User talk:Conti/Archive2

Question
Did you mean to remove every single "Articles protected against re-creation" on WP:PP? Alot of the pages you removed are still protected against recreation. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to revert the removal of the section from PP. Because. It's not correct. :) Then try again. :) If you'd like, I can go through the list myself and remove the ones you unprotected and the already unprotected ones. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I removed the ones you unprotected and the already unprotected ones. Should be ok now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

TFD: Linkimage
Hi there, you voted to link the image Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg at autofellatio rather than provide it inline. The template used to make the link is now up for deletion, please see Templates_for_deletion... Mikkerpikker 15:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians/Germany is being replaced by a category
Hello! You were listed on the Wikipedians/Germany page as living in or being associated with Germany. As part of the User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, or one of the Bundesland-based subcategories, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Germany for instructions. --Angr ( tɔk ) 14:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello
You were actually nice when you used your Gentaur account. Now I don't know what's the matter with you. I sent that email to check my user page to get your opinion. Why did you accuse me of being some troll who you do not know about? By a glance at the furry articles, this troll stays up all night editing the articles only to get reverted and if it's one person they have not slept for several years. I doubt it is one person. I doubt it is one person who alters the George Bush article (substitute controversial figure). And for copywrite, please tell me now how to write copywrites if you make the image yourself in an editing program. It had a single function when I uploaded it. Are you a copywrite lawyer? Do you know any? Because I'd like to know. Please respond to me and address these issues. Thanks for the communication--I hope to here from you, bye. Arights 10:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Gentaur was my old account, not ContiE's. We are not the same person.  [[Image:Tycon.jpg]]Coyoty 19:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to discuss things with you
I am aware that you swore a blood oath to assassinate another user, but I am not this person. I am tired of going at it with you and I want to resolve things. Please explain why TV, video game, movie or comic book screenshots are not fair use. Please explain the Chakat thing. That's pretty much all for now.Arights 07:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't say whether you are User:Thodin or not, but you are surely trying to convince me of being him. Anyways, here are a few answers: Please read Fair use carefully, you are not allowed to have fair use images for your own userpage. Fair use is only allowed to illustrate something on an article, and only if there is no free picture available that would do the same. The "Chakat thing" was explained on Talk:Yiff already, and I pretty much agree with what was written there. Feel free to ask more questions if you have them. --Conti|&#9993; 17:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I missed the part about userpages. So a subpage of a userpage might not work, I don't know.  I put them in furvert.  I hope they don't upset anyone.  I am considering making the animated image smaller and reuploading it--shrinking it with wikipedia size garbles such images so it needs reediting.  I also removed them from my user page.  They should qualify for fair use now.  Arights 03:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Fursuit
Was going to move that picture in there once the PUI was deleted ;) --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 21:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

About username change
If you are really close to the 6,800 limit, perhaps deleting random edits on your user page/subpages/talk page may get rid of some of your edis to make it around 6,800, since you have about 369 on user namespace. That said, you might want to slow down editting until the request is fulfilled. Just a thought, Cheers. -- WB 10:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

LARP as RPG-term
While I understand your revert, I feel that LARP is a class of RPG that not all gamers are familiar with or knowledgeable of. Therefore, I was attempting to put LARP in the category where searchers would be likely to find it. The Bearded One 21:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Assistance
Hey, Contie. I was wondering if you could possibly assist me? On my User Page I wanted to put an image up, but I guess I cannot put in the correct "codes", blah, I was never good on these types of things. --X`terrania 04:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

revert
I don't mind but please give a reason and I won't put it back. 206.11.112.251 02:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, should've given a reason in the first place. Well, Rhobite was faster than me: I think we should link to articles actually describing what something is about, and not to ones that make fun of the topics. Also, if there should be a link to ED's article on furries, the other topics mentioned should also link to ED and not to wikipedia for consistency. But IMO they all should link to our articles.
 * And nope, no name change yet, for some reason users who have a certain amount of edits can't be renamed now, so I'm stuck with this one for now, but thanks for asking. --Conti|&#9993; 03:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A couple of people have been renamed several times. I read somewhere that somebody miscapitalized their wiki name (here or wikicities) and was complaining.   For the article, I was considering linking to the categories directly instead.  Oh, and one idea is how about besides the external link at the bottom write "Not work safe" or some such thing.  Maybe a "turn off pictures to make work safe."  Right now the main page has a naked sex act picture.  I think like goatse, which says which links are not safe (or sexually explicit--or whatever it said) this should be her,e too.  206.11.112.251 04:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)  Hmmm goatse no longer has "not work safe" and links to worse pics like tubgirl.  206.11.112.251 04:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, if not clearly stated otherwise, links in articles are usually links to other articles here. Maybe there could be links to both tho, first to the wikipedia article, then to the ED one, but you should first propose that on Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica to get a consensus. Same thing for the "work safe"-stuff. Unless there are permanently really disturbing images, such warnings usually won't be put besides the links, people should know that the internet and wikipedia is not work safe everywhere. --Conti|&#9993; 17:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As for really disturbing images, see the tubgirl link on goatse. 206.11.112.251 03:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Feminism
You said "reverted vandalism', I didn't vandalise, I added a link of a critic of feminism which I put onto pending topics to be done.
 * Have a look at External links, if you're actually interested in doing something for this encyclopedia. The feminism article has way too many links, even without totally useless ones like the one you added. --Conti|&#9993; 22:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Conti-sig.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Conti-sig.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is 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 ) 20:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a small version of Image:BDSM-emblem.gif, but I have no use for it, so it can be deleted anyways. --Conti|&#9993; 20:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

image deletion comment
Hiya, I notice you added a comment to one of the first pages I've edited : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_removal_candidates/Image:Kusama_Tulips2.jpg I was wondering what you meant by 'user's second edit'. Does this call into question the value of my vote in your opinion. Please let me know what this means. Cheers, Saul

Question about Wikipedia, its Self.
Hi, I'm pretty sure this shouldnt be here, but your an Admin, and know about the site, so yea. I was just wondering if there are just Administrators for the whole site, or if there are also moderators just for certain categories that you can apply for? Please anwser in my talk page. Thanks.

