User talk:Moeron/Archive 2

License tagging for Image:Pf-20060630-phil.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pf-20060630-phil.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 05:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Punk'd
Hahahahaha, i love it! You had me fooled.--Gephart 18:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing tip
When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:test&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Keep up the vandal fighting! --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 01:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Moeron! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. &mdash;Xyra e l / 17:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC) 17:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
While my logitech comment might have sounded biased, I would like to somehow incorperate it into the article, as it is a true fact, it's not a personal opinion, for the most part. If you would like to reword it, be my guest, but I do intend to mention it somewhere in the article. Thanks. --Rake 00:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Faking the s/w interface
Please don't fake the interface Wikimedia uses in page content. It's confusing for new users, makes it so we can't trust the site, and isn't cool. I've taken the liberty of removing it from your user/talk pages. --Improv 17:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Alton towers
Well then please alter the paragraph, and then I will have no need to 'vandalise' pages, will I? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.37.130.141 (talk • contribs).

Barn Stars and Warnings
Sorry mate, I didn't know there was a policy on barn stars. Forgive my warnings and thank you for pointing out the offical policy. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and I might have became a little over zealious. Cheers!Jimjones5 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning given to me by Jimjones5
gave me this warning because of this edit. I have removed the warning since I feel this is grossly unwaranted. Let me know if I am in the wrong here. Cheers! -- moe .RON   talk  20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, the user reverted their userpage here and implied "racism". -- moe .RON   talk  20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You deleted your warning. You aren't allowed to do that. Please obey the rules of Wikipedia. Jimjones5 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Plus I never implied you were a racists.Jimjones5 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, removal of warnings "are generally prohibited", but not outright disallowed. I have stated why I have removed it both here, on my edit summary of my talk page and on your talk page. And you did imply racism by saying "maybe caused my racism." I don't even know anything about you beyond your user name (doing my part of the WP:CVU on the WP:RC page), and I have nothing against people named Jim, Jimmy, Jimminy, ect. -- moe .RON   talk  20:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not wish to take sides in this dispute, other than to state that editing someone else's user page is not generally wrong. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

(Copied to User talk:Stifle) We got this settled with this edit by JimJones. I appreciate your comments Stifle and have offered JimJones any help he may need in return. Cheers! -- moe .RON   talk  21:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User:65.78.112.37
Ya know we are getting annoyed with this. Seriously, why do ya'll just hate me adding my link and not the other people who added theirs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.112.37 (talk • contribs)
 * I am doing WP:RCP and came across the link. If you want to remove links, see External Links and follow those criteria. -- moe .RON   talk  03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

that doesn't answer why your pestering me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.112.37 (talk • contribs)

so your going to come by, screw with that page and leave? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.112.37 (talk • contribs)

see the diccusion page. if your feeling helpfull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.112.37 (talk • contribs)

so can you un-sick the bot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.112.37 (talk • contribs)


 * I don't know what you mean; I am not a bot. You should argue why specific links need to be re-added at Talk:Laser tag. Remember, commercial links are very much frowned upon at Wikipedia, and adding links to discussion forums (even large ones such as usenet listings) is also generally not a consideration. If you feel a certain manufacturer/company whose link was removed deserves to be linked, I suggest you consider creating an account and creating some pages (though, depending on your page creations, they may be deleted as not being notable). -- moe .RON   talk  05:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)\

ya you have to answer for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whateverpt (talk • contribs)

i agree, you are very unhelpful to wikipedia mr. moeron. please stop messing with the pages of which you have no clue about the content.

i for one find the tips section in taggers.org very helpfull

you really sound as if you are diliberately trying to make everything seem so insignificant maybe to make yourself feel better? please stop editing the lasertag page thankyouverrymuch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whateverpt (talk • contribs)

you are notnice!!!
you sound like a real big jerk!!! you must have something against certain things because it sounds as if you are trying to diliberately turn things into shit!!! what an abuse of power!! someone should really report you or something but i wish you would try to make this site better instead of using your time to overtake something that should belong to everyone!! please stop wasting your time and everyone else's!! im really offeneded and disturbed by your insolence on this entire website!!!

just get off allready, grow up, and go away from this site please!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.112.37 (talk • contribs)

reverson of enteri nervous system
STW!

Cayte 17:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Cayte
 * I have replied about my reverts of Enteric nervous system on your talk page. -- moe .RON   talk  19:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

References already exist on the page. Reading them plus a very cursory search of the web would verify my info.

Normally a controversial or questionable claim is flagged with a citation needed comment. Sometimes references accumulate over time. Some Wikipedians specialize in tracking down references. Its more productive than deleting everything. Its one of the ttimes under the todo list.

Infor is only reverted if references fail to show up over time.

IMHO Wikipedia cannot continue to function with a kneejerk use of the revert feature. Your job xperience doesn't apply because Wikipedia is a work in progress.

Pages may also be flagged with POV. Controversies are resolved with the talk page. Reverts are a last resort or for outright vandalism.

Cayte 21:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Cayte

I can happily add references to the Reference section but IMHO sumary or overview information does not require line by line citations, except for an obscure fact. Common sense should prevail.

Current policy is. so controversial that the page is locked. But is refers to pages w/o citations not belongig. Not lines. It looks to me like Wikipedia is having a panic reaction because ( surprise, surprise ) Britanica says its unreliable.

