User talk:Koolabsol

File permission problem with File:Pinta_icon.png
Thanks for uploading File:Pinta_icon.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: File permission problem with File:Pinta_icon.png
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Jonathan Pobst wrote:

That's fine by me, but I'm not the author. It is part of the Tango icon set:

http://tango.freedesktop.org/Tango_Desktop_Project

The license states "The Tango base icon theme is released to the Public Domain."

Thanks! Jonathan


 * This is what he said in response to the email I sent him. I have changed the licensing information on the file to reflect this. I accidentally uploaded an exact same copy of the image, hope it's no bother. Should I leave the message on my user page intact or should it be wiped? --Calvin (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks ok now. You can copy this exchange under the note in Your page for future reference. feydey (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Alt.gothic
Hello Koolabsol, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Alt.gothic - a page you tagged - because: Contains sufficient content to be a stub. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle access revoked
As you are using Twinkle to edit war (examples:, , , , , ), your access to use the tool has been revoked. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I should note that you may have access restored should you promise to stop using it to edit war. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I promise to stop using Twinkle to edit war. In my defense I felt insulted by the other party telling me that my edits were not welcome to Wikipedia and I did it out of anger. I apologize for my behavior. --Koolabsol (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that, but feeling insulted is not a valid excuse for abusing tools meant to help you perform more easily certain tasks here. As you have promised not to abuse the tool again, your access should be restored shortly. Please note that any further abuses of the tool (or any other tool, for that matter) may result in permanent loss of access to the tool(s) and/or loss of editing privileges (depending on the severity of the abuse). I'm including this information so you can understand how seriously this is viewed. I appreciate your cooperation, and please let me know if you have any questions. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

OpenSolaris
Hi, Кoolabsol ;), Thanks for putting in opensolaris.org as second main page for Opensolaris! Minikola (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

COI tags on Anime and Manga
I have removed the coi tag from Anime and Manga as you provided no explanation of why there is a conflict of interest on either article. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Abusing Twinkle again
Please note that you are abusing Twinkle again by filing false WP:AIV reports, as you did with this report here. As indicated by Materialscientist here, his edits are obviously not vandalism. If you continue to abuse Twinkle again by filing false reports or doing anything else which violates the letter or spirit of the rules pertaining to that tool, you will have your privileges revoked permanently. If you have a dispute where you disagree with his edits, you should follow the steps outlined at WP:DR. Thank you for your cooperation. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "If you continue to abuse Twinkle again by filing false reports" Please refrain from making such broad and false accusations towards me in the future. I truly believe that said user was and is violating Wikipedia Policy. I attempted to remedy the situation the only way I know how, and that was to report him to the proper authorities. I notice you purposely ignore me asking for help in case I had reported him to the wrong people. I also notice that the user personally contacted you before you gave me another warning which leads me to believe you may not be acting in good faith. You can rest assured that I am looking through the policy pages to find the proper place to report him, and inquire about the fairness of your actions in handling this matter. Good day. --Koolabsol (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a false accusation as the diffs clearly show. It's not vandalism to remove a coi tag, especially when you didn't bother indicating why there was a conflict of interest on such broad topics as those. As for me "purposely ignoring you", that's a load of bollocks. I haven't ever purposely ignored you. This is very clearly an editing dispute, not a case of vandalism, and you should therefore (as I indicated above), follow the directions for resolving a dispute. Regarding the timing of my actions, of course I didn't do anything until I was made aware of the issue. That's how things work here. I'm not omniscient, so there's no way I could look into an issue until someone else made me aware of it. I get requests to look into something fairly regularly. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is "a load of bollocks" to assume I reported him for vandalism because of him removing the coi tag I added to those articles. That is what he told you, and that is what you believe. This is very clearly "Using policies and guidelines to build (or push) a patently false case that some editor is editing in bad faith, with the 'evidence' for this itself being an obviously unreasonable bad-faith interpretation of that person's action. This is more often categorized as a breach of the policy assume good faith, and in particular, repeated unjustified "warnings" may also be viewed as a breach of civility." Going over said editors contributions I find that there are some causes for concern. I'm not accusing said editor of anything yet, I am just requesting that his contributions be looked over to make sure that he is not purposely degrading the quality of Wikipedia. That you would take such an offense at me doing so really calls your integrity into question. --Koolabsol (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have never seen Farix do anything to purposely degrade the encyclopedia in the four years he's been here. Not even once. I think I have a pretty good handle on how he edits since we often work in the same areas and often work together on things. Unless he has a sudden personality change (which is unlikely, all things considered), he's not going to ever do anything to damage it. We've had our fair share of disagreements on things here, too, so it's not like I'm playing "Yes Man" to him. You reported him to AIV directly after he removed those COI tags, so what am I supposed to think your reasoning is for doing it? You keep butting heads with him, and (from my view) goading him to try and get him upset and acting out of passion rather than reason. You need to calm down, back off, and evaluate exactly what it is you're trying to accomplish here. Yes, you've made good edits here, but I find far more questionable actions on your part than on his. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My major cause for concern is that said user has quite a bit of reversions on their contribution history. I have dealt with vandals and whatnot before and I do not revert as many edits. Since you say that this user is not harming Wikipedia I will take your word for it and remind you that vouching for another user also puts your own reputation on the line. This case is not black and white and I honestly do not want to put much work into it, if this user is a problem then it will come to light sooner or later. One last thing though, unless you want to strike out your recent warning towards me I will look at it as WP:GAME and act accordingly. --Koolabsol (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no reason for me to withdraw the warning as it's a valid warning. You shouldn't be using Twinkle for something which is obviously not vandalism. You can deal with it however you wish. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk-back
You have edited the article Hear It See It Music. Thank you for your help. I am the originator of the article and have new comments etc. on my talk page. Please review, I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject. TK5610L (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

File:...jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Koolabsol (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

File:...jpg
If you want to delete something you uploaded yourself, you can have it speedy-deleted by placing db-author on it. I've already done this for you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:The Media Lovin' Toolkit Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:The Media Lovin' Toolkit Logo.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)