Anti-furry site voted for deletion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopaedia_Dramatica I hope you will vote for delete DyslexicEditor 05:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I just voted, or rather just commented, I'm not sure whether I should vote either keep or delete on this. --Conti|&#9993; 16:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Moderation Question
hello contie, why did you moderate my Master/Batta entry in the sexual roleplaying page? thank you

funny fursuit pic
See article "owned" DyslexicEditor 05:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti Admin Spam
Just thought I would mention that Arights has spammed dozens of people with an insulting message aimed at you and accusing you of various crimes. -- Dark fred Talk to me 14:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. Why didn't anyone tell me earlier that I had dozens of admin sockpuppets? --Conti|&#9993; 14:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm one of your sockpuppets (according to Arights and SnowConeYellow), and I'm not an admin. Why can't I be an admin?  You like the other sockpuppets more!  [[Image:cry-tpvgames.gif]]  [[Image:Tycon.jpg]]Coyoty 19:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * See also: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/ContiE . -Will Beback 20:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I found that one yesterday. As long as he does his stuff over there and keeps away from wikipedia I don't really care. Oh, and I'm also mentioned by name here. :-) --Conti|&#9993; 20:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He mentions my LiveJournal and my webpage as yours (and me as you), however, and this can cause problems for me. (I have no problem with you, but with the accusations against me as you.)  I've written a response at my LiveJournal, just so you know you might be hearing more about it.  [[Image:Tycon.jpg]]Coyoty 03:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, if I wouldn't be convinced that we are dealing with a serious troll here, I would propose to simply edit the wiki entry and remove your journal, but I don't think people at ED care too much about personal problems their articles might cause. I still gave it a try tho, so let's see if it works. --Conti|&#9993; 03:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that takes care of the livejournal, but not the webpage (Bestiaria.com). I'm afraid if I go and remove it, it'll only reinforce the delusion.  [[Image:Tycon.jpg]]Coyoty 03:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh well, the livejournal link is back in. Our special friend seems to read this and edit the page accordingly. I'm not sure what can be done in this case, other than not feeding the trolls. --Conti|&#9993; 13:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I know
My computer has been going off it's rocker for an hour now. I've been creating the page and all, I've done this before. Lotusduck 15:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There are too references for furry fandom. The biggest difficulty in finding articles on furries is that both "furry" and "furries" are real words used in the ever present news cute animal story. Here,a newspapers web edition describes the cast of cats as furries http://www.nashvillescene.com/blog/pitw/archives/00000871.shtml and there's this:Why not 'CSI: Kink'?; Hit CBS procedural attracts fans, critics with fetishistic plots, USA TODAY, February 8, 2006 Wednesday,  FINAL EDITION, LIFE; Pg. 1D, 1472 words, Bill Keveney But beyond sifting through news pieces, there's published comics. It's as long as the trekkies page, if not longer. But add the "totemistic beliefs" etcetera to that page, and I still think it'll be taken as too OR and unbased there. If you think that's what needs to be done, though, go ahead and do it. Lotusduck 21:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem I see with verifiability and the furry fandom article is this: Most of the so called verfiable sources (mostly smaller american newspapers) simply get much stuff about furries wrong. I know it, because I'm involved in the fandom for some years now, know some people these articles talk about, etc., but I'm not a reputable source, of course. And I shouldn't be. But we also shouldn't use stuff we know is wrong just because some newspaper wrote it. To be honest, I don't know what should be done in such a case. But what should we do about things that are easily personally verifiable, like the existance of furry lifestylers, that have not been published anywhere yet? Just ignore it and forbid any mentioning of it? --Conti|&#9993; 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's simple: verifiability says "verifiability not truth". If you know something personally, and you write it on wikipedia but cannot prove it with a published source, you are in violation of policy. The people that make these rules are the people that invented and curate this wiki for us all. You could easily put the info on wikiinfo or other similar sites, but you put it here for the assumed credability. Plus your definitions of right and wrong are subjective. On the lifestyler talk page people argue about what a lifestyler is, as you know. And without sources, we get a BS consensus when we all get tired of arguing instead of anything resembling truth. Great. Lotusduck 22:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, but that was no answer to my question. As per WP:V, we should remove half of the furry fandom article as well, delete Chakat, WikiFur, Rabbit Valley and I don't know what. And that's just stuff from the furry category. --Conti|&#9993; 22:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Would it help to think of it as transwiki to wikifur or wikiinfo to you? If the info is accessible to people who care about it, why does it have to be here making people think that they too can break the rules? Lotusduck 22:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Even when your soapbox is to say things you know as very simple truths, using wikipedia as your soapbox is inappropriate. Instead, you can write in articles to BUST or other sources that occasionally take mailed submission essays. Otherwise, your colloquial if hard learned definitions will just be squabbled over on wikipedia pages? It's hard to see the furry lifestyler page as anything but a lazy persons publisher. Lotusduck 22:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to make this clear, I don't oppose the deletion of the furry lifestyler article, I just think it should be mentioned in the furry fandom article that there are people that call themselves "lifestylers". I do think that quite some stuff should be moved over to WikiFur, but that doesn't mean that we're not to allowed to mention these things anymore, IMHO. --Conti|&#9993; 22:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You should perhaps re-think your vote then, because it may be taken as a merge and redirect and in that sense, as a keep vote. If you really just think a little of the info should be on furry fandom, then the appropriate action would be to add that content to furry fandom and then change your vote to delete.Lotusduck 21:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Adding content from one page to the other and then making a redirect of the one page is exactly what a merge is, as far as I know. I think there should be a redirect, people might just search for "furry lifestyler", and it doesn't hurt to direct them in the right direction if we can. --Conti|&#9993; 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're gonna add info onto the furry fandom page, go ahead and get started. Of course, I'd put a citation needed tag on it, and after a while probably take it out, because all of the content on furry lifestyler encourages by example the interpretation of stuff from forums and newsgroups as valid for adding to wikipedia.Lotusduck 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm seriously wondering why you do not nominate Furry fandom for deletion. All references are selfpublished, everything is more or less original research. --Conti|&#9993; 22:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, there's actually a couple of news stories cited, as I recall. It appears that the page is not uncited because sources are hard to come by, but because some editors find they can say whatever they want if there aren't verifiable sources to work from. The topic itself is not unverifiable, even if much of the content on the article is and will have to be gradually phased out. It is, I admit, odd that there's a page for the fandom of a genre of comics, films etcetera, but no page for that genre itself.Lotusduck 22:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't see any refereces that would be accepted by WP:RS on Furry fandom. Actually, some of what is now on the furry fandom article once was at Furry, but it was discussed there a while ago to make disambiguation page out of Furry, simply because there's no simple definition of that term. I opposed that move, but I was in the minority back then. Since then, many Wikipedians have asked this question. Might be worth to start the discussion about recreating Furry again. --Conti|&#9993; 22:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way: Please read Verifiability carefully. Self-published sources are ok under certain circumstances, and I do think that the furry fandom article and others can have self-published sources, like they do have now, without violating any policies. --Conti|&#9993; 23:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Warning
Please do not reverse my deletions without discussion. Arbcom has defined such activities as wheel waring and quite unaceptable. I'd hate to see you desysopped. Thanks. --Doc ask?  00:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense on The Lion King
Guten Tag, thanks for reverting the nonsense on The Lion King. I appreciate your help. Bye --Starionwolf 06:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Question about subspace changes you made
WHich username do you go by in game?

