Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:49, 10 July 2007

Bob Dylan and Menstruation slang

Re Bob Dylan -- another admin has blocked the IP for a WP:3RR violation.

Yeah, I didn't post the thing about bob dylan, believe it or not - I just fixed an error on your talk page, and the server was confused, because someone else placed a ~~~~ on the page before.

Re Menstruation slang -- I think there's enough there to avoid a speedy delete. Post it for deletion at WP:AFD if you like. Thanks, NawlinWiki 16:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. I was worried about this link: The Evil Spartan 16:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, The Evil Spartan, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Friday (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Baseball Templates

Alright. First, why would you link Los Angeles Dodgers to 2007 Los Angeles Dodgers season? It's stupid, first of all, as the standings are talking about the "Los Angeles Dodgers", not the season. And what's the point?

Second, the templates are updated almost as soon as the game is concluded. Therefore, it doesn't make any sense to say "Updated as of May 4" for example. It doesn't add anything, as the templates for the standings are kept updated as much as possible. It only wastes space and doesn't add any information that is already assumed.

So, please don't revert this again, as I have given you a sufficient explanation for why I did what I did. Thank you. And I'm also sorry. From now on, whenever I revert something, I will try to give a reason in the edit summary (space pending) when I make the revert or the user's talk page before making the edit. Thanks for your cooperation. --Ksy92003 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I will be reverting it, because often times the stats are not up to date. Take, for example, Template:2007 NL Wild Card standings, which is now many days behind, or your very edit summary here.. Secondly, for navigation purposes, this page is only linked to from 2007 pages, so this is much better. From a perusal of your talk page, I suggest you better learn to cooperate with other users considering formatting, as you've now run into trouble several times. The Evil Spartan 16:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I don't think the note about when the standings are updated is necessary; I think they shouldn't be out of date in the first place.

But this is what I really don't like. Why did you just go and change the standings so that Los Angeles Angels links to 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season? This is just stupid. Los Angeles Angels should link to Los Angeles Angels. Los Angeles Dodgers should link to Los Angeles Dodgers, not 2007 Los Angeles Dodgers season. What you did to that was just stupid and unnecessary. Unless you have a good reason, please don't revert this again. Tomorrow, I will go and change it unless you give a good reason. Please don't make any more unnecessary edits that don't improve the article at all. Thanks. --Ksy92003 02:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If I may inject my opinion, I like the wikilink that points to the 2007 season as opposed to the main team page. It's nice when looking at a team's 2007 article for their name to be bolded in the standings (such as here: 2007 Detroit Tigers season). It appears that the 2007 team articles are the only ones that include the 2007 standings (Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:2007_AL_Central_standings). I can see both sides of the argument, but now since there's a disagreement, I'll throw my opinion into the ring. X96lee15 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

X96 said it fairly well, but the point is that these templates are only linked to from 2007 baseball articles. If I'm looking at the 2007 Phillies baseball article, and I click on Atlanta Braves, it would be nice, and I would expect, to go to the 2007 Braves article. Also, it makes navigating team seasons and results much easier. The Evil Spartan 17:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

On the flip side of the coin, if I'm looking for the Atlanta Braves on 2007 Philadelphia Phillies season, at the standings I'll click on "Atlanta Braves" thinking that that's where it's gonna take me. I'm not gonna click on "Atlanta Braves" thinking that it's going to take me to "2007 Atlanta Braves season". That's very confusing and very misleading.

And either way, that the very bottom of the page is {{2007 MLB season by team}} which links to all the season articles. It does the same job, but creates links to every single article. I really don't get why something should be linked to something else instead to what it says. I really don't get that. --Ksy92003 23:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

But it's not like you're clicking on "Atlanta Braves" and it sends you to Special:Random. The 2007 standings are related to Atlanta Braves, but they are equally, or more so, related to 2007 Atlanta Braves season. There are many places on wikipedia where, for example, "1968" wikilinks to 1968 in baseball. I don't think it's unintuitive to link to the season article as opposed to the main team article. And in my opinion, it's not about easy of navigation, it's more about bolding the team when viewing the standings on a team's 2007 page. Think if you're looking at {{Template:2006 AL Central Standings}}, does it make more sense to link to Detroit Tigers? Or to 2006 Detroit Tigers season. I think the latter. X96lee15 00:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And I think the former. Let's look at it this way: the way that Spartan did it is the same as something like clicking on color and the link taking you to red. Wouldn't you click on color to go to the page on color? Don't you think it would be confusing and misleading if it took you to red? It's the same thing here. Atlanta Braves is a general subject, while 2007 Atlanta Braves season is a branch of that. Why click on something that takes you somewhere else? There's no reason for that, is there?

