User talk:Adraeus/Archive006

Netoholic crap
I believe you are expressing some negative, and overbearing, attitudes related to that infobox. If there is a problem, I will be happy to fix it... if you calmly describe it on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 06:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You'll have to describe this "uglifying" in more specific terms. The only visual differences I see are a slight width change, left alignment of the bolded row headers, and a reduction in the amount of white-space. -- Netoholic @ 06:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You are now in violation of the WP:3RR. I realize this may have been an oversight on your part, but you are nonetheless. IF you undo your most recent revert, and talk like a rational person on the Talk page, I am sure you won't be blocked. Otherwise, I will your negativism (or silence) as a sign of your uncooperativeness, and report your violation. -- Netoholic @ 06:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism? Are you serious? No one is going to remotely believe my edits were vandalism, so I hope you enjoy your impending block. -- Netoholic @ 07:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

OneRace Films
Your comment removing the speedy deletion tag to this article was neither helpful nor positive. Since the speedy was added, you have improved the article and it is no longer empty thus making removal sensible. Please think about your edit summaries a little more carefully in future. -- SGBailey 23:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Whilst patrolling special pages | new pages, verifying the credentials of each user posting is not viable. There will obviously be erroneous markings of a page, in which case the problem is easily correctable - and in this case you did that. Please think about your edit summaries a little more carefully in future. -- SGBailey 11:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Templates
Hi - I think you could probably be more helpful in conversation if you were more conservative about the use of the word "vandalism." Good faith edits are never vandalism, and calling them vandalism just makes further discussion harder. As for the templates, Netoholic is right here - meta templates are harmful, and the developers have asked us to not use them if we can avoid it. I'm inclined to think that listening to the developers on this one is more important than some small issues in how the template appears, but if it's really a problem, you should probably work up a version of the template that looks how you want without the use of meta-templates. Phil Sandifer 06:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic's dislike of meta-templates is based largely on the established rule that we avoid using them. In this regard, then, all of Wikipedia has malice towards them. As for vandalism, please note that the term has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, described at Vandalism, and Netoholic's actions are definitely not that. Phil Sandifer 16:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner unblocking Netoholic
I saw that Snowspinner unblocked Netoholic. I do not contest the unblock. Ral315 (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I trust Snowspinner's judgment here (as well as that of Raul654, who left a note on WP:AN) Ral315 (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Bill gates-mugshot.jpg
The image you uploaded, Image:Bill gates-mugshot.jpg is now tagged as , which is the appropriate tag for booking photographs such as this. By the way, great pic! --Mb1000 15:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Your reversion of Template:Infobox Company
I don't quite understand the reasons for and against your reversion here, but it broke the template as sub-templates had been deleted since they were marked with a db as "deprecated". I have hence reverted your revert and you might want to try fix up this mess if you consider it one. jnothman talk 13:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See the edit summaries and talk pages. Any edit that messes with the style in the name of conforming to policy is a bad faith edition that shall be reverted in the name of retaining good design. If you and Netoholic are unable to fix the template without messing with the style, then don't try to "fix" the template. Adraeus 04:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That is sheer arrogance. Your chosen style is not supported by the majority of commmentators on that talk page.  I have invited you to find consensus for your style, and you have not even attempted to.  Stop fighting a revert war and use words.  I've done so, and seem to have the majority of support, and so the style I put in there is the best one for now. -- Netoholic @ 06:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your history and arbitration case makes painfully clear that the only words you consider are your own. The style that existed prior to your devious edition was designed by several of the template's editors and myself. The fact that your trollish reversions hid your style changes under the guise of policy conformity is indicative of the fact that you were performing editions contrary to good faith policy. The only support you have is for the policy conformance editions you committed. Adraeus 06:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

