User talk:Bullzeye/Archive 1

Thanks for uploading Image:Blktalon2.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Hello, you commented on my talk page that I had made vandal edits to Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster, which were reverted. The edits I made to that page were neither vandal edits, nor were they reverted. Please explain. LinuxPickle 02:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm looking at the history wrong (based on your history you don't seem like the type), but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster&diff=103742079&oldid=103741785 seems to indicate that you were the vandal in question.

I see your mistake - those edits were made by 66.241.170.119 - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster&diff=103741481&oldid=103740346 the fact that I did not revert it before making my edits makes it seem like I made those vandal edits.

Because your vandalism accusations were made mistakenly, I have removed your edits from my talk page to protect my Wikipedia reputation. In the future, please do not make such accusations, unless you are absolutely sure that the user in question really is a vandal. LinuxPickle 04:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

By all means, please remove the template from your page. And I shall take your recommendations to heart, although the fact that you made your edit without first reverting the blatant vandalism does give me pause. Bullzeye 04:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Arctic Monkey
It seems as if I had revert the article to one that is already vandalised when I notice someone blanked the page. Ill be more careful next time. Thanks. KGV 05:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's quite alright, my friend. I've done it several times myself. That's why I used the AGF revert instead of the vandalism one. Happy editing! Bullzeye 06:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Another page you might be interested in
Hi there! Based on our common interest in keeping Wikipedia notable and encyclopedic, you might want to take a look at Luther Buchele Cooperative House. I'd appreciate your input on the matter! Thanks, --Xnuala 03:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:T26withoutturret.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:T26withoutturret.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jkelly 21:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You weren't claiming Fair use on this image, you were claiming that it was legislation created by the German government. See Fair use for information on the use of unfree media on Wikipedia.  Jkelly 21:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sig question
Saw your note at WP:VPT. First thing that jumps out is that the font tag is not closed, and the small and sup tags are not properly nested. If the opening tags are small then sup, the closing tags should be /sup then /small. Gimmetrow 02:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Signature
Try this:  and make sure you have "Raw signature" checked in your preferences. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Woah! I really like your signature. Han Amos 02:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It does look pretty good...never really hitched my wagon to the "pretty sig" thing, but I figure if you're gonna Wiki, Wiki in style! Bullzeye Complaint Dept./Contribs) 02:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mis-reverted, oops
Heh, thanks for catching that. I've got history tab open, on Matt Bradley to watch it for at least a short while. Have any other pages been hit, that you know of? – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's what I do. No, I don't believe there's any other vandalism from that one. You got both of his IPs. Question is whether he'll get bored and give up or come back for more. You never can tell... Seems these days I'm seeing more repeat offenders with half a dozen previous short blocks (that he laughs at and returns from each time). Bullzeye Complaint Dept./Contribs) 07:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note about AIV
Hey there, thanks for keeping a lookout. Just one thing about AIV and how/when to report/issue blocks.

You reported 198.30.16.3 and 75.162.15.20. The problem with those two accounts is that the last vandalism was over a month ago for the first, and sporadic for the second. Warnings older than about 48 hours are dated to an extent, as the IP could be used by a different user who has never seen the old warnings. Also, the IPs hadn't rapidly vandalized and stopped after one edit apiece. So, the warnings worked, and thanks for bringing the IPs to attention, I'm watching both. However, neither account meets the criterion of the blocking policy at the moment.

Keep up the good work, and I hope that explains a few things! Teke 05:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 198.30.16.3 has precisely three non-vandal edits (his first three, actually).


 * He received a third level warning during his spree in April, during which he also also used one of his vandalisms to directly attack an editor who had warned him.


 * Today he posted another vandalism, and seeing that he had received a level three warning (and been officially notified, per WP:V standards, that he would be blocked if he did not cease and desist) and then continued to vandalize, I reported him to AIV.


 * 75.162.15.20 has an equally short but fruitful career as a vandal.


 * Received a vandalism4im on his very first edit, proceeded to vandalize past his final warning several times (without being reported), until he vandalized again today and I caught him.


 * I am uncertain as to where I could have conceivably erred in either of these cases. They both entirely meet the warning standards and practices of WP:V, which mandates only that the user be properly warned (in no particular order), and reported if they continue. In practice, most are given 3 or 4 warnings before being reported. You appear not to have noticed (based on your tone), but while I'm certainly not a long-timer on the WP:CVU, I also didn't start yesterday. I'm well aware of both the official procedure and the general procedure for the process. I've also never had a block request rejected, and with that in mind, are we sure we're reading the same policy here? If I'm missing something in the text I really need to know it. Bullzeye Complaint Dept./Contribs) 06:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoo hey, I apologize if I seem condescending. I did not intend it to be that way in the slightest.  What I meant in the long run of being on the blocking side of the bit I didn't feel that a block was warranted, as a block is to be preventative and at the most a 24 to 36 hour block wouldn't have done any good based on the sporadic edit patterns of both accounts.  I looked over your contributions before posting the talk message out of habit, and you will be a nice sysop someday.  That was the intent of the explanation of denying the block, based on experience and the practice of blocking as opposed to theory.  Certainly there are many administrators who might have gone ahead and done a brief block.  But you did your job and they stopped.  So seriously, a thumbs up to you.   Teke  06:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

