and hyper-partisan editing. Why should we expect anything different from you if you're unblocked now? ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
*** As usual no matter what you do or don't do it will all be used against you; the Wiki-Gods are vengeful and very passive aggressive. I addressed the reason for an unblock the first time around. All you guys want to do is play (head) games and use what ever I say or don't say against me (as usual). ] This place is a joke with its Liberal bias just like the mainstream media, Jimmy Wales even said this place is mob rule. -- Mastcell let me now answer your question, I have learned that you cannot fight the machine, you cannot go against a cabale, you cannot have a minority pov on any article (or even a single edit). Thus why even try to edit political pages? Their protected by government alphabet agencies anyway. So I would try to stick to martial arts pages and un-eventful editing, because anything else just gets you on the radar of asshats with their own agenda to protect and administrators with buttons to punish you with. I hope my direct speech in this matter is not considered in violation of the ]. --]]]] 01:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


== An RfC that you ''may'' be interested in... ==
Next time, count edits, and then send the 3RR template warning, and then file your case, noting that you've posted your warning and that I have (as I likely will) ignored you. You will get further. Though, I suspect, not much.


As one of the previous contributors to {{Tl|Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a ] started on the talk page as to ]. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
] 03:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
: <small>This message was sent by ] (]) on behalf of <span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125;</span> <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)</small>
<!-- Message sent by User:Technical 13@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Infobox_film/list&oldid=598721132 -->

Latest revision as of 11:11, 15 September 2021

I AM THE MASTER!

Chinese martial arts


Bow to Me

United States military casualties of war (1775-Present) = 1,343,812
Abortion statistics in the United States (1970-2007) = 48,106,910



Citation ethics

It's about more than just Dog Meat!

Well, I could recon the reasons for pushing through the article your version of vz. 52 pistol designation, but I could not understand why you've changed also the title of the reference? That's something I would call a falsification, hadn't been forced to assume good faith. --ja_62 12:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Bilderberg Group, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. ×××BrightBlackHeaven××× 21:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Your recent edits to the article were reverted with the comment "We're not sourcing to birther websites". Please look through the WP:RS policy to understand why this is correct. The site you used is not going to be considered a reliable source for information. Ravensfire (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Orphaned non-free image File:Climategate.jpg

⚠
⚠
 Thanks for uploading File:Climategate.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (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 "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NW (Talk) 18:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The article only states "(dubbed "Climategate" in the media)". Their is not a section as to the Etymology, yet there is over 2 million hits on Google. NFCC #1&8 states, "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The screenshot clearly illustrates the media (FOX News) using of the phrase. So if there is no written section about the media "dubbing" the Incident it can only be represented by a photo, how are we to get one that is for free/fair use (Note: that almost half of the ref used in the article use the word climategate). As far as Contextual significance Climategate became very controversial and garnered lots of media coverage, a screenshot of that term in news coverage would likely be appropriate.--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations

You have just re-uploaded File:Climategate.jpg, which was speedily deleted on 30 November 2009 as a blatant copyright violation. Please do not do this again, as repeated copyright violations are likely to lead to an automatic indefinite block. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Climategate image

Hi can you tell me why the file Climategate.jpg had a copyright violation? I took the screen shot myself. Also can you tell me why you speedy deletion the file? File added on 18:37, 23 July 2010 deleted on 18:50, 23 July 2010 looks like the file lasted a whole 13 minutes? --Duchamps_comb MFA 19:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll explain this for you. There is a long policy page at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content and a set of criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria which you should read but I'll give you the gist of them.
Fair use images are permitted on Misplaced Pages but only in certain very limited circumstances. In the case of television screen shots, they are acceptable for critical commentary about television. An example might be a screenshot from a particular TV show, which is used in an article about that show. However, the usual presumption is against using any fair use images where a free alternative might be available. In the case of your Climategate.jpg image, it failed Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria, specifically criterion 1 - that the information it contained (which in this case was just the text of the chyron) could be represented in the article text. When it was deleted on 30 November 2009 by User:Black Kite, he wrote: "F7: Violates non-free use policy: Screenshot which will never pass WP:NFCC#1, any information can be given in text." NuclearWarfare deleted it under the same rationale, but he could just as easily have deleted it as a re-created version of a previously deleted file. Restoring deleted copyright violations is strictly not allowed. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
ChrisO I was not seeking your answer. Please do not post again on my talk page regarding this issue as you seem to be on a point making mission that is hounding and stalking me. You comments will thus only fall on deaf ears. I will await NW's answer as well as other admins who would like to answer.--Duchamps_comb MFA 21:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way and I apologise if I've given you that impression. I'm simply trying to give you some advice and pointers to Misplaced Pages policy, since I've been involved for many years in dealing with copyright issues on Misplaced Pages. I don't think NW or any other admin would be likely to tell you any differently. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with ChrisO's original statement of 19:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC). You may wish to ask User:Stifle or User:Fastily for a third opinion, both those admins have been uninvolved entirely with climate change as far as I know and also work in NFCC enforcement. NW (Talk) 22:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Korean armed resistance in the Los Angeles riots

Hello. I'm writing to let you know that I found copyright issues on this new article. There are whole sentences copied from a New York Times article. This really isn't OK. We must use our own words. I want to give you a chance to fix the problem before anything else is done. We must not have major portions of articles that duplicate the contents of their sources. Dawnseeker2000 17:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I see something other than direct quotes as the problem. These two sentences are a direct copy of the New York Times article:

One of the most gripping and, increasingly, controversial television images of the violence was a scene of two Korean merchants firing pistols repeatedly from a military stance. The image seemed to speak of race war, and of vigilantes taking the law into their own hands.

