User talk:Carbon-16/Archive 8

Nth root article
Sorry to bother you about this, but since I saw your username on the history page and I sympathized with the fact you're learning Japanese (for the right reasons, I might add), I thought I might as well ask you about this: "Once a number has been changed from radical form to exponentiated form, the rules of exponents still apply (even to fractional exponents), namely


 * $$a^m a^n = a^{m+n} \,$$


 * $$\left({\frac{a}{b}}\right)^m = \frac{a^m}{b^m}$$


 * $$(a^m)^n = a^{mn} \,$$"

I can but wonder why a^m-n = a^m/a^m wasn't included above, because it is also true. -- Ishikawa Minoru 02:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * or did you mean a^m-n = a^m/a^n? V-Man - T/C 02:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What a freak mistake, really! Anyway, what I meant was a^m-n = a^m/a^n alright. Because 'm' and 'n' are so close on the keyboard I must have hit the wrong key by mistake.
 * Either way, I'm positive that rule applies...why wouldn't it? And besides I have given an example proving it does, that you can indeed find quotients of radicals w/ different indices. -- Ishikawa Minoru 12:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I'm just on disambiguation patrol, I know next to nothing about math (more of a comp-sci/engineering guy), so I'm not exactly the one to ask about additions to mathematics related articles. Looks as if you've got it under control on the talk page, however. The best thing to do would be to simply source it - I'm sure this is difficult with math related articles when the reader can simply plug things in and determine it for themselves. If I were you though, I'd simply be bold and add it - I'm a firm believer in WP:BRD and since I would expect Nth root to be a relatively popular article I'm sure you'll find plenty of people will check over the addition. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 02:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinions Oldspammer
I will look into your suggestion of learning more about WP, but I'm pretty lazy and disorganized, and may not get around to doing it for a week or more.

I'm starting to become interested in the current implementation of "population control" as it is being done by inoculation programs world-wide using vaccines developed by Merck, and others. I've been researching papers, books, and videos, and so may be distracted in this direction for some time. Oldspammer 23:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Electromagnetic therapy
Half of the article is gone. This is very discouraging to my efforts to contribute!

That deleted part was still largely under development. Sources were provided for many of the items in the deleted section. If possible, please try to assist in finding improved / more reliable / 'suitable' sources.

Please contribute more to the article's talk page as to your views regarding subject matter that you personally deem inappropriate to include in the article so that I do not waste my valuable time contributing researched, sourced information only to have you identify it as inappropriate while I'm in the process of improving and expanding such information.

Each type of machine outlined did exist. References as to their existence were provided.

Notability / Significance section--An introduction to the equipment table was provided to identify significance / notability (relevance) and distinguish of each type of machine. That introduction had several subsections and was one of the latest portions of the article to be included. Only a very few days had gone by when deletion was carried out thereby giving little chance for me to continue my efforts to improve the section.

The significance subsection was requested by a WP contributor.

It has been noted by some journalists (Art Bell & Guests) that the scientific establishment rather than promoting progress in the search for knowledge and scientific explanations, are more concentrated in defending existing flawed theories, existing paradigms and vested careers, and monetary interests--and that this was especially true in the USA where money is like god. Had these influences not had been so strong, we as a civilization would be further progressed than currently.

Please provide me guidance (rather than quoting WP guidelines and policies) by identifying key paragraphs with which you have objections rather than deleting first. Assist if you are able in providing RS deemed suitable by yourself.

It is my understanding that WP guidelines and policies are heavily used to suppress knowledge of things that are "politically not in the mainstream," and therefore, by definition, have no sources 'deemed reliable' by establishment proponents.

For example, it is "not helpful" when only stating that a source is unreliable even when such a source merely presents a photograph of a given device, and has some description text.

In what way is the photo unreliable?

In what way could the description text be unreliable?

Until a source web page has demonstrably had deceiving information presented therein (and is challenged as such), I think that it should stand as a RS, even if it is a direct, first hand report / source.

In some cases first hand sources are acceptable--but it seems only in some articles are they acceptable?

I think that alternative medicine has a tough enough job as it is without having to provide what would in essence be contra-indications that it was actually a mainstream medical practice / treatment device by having been FDA-approved for medical use, established scientifically in the scholarly literature, and proven in medical clinical trials.

What circumstances are there that permits first hand sources to be used in some cases? It seems to me that a whimsical yardstick exists, and someone gets it out every time to say that such and such sources are not 'RS.'