newcomer
Hello, I am new to editing and have just tried to create a page about st mary's ukrainian catholic church, manchester, I tried to upload a photograph (my own) and thought it had been accepted, but then I see that the picture has not appeared but you seem to have carried out two edits to the page. Can you explain what is going on and what i am doin wrong please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marting54 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Hi, and welcome to the Project. I nominated the article for speedy deletion because, while the name looked promising, the only text was random-letter gibberish. Since we get a lot of "fake" or "joke" articles here, we tend to delete them pretty fast if the only content is nonsense. It's no problem for you, however; just go ahead and re-create the article. You can add images by typing [[Image:*****.jpg]] with the asterisks being the filename.
 * I also highly suggest visiting the Wikipedia New User Introduction Page. It can answer many of your questions regarding how to improve and create articles.
 * I hope this has been helpful, and happy editing! Bullzeye Complaint Dept./Contribs) 13:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

editing (again)
Thanks, I have re-written the article and then tried to use the 'upload file' option to insert my picture. I filled in the information and license stuff and browsed to the file on my desktop. the green bars progressed and finished and i looked again at the page but no image has appeared and the additional text i included has now disappeared! i'm getting a bit frustrated now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marting54 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Hmmm...what is the file name of the picture? Try going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:*****.*** with the asterisks being the file-name and extension. It's possible that it's already there. If it is, follow the procedure in my last message. If it isn't there, try using the upload file procedure again. Let me know how it goes on my userpage. No worries, we'll figure it out. That's the good part about having an article squashed right when you create it; nothing ventured, nothing lost. I am going to nap for a bit, though, so I'll be back in a few. Keep up the good editing. Bullzeye Complaint Dept./Contribs) 14:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of The Tribe of Judah Band
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on The Tribe of Judah Band. I do not think that The Tribe of Judah Band fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because having an album relased at all is at least a weak claim of significance, adn having an album produced by a grammy-winning producer is a clear claim of significance, so WP:CSD doesn't apply. DES (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I, of course, disagree with your comments, and in particular i don't think the use of WP:IAR in any deletion decision is ever a good idea. (Indeed I think I have yet to see the first occasion when an action taken solely or primarily on the basis of IAR was a good idea.) I also see a lot of A7 speedies, and I have deleted a lot and tagged a lot of them. I also see a lot of invalid A7 speedies, including quite a few that became perfectly valid articles.
 * Often, when no WP:CSD properly applies, WP:PROD will get rid of a dubious article with a little more delay, but no more work, than a speedy. If a deletion really is clear cut, an AfD will take perhaps 2 minutes each from 3-6 editors, plus 5 minutes from a closer, no more. I have closed my share of AfDs, so I am willing to assist with the issue.
 * I the case of this particular article, i put it on AfD myself. I often change what I think is an invalid speedy tag into a prod or an afd1 tag. DES (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD is not cleanup
Have just noticed two australian shopping centre nominations you have moved to AfD, and I must say that it might be worth trying to justify your stance on their non-notability stance. Within minutes, these articles have been cleanup, one is now a well-structured stub, and the other already has some significant references and information to justify it's claim to notability. Instead of wikistalking a user like it seems on face value is happening, tag them for cleanup, or do some research to improve them. Thewinchester (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE GANGSTER MIND
DON'T DELETE GANGSTERMIND, CHECK OUT GANGSTERMIND.COM AND YOU'LL SEE IT'S A RELIABLE SOURCE OF ARTICLE, AND I'VE REVERTED YOUR EDIT.--Willy, your mate 06:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. MarašmusïneTalk 07:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

re:aiv
Oh. Well then. Pandacomics 09:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

nobber
u called my addition to the nobber page vandelism, have u ever visited there i wonder. the local pub is called "D local" and the local aminity is a gun shooting range

Francis E. Dec
Thank you very much for adding a link to the article on Francis E. Dec from the disambiguation page on "Dec". Hopefully, it will make more people viewing said disambiguation page aware of the existence of Mr. Dec and interest more individuals in his strange life and conspiracy theories. Very kind of you! :) Korv McHund 04:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

On the notability of Chuck Liddell's Pitfight Team
To Bullzeye, in response to your post to delete my artiicle, let me preface this by stating that I am a member of the Wikipedia Mixed Martial Arts Project. The work that I have been adding to the project has been in regard to adding the more notable professional MMA associations which the fighters represent when fighting in the UFC, EliteXC, PrideFC, etc. Now I am not sure whether or not you are a fan of Mixed Martial Arts or not, but let me assure you, that if Pitfight team is not notable, then neither is any article about any training organization, promotion, or fighter related to MMA. Just because you are not familiar with the organization doesn't mean that it is not notable or even nationally renown in the sport and to fans of the sport. This requirement has me very concerned about this aspect of criteria because half of the Mixed Martial Arts world is less relevant than the article which I have just written and this is coming from a person who is not a fan of the Pit or Chuck "the Iceman" Liddell. This was included because it is very relevent to the sport, and I ask again that that is taken into consideration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unak78 (talk • contribs).

In the interest of avoiding over canvassing I am messaging you one final time to alert you to the additional references on the article in question. Unak78 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)