I am wondering why you you removed the client download links from the subspace wiki I added?

It should be on the page. SubSpace is a free game, and by having the downloads like i did it alllows for new users to get acess faster.....

-Death+ (SSCI Owner) June 13'th 2006, 5:19PM (PST)

I notice that Contie continually removes Continuum-positive changes. Contie, are you challenging the future of Continuum?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:X`terrania (talk • contribs).


 * I'm rather defending the neutrality of Wikipedia. :) --Conti|&#9993; 21:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what username do you use in Subspace? I want a duel. -- The Fursecution Vandal

Furry fandom and contentious edits
Hey. I imagine you're following the drama of the anonymous IP constantly reverting this article to place contentious and incorrect information into it.. he's been at it again tonight, and I'm at a loss as to what to do about it. I even pointed out why his "sources" are not good sources, and was ignored and reverted again. Do you have any thoughts? It's really wearing on my patience. Tony Fox (speak) 05:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he just broke 3RR, too, but I haven't the time to deal with it any further tonight. Please take a look when you get the chance. Thanks. Tony Fox (speak) 05:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that happens from time to time. Reverting him and telling him why his edits aren't helpful is probably the best thing. If there's a 3RR breach involved, you can report it at Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I'm currently somewhat busy, learning for an exam, so I won't do much more than watch the whole thing for a few days. --Conti|&#9993; 14:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine - it was mostly frustration last night that had me looking for help. Real life is definitely more important, and I'm sure the other folks watching the article can keep it managed for now. Doesn't seem to get the message at all, unfortunately, judging from a look at his user contributions. Ah, well. Tony Fox (speak) 18:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Darn it, now I started to discussus there nonetheless. :) I think it turned out to be much more productive than any other discussion I had with anons over there yet. --Conti|&#9993; 23:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please archive the furry fandom talk page? Maybe everything 2005 and earlier gets archived. I'm not quite sure how. The page is slow to load. DyslexicEditor 23:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking about doing this. There isn't anything special to it, just copy&paste the stuff that you want to archive into a new article and save it there, and link to it from the talk page. --Conti|&#9993; 23:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

JavaScript
You need to add the JS for addtab for it to work, see here . Voice -of-  All  01:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, you may want to copy the code over again, since I just made the window sized better. Voice -of-  All  01:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Why you deleted my link?
I see there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia link to bookstore site  You should read careful the rules especially this: 8. Bookstore sites; instead, use the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

I`m waiting for the answer!!!

User:Zver

I see these rules disallow bookstore sites in rule: "What should not be linked". But you allow this link to online shop. Where is justice?
 * [Dr. Hani Miletski's Page] information on survey and research work on zoosexuality, prologue provided for future book published on work.

User:Zver

Why you deleted my link? 2
I see these rules disallow bookstore sites in rule: "What should not be linked". But you allow this link to online shop.

[Dr. Hani Miletski's Page] information on survey and research work on zoosexuality, prologue provided for future book published on work.

Where is justice?

User:Zver

Please ban Dr. Righteous
Dr. Righteous when you started editing the fursecution vandal stopped. Dr. Righteous created an account purely to make edits on this article that others disageed with. I believe Dr. Righteous is the fursecution vandal.

Also he does 3RR violations    DyslexicEditor 13:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I also would like to lodge an official complaint against DyslexicEditor. He added POV statements to the furry fandom page, which I justly edited out.  He reverted the page without waiting the 15 seconds it took me to put my comments on the talk page.  He suckered me into an edit war, gambling that I did not know about the 3 edit rule.  Then, instead of addressing my comments, he started a smear campaign against me.  This does seem to be a certain violation of many rules.  I think he at least deserves a reprimand. Dr. Righteous 20:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. So Dr. Righteous going after me and harrassing me by reverting me no matter what I write, stressing me out a lot, was I do was some master plan of mine? DyslexicEditor 22:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, both of you calm down. The two new sections on the furry fandom article are edited heavily currently, so if you completly disagree with the edit of another Wikipedian, discuss it on the talk page please. Just reverting is not helping anyone, accusing others of being a sockpuppet or whatever isn't either. The three revert rule says that you're not allowed to revert more than three times in 24 hours, but that does not mean that you have the right to revert up to three times in that time. Revert once at most please, then discuss. Working together is much more productive than working against each other. :) --Conti|&#9993; 23:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, discussion is now impossible. My comments are being completely ignored due to this controversy DyslexicEditor has started over the possibility that I might be The Fursecution Vandal.  Twice I have posted that the section of the article in question has not a single citation.  I have searched on the net to find citations to justify it, and have been unable to find even one that was not a questionable thread on a message board - which to my understanding is not something we can use.  But this is going completely unaddressed.  I’m afraid DyslexicEditor has completely foiled the talk process. Dr. Righteous 02:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just give it some time, it might take a few days until people reply on a talk page. I don't think the accusation that you might be that vandal is taken very seriously. --Conti|&#9993; 02:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was really stressed at the time due to being reverted a lot and admit it was too much. DyslexicEditor 19:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You guys take wikipedia WAY too seriously. Get over it. CruiseFuton 02:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am addicted. DyslexicEditor 03:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dances with Wolves Cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dances with Wolves Cover.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. meco 03:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A new userbox you might like
Hi ContiE,