Thank you for any helpful assistance that you might provide in this matter. Oldspammer 17:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 00:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 21:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 05:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Your userpage actually made me weep man-tears. :( Capuchin 08:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Grand! - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 23:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

All or Nothing...
That's what I didn't understand. You erased my contributions because they were uncited claims, yet you preserved your own uncited claims (regarding the characteristics of Indigo Children). Using a reftag might have been a better or maybe even the best (considering the nature of the topic) solution to this rather than erasing the section completely, but if nobody but you can make any contributions to it, then I see no other option that is fair.

But just out of curiosity, what made my contributions to that specific list any less plausible, founded or permissable than yours?

SystemGlitch
 * That's the thing - they weren't. And they weren't my contributions. I'm simply saying that when you have a list of A items and you need to reference them, it's not a good idea to add more claims and be left with A+whatever. Until the original list is dealt with, I see no real reason to compound the problem. When I see a giant list of uncited claims that look like they were added by a proponent of the "movement" as OR amongst a group of extremely well-cited claims (at the bottom), I get a bit suspicious. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 19:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, I am the disinterested 3rd party and I wanted to say that I added some claims to that Indigo Children site. I referenced them and put them in a block quote. I got involved because, despite the fact that I don't even believe in Indigo Children, I took offence when I thought Systemglitch was angry with me for correcting grammar. As it turns out I think s/he is just sad that her or his edits were being erased but she/he didn't seem to understand how to just cite them. So that's where I stepped in. The source, an Indigo Child website, might not be ideal, but it has been used before on that page. I don't believe in the Bible either, but you have to go to Christian sources to see what they're thinking so this is just a matter of fringe degrees I think. If you are not happy with this compromise I won't pursue it further and you can just delete my changes. However, I think they should stand for the welfare of all concerned. Have a nice evening.  S a u d a d e 7  20:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, but the only stuff I deleted was unreferenced, nothing there was ref'd, except the part about AIDS and so forth that was referenced (this might be what you're talking about, and I actually made sure to keep this, though System deleted it). Good work on the referencing if so! And on the record, I believe it's all a load of pseudoscientific hogwash - but that's why editors have to step in and make sure it's not turned into OR gobbledygook. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 20:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007


Automatically delivered by COBot 03:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Imp tfp 07.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Imp tfp 07.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 "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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will 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. EEMeltonIV 17:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

4chan
Not that I rilly give a shit about you reverting me but there's prolly moar unsauced pages on TOW that sauced pages; at least I tried. Also, why is 4chanarchive not valid sauce? It's a record of 4chan shenanigans that is not open to edit like a wiki is. And where exactly do you suggest 'we' find external links to cite for stuff like this? It's not like Wired covers 4chan etiquette.

--Arctic Monkies 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OIC...you're that wooty. LOL NAMEFAG!

--Arctic Monkies 07:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's 'a' Wooty? I don't go by this name on any other website. Also, see WP:RS and consider adding random 4ch0n shit to Wikichan or tanasinn.info. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 08:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jack Merridew
Hi. Thanks for looking after vandalism to my user page. I'm amazed at how persistent it was. --Jack Merridew 09:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone had posted on 4chan to vandalize your user page using a message aimed at several WP users, even though the allegations were BS (they were the same for every editor they posted about). - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 10:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Explains this, sort of. I had believed all of this to be related to notability tags and the like on D&D articles... however, it may be due to stuff like: Talk:List of Oh My Goddess characters and . Thanks for the background. Best, Jack Merridew 10:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudget RfA
Dearest Opposer, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed unsuccessfully with 39 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. I would have liked to gain some experience of being an admin, but it wasn't to be. At least I gained some valuable time there and will use my knowledge picked up to my next candidacy. I would like to say once again, thank you for voting and I hope to see you at my next request be it a nomination or self-induced, I hope I don't get as many questions!