And your example about "1968" is a false claim. We are in the process of changing all this because it's misleading... for the exact same reason. We aren't going to put 1968 and then link to 1968 in baseball. We are in the process of editing those pages to avoid the links being misleading. See the page history for some of the season articles, like 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season, to see what I mean. I don't have the time right now to look for those examples, but I will find them and post those edits here as I can find them. But we are trying to avoid any misleading links, which is what Spartan's edits are. They are misleading readers to believe that clicking on Los Angeles Angels in the template will take them to Los Angeles Angels, but then be taken to 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season. There's no excuse for this. It's really confusing, very misleading, and needs to be avoided. --Ksy92003 00:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Please do not edit my comments. 2) You must be confused very easily, because it isn't really misleading at all. 3) You never addressed the advantage of the team being bolded in the standings when viewing its 2007 page. I find that very useful. 4) IMO, changing 1968 in baseball to 1968 is quite dumb. When you post those pages, I will give my opinions on the subject there. 5) Sorry for clogging up your discussion page Spartan X96lee15 04:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not confused any easier than anybody else, X96lee15. It might not be misleading for you (I can't imagine how) but it is rather misleading. When I first went to {{2007 AL West standings}}, I wanted to go to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim page. So I clicked on {{Los Angeles Angels}}. And I saw that it took me to {{2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season}}. That's not the page that I wanted to go to and that's not where it says it will take me. It says it will take me to {{Los Angeles Angels}}, so that's what I want to go to, not {{2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season}}. Take this for example:

Without the actual mentioning of the teams, this is what the template would look like. Granted, this isn't misleading at all because clicking on the link will take you to that page. But you wouldn't say "The 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season lead the division by ½ game", would you? The reason why Misplaced Pages implemented this feature is so you could link to an article without having to use that article's title word-for-word in the link itself by RE-WORDING it, not by making it entirely misleading. You might not think it is misleading or confusing, but when I first glanced at the template it was. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who would have these problems. --Ksy92003 04:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, you never address any of my points, you just keep beating the same point over and over. -- No, I do not want to list the entire name of the article for the team name. In your proposal, you're not using the article name word for word anyway when wikilinking the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, so I'm not sure if that point is valid. But if you really mean that you don't want to use the '|' when creating wikilinks, then I guess we'll have to go through all the game logs for each of the teams and put the entire pitcher's name that won and lost the games instead of just the last name. That's the point you're making, right? Regardless, this discussion probably belongs someplace else though, so more eyes can see it. X96lee15 04:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I'm going to sleep now since I've got school tomorrow. So, if you want to move the discussion to the WikiProject Baseball page and I'll reply there tomorrow when I have time, alright? I'm not going to discuss any of your points tonight, as I haven't got the time to. But I will say that you are completely wrong about my argument. I'm not saying your argument is wrong; I'm saying that you haven't identified the point I'm making. Tomorrow, when I get on Misplaced Pages I will try to express my opinion stronger. But my point is completely the opposite of what you think it is. So don't think that I'm completely against this kind of stuff. That is not what I'm saying at all. I'll get back to you tomorrow. Again, please move this to the project page. --Ksy92003 05:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review your accusation

Sir,

With respect, I wish you to review your accusation that I have committed vandalism, and, once you confirm your error, please remove the warning from my talk page.

I am 68.218.223.16. My edit to Thomas McKean High School was itself specifically a revert of several consecutive acts of vandalism by 68.36.41.218.

I know you take vandalism seriously; I hope to discover that you are just as committed to accuracy. 68.218.223.16 20:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; I assumed that since you were in the same IP range as the vandals, that you too were vandalizing. Again, my apologies. The Evil Spartan 17:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with your accusation

You recently sent me a message about vandalizing the Ashley Massaro page (I am 206.253.155.139). I did nothing of the sort, if you look at the page prior to my changes I got rid of a guy saying things such as "She's hot," "Hey Nick Joe Michael says hi" and "Joe Michael is better than anyone she has met." I know I made three changes, however I didn't spot all the mistakes at once (they were spaced out throughout the page). I just want a further explanation to what I did wrong other than cleaning up filth on a page.

Again, I have erred. Vandalism cleanup is a quick job. Please accept my apologies. The Evil Spartan 00:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for understanding.

Your productive!

Damn, your productive! You've got 300+ contributions in just 4\5 days! I've got 1300+, and it took me over one month to do it! Keep up the good work mate, your really helping this site! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 19:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. It's vandal fighting. See User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool; automated script makes it much quicker :). The Evil Spartan 19:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

TFD

See my comment under your "Important note" comment on the uw-homophobia TFD. --TeckWiz is now R Contribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 21:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal IP

Hey, I noticed you were helping me track 199.175.12.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). You may want to check out this edit, which is the only one that hasn't been reverted yet. It's essentially a basic blanking, but it looks like the material is controversial, and I'm not quite bold enough to revert. -- NORTH 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

When a user goes on to vandalize userpages, reverts my reversion of a previous blanking as "vandalism", and edits in a way that suggests (s)he's not at all new to this project (banned user?), my good faith/charity is stretched. Text restored. The Evil Spartan 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

Hi The Evil Spartan

The category with CSD-I3 images in it at that point had around 400+ images to be deleted. I deleted them all, removing the red links and leaving a clickable, explaining message for every user. It took me 3 hours. Each day it takes between 2 and 4 hours. I have been doing this job for 10 weeks, every day, day in day out, getting nothing but complaints and nitpicking and death threats.

Your suggestion is very good, but it assumes I would have time to look into every single addition to see when the image was added and to hit revert. Leaving aside the fact that reversion is a very bad idea in this context (it will just be undone, the clickable message is very important in that respect), this would take the job from "boring but do-able" into "boring and impossible". Your tiny contribution of adding back the previous image would take seconds.