I couldn't resist making the following userbox after reading the attached link. After being insulted on numerous occasions by trolls I decided to fight back the best way I know how -- with a witty userbox! Feel free to remove this from your talk page if you don't appreciate the humour. = )

Cheers,

 Netsnipe  (Talk)  06:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A Question
How does it feel to be a member of the furluminati? 68.69.194.125 05:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You obviously haven't read the article thoroughly. I'm their leader! :) --Conti|&#9993; 14:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This dif is text that 68.69.194.125 was trying to push in several times, he's currently banned for 72 hours, this may be him trying to subvert that block as I haven't seen anyone else trying to put that text in.--Crossmr 15:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * He's trying to add this for months now, and it's getting reverted all the time, so there's no big problem here. If he's able to evade his block, he'll be able to evade another block as well. So as long as he doesn't add this every few minutes, I don't see a need for an additional block. --Conti|&#9993; 15:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this interests you, but this IP may be this user WhatDoesKoshDoAllDay I found an old reference to them trying to get the search included in the Yiff article and it seems they had some beef against you as apparent from some edit summaries accusing you of hacking their account.--Crossmr 20:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is probably the same guy, who tries to add stuff like this (and even much much weirder stuff) into furry articles. That's just one of his many sockpuppets. --Conti|&#9993; 14:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What are the values held by the Furluminati? NuVanDibe (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Since..
..you try so hard to keep the truth about Furries down, you shouldn't be allowed to do any edits to an article about furries since these edits will be biased. Wikipedia's bureaucracy is all about posting things with citations, I did so and you edit it out - is there an even sillier way of hiding the truth about what you and your weird friends are (and that is fetishists with a disgusting fetish)?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.144.190.176 (talk • contribs).


 * I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but.. the website you cite is a porn site, and it's not made by members of the furry fandom, it's run by people who sell porn. So the site had nothing to do with the stuff you wrote. --Conti|&#9993; 16:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Nikki Grahame
hello can you help my un-protect this page please

Nikki Grahame

that page is useless, they dont listen to me, and ive made enemies with FireFox, so i need another person to help me Aarandir 17:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your message has been ignored
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica_%283rd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=64541749 I don't know what to do about it. Hardvice 11:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions for you
I saw that the lot of time I spent into fixing links, you ruined. You sounded knowledgable about things, so I have to as you...

Parodies/Wickerpedia

Well that is redirected from Wickerpedia and that has stuff linking to Wickerpedia, which then links to "wikipedia namespace" (which I don't know too much about).

Also, can you explain the stub thing? Parodies/Wickerpedia has the same stuff so I thought it was proper.

I read through Namespace and it's confusing, unclear, and vague. What is the whole deal with Parodies? Is is supposed to be just a list? Should links to Wikipedia:Parodies/Encyclopaedia Dramatica go to Parodies if things are not supposed to be linked to wikipedia namespace? And what of list of wikis vs. things like livejournal?

And why was Encyclopedia Dramatica in livejournal anyway, when there wasn't reliable source connecting the two? Bahonesi 17:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out, I deleted the Wickerpedia-redirect. There should be no redirects or links from the main namespace (where all of our articles are) to other namespace, for example the wikipedia namespace (where all our rules, discussions, and other related stuff is). The reason behind this is that these links will be broken in Wikipedia-mirrors, because they usually don't contain the wikipedia namespace. Parodies is just a site that lists parodies of wikipedia, obviously. It is not an article tho, and should not be treated as one. It is a page in the wikipedia namespace that pretty much only exists for our amusement. So we should not use stuff like stubs or even categories that usually only contain real articles. For example, even if I would be a wikipedia critic, I shouldn't put my userpage in that category. The Encyclopedia Dramatica article got deleted, and even though we have a small page about it in the wikipedia namespace, we shouldn't link to it from our articles, because we usually only link to articles, not pages. --Conti|&#9993; 18:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny…
Oh, I know I am, especially today – Have you seen Wizard of Yendor yet? It's quite a pretty image, better than the other, isn't it? And it's Public Domain. :-)

I promise you I will not make such jokes in the future… at least this weak ;-) Petr K 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi protect
Don't suppose that page has earned a semi-protect yet do you think?--Crossmr 00:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just blocked him for 12 hours, let's see if he comes back. --Conti|&#9993; 00:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It may not be him, but it always seems to be "someone" at that article.--Crossmr 00:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hide/Show templates
Hi. I may have found the solution to your problem. As discussed at the Village Pump, the default setting is caused by the number of Navigation bar commands you use on the template. You can set this on the template to apply to all articles as I explained at the help desk, or you could use the following code to set it on an individual article:

Like so:

I hope this information is helpful to you. Road Wizard 23:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a "hack" tho, not a real solution, as mentioned on the village pump, I don't really want to add unstable stuff into templates or articles. Still, thank you for finding that out! :) --Conti|&#9993; 23:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Three-Revert Rule
Please be careful when reverting not to break the three-revert rule, which you appear to have done between 00:39 and 00:45, UTC yesterday on Furry fandom. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at the edits of that anon and the discussion on the talk page, that was vandalism. The IP got blocked (by me) and the article semi-protected because of that. --Conti|&#9993; 14:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It may have been vandalism, but does not appear to have been simple vandalism (i.e. adding nonsense, blanking). Stifle (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't simple vandalism, it was one guy going against consensus for months now. By now his actions are so obvious that he just gets reverted and blocked when he appears again. --Conti|&#9993; 17:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikifur
I saw this on wikifur http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Conti and it looks to be an imposter. If it's not, no matter. But if it is, then you should let them know. Anomo 22:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding current TV show template for One Piece, Naruto
"14:53, 1 August 2006 ContiE (Talk | contribs | block) (that information is in the infobox, this article is not only about the series, so the template is quite misleading)"