Rudget Contributions 09:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

MBII Article now GA!!
Just FYI, the Movie Battles article just got GA status!!!  Y zm o  talk  10:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hooray! - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 10:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Successful RfA - Thank you!
Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate your comments and will take them to heart as I learn the ropes. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 15:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa
Thanks for voting in my Rfa, which I withdrew from yesterday. Though I did not get promoted, I see this Rfa as being a success nonetheless. What I got out of this Rfa will help me to be a better, all around editor. Because of this Rfa I have decided to become better in other areas of editing. I'm not going to just be a vandalfighter. Though vandalfighting is good, being active in all areas of editing is even better. Have a nice day.--SJP 22:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

MSN
Hey dude, I saw you have MSN (on your userpage). My details are on my talk page, if you wanna add me. Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you. If they vandalise I'll be sure to report them soon enough! Auroranorth (sign) 11:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Afds
Dude I really read all the articles and thought they were good. That's why they should be kept, hey. Dude Wikipedia needs good articles ergo I must vote Keep in Afds when they are like gonna be deleted. Love to ya and all, it were not spam dude sup. 203.220.107.23 11:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is, AfD is a discussion, not a vote. You have to specify why you think an article is "good" because just saying it is provides no context or information for the person who makes the final decision (the closing admin). If I say "this article is good because it is well-sourced, is notable, and is free of bias" that is much more helpful than "this article is good" and it's much more likely to be given appropriate weight by the closing admin! - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 11:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude just loved them in general, they were good in all ways defacto then good. get it?  203.220.107.23 11:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay..I apologize then. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 11:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude you're really smart see I knew you would see my point sometimes good is just good Ayn Rand said so too not that I'm objectivist I dont like govts seeya. 203.220.107.23 11:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Girl74
This user said that she needed help on her talk page. I linked her to Questions and asked what she need help with, but if there's anything you would care to add, feel free. Regards, --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. deleted contribs 01:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RfA
 Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

shitty local band template
Aw man, you've just GOT to make that a template somehow! I'd be stamping that all over. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the inclusionists might Q_Q about me making it in the WP or template namespace (wouldn't that be ironic) so add it to whatever page with the following: . Oh, and I love your "kill ratio" concept. Sometimes I wonder if the people who continually complain about prods and such being destructive actually see the crap that gets posted every two minutes on the Wonderful World of New Pages, much less the crap that gets overlooked. - Woo  ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 03:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting philosophies
I agree [with madman] and have reverted Template:user delete. I'm a deletionist, Jim, not a philosopher! - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 03:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You may wish to actually read the page linked to. It's a central page describing the Wikipedian philosophies on meta. I'll revert for now. - jc37 11:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually did read the page linked to and thought that 'phil' is unnecessarily misleading and you've done the change without consensus. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 01:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Retargeting redirects
Hi, I noticed you recently changed the target of the redirect Edit counter to point to WikiProject edit counters, instead of Counter (disambiguation). I have changed it back - this choice was the compromise result of a discussion at RFD, see here. If you disagree with this and still want to change it, I suggest trying to form a consensus at Redirects for discussion first. Thanks, and apart from that, keep up the good work - you seem like my kind of editor! Terraxos 22:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Refdesk
No problem. どういたしまして. But now I remember that I forgot to add '・'. I should have corrected to アイス・クリーム. BTW, your explanation was easy to understand and I like it. Best regards. Oda Mari (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know...
I left this in response to your response to a question on the Help Desk page...


 * Re: Wooty,
 * Wikipedia can be a primary source if you are writing about Wikipedia. Sociologists, Anthropologists, Psychologists, Cultural Historians, Educators, etc. might all use the Wikipedia as an object of study, looking at the interactions of people on the Wiki, recurrent biases in articles, the patterns of creation and deletion of articles, democratic or anarchistic models of mass contribution, or even just analysing curt and dismissive responses to valid questions such as the one you offered this person before knowing the nature of his or her interest. Shalom, on the otherhand, offered the information without bias. Just my observation.  S a u d a d e 7  02:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

On Spam...

 * :awesome: - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 01:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

lolcat bible
Well, it's been reported in multiple sources therefore it meets WP:WEB. I've never really cared about whether topics have articles or redirects to sections, apart from the fact that redirects to sections are a bit messy, and in this case having a section this long in the lolcat article about one particular website would perhaps throw off the balance of that article a bit.. - Zeibura (Talk) 14:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Troubling advice
Er, I'm not sure that the advice you've given A.Z. is the best possible under the circumstances. I mean really&mdash;"shoot it off to Slashdot" for a trial by press?

If you've worked with A.Z. for any length of time, you will have noticed his tendency to get worked up and say...regrettable...things in the heat of the moment. Setting him up for a public fight is the absolute last thing you would want to do if you were trying to get him unbanned here. Fanning his flames and getting him riled up will just lead to belligerent, self-righteous attacks seasoned heavily with rules-lawyering. The ArbCom will perfectly reasonably find, based on that conduct, that their decision not to carry out a full appeal was correct. On the remote chance that A.Z. does manage to interest the press – and I use the term loosely, as I would include The Register in that category – he'll be made to look a complete nutjub by a reporter who chooses to print only the most...vehement...of A.Z.'s comments.

