User talk:Tykell/Archive1

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 17:31, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.  Meelar (talk) 17:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Sturmgrenadier
I've removed the VfD notice, twice, and removed your comment from the closed VfD. I've left a note on Talk:Sturmgrenadier; please read and think about it. If you again place this notice on the article without actually opening a proper VfD, I shall block you from editing for vandalism. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Article Talk pages
I've just seen that you deleted all the comments on Talk:Michael Burns; your comment at Votes for deletion/YTMND (not only uncivil, but silly in light of the fact that the voting is overwhelmingly to keep the article) is also not acceptable. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Last chance
Don't remove comments (you don't own an article or its talk page just because you started it), don't remove IfD notices, and don't add comments to a closed VfD. If you do, I shall block you from editing. This is your final warning. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis
Mel has a point about removing those notices, although keep in mind he cannot/should not block you himself in a dispute he is involved with. My understanding is that this is not considered an appropriate use of authority. But beware about removing those notices, it makes it easy for him to have you blocked by another administrator.

He will be able to secure the deletion of the image you have uploaded if you don't indicate on the image page that you took the image and released it into public domain or whatever the situation is.

He will also be able to secure its deletion if it's an "orphan", this seems to mean if it isn't used to illustrate an article. It could be used potentially in obesity or acne or something like that.

Please let me know if you need some help. I will keep an eye on this situation. Coqsportif 23:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't care if he deletes the image, this is not what the dispute is about. He's threatening to ban me because I am clearing the discussion page for the Michael Burns article, since the comments were just left-overs from a speedy deleted article. Basically, Mel has a chip on his shoulder regarding me, and is trying to find every loophole he can to get me blocked. --Tykell 23:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) I'm not involved in disputes on these articles and images.
 * 2) Coqsportif is trying to stir things; he's also behaving poorly by going in for a bit of stalking, and vandalising. I really shouldn't take his advice or follow his example if I were you.
 * 3) I'm not threatening banning, but blocking; if you think that a Talk page needs to be cleared, take it to an admin and explain the situation. Don't just depete other eople's comments yourself.  You might think that they're not needed, but that doesn't mean that they're not. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 12:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Mel is clearly involved in this conflict at a personal level and has no right to use his administrator powers in that situation. He knows that already but hopes others don't.
 * 2) I'm not stirring anything, I'm a neutral disinterested observer who has also been the victim of what I see as unfortunate conduct by Mel.
 * 3) Banning/blocking, whatever the threat, it's a threat and it's probably one that he cannot follow up on because of his personal involvement.
 * 4) Don't let him get you down is the main thing. Contribute everything you can and you'll find many willing to stand beside you in ensuring that you get fairly treated. Keep your wits about you. I'll continue to monitor the situation. Coqsportif 12:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

"You might think that they're not needed, but that doesn't mean that they're not." Find me someone who thinks they're needed. This is ridiculous, they're comments pertaining to a vanity article that got very speedily deleted. You're either trying to get me blocked