User talk:I80and

Response to User:UBX/blogger discussion (in Tuvok's talk page)
I agree as well about the looks. Wikipedia policy, though, says we cannot use "fair use" images outside of articles, which would include user pages and templates. The policy can be found here. The userbox originally used the logo, but it was replaced with the plainer "B" for this reason. --Joe Sewell 16:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Blender not a VSE
I answered your questions on the subject on the discussion page Talk:Comparison of video editing software —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarfpower (talk • contribs) 14:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kino 0.9.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kino 0.9.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Petar Kaloyanov
Hiya - I see you reverted the blanking on this page and reinstated the original content and the speedy tag (db-bio). The user who created the page in the first place is the same user who blanked it - a lot of new users think that doing so deletes the page, so it's generally easier to use the tag instead of relying on the original tag. I've changed the page in this instance. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 22:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, I wasn't aware of that tag. But I guess I do now!--I80and (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism congrats
Hey, congrats on your first userpage vandalism! If they're shooting at you, you must be doing something right. ;-) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 07:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're the one messing with the cades
At St. Emelia. Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.198.128.92 (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, it is possible to contact someone in-game. But define "messing with".  I am actively attempting to keep the barricades down as per the current Dribbling Beavers policy, yes.  If you mean if I'm the nut that keeps building them up, then no.  I'm not. --I80and (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the barricades down? Are you a zombie spy or something? Desist immediatly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.198.128.92 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I may ask you the same thing. The current suburb policy dictates that St. Emelia's is an indoor revive point, and that the barricades must be kept down. --I80and (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ROFL. It's common knowledge the wiki it's not a reliable source of info for suburbs and buildings status, nobody except sheepish survivors takes it srsly if they want to survive. St. E was abandoned long ago as a revive point since it was a vulnerable spot in the free runing lane. But hey, if you like wasting your AP spraying and banging uselessy against the cades, it's your problem. But you might end up killed. Repeatedly. Every day. Just a worning.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.198.128.92 (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like your attitude, to be honest. This conversation should not have even brought to Wikipedia.  It reflects nothing more than a desire for total anonymity that makes me question your motives.  As for your reply, I have spent a fair amount of time looking, and I have seen no evidence that the barricades at St. E's represents anything other than zombie spy activity and purely malicious vandalism.  The wiki is as reliable as any wiki, and thus cannot be taken as a sole source.  However, there was no notification on the Dribbling Beavers' forum as to the removal of RP status from St. E's, and RP status is given at many points in the UD wiki.  Therefore, should I trust every reputable source I've looked at, or should I trust some random person who brings irrelevant discussions to the wrong place?  And I've got news for you: it's not a weak point in the free running lane.  If it gets ruined, as it's supposed to, you can just run around through the Sweatman Motel!  And zombies can't free run, so it's not like they could storm the mall via St. E's. All in all, your attitude, lack of basic UD tactics, lack of knowledge as to the functioning of Santleville, and lack of knowledge of where to bring discussions, does nothing but annoy me.  Kindly stop wasting both your time and mine, and respect the proper barricade policy.  If you want to respond, kindly do so in-game, where this kind of discussion belongs. --I80and (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

aaa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.198.128.92 (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That edit was more down to observation than research. Still, if it is not encylopedia worthy, then I am OK with it's removal. Cheers. Metrospex (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello!
 Hello I80and, User:Allmightyduck has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!  Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 04:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Kernel monolithic simplified.png


The file File:Kernel monolithic simplified.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)