I don't get it - The template clearly states TV show, so the reader will have to realize that it only applies to the TV show. I will add the template back. WhisperToMe 04:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As for why that repeats what is already in the infobox - well, the template draws attention to itself. It "yells," "Hello! I have something very important to tell you!" - While the infobox... well, the info is hidden. WhisperToMe 04:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The template's exact words are: "This article or section contains information about an in-progress television show(s). It may contain information on future episodes based on aired episodes, commercials for the show, its website, or other advance publicity. The content may change as future episodes are broadcast and more information becomes available."

Just because an article has information on "X" doesn't mean it does NOT have information on "Y" WhisperToMe 17:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

A Request
Could you please not delete my comments everytime I say something you do not like? Talk pages are not intended to be edited for NPOV. 68.69.194.125 05:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Talk pages aren't intended for trolling, either. Calling others wikipedophiles and randomly accusing people of being sockpuppets of each other certainly makes it quite hard to assume any good faith. --Conti|&#9993; 14:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Eek
I guess I didn't see this edit. Sorry, I guess you can revert your unblock if you want. Moe Epsilon 00:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've read that part, I still don't think Cyde should've done the block, as he was obviously involved in whatever's going on there. --Conti|&#9993; 00:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much Cyde is involved, but from what I read Cyde knows something of the situation, so I guess blocking was somewhat inappropriate. Moe Epsilon 00:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Well, in the end, such a block is pointless anyways. When he wants to return he can put an unblock request on his talk page and will be unblocked. --Conti|&#9993; 00:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone semi-protected the areas of interest I was editing, so I guess comenting under my username should be more appropriate. :) — Moe Epsilon 01:00 August 14 '06
 * I already figured that out through my super-power of looking-at-the-other-contributions-the-IP-made. ;-) --Conti|&#9993; 01:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's true, my sockpuppeting skills are diminishing! :) — Moe Epsilon 01:33 August 14 '06

I hate to bother..
But now Sceptre, who is heavily involved in this matter has blocked him for being "a dick" and being spiteful.. — Moe Epsilon 01:37 August 14 '06
 * A personal e-mail one does not constitute an indef block, it defies blocking policy, even if the receiver twists things to fit his own distorted little view of reality. It's completely ludicrous that this whole thing has gotten twisted and perverted into something it's completely not, with so many people claiming to know the situation when in reality only about 5-6 people know the story. It's completely crazy that the ArbCom think that Nathan is a threat to anyone, let alone a predator and they're willing to let this absolutely off-policy block stick (and any admin who argues against it gets threatened with deadminning). It's completely ludicrous. Wikipedia has no longer become a fun place, but one of spite, revenge and vindictiveness (if it isn't a word, it is now). I cannot stress this enough: E-mails are completely outside of Wikipedia and personal reasons should NOT be used for blocks. E-mails fall outside of Wikipedia, and if someone doesn't like an e-mail, they can't take it out on the person on Wikipedia (my point is, what has the person done ON WIKIPEDIA to deserve a block? Nothing, just some angry e-mails to someone who appears to have hurt him - hell, I'd be angry too); but really need to deal with what was said in a constructive fashion or ignore the e-mail (two very mature reactions). Before anyone tries to jump in and assume I don't know the situation, I'm very very well aware of all points of view in this, unlike several users I could name who really only know one side and twist it to mean the worst possible thing imaginable. No, if the user meant to hurt anyone, I believe he would've done it already. - 74.104.100.26 07:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure how to respond to this. I'm obviously not one of those people that "know the story", and I certainly don't want to be one, as there's alot of personal stuff involved that's none of my business. You could email Danny and ask him to look at the situation. I've read in a few places that this is or (alternatively) should be an WP:OFFICE action, but I haven't seen any comment from Danny on this, so this might be worth a try. At least that would be something definite, as WP:OFFICE is law around here, whether you agree with it or not. --Conti|&#9993; 00:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is completly of topic of what you are talking about, but I was just wondering if you would be kind enough to tell me how to change the look of my signature. I would be very grateful. Oh, and if this gets on your nerves, I apologize. I'm new on here. (sigh)Solon89 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting things out of process is against the rules
I wasn't sure if you knew. Anomo 18:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess you're talking about my deletion of WP:FURSECUTION. Why do you want that redirect in the first place? If you want to link to Harassment, use some existing shortcuts like WP:HA. But, just for the love of WP:AGF, I nominated the redirect for deletion. --Conti|&#9993; 18:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Invite to Libel-Protection Unit
Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.

Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.

I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Lyme disease
I have deleted the content once again. The content, even with your deletions, may pose a legal problem for the Foundation. Please do not re-add it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look and see. The premise of the entire discussion, however, was an unsourced assertion which if false may have been libellous.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Signature
This is completly of topic of what you are talking about, but I was just wondering if you would be kind enough to tell me how to change the look of my signature. I would be very grateful. Oh, and if this gets on your nerves, I apologize. I'm new on here. (sigh)Solon89 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just click on "my preferences" (or simply click here) and change your signature however you like. See also Sign your posts on talk pages for details. Hope that helps. :-) --Conti|&#9993; 18:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That was very hepful. :) Solon89 18:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have yet another question. How do I answer people/message people off of talk pages like this one? Solon Olrek 18:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just reply either on your talk page or on the talk page of the person you want to respond to. There's no definite rule to this, some people generally respond on their own talk page, some always respond on the other peoples talk page. Doing the latter makes sure that the other person actually gets the message, but it makes it harder to follow the discussion, as it is spread over two user talk pages. --Conti|&#9993; 18:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's good to know. Thank you!

p.s. Are there any certain rules that I should know when on a public talk page? Solon Olrek 18:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the welcome page has quite some links to rules and things like Etiquette. Basically: be nice to everyone, don't say stuff that could be interpreted as libellous and try to stay on topic. --Conti|&#9993; 18:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I Have a few more questions that I must ask though.