I'm sorry to heap this on you personally, but your message has been the final straw. This is one backlog I'll be fucked before I clear again.  ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 18:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Redvers, I was wasn't even criticizing you. I also had no idea you spent this much time on images. Damn, I didn't know I was going to cause so many problems on this encyclopedia. Damn. If you quit, then I quit too. Not to mention it's a bad idea to be on this place so much. The Evil Spartan 18:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Christianity by Country

Greetings The Evil Spartan. If you look on page 11 of the Eurobarometer 2005 pdf you will se the statistics for those who believe in god by country. Obviously one cannot be Christian if one doesn't believe in God. Giving fair dues to other religions I am basing the approimation on the Eurobarometer figures less about 5%

Europe is largely a secular country these days and the previous figures are really unrealistic, and indeed mostly unsourced. The general consensus on the talk page is that the euro figures are way innacurate.

Thanks for your message

Smeggypants

p.s I will edit the reference to include the page number of the pdf

Re:

Was the suspected sockpuppeteer reported to WP:SSP before? Find me the link and I will block him. Aquarius • talk 18:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, duck test: he's on WP:RFCU right now. All the other socks have been blocked. Check the WP:RFCU section on asking for IP listing (at the bottom). Thanks. The Evil Spartan 18:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Aquarius • talk 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The Evil Spartan 18:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser case completed

Hi, A checkuser IP Check case you filled has been completed by a CheckUser, and archived. You can find the results for 7 days at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive. -- lucasbfr , checkuser clerk, 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Christianity by Country

Please see my talk page for my answer Smeggypants 02:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Kelly O'Donnell

Her page notes that she plays "operation." Is that some kind of gag? I'm not familiar enough with either the rules of Wikipeda nor the implications of playing "Operation." I thought I'd bring this to your attention.

In fact, you are correct (though I think it might be referring to Operation (game). The person who added this also added several other doubtful figures without a source - I've removed all of them. Thank you. The Evil Spartan 14:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Block of 209.80.153.114

Hi Evil Spartan. I understand your concern about the length of the block placed on this school ip, but I wasn't convinced that the ip is likely to reoffend in a hurry. I am inclined to see whether a block of a decent length will act as a deterrant before coming down with a harsher block and preventing not only further vandalism, but constructive editing from others at the school. If the vandalism starts again on Monday, then a longer block should be imposed, but apart from the trouble in the last few days, met with a much too short original block, it has been quite a while since the last persistent vandalism from this ip, and there is no reason to think the same people are involved, so their vandalism may not be as persistent as you fear. JPD (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

The Qiun Zhijun situation is at ArbCom, and you have been listed at a party. Please leave comments there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• This situation is now at RfC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your RFCU case

You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Cbrown1023 talk 14:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

Joel Hayward AfD req

I think the article's in pretty good shape now, and it caused Dr. Hayward to reveal another of his sock-puppets :-). Care to withdraw your AfD nom? Groupthink 11:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; your message got lost in the mix. I've now withdrawn the AFD. But may I ask, was it smart to lock the article? The change he made indeed may have fixed BLP issues: . If I understand, isn't BLP applied quite liberally? Thanks. The Evil Spartan 23:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Username

Is your user name a play on characters in 300 or God of War? Just curious! --172.165.11.237 22:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, all is good - email me if you want to talk about the account some more - glad to be of assistance. In any case, no, it was just me trying to sound clever. I originally wanted Big Bad Wolf or some variant, but they were all taken. And so I went for evil, and this was the best alternative. :) The Evil Spartan 21:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello, on ANI you commented on how I should negotiate with the IP user I was having trouble with. After asking him to comment (yet again), he wrote a complaint about me, always referring to me in third person and talking about my apparent vandal tendencies (he has clearly not read WP:VANDALISM). This is similar to previous attempts to make contact with him. But I tried to tell him to reply to me on Talk:Malhotra. But instead he pasted a complaint about me, again referring to me in third person. Asking admins to take action against my vandalism. How can I, or should I even bother, to make sure this person discontinues their false editing. dishant 08:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please make extra efforts to be civil

In this diff, you link to another user's comments, with a tone that implies you think they were wrong. I know that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. However, when the editing is hot, taking extra efforts to be civil are often good. Sarcasm is also often unhelpful. GRBerry 18:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've editing the comment a bit for civility. I guess the argument that "he was uncivil first" is a bit-um-playgroundish. The Evil Spartan 23:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:216.56.60.82

Yes, sounds reasonable. I've increased the block period by a month. Regards, Anas 23:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! Thanks. The Evil Spartan 23:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Joel Hayward

Thanks for the AfD withdrawal. As regards the changes he made, I personally thought he put a weaselly positive spin on things, much like the spin in the non-apology apologies he's offered regarding his thesis debacle. However, that's just my opinion, and not why I asked the page to be locked. I requested semi-protection because he has a long history of sock-puppetry (see User:Rafairminded). If he's going to make edits like that, I'd prefer that he do so openly. Groupthink 00:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Callas / Fair use