If you have concerns about "idiotic decisions done by a WP bureaucracy" then you should fight your own battles, in your own name. I've seen other editors use A.Z. as a stalking horse for their own grudges, and I would hate to see it happen again. (Some of that conduct is probably part of the reason why there's been no particular interest in unblocking A.Z.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never had problems with ArbCom and this is the first I've heard of this particular issue with it. I just think the block was unjustified and the lack of correspondence at least unprofessional, if not worrying in itself. That issue should be addressed one way or the other, and it's doubtful anything here is going to change that. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 23:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm...but do you really think that trial-by-press is likely to accomplish anything, or is good advice for A.Z.? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's really up to him. What I do know is that when the "secret mailing list" thing broke, there was a good bit of discussion. It's not like the ArbCom is going to spontaneously start discussing this again. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 12:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think that the discussion in this case would help or hurt A.Z.? And do you have any indication that this is actually analagous to the (ridiculously distorted) "secret mailing list" thing?  When you tell someone to go to the press, you're effectively saying 'I think that Wikipedia's mechanisms are so badly broken that there's no point in even trying to resolve things through frank and open discussion with the involved parties; the only solution left to me is to try to shame and embarrass them.'  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, I'd assume it's somewhat difficult to have frank and open discussion with a organization that never replies to any correspondence. If A.Z. can get his situation handled on-wiki, that's great and obviously the best alternative, but does it really look like that's going to happen? The entire situation is a bottleneck. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 17:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Image background color
I came across your plea to fix your image backgrounds - while I believe the background color is dependent on the skin, you can change it in your monobook (at least that's what Google says, no guarantees!):

/* Makes the background of a framed image white instead of gray. */ /* Only visible with transparent images. */ /* See #Framed_image_background_color */ div.thumb div a img { background-color:#F8EABA; }

Note that this will be site-wide: I'm not sure if you can make it only apply on one page, and if so I have no idea how. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ]  —Preceding comment was added at 12:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean that I can't change other the colours displayed to other people? --Seans Potato Business 20:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look like it - the image color is dependent on the monobook skin, so everyone would have to change theirs. :/ - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 02:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I found a work-around. The trick was to remove the image borders completely, by removing the 'thumb' attribute (and specifying a restrained size) and then putting each image in its own little table with the background colour assigned to that table. Perfect. --Seans Potato Business 02:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha! Looks much better now. Good thinking. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 03:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

do i know you?
your signature, the user talk part, bears a similar resemblence to my username...-- n1yaNt ( ~Cpt. Obvious~ ) 09:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry: simply a coincidence. - Carbon [Nyan?] 21:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Mootemail.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Mootemail.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Seriousspender (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tannasin
I'm not sure you're familiar with the criteria for notability for web content. From the guideline (with my comments): 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
 * That's not been established

2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]
 * That's not listed either

3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for:
 * again, nothing listed

As you can see, it doesn't meet the criteria for notability according to the web guideline. Unfortunatly, being widely known on the web isn't good enough for encyclopedia standards. Kuronue | Talk 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You act as if I just signed up here: of course I'm familiar with WP:WEB. There is no reason to have both a needs sources tag and a notability tag on an article period. If sources are found, the topic is notable. I'm not attempting to justify the article's existence or its tone - merge it into 2ch or whatever. But the tag is superfluous. - Carbon [Nyan?] 01:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You never know; I've seen plenty of experienced editors who never bothered to read some of the guidelines. The way I see it, you could say that it is notable for winning an award or something and not source it, and you could have sources for its existence but not its notability; it lacks both so I tagged both. Mostly I was worried that your consistent removal of the tag meant that you were insisting that it did, in fact, mention notability. If it bugs you that much I'd rather get rid of the unsourced tag; the notability is criteria for deletion wheras being unsourced just means it needs major cleanup. Kuronue | Talk 04:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey!
Ron Paul? I so liek your userpage! I am a fellow /b/tard and a user with a shady past ;) --Party! (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * RON PAUL /b/! Thanks, but I sort of ripped it off from another guy so give me no credit. :V - Carbon [Nyan?] 05:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)