1. How do you become a mod?

2. How are new articles made?

3. Why are talk pages usually filled with arguements over unrelated topics instead of what the article the talk page belongs to is about? Solon Olrek 17:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) You can request to be come an administrator at Requests for adminship, see that page for more information. I wouldn't even think about doing that yet, tho. Usually you'd need a few months of editing experience and thousands of good edits before anyone would support you there.
 * 2) Just like normal articles: Go to the article you want to edit, through a red link or by manually entering the URL and click "edit".
 * 3) Well, that shouldn't happen, but we're all humans and tend to get a bit off topic now and then. Most talk pages are mostly about the topic itself, tho. --Conti|&#9993; 21:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Offended
I am honestly offended that you deleted my comment from the talk page of Furry Fandom, and went as far as to refer to me as a "troll" afterwords. I thought it was supposed to be used as discussion for subjects of the content in said article. As trivial as it may be, I find this edit unfair. I was simply responding to a comment about Encyclopedia Dramatica made by another user, yet somehow I find that if I was on the other side of the conflict my comment may have been overlooked. -ED USER —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.118.1.115 (talk • contribs).

Talk:Furry fandom/Archive3
You should delete it if your article is not going to use Werdna to archive there yet. It's semi-blank now. Anomo 04:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! In the future, you can just add Template:Db-reason to it and some admin will delete it. --Conti|&#9993; 14:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Total Annihilation mods
The db was removed, because G4 says we can't delete recreations of prods (since prod has the concept that "anyone can remove the prod"). Feel free to AfD it though. --Interiot 01:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, thanks! I learn something new every day here. I'll start a WP:DRV, because the current version is just a bad copy&paste job of the old article, so this is about undeleting deleted content, I think. --Conti|&#9993; 01:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strike that. After reading through Proposed deletion, especially the contesting after deletion section, I think I should undelete the article and list it on AFD. --Conti|&#9993; 01:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

RfB With A Smile :)


Orphaned fair use image (Image:Twelve Monkeys Cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Twelve Monkeys Cover.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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.

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Quentin X 12:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the reverts on WP:LA and Former administrators. Regards — Moe  01:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. :) --Conti|&#9993; 01:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:BDSM revert
Hey pal, you deleted my words on a talk page. They obviously hurt your feelings... but sometimes the truth hurts: yep, BDSM is sick! Censorship and ignorance is no way to run an encyclopedia. But can we expect any better from the masses? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.101.25.243 (talk • contribs).


 * Well, if you want an "official" reason: Talk pages are for discussions on how to improve the article, not to leave general comments on the subject the article is about. This means that I would've reverted you even if you would've said "I love BDSM, everyone should do it!". It has nothing to do with improving the article, so it should go. --Conti|&#9993; 22:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration
Is Requests for arbitration only open to certain members? If so, is there a public area that this can be discussed? Thanks for the heads-up on this; I reverted another comment left above. Cheers  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy reply. I was sort of wondering why there hadn't been more votes lobbied at either side for both issues...  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Block request
ContiE,

A public school IP ( 164.58.144.22 ) has vandalized the Therianthropy page yet again. This IP has a long history of vandalism and has already recieved a final warning. Would you take a look please? NeoFreak 18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The IP appears to have stopped vandalizing, but I'll keep an eye on it and block if necessary. --Conti|&#9993; 19:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Furry fandom link spammer
Heh - I was just about to warn, but looks like you were able to take more direct action. Thanks. GreenReaper 14:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, he added the blog eight times now, eight reverts by different users should be enough of a warning here. :-) --Conti|&#9993; 14:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dogs Project Banner
You will notice that the phrasing of the banner is such that all canines, including foxes, wolves, etc., now fall within the scope of the project, which is defined as all articles in the Category:Canines or its subcategories. The advantages of adding the banner are (1) in many cases, the articles in question have not been supported by any projects at all; with the banner, they now are, (2) we do give an idea of the current quality of the article in the assessment; again, many have to date been unassessed, and (3) if required, I'm going to try to activate the "attention" tab on any article which has one or more content-dispute banners on it, to try to get them resolved more quickly, by having more attention called to the article in question. Lastly, considering that many or most of these articles will appear on the lists of real or fictional dogs, wolves, foxes, etc., it helps make it easier to find articles which could be referenced in such lists. I hope that that answers your questions. If you honestly believe that the articles would in no way benefit from any of the above, however, please feel free to remove them. Badbilltucker 18:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For pages that have too many banners, there is a way to make them smaller. I wish I could find one right now that does this, but I can't. Also, the more hands involved in a given article, generally, the more likely the article is to be improved, whether there are other projects also involved or not. But, if you do think that other projects should have their banners on a given page, by all means put them there. Regarding assessments, these also change over time, and it may be and sometimes is, that one review of a version 3 or more months old doesn't reflect the recent changes, or was done by a particularly stingy reviewer. In cases like these, knowing that someone else has a higher opinion of it, if that's the case, might help, as that opinion might be more in the mainstream. Also, for what little it's worth, these banners might get the articles on the Portal:Dogs, which seems to get fairly frequent hits. I understand the argument about having too many banners. Luckily, I don't think that the specific example you mentioned is likely to get too many banners for all the animals, as there aren't that many animal based projects right now. Were that to change, I think we could probably come up with a "joint" banner like WikiProject Australia and WikiProject Military history have. As I am involved in both the Cats and Dogs projects, I'm virtually certain that I myself will propose such a banner if the situation ever calls for it. I hope this answers a few of your questions, anyway, and, like I said, if you want to remove the banners, please feel free to do so. Badbilltucker 19:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas, and  May the Edit be with you, always. T- borg (drop me a line)  19:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've ever encountered you, but thank you anyways. Merry Christmas to you, too! :-) --Conti|&#9993; 19:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal (computer game) removal of image
The image is there to show in what country the game is primarily produced and sold - because the game is sold over the Steam system (over the internet), it's not specifically located in a country, so a world map is used to show the global nature of the system. It's standard practice in video game articles. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I found it slightly confusing the first time I saw it, but you can easily click on the image to see what it represents, then you'll recognise it next time. I'm not specifically standing up for the practice, but if you browse many other CVG (computer and video game) articles, you'll find the same thing happens. I suppose it started when it became consensus to put the country flag next to the publisher, then someone said, 'Hang on, what if it's a global thing?', another one said, 'Oh, we'll just have to use a world map' and it started from there. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Dexter
I'm working on expanding the artice, please dont start reverting it :)