We must use our own words. I see that there's a history of copyright problems with your additions. Thanks for your invitation to work on the article but I must say that I'm not interested in helping out there. I'm only interested in keeping the articles tidy and to build this encyclopedia by the book. Can you please re-write the problem areas using your own words? Dawnseeker2000 17:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is the Korean armed resistance during 1992 L.A. riot necessary? It's covered in the riot's article. B-Machine (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Second Revolution flag for deletion

The article Second Revolution flag is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Second Revolution flag until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Second Revolution flag

I've brought the discussion to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 28. Mandsford 16:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Based on that outcome, it's back on the table at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 30. Mandsford 20:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

I've modified your Obama-related topic ban, as discussed at the AN thread you initiated. Your topic ban from all articles and discussions related to Barack Obama will expire 1 April 2015. Due to repeated near-identical unban requests, showing a lack of understanding of the problem, you are limited to one unban appeal per year. To avoid a Catch-22, this decision to limit unban appeals can be appealed directly to ArbCom at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment without falling afoul of the limitation on unban requests. But the AN thread is closed, and I will consider it a violation to post to it further. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Steve Pieczenik

Hi Du - please don't edit anything in to the article about Pieczenik that you don't reliably source. I'm reverting your latest set of edits, because any contentious claims absolutely require sourcing (and those are contentious claims, because both me and the other people looking at the AfD have failed to find any evidence for them and doubt their veracity.) Please edit it in if you can find any confirmation that he *did* work for the state department in that capacity or that the clancy characters were in fact based off of him, but only if you can cite it to a reliable source that is intellectually independent of Pieczenik. Kevin (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Korean armed resistance in the Los Angeles riots

The article Korean armed resistance in the Los Angeles riots has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Most info directly lifted from source material. Merge to 1992 Los Angeles riots and delete

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deathsythe (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed.
Lionel (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


Climatic Research Unit email controversy

You've just tried to introduce material defaming scientists using an unreliable source, and then a blog source. This clearly violates WP:BLP policy and contravenes the WP:ARBCC sanctions which apply to the article. You'll also note that the article is under a 1RR restriction as highlighted by a banner above the editing box. Please don't edit war to introduce fringe views, present your proposals on the article talk page with reliable sources for discussion. Thanks, dave souza, talk 22:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. You are receiving this notification because you have made a number of edits within the Climate Change topic area. This notification does not necessarily imply that there is any problem with your edits.

Just as the topic of Climate Change is highly disputed in the wider world, the Misplaced Pages articles on the subject have also a been the source of many difficulties. Consequently, the arbitration committee has authorised administrators to impose sanctions at their own discretion. The purpose of this message is to ensure that you are aware of the additional authority accorded to administrators within this topic area. The full decision can be viewed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change; subsection 23.3.1 gives full details of the discretionary sanctions arrangements.

CIreland (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

For two weeks. I strongly considered making indefinite. There is nothing at all acceptable about this edit. NW (Talk) 00:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you? I have blocked you indefinitely for disruptive editing, as exemplified by this edit. If you wish to appeal, please see WP:GAB. NW (Talk) 18:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Duchamps comb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to ask to be unblocked. I did push the flagpole a bit on 12-11-11. However I received an indefinite block on 12-27-11 for making ONE SINGLE edit (on a protected page with 1R) so I don't think i am a menace to the wiki project. I took a long break to even post this reply. I think NuclearWarfare may have over acted a bit. If you look at my history I'm really not such a jerk but I do sometimes get passionate about politics. I intend if unblocked to not make edits to the Climategate page again unless approved first on the talk page. I will also take criticism as to how to be a better editor, and play better with others.

Username: Duchamps comb First edit: Dec 17, 2007 15:34:41 Unique pages edited: 292 Average edits per page: 8.02 Live edits: 2,148 Deleted edits: 194 Total edits (including deleted): 2,342

Decline reason:

If you think that your latest edit was anywhere near acceptable, you are definitely not ready to edit the encyclopedia. Max Semenik (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Duchamps comb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi It's been almost a year I was wondering If I could join the project again?

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.


What's changed since the last unblock request? MastCell  18:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  • What can change if I am blocked and cannot edit? I'm really not a fan of psycoanalisis/talk therapy. If you have a point or question please be direct. --Duchamps_comb MFA 16:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I thought that was pretty direct. You were blocked after a prolonged pattern of disruptive and hyper-partisan editing. Why should we expect anything different from you if you're unblocked now? MastCell  18:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
      • As usual no matter what you do or don't do it will all be used against you; the Wiki-Gods are vengeful and very passive aggressive. I addressed the reason for an unblock the first time around. All you guys want to do is play (head) games and use what ever I say or don't say against me (as usual). ] This place is a joke with its Liberal bias just like the mainstream media, Jimmy Wales even said this place is mob rule. -- Mastcell let me now answer your question, I have learned that you cannot fight the machine, you cannot go against a cabale, you cannot have a minority pov on any article (or even a single edit). Thus why even try to edit political pages? Their protected by government alphabet agencies anyway. So I would try to stick to martial arts pages and un-eventful editing, because anything else just gets you on the radar of asshats with their own agenda to protect and administrators with buttons to punish you with. I hope my direct speech in this matter is not considered in violation of the Patriot Act. --Duchamps_comb MFA 01:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)