Its part of the value added of Wikipedia. An editor can post something he heard, flag it and later another editor can track it down and find if its a fact or urban legend. Cayte 23:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Cayte

Since each paragraph would reference the same set of articles it seems more efficient to add them to the references section. 64.140.228.166 01:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Cayte

Laser Tag and WP:EL
I've looked over the Laser Tag discussion and your post to ANI. It seems to me that it's been handled quite well already, with 2 other users agreeing with your edits. I really have nothing more to add to the discussion at this point. However, if the IP continues to give you trouble about the links, let me know, and I can help weed through the ones he/she wants to add --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

so where was this discussion? ~whatever~ {{Subst:unsigned|Whateverpt}

WikiVoter
The program will determine if you are eligable. (which I think you are). please e-mail me, or go on IRC to #wikipedia-bootcamp where I can be found as Eagle_101. Make sure you read about the program and how to use it. Thanks! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

DinoHaven
I have removed the db-repost from DinoHaven. The original deletion was the result of a prod. As such, it cannot be speedy deleted as reposted material. If you still believe this article should be deleted, you should take it to WP:AFD. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 00:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dick's Picks chart
I started making that chart yesterday. If you don't mind, I would like to continue it. I'll be done with it by Friday and then you could make the pages for each album? What do you say? -- Ritchie 23:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So you are adding chart for all the Dick's Picks or what? I don't mind making pages for each album if you are going to do the chart. -- Ritchie 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, awesome. Can't wait to read all the pages. -- Ritchie 23:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Travis Gilbert
You, bugger off. I've had enough of anal retentive wikipedians with obsessive compulsive disorder. Read #21 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timeshift9 and improve my articles OR LEAVE THEM ALONE. Timeshift 05:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Douglas Kim
Hey, please see the highly revised version of Douglas Kim and the talk on the discussion page. I added more notability, I think, by adding some key information and providing valid source. I think the deletion tag should probably be removed, but if you still feel it's not notable, then you could probably nominate it for deletion. -Bluedog423 21:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Dutch Gardens
Hi Moeron, I noticed you put a notion on my article, flagging it for not being good enough. I would like to improve my article, before it gets deleted, do I now have a time limit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Gardens

GerardK 14:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * hiya, I edited the Dutch Gardens article, I aimed to make it more like the Water Garden article you pointed out to me. Feedback would be appreciated :). I haven't figured out how to add images though. GerardK 14:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added wlinks and removed the WP:PROD; current state denotes topic better. Good job. Feel free to ask me if you have any other Wikipedia questions. Cheers! -- moe .RON   talk  17:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey mate, I am primarily active in the gardening part of Wikipedia and there is this guy that just keeps adding links to his forum allover the wiki. His links mostly do not follow guidelines and rules because the site in question is a forum and it also seems thin in content and rich in advertising, this is the user's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=69.253.202.23


 * What can we do about it? -- GerardK 19:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Plokijuhygtfrdeswaq - Lynchburg College Web Page
Plokijuhygtfrdeswaq - Lynchburg College Web Page I would like to ask that someone monitor the article on Lynchburg College. The user 'Plokijuhygtfrdeswaq' has continually put in inaccurate information in this article. The individuals listed as "famous alumni" is not factual. Alicia Alghati did not graduate from the College. He/She has begun to list her as a former student. The people listed AREN'T FAMOUS!

The article has also been filled with speculative information:

"Most students live on campus and in nearby college-owned houses. Vernon Street, next to campus, is the most "lively" street, where almost any night students can find a party." That is not factual information! How do you measure how "lively" a street is.

If Wikipedia does not do anything about this, I plan on rallying alumni from across the country to monitor this article 24.7 to ensure accurate information is contained in it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GetItCorrect1stTime (talk • contribs).

your user page
Hi: do you really want to say "an degree"?--Anthony.bradbury 23:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For now, yeah. It's an "in joke" between me and my friends, seeing as how I am an English grad and I wrote that the first time through. Now I just leave it. Thanks! -- moe .RON   talk  23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)\

hi again
see wpl:ani or whatever. this promises to be fun. ~whatever~

Bob Weir
I mentioned your name need help....Thanks --Tom 17:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Singles
Hi there. I'd like to ask you not to create categories that follow the convention "(Artist name) singles." We just went through a long process to replace all those with "(Artist name) songs," which everyone got behind. So categories like category:Grateful Dead singles just make people cranky. Cool?--Mike Selinker 23:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to say anything about, so don't worry about me. -- moe .RON   talk  23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for the understanding.--Mike Selinker 06:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Box of Rain
Your recent edit to Box of Rain (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 23:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Shadow article and fair-use
Hey there. To further explain the reasoning behind the revert, in the recent (successful) FAC, we were required to remove several images from the article in order to get it to FAC (half of them in fact), and lately, what is and isn't fair-use has been examined in much more intensive detail, especially for featured articles and featured article candidates. It's been pretty much agreed by many that more than one use of packaging is gratuitous unless there are drastic differences and the alternate packaging contributes something that enhances the article or section significantly.

Me personally, I'd like to have all versions of the packaging present, but — especially with packaging that is so similar — there's not really anything they can be claimed to contribute beyond identifying the subject of the article. In cases such as this, the most recognizable of the group is selected so as to prevent stepping into decorative purposes. As it stands, I honestly can't claim that two versions of the packaging helps identify the subject any better than one alone does, and I also can't claim that the PAL packaging contributes something that really helps the section (mainly because it's so similar to the other one; the only notable differences, really, are a grint tint instead of a red one and the horse's pose). Even soundtrack covers can't be used outside their namespace (we had to remove that too).

Like I say, fair-use has been cracked down upon a lot more extensively lately, and something like that just isn't worth an article losing its featured article status. Especially if we can't point out something significant that an alternate cover contributes (both covers feature the same characters in almost exactly the same positions, so both do nothing more, really, than to identify those three characters and to identify the subject of the article). Does that make sense? Ryu Kaze 03:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Ryu Kaze 03:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Guitarists Newsletter - Issue I - August 2006
The August 2006 issue of the WikiProject Guitarists newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Aguerriero ( talk ) 19:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)