Im writing deeper character pages on my comp and will add them soon. Lilduff90 20:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aberystwyth Wales.jpg
Hi, a long time ago I uploaded this image to WikiCommons. Would it be possible for you to check who first uploaded it to English Wikipedia and which date? I'm only asking since somebody at WikiCommons thinks the present information is incomplete. Regards, Thuresson 08:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/ProtectionBot
Regarding the comments at your neutral !vote, while WP:BAG can approve additional fucntions for this bot, so far 3 BAG members have endorsed the RFA (see top under General Discussion) that this account will be immediately blocked if the bot were to do any other SYSOP related tasks without another RFA. — xaosflux  Talk  23:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, and for the kind words and flattering prediction that accompanied your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Help
I have a quick question for you. A personal attack can only be found on a user talk page, right? Thanks WereWolf 14:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean. Personal attacks can be made on any talk page, of course (See No personal attacks). If you think someone went over the line with a comment regarding you, No personal attacks might help you. --Conti|&#9993; 15:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations
Greetings! After a long period of discussion and consensus building, the policy on usurping usernames has been approved, and a process has been set up to handle these requests. Since you listed yourself on Changing username/Requests to usurp, you are being notified of the adopted process for completing your request.

If you are still interested in usurping a username, please review Usurpation. If your request meets the criteria in the policy, please follow the process on Changing username/Usurpations. Please note that strict adherence to the policy is required, so please read the instructions carefully, and ask any questions you may have on the talk page.

If you have decided you no longer wish to usurp a username, please disregard this message. Essjay ( Talk )  12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by EssjayBot. Please direct any questions to Essjay.

Deletion logs
This is an area where I did slip up...the issue was that the summaries were not only available to all users, admin or not, but were also visible to search engines like Google. A small, but significant, number of them were "X is a Y" type things, and were the subject of multiple OTRS complaints (as I recall, UninvitedCompany blanked a few of them a month or two before). They were the type of thing where the summaries could have been removed one-by-one, but there were way too many of them (in the range of 50,000 to 100,000 log entries, IIRC) to go through by hand. Most of the issue was that since the "delete" button pre-fills the deletion log with whatever the contents of the article were, if the contents were libelous, they got copied over for the most part. I've got a program I was working on to automatically strip the summaries; I'll see if I can get them finished by Tuesday or Wednesday. Ral315 (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do. Worst-case scenario, any admin can improve on my work by removing only those which quoted from the original article.  Ral315 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding closure
It appeared the comments were a duplicated posting that was occurring at the pump. I wanted to avoid fragmenting the discussion in two places. Would you consider reverting the reopening. Regards, Navou banter  / <font color="Green">review me  20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:War Games Cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:War Games Cover.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation
Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me