Thanks for your help here. I wasn't quite sure how to solve the problem.
NewYork1956 21:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Anytime. My pleasure. The Evil Spartan 23:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

block template

Hi. I was wondering what template you use to make the blocked announcements in the brown square, like the one you used on User_talk:66.199.212.7. Thanks. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be {{vblock}} (not to be confused with {{vandalblock}}). :) The Evil Spartan 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

re:Reversion

Oops..Sorry..actually this is the 6th time this has happened to me since I joined and its usually caused by two editors reverting the same page and the one with the faster internet connection gets it while the one with the slower connection (usually me) reverts the right one back to the vandals edit..Sorry..I'll take better attention next time .. --Cometstyles 19:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks for your comment at the ANI page regarding me and Bishonen. There were no diffs of any harassment prior to when Bishonen first mentioned "harassment." Maybe I did not react perfectly after Bishonen mentioned harassment and threatened me with a block. But there had been no harassment (at least not by me). Have you reached any conclusion about it? I'm not trying to stir up trouble here. I'm just having much difficulty understanding how this type of thing can happen. KC blasted me for --- essentially --- following her own advice, even though I pleaded with her to assume good faith. And then I got slapped with a harassment charge.Ferrylodge 02:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, we differ. I disagree almost entirely with Ferrylodge's view of events. KillerChihuahua 19:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Evil Spartan, sorry for the delay responding to your post at ANI (job, sleep, you know). Anyway, I have responded here, and would appreciate your thoughts. Thx.Ferrylodge 15:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

State College Article

Dear Mr. Spartan,

My revisions on the State College, Pennsylvania are true. it is a total nightmare living in state college, pa. What i have said is true about state college, pa. the public has to know. i have run into several problems living here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmase (talk • contribs)

Ah, well, I suggest reading up on our neutral point of view policy. As it stands, saying that a town is full of racists, hicks, and "its cops are full of shit" is considered vandalism. Please be careful to read our rules before adding further commentary to articles. The Evil Spartan 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine then.

How do u create new articles on dis thing? -- Jmase

Bad idea

Please do not encourage people to misuse Misplaced Pages. Friday (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, guess you're right. The Evil Spartan 19:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being understanding. Friday (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Christianity by Country

The Catholic Website is a violation of the guidelines for valid sources already on the page. Please do not escalate this by reporting me for reversion,. I shall simply do the same to you . Which of course is counter productive. I have no problem with properly sourced figures, but Christian websites are not acceptable.

Please discuss this on the Christianity by country talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeggypants (talk • contribs)

I have made a report to AN/3RR. However, I made a note to not block if you self-revert. In any case, I have not violated 3RR; I have made only 3 revisions today. And, I did not start the reversions: you started by reverting what another user had properly added before. The Evil Spartan 19:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have self-reverted to avoid escalting this at this time. The other user had NOT properly added the figures. Religious websites are in violation of the page guidelines. I shall place this matter on the talk page for discussion, and evntually remove the biased website reference. If need be I shall take this further through WP:DR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeggypants (talk • contribs)

That is good - I suggest we wait a little more until going to DR. In any case, I already removed the report from AN/3RR. The Evil Spartan 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of courtesy, as you've been participating heavily in the editing of this page ( and warring with some of my edits ) I am letting you know that I have spent a good length of time improving the table. You might be suprised to know that I have included the CIA factbook as a source probably around 30 extra times. There were still many completely unsourced figures in the table. Now while I don't agree the Factbook is totally reliable, I do agree it is still much better than something that is completely unsourced at all.

Indeed there were quite a few unsourced instances that I replaced with Factbook figures that did reference a Census. As I said before, where the CIA factbook lists a source such as a census I am in wholly agreement with it ( although the original census link would be a better source from a worldwide trust point of view )

Giving the CIA factbook source to thse figures has meant that some have increase, some had increased and some have staryed the same. In most cases not my much. Obviosuly some of hte CIA factbook figures don't have a source. But at least a link to the factbook gives it some kind of anchor. Hopefully there is very little excuse for anyone to change figures for propoganda pruposes now. I Hope this is much more acceptable to you now. My intentions for this page are purely accuracy and common sense.Smeggypants 22:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting page moves

The moves as proposed originally were supported by community consensus, with no dissenting opinion put forward. I suspect that the original reverting user did not understand the naming conventions and the MOS. Also, the reverted moves were accompanied by redirect sabotage, which makes them speedily reversible. 81.104.175.145 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? I apologize if I got that wrong, but I can't find that in the page logs, which is why I made the move. Can you give me the links to the discussion and the move that was inappropriately made? The Evil Spartan 00:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I direct your attention to WP:NC, WP:MOSTM, and WP:MOSCL, to name just three locations indicating community consensus was in support of the move. There's also a link somewhere to an ArbCom reference stating explicitly that moves that are deliberately made irreversible by pointless edits (the user reverting the moves simply removed a single space from each of the redirect pages) do not need a WP:RM discussion, and may be summarily reverted. Probably in the moving guidelines somewhere, and should be in RM history from when I noted it next to the requests. 81.104.175.145 01:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well naming conventions are guidelines, and different interpretations thereof don't always hold up in a specific move. What I'm getting at is this: can you point me to the link that shows there was a bad move to begin with? What I mean is this: you placed the request at RM, but it clearly was controversial. This probably should not have occurred in the first place, unless there was a poor move beforehand. If you can show this poor move to begin with, I would understand better. The Evil Spartan 16:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You are prejudging it already by saying it was "clearly controversial", when it was not. It was uncontroversial, for the reasons I have already provided. To dismiss the naming conventions as "just guidelines" is to undermine the whole nature of Misplaced Pages:consensus. 81.104.175.145 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry sir, but I must politely disagree with your reasoning. I am a big fan in favor of using the process given where it is appropriate (though product over process is important too). In fact, if you read my userpage, one thing it explicitly says is, "Being bold is an excellent idea; however, don't get offended if someone questions you, as you might have been too bold.". It was a good idea to support the move, but once someone reverted it, no matter the reason, it would have been best to go through WP:RM rather than revert war. I simply moved it back to its original state. In any case, there's no point in making a big deal, and I'm sorry if I caused any hurt feelings over the matter - let's just take it to WP:RM now. The Evil Spartan 17:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW. Consensus clearly favours the move, so there is little point in wasting time over process. 81.104.175.145 07:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

COI Templates.

Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio 16:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I really am reporting you now

You have just undone a lot work I have spent improving the Christianity by Country Page. This time you have no proper reason. I am reporting you to Misplaced Pages. It seems you are going over the line of good faith now. Please do NOT revert my work a 2nd time!!! Smeggypants 23:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I even took time out with curtesy to inform you of the improvements I had undertaken.Smeggypants 23:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Further just for reference, In your haste to undo all my work you also just undid the work of another user Yom who correctly updated the Ethiopia entry with a census, which I subsequently further improved by correcting the totals. You just trod all over Yom's work and mine. I have assumed good faith on yoru part for too long now.Smeggypants 23:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake, I was editing an older version of the page. The Evil Spartan 23:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 31#Pokemon copyright templates

Next time, notify those people who have an interest in seeing the templates remain. -Jeske 02:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My images are now are listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images

His Evil Spartan, you told me to feel free to comment on you about images. The screenshots were from a movie I created and took production stills from. I also too the other photos so, I listed them as my own work because they are. I listed them as free images beause I'm okay if anyone wants to take them or keep them, etc. JoeyC5 23:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will remove the movie screenshots. But may I suggest you add this rationale to all those images? The Evil Spartan 13:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to ANI

As you may or may not be aware, the discussion you reverted is currently under discussion at WP:RFAR. ANI is not the place to discuss the merits or behaviour of administrators or editors in closing the Allison Stoke DRV. Please be aware of the 3 revert rule and don't reopen this discussion again. Thanks. Nick 14:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you close this? For the love of everything good, I've watched Misplaced Pages for months, and I've never seen anyone cabal so badly and create so much bad blood by refusing to let the other side even speak. The Evil Spartan 14:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty of other places to discuss, ANI is not one of them. Nick 14:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Surprise! Yet another closure of discussion which Nick just happens not to like. The Evil Spartan 15:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop insulting me and calling me names

I am not a "jihadist" or a "terrorist sympathizer". I do not sympathize with anybody who kills innocent people. Just because I am in favor of the truth and reject misinformation (which in this case happen to be negative against an Iraqi insurgent group), does not mean I support them. Also blanking out whole sections of an article is considered vandalism and I have every right to restore valid deleted content. Thank you. -Lft6771 18:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if my assessment of the situation was unfair - however, I was only going by what appeared to be the case, as I was not involved in your edit war. However, I still disagree with your term "misinformation" - saying that literally any information put forward by western media is unreliable as "propaganda" and calling killing campaigns to be "purging" (or whatever term you used, according to Hanzo) is seriously testing the limits of my assumption of good faith and neutrality on your part. The Evil Spartan 00:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Copy and paste move

what? --HanzoHattori 11:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Scuse me, but you're wrong. I started exactly from zero (null), used the 2006 Congress report, and then put it through the google search for more. You can see the history of gradually expanding. --HanzoHattori 16:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Here, I started with this: (Congress' stuff info + my infobox I did two days before -- do you mean the photo or what? I even changed the caption) --HanzoHattori 16:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC) You can even see the original version of my infobox here: (I even changed it a lot in the meantime - because I decided AQI should have their own article, so I used it in both) --HanzoHattori 16:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, then why is this page exactly the same as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad? There was a copy and paste move somewhere, whether by him or you. The Evil Spartan 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What? Both articles are completely different! Did you open one in two windows by mistake? (oh, and he reverted your revert on JTJ) I say "what" a lot, because what you say is very strange! --HanzoHattori 17:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you please properly indent so I can respond to you - or at very least append to the bottom of my talk page? I've said something below anyway. The Evil Spartan 18:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So, actually, WOULD YOU LIKE TO STOP SPEAKING IN SUCH A RIDDLES, please? --HanzoHattori 16:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not speaking in riddles. And you would STOP SPEAKING IN CAPS, TRY TO BE MORE PRECISE, AND USE PROPER INDENTATION? I agree with you in this edit dispute, BTW. The Evil Spartan 17:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I think "TruthSeeker777" may be very related to "Lft6771": (before this, there was a page on AQI alright - this one I built myself) I have no idea whatever happened to the original page. --HanzoHattori 16:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I advise you to list any other socks at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lft6771. If the checkuser refuses the case, I will open one up at WP:SSP. The Evil Spartan 17:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you do speak in riddles and talk in caps (quote: STOP COPY AND PASTE MOVING). How am I supposed to "STOP" doing I-don't-know-what-because-you-refuse-to-tell? Is "I don't COPY AND PASTE do now you can revert your revert" precise enough? --HanzoHattori 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was taking information from Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad and putting it into Al-Qaeda in Iraq. If I was wrong about this, then I apologize. However, even if I wasn't wrong, and the two are the same organiztion, then one page should redirect to another, not have a separate article. The Evil Spartan 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you were wrong, so now revert the revert so you will get suspended and not me this time :P The thing is, JTJ was not AQI. They changed a lot: new name(s), new flag, and most of all new alliegance (bin Laden). --HanzoHattori 18:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's the same group, and not an offshoot group, then it should still be a redirect. Compare with Pittsburg Alleghenies - the old name for the group Pittsburgh Pirates. If it's the same group, it's a redirect. The Evil Spartan 18:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

They're not the sports group, better compare Reichswehr and (after alliegance to Hitler) Wehrmacht (same people, yes). Anyway, I did two completely different articles (which you claimed were the same, somehow). So if you want the redirect, you do it after a vote, but now just revert the revert. --HanzoHattori 18:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo, if they're the same group, and just changed their stance, it should be a redirect. Secondly, we don't have "votes" on Misplaced Pages, especially on if something is a redirect. I'm sorry, it's confusing to have two articles. I still suggest you take it to WP:RM, and I will fully support a move. The Evil Spartan 18:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell this to NKVD, NKGB, MGB, KGB, FSB and so on. Do you want to merge them all to Cheka or something? They just changed name. --HanzoHattori 18:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, frankly, the entire secret service of Russia is more notable than one small group in Iraq who just changed their name, and carried on as the same organization (did those Russian ones even carry on as the same org?). Sorry. And, also, please be more precise, and use the {{uw-preview}} button. Finally, in light of contributions like this, I suggest you try very hard to use correct grammar. The Evil Spartan 18:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Russian secret police is the same organization, with the headquarters on Lubyanka, since it's founding as Cheka in 1917 (there was Okhrana before, but here there is no so direct connection). But they used many different names, so they have different articles (even the little stub of MGB - I don't think it's really more known than the AQI among the general public). Actually I don't think most people heard of anything more than KGB, or maybe current FSB. I can't use correct grammar because I don't speak correct English. That's why I tag my articles for copyedit. I try as much as I can anyway. Also, like how "no votes" when there's a vote? Also still, returning to the discussion, why do you think there are previous= (Originated as) and next= (Became) lines in the Infobox War Faction? Do you really think sports groups have anything with armed groups? Another example: Ludowe Wojsko Polskie turning into Wojsko Polskie (again) after the fall of Communism - and so on, really.--HanzoHattori 19:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

NOW, would you explain this? As always, you didn't. Do you always have to be so mysterious in your "popups"? Actually, I think you do vandalise my work. (-17,458 without uttering one word, when everything was sourced and actually double-checked) Revert your revert, or this will mean a war - especially, since you said you want to provoke me just to report me then (well, I guess - even as I hate doing this, because I hate learning all this stupid beurocracy). You do not own Misplaced Pages TOO, and you commited a mistake, so now just repair your error instead of being disruptive. If you have problems about it, discuss this like we were doing, and start a vote if needed (and don't say there's no votes, because it's a lie). --HanzoHattori 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. The Evil Spartan 21:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Evil Spartan???

Well, Evil Spartan, I'm Spartan-James. Peace. Spartan-James 17:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Greetings! The Evil Spartan 17:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hey, The Evil Spartan, I saw your edit to Image:Ancient City Wall of Nanjing, World 1 Length.jpg. Just to let you know (if you are interested in doing some rote maintenance work), there are bunch of images which are definitely not screenshots that are in Category:Free screenshots (where I got this one from), and that category is populated with these non-screenshots quite often. I've been meaning to go through them all and nominate them for deletion and such, but any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Iamunknown 19:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That thing's awful. Thanks for the heads up. The Evil Spartan 19:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

deletion review

I just e-mailed you a copy of the Research Video page at the final version before deletion. It's a really stupid rule not to undelete automatically for discussion, & I ask from time to time that it be changed. But it might help to simply ask at deletion review each time you think it really relevant. (if nobody beats me to it, I'll always email you a copy). (I'll also of course email if you ask at my talk page, but that doesnt get any public notice) DGG 22:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the email. Why do people delete stuff like that? It was an absolutely perfect stub. Even if it didn't officially "assert" notability (which it did), then it's a real wet cloth on everything to go deleting something that's notable, but didn't assert it properly. The Evil Spartan 19:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

R-Mean

So what do I do with the image ? I got it off his MySpace. He uses that picture to promote his stuff, and everyone else does. I don't understand what to do now :< — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuplad (talk • contribs)

Well that's precisely the problem. It's copyrighted, and that tag states it's not copyrighted. I believe you want to provide the tag {{promotional}} - however, if you do that, you'll need to realize that Misplaced Pages does not use copyrighted images of people, and it will be deleted then too. The Evil Spartan 20:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, what if I can get his permission ? I actually communicate with the guy by email and I'm going to meet him soon. Tuplad 20:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the short version to your question, you can do one of the two following:

• Speak to him, and ask him to license it under {{GFDL}}, which basically says that anybody can use the image and make derivatives (i.e., not just Misplaced Pages), so long as the original artist is quoted. Many people will be willing to allow this if an image is promotional, but some will not, as it allows anybody to use the image at any time without royalties, etc. However, you may need to verify that he allowed this image to be used; the best way to do this you can find at Misplaced Pages:Example requests for permission. People may be able to provide a more complete answer at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions.
• Another, much easier option would be, when you meet him, to take your own picture and then you can upload it to Misplaced Pages under any free license which you wish, and you don't have to worry about all this bureaucracy.

I hope this answers your questions. The Evil Spartan 22:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) I won't mail him about this, I'll just take a picture next time I see him. Thank you for your help Tuplad 08:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User:24.3.29.247

Just vandalised San Marino, I guess it's time for a permanent block. Therequiembellishere 23:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to make a report from here on at WP:AIV (and to make notice of the warning system as well). You can also see my userpage for a link to the anti-vandalism unit. The Evil Spartan 23:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

World War II

Thanks Sparty, I know you've got my back :) We must educate these people--Ilya1166 04:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, a blatant falsity of this measure surely can't stay on the encyclopedia for that long; someone will notice it and keep removing it. USSR as a member of the axis? Unbelievable that 1, let alone 3 people would edit war to have that in. Seriously, I can't stand 3RR violations, but if it's to remove patently awful information, that's different. The Evil Spartan 16:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My uploaded pics

I guess you have placed a whole lot of pictures that i have uploaded onto the deletion list. First of all I am trying to get the permission of the site admin for the pics i have put up..till then i have removed them from the articles i have placed them in. Will they still be deleted within a few days?? the web admin is not responding to the mails i have sent and asking for permission requests(Not even not granting permission reply)Sadashiv n 09:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in fact, you have now taken the right course of action. Of course, you shouldn't tag them as your own in the first place if they're not. However, if the web admin does not reply, yes, they must be deleted as copyright violations. The Evil Spartan 16:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Tagging commons images

Thank you for the notice. I tagged the picture for commons because I believe it has some use, to illustrate articles about barefoot. Also it is an open content photo. For these reasons I think moving it to Wikimedia Commons is appropriate. Of course, there are images on commons that are not used now, but have potential usage. Regards. Wooyi 21:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Closure

I'm always happy to expand on my reasoning/review my own actions. On that one I guess it depends if you consider it controversial or not, to me it looked like a fairly straight forward endorsement. As the nominator stated they were trying to add "new argument" i.e. rerun the TFD, which WP:DRV pretty explicitly is not, the endorse contributors covered this. The key objection raised and more or less on your point was that the Wikiproject and/or original creators weren't notified, as there is no requirement to do so, that again is not a process issue. i.e. Those wishing to overturn the deletion were not adding any new information to the debate, or addressing process issues with the debate, they were either disagreeing with the deletion or impose some process standard which doesn't exist. Those endorsing are supported by both the deletion and DRV processes. (Totally aside to this review if we decide that X has some interest and should be notified wouldn't we to be "fair" have to start identifying the other parties who may also have an interest, we don't do that we let people keep an eye on their own interests. If we want to change to making deletion nomination an arduous process of trying to identify and inform all those who maybe considered interested and subject to the post discussion argument of if someone should have been notified an whose input *may* have impacted the debate, I personally wouldn't be convinced that it's practical nor desirable, but whatever it's a general process/policy issue not something for DRV to dictate) --pgk 18:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Funniest AfD close ever!

That pretty much says it all! Flyguy649_contribs 21:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Misplaced Pages has too many editors doing the same thing on here. We might need to diversify a little... ;) The Evil Spartan 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Relaunching WikiProject Pittsburgh meetups

You are receiving this message because you are a member of the WikiProject Pittsburgh. In the past we have discussed a meetup idea - let's see if we can make it a reality during the summer. Please see this thread for more information.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Block

I'm not evading a block. It was reversed. Nonetheless, thank you for your input. I appreciate it. 24.160.241.190 00:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Teen_Spirit_2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Teen_Spirit_2.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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Forlì Images

Thnks for your notice. I took the photo myself. I will specify the source. As far as the licensing tag is concerned I used a CC tag by share alike. I hope it fits. Forli.tv 09:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep of Category:Bonesmen

See reply on my talk page. And please do check the List of administrators. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

certification

I think HH may have left me with a lower opinion of him or her than they left you with.

But I don't think I qualify for certifying Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori, because while my dispute was very similar, I don't think it qualifies as the same dispute. The instructions state the certifiers have to have tried to resolve the same dispute.

I'll happily add my opinion in the space set outside for comments from outsiders.

Cheers! Geo Swan 21:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Did HH respond at all to this {{rfc}}?

I had one {{rfc}} filed against me. I asked for a copy of it to be moved to my user space. You or HH are allowed to do that. I am glad I did because the person who filed it turned out to be a well-known sockpuppet.

Cheers! Geo Swan 02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

your notes

I got your message, I don't have a response. — Ocatecir 17:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The Evil Spartan 17:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Reggie Jackson

just letting you know Soxrock reversed your edit of deleting Reggie Jackson's copyrighted photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.99.1 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for the notice. The Evil Spartan 16:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Bush/Carter

Probably because the source is missing, just the old copy/paste footnote is there. Do you have the source? - Crockspot 18:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's because it was added by a newbie, taken right from the Jimmy Carter article. The Evil Spartan 18:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Figured as much, I added another source directly from NBC, so that's TWO reliable sources. Hopefully it will stick this time. - Crockspot 18:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on the 3RR noticeboard

Hi. Just to let you know that your comment on the 3RR noticeboard was deleted by ThePromenader: . I've restored your comment. Hardouin 20:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, sorry for that - it wasn't at all intentional (contrary to the above insinuations). I had an edit conflict with Hardouin and must have cut and pasted the wrong thing in the crush. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 21:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It happens. No big deal. The Evil Spartan 20:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Phroth Deletion

Please explain to me your rationale in deleting Phroth's wikipedia page? You cited it as a "non-notable fraternity" and one of over 600 clubs at Penn State. I beg to differ, it is not a fraternity, but rather one of four notable media outlets at Penn State. Further, had you read the article, you would have learned that the magazine has existed for 99 years and has produced alumni who have gone on to win Academy Awards, Cannes Awards, Emmy Awards and work at some of the most notable publications of the 20th century. The article was based primarily on celebrating the history of that magazine, only providing a small part to its impact on the campus today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteaaaay (talk • contribs)

Well, you may be bringing up a good point that wasn't mentioned in the discussion. I suggest you could bring this to deletion review - though people usually don't succeed, you actually may have a good chance in light of the fact that there was little discussion on the page and you're brining up some notable information. You could do it yourself, or, if you ask me to do it, and I'm still around, I would complete the process for you. The Evil Spartan 20:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

WWE One Night Stand

Why did you revert it back to that version? The newb (don't say I am name calling because newb is just short for newbie) is in the wrong here and his version shouldn't be there. The issue is him claming it's OR to say who is on the poster even though the poster is right there in the article. TJ Spyke 20:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I already unreverted it back. :) The Evil Spartan 20:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This fight isnt about Lashley being on the poster bc he OBVIOUSLY is. This fight is because TJ thinks Monty Brown is on it but refuses to provide a source stating this. He just won listen.BlueShrek 20:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding me. He's right there. Or do you actually have reason to think that's not him? Please note that to avoid this kind of drubble, images are generally exempt from the WP:OR. If you know it's him, then why are you fighting it? The Evil Spartan 20:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Im not fighting it im fighting for Brown. TJ kept putting it on there. HE has stopped for now but Im positivfe he'll start again soon.BlueShrek 20:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not reverted since I voluntarily remove Cor Von and only mentioned Lashley (although I still think Cor Von is there). I have provided BlueShrek the proof he wanted about Lashley, and can't afford another 3RR block since it would likely be for several weeks (since my previous one was 2 weeks). We seemed to have solved the problem, so is there a way I can avoid getting blocked? TJ Spyke 21:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A violation is still a violation. When someone clearly knows 3RR (how it works, what it takes to violate, etc), they shouldn't get a free pass to do it. RobJ1981 20:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nittwits

Hi. I'm the de facto caretaker of the Nittwits article you nominated for deletion. I haven't had the time recently to update it, but in the course of the last year there have been many television mentions and articles published that I could include in a re-write of the article which will further solidify the organizations's notability. Could you kindly remove the AfD until I have the chance to do so? Thanks. BroadSt Bully 07:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the deletion for now. It would be appreciated if you could find the sources. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 21:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. I'll compile the sources and re-write the article as fast as I can. Any specific suggestions? BroadSt Bully 01:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, try to find as many sources as you can from reliable media publications. The Daily Collegian is good, but as a school newspaper, it's considered rather minor. News stories from the CDT or local television are better, but it's still a local paper. The ideal would be something like ESPN, or any other national outlets. I would list any and all of them. Cheers. The Evil Spartan 13:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Chuck E. Cheese

Ugggh! What a horrorshow! I'll attack it if you and the anon IP are done. Flyguy649 _contribs 17:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite relieved to see people are taking notice - I put up a notice at WP:CLEANUP, to no avail. Thanks for the help. The Evil Spartan 17:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:FlyGibM11.jpg

TES, sorry about that the double-listing. I was working on orphaning {{PUInonfree}} (as it is listed at TfD). Meant no harm by it. =) --Iamunknown 04:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

copyright

Where do you see the copyright violation in the present Economic Development and Cultural Change? all i see on the page is an infobox with a copy of the cover of the journal, and that illustration is accepted as fair use, just as an album cover is? (The paragraph in the original article wascertainly copyvio, but it has been removed.DGG (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

FUCK YOU

I DONT GIVE A FUCK WHAT I DO. ILL DO THAT SHIT MORE AND MORE. IF YOU DONT LIKE IT THEN POST THAT BITCH UP THE RIGHT WAY. I STOPPED A WHILE BACK AND GAVE FULL CREDIT TO OWNERS. GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU FUCKIN NERD. IF YOU DONT LIKE THIS SHIT THEN TEACH ME HOW TO PERFECTLY FIX IT. AND IF I GET BLOCKED FUCK IT I CAN USE ANOTHER ACCOUNT. AND IF THEY GET BLOCKED ILL JUST KEEP COMING RIGHT BACK WITH MORE YOU FUCKIN PUSSY ASS BITCH. VARRIO WS SURENO 13 CLS.. delete me sir i appreciate it .block me rather than help me. when i claim i dont know the copyrights they say for another user to help but i dont see fuck heads like you doing shit until i fuck up. go ahead yu see who did this block me delete me ... itll just bring wiki another member.. THANKS DGG (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)