In response to your RFA comment.
You wrote:
 * 1) Oppose. Jnothman supports the actions of known trolls and abusive users, and does not attend to edit summaries and Talk pages prior to taking action. Adraeus 04:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *Thanks for letting me know... But I don't know what exactly you're referring to. If you are referring to my reversion of your reversion of Template:Infobox Company, well then you clearly didn't understand the fact you had created a few thousand messed up pages by performing your reversion: I was not adhering to the POV of any known troll, I was trying to have the articles on the encyclopedia at least appear clean while not understanding the issue at hand. Further, I don't understand your ability to generalise a single instance of what I had attempted to make in good faith for the sake of the encyclopaedia (and not the specifics of the implementations of a template or the actions of Netoholic) to your comment above. Please let me know examples where I have done wrong. Thanks. jnothman talk 10:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

As this RFA is about to close, and I would like to be on some sense of positive terms with people I consider good users, could you please help us discuss this issue civilly by responding and being specific. Thanks. jnothman talk 10:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Any user careless enough to ignore edit summaries, Talk page discussions, and calls for assistance on administration pages isn't qualified to serve as an administrator of Wikipedia. Your actions, regardless of your excuses, were inappropriate for a would-be administrator. A competent administrator would have a) identified and clarified the situation, and b) devised solutions to resolve any issues observed. You simply acted without concern. By the way... the Template exists right now because a) I created the Template, b) I designed the Template, c) I promoted the Template, and d) I helped manage the Template in order to ensure the best decisions were made. Moreover, any reversion I made that "broke" the Template was to a previous revision that was likely broken by another user. Now instead of blaming me for breaking the template, a competent administrator would have researched the situation and never produced such radically uninformed assumptions. Since it's obvious you will attain adminship, I certainly hope you can do better with more responsibility; however, my opposition remains. Adraeus 06:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the late reply. I don't mind who made the template; I don't mind who broke the template. I don't blame you for breaking it in any way, except that your action of reversion, right or wrong, broke articles. Had I been an admin at the time, I could have restored appropriate templates; not having been, all I could do was fix a thousand broken articles in a temporary but necessary manner by undoing your reversion. I did not want to get embroiled in the situation, but merely wanted the articles to look correct until you had sorted the issue fully. You wrote: If you and Netoholic are unable to fix the template without messing with the style, then don't try to "fix" the template. By putting myself with Netaholic against you, you imagined that I was trying to "fix the template" and "mess the style". Rather, I was trying to avoid a broken encyclopedia. Are you not able to assume good faith instead of ranting against me as an assistant to known trolls? jnothman talk 00:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Your 'unpleasant encounter'
At the risk of appearing ignorant, I really don't understand what was 'unpleasant' about your encounter with the list of songs without the title of the song in the lyrics. As near as I can tell, all that happened was you saw it, didn't like that it was there, said so on the talk page and received a polite response. In what way is this unfortunate? I could understand if it had led to arguments and so forth, but as far as I can tell (of course, this could have happened without me noticing) that didn't happen. Personally, I think the list should stay, but I respect your opinions and your right to express them. Anyway, thanks for your time and I hope for a response.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, I'm only an unregistered member due to apathy and a lack of any worthy information to contribute to Wikipedia.

James Murton

Image copyright problem RE: Image:William Wallace.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:William Wallace.jpg. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law. We need you to specify two things on the image description page:
 * The copyright holder, and
 * The copyright status

The copyright holder is usually the creator. If the creator was paid to make this image, then their employer may be the copyright holder. If several people collaborated, then there may be more than one copyright holder. If you created this image, then you are the copyright holder.

Because of the large number of images on Wikipedia, we've sorted them using image copyright tags. Just find the right tag corresponding to the copyright status of this image, and paste it onto the image description page like this:.

There are 3 basic ways to licence an image on Wikipedia:
 * An open content licence
 * Public Domain
 * Fair Use


 * The copyright holder gets the best protection of their work by licencing it under an open content license such as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence. If you have the express permission of the copyright holder to licence their work under the above licence, use the image copyright tag: cc-by-sa-2.5. The GNU Free Documentation License is another option. Again, if you have the express permission of the copyright holder, use the tag GFDL.


 * The copyright holder can also release their work into the public domain. See here for examples.


 * Images from certain sources are automatically released into the public domain. This is true for the United States, where the Wikimedia servers are located. (See here for images from the government of the USA and here for other governments.)  However, not all governments release their work into the public domain. One exception is the UK (see here for images from the UK government). Non-free licence governments are listed here.


 * Also, in some cases, an image is copyrighted but allowed on Wikipedia because of fair use. To see a) if this image qualifies, and b) if so, how to tag it, see Fair use.

For more information, see Image copyright tags. Please remember that untagged images are likely to be deleted.

If you have uploaded other images without including copyright tags, please go back and tag them. Also, please tag all images that you upload in the future.

If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again. --wknight94 20:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

SOSUS Fact Checking
>> With the ending of the Cold War in the 1980s, the need for SOSUS disappeared.<<

Please validate or revise this inconsistent statement in related article:

During the Cold War, Orincon helped "design" (redesign / upgrade) the SOSUS tracker system to follow the Soviet ballistic missile submarine.

RJBurkhart 02:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Clan Ramsay (Tartans).png
Thanks for uploading Image:Clan Ramsay (Tartans).png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 09:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Agnostic atheism
As one of the early contributers and someone who has made quite a number of contributions to the agnostic atheism article, I thought you might want to know it is under consideration for deletion Articles for deletion/Agnostic atheism. I noticed you made several contributions and although I personally believe it should not be deleted (and the current consensus is keep), I don't know enough to provide useful feedback but perhaps you do. Hope you don't mind this message. Cheers Nil Einne 10:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography July Newsletter
The July 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 08:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter August 2006
The August 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 01:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Larry Blumberg
Hi, I wanted to give you a chance to establish the notability of Larry Blumberg before I tag the article for deletion. If you feel it should be retained, please comment on the article discussion page why it meets WP notability standards. Seaphoto 21:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are intent on tagging the article for deletion, I will oppose your motion at that time. The content of the article stands alone in establishing the notability of the subject. Adraeus 02:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it doesn't. Could you be a bit more specific as to the size and significance of the company he works for? Just zis Guy you know? 19:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do your research like a good little deletionist. Oh, wait, I forgot you guys don't research anything! Adraeus 11:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Celebrity
If you do not like the look please bring it up on the talk page, currentley it follows teh std. for other entertainment templates. User:MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 21:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember you do not own the template, In changing the design you break optional vars. Presentley most infobxs follow this style and thus it is the prefered. I ask you not to revert also as you will violate WP:3RR also. (Strike that, i see you reverted.. i urge you to self revert as you mess up several pages and you are in violation of policy) User:MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * counts as a revert, weather partial or not. The defacto now seems to be name/etc inside box and to my knowledge has never been considerd bad form. Furtherore that is because Bill Gates does not use teh bgcolour variable. User:MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 21:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, all is orking peachy now. User:MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 21:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Helping
Help with what? FeloniousMonk 17:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The Medicis and Bourges talk page
Ping. -- Gwern (contribs) 14:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter September 2006
The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Company
Hi. I added a bit on the discussion about defunct companies. Could you see what you think? Also the slogan field has been added again. Mark83 10:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Type
Hey, I'm thinking of a few ways to change around Template:Infobox Company a little, to reflect different types of companies. I was wondering if you could clarify on what you meant by this diff. Let me know, thanks! tiZom(2¢) 20:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Company
Hi Adraeus. Can you please try and be more constructive at Template:Infobox Company. So far your contributions seem to be to revert every edit that makes even a slight change, whilst simultaneously refusing to engage in any serious discussion about something that is clearly an issue for some people (except to call their claims 'ridiculous'). Please try and be more civil and engage in the conversation in a more mature manner, so that a workable solution can be found. Thank you --HappyDog 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * btw - having just looked up this talk page I realise I am not the first person to make this sort of complaint. --HappyDog 16:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)