 * Done. :) --Conti|✉ 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Community AfD
You may want to look at the current version of the article and consider revising your opinion since the current version has multiple reliable sources including a note about a notable award the community has recieved. Thanks JoshuaZ 02:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done so. --Conti|✉ 02:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes
Believe it or not, a lot of people that aren't admins read the admin noticeboard.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably for the same reason that AFD was called "votes for deletion" for a long time despite not being a vote - nobody has gotten around to changing it yet. Yes, it could use a rename (same goes for the bureaucrats' noticeboard, of which the majority of participants aren't 'crats).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Now that we're on the subject, the distinction between AN and ANI is far from clear either (nor is the distinction between WP:VPP and WP:VPR). Ideally the admin boards are used only for issues that would require admin buttons to resolve, although in practice that doesn't work because many people think their complaint would be resolved if someone would block the other party. We have a few boards with an obvious purpose, in particular WP:RFCU, WP:DRV, WP:RFPP and WP:RFCN. It would help if, for starters, we moved everything to those boards if it is (mis)posted on AN(I) instead. Other than that, we need to define clear roles for the remaining boards. I think a separate board for community bans is good, only the name needs to reflect that. Whichever way we put it, we're going to end up with a "miscellaneous" board at some point, which at present is AN (and again, the name needs to reflect that).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect we could simply rename the admin board to "community noticeboard" because that's, in practice, what it is.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Samurai Cat
Hi. I've been referred to you by NeoFreak. I'm new to editing Wikipedia. As practice, I'm trying to document the notability of Mark E. Rogers' Samurai Cat series. I'm having trouble finding much either way. NeoFreak said you might be interested and able to help. Relevant stuff: User:RichM90071, User talk:NeoFreak. Thanks, RichM90071 00:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant the series of books that have the "Samurai Cat" (usually referred to as "Tomokato" in the text) as the main character. Sorry if I was unclear. Thanks for your advice, it is a big help. I've read Notability (books). It looks like, in case, the issue is hanging on the books have been reviewed in any major publications. They may have been reviewed in Locus, though the reviews themselves don't seem to be online. I'll see if I can find them in a dead-tree library. I'll also try to check whether the books have been reviewed in other publications -- the more, the merrier, I presume. I'll be checking the other sources you mentioned, as well. Thanks again, RichM90071 00:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club
Which are you refering? The Black Comedy source is the DVD commentary, I would have to assume that the philisophical nature of the film is why it's classified as "comedy-drama" but I'm not sure, and that was why I said "I don't know about the CD part, but the BC is stated by Fincher, Pitt, and Norton". I assumed that someone added the category for a reason.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me)
 * If you want a bit more, Erik has been working on fixing, updating, and basically rewriting the entire article, and you can see the "black comedy" information here. If you go to his "talk page", for that sandbox I mean, you can see more information that just hasn't been implemented yet.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me)
 * The dramatic symbolism of the film itself: the fact that it's about the fight against materialistic things, or really the fight against the necessity this culture has created to strive to get those things. It's just more symbolism that is talked about in the commentary. But I understand where you are coming from with the dramedy thing; the black comedy was the only thing that was literally said several times throughout the Pitt-Norton-Fincher-Carter commentary. I haven't watched just the Fincher one to see if he goes into more detail or not. It's actually really hard to watch a film with commentary, you focus on one thing and not the other and you get lost real easily and have to rewind a lot.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
It was decided by an administrator of Wikipedia to redirect. Redirects are not suppose to have talk pages. An administrator will overview the speedy deletion and make an objective decision. We cannot have indiscriminate information all over Wikipedia. Thanks for your understanding. :) - <b style="color:#669966;">Mr.Guru</b> ( talk/contribs ) 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I was not clear. My bad. I will explian further now. Nothing of value is directed to the talk page. Click on what links here. Redirects are to redirect. If you have nothing to redirect then we do not need a redirect for the talk. There is no reason to redirect the talk page. Thanks for your concern. :) - <b style="color:#669966;">Mr.Guru</b> ( talk/contribs ) 22:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Administrators don't have any authority over content that regular editors do. Quack, you are being highly disruptive and have been called on this FOUR times on ANI about these articles. - Denny 22:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In case you aren't aware of this user's history, you might want to review this. He's now soliciting a new admin to delete history to cover tracks... - Denny 22:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the heads up on deletion review. How about admin review? The deleter has a lot of controversy from many users on his talk page. Thanks! --Nélson Ricardo 19:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Move of Merhan Karimi Nasseri
Thanks for your note and correction. I guessed I'd need an admin! I know for next time. Cheers. Siba 06:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Dildo"
Hey, I noticed that you removed Dildo from MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist, citing that ""Usernames that refer to or imply sexual acts, genitalia, or sexual orientation" are forbidden, and "dildo" is none of them". Respectfully, I do think dildo refers to a sexual act. There really aren't many things someone can do with one that do not involve genitalia, and I really can't think of any legitimate ways it can be included in a username. alphachimp 04:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Table sorting
You may be interested in ongoing discussion at template talk:sort --Random832 19:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Matching with commons
re: Category:Wikipedia categories matching with Wikimedia Commons categories

''Hi there! Since you're the creator of Category:Wikipedia categories matching with Wikimedia Commons categories, I thought this might be a good place to ask: I've found that category accidentally, and even though it has a box that tries to explain its purpose, I just don't seem to get it. So, what exactly is the purpose of that category? I also noticed that Category:Categories is a subcategory of it, which shouldn't happen, since Category:Categories is supposed to be the highest level of our category system. I'm tempted to therefore simply remove the category from Category:Categories, but since I don't know what I might break if I do, I decided to ask here first. --Conti|✉ 22:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)''


 * Hi back, The inclusion is an indicator that the template(s) which auto-list things therein needs an inhibit switch... something which came late to my realization in more recent templates like tracking category or even Wikipedia category. It turns out that template set is in mid-revision, so I'll deal with that abberition. Thanks for pointing that out.  You are quite correct, it shouldn't cat that way, as it is a tracking category itself listing things which have been tagged with a path to  via administration paths, which is to say, via.


 * The Commonscat1A tagging itself, is to provide a double navigation cross-link first to the other huge category scheme in English (i.e. The Commons) and secondly, like catmore (which it also replaces) to the main article that describes the contents of such a category as is desirable to tag. Either of the two category schemes are the receivers of interwiki links to our foreign language wikiprojects, and by linking them together, it makes it far easier to update such interwiki's, easier to find interesting images for articles, or (sometimes)to find backlinks to main pages in other sister projects, say for example in Wikibooks and Wikiversity which particularly benefit from crosslinks to us and the commons.


 * Currently, in the main, the pages so tagged are related to maps in some way, as the system (It used to be 6-8 templates per project, now pending avoidance of complications in final development, will be a single template) came about while we were totally reorganizing and structuring Maps category schemes last summer. This recently resulted in a guideline of sorts just this year, which we now have to do the grunt work to implement, having restructured the major category names last summer and fall on the commons and here.


 * Along the way the tagging system evolved into a more general concept, and we're proposing it that it may act as a keyword trigger to autolink readers native tounges by tying things together with an auxillary database correlating interwiki's... but that's speculative. Things slowed down on developing some of that as there was discussion on the village pump about whether the article links favored English over other languages, while some of us were busy pointing out that at worst, it left non-English speakers with a two click navigation to their own language's coverage of the same page topic, as that interwiki is certainly listed on our articles. That's probably more than you wanted, but that's the basic scheme, and thumbnail sketch.


 * For the most part, there hasn't been a systematic effort mounted yet to tag things, but that's in the wind, at which time commonscat1A will become a common sight on many major nodal category pages. Best regards // Fra nkB 03:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Total Annihilation.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Total Annihilation.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 06:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Red alert box.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Red alert box.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 17:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Tron Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tron Cover.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — M o e   ε  22:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Ballance box art.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ballance box art.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Rocky Horror Picture Show Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rocky Horror Picture Show Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Einstein tongue.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Einstein tongue.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Sala Skan  (Review me) 01:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)   Sala  Skan  (Review me) 01:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Furry
<div style="border:1px solid ; background-color: #f0ffd0; padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px;">

AfD nomination of Unseen character
An article that you have been involved in editing, Unseen character, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Unseen character. Thank you. -- <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="Blue">Jreferee  (Talk) 18:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Toy_Story_CGI.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Toy_Story_CGI.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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. Videmus Omnia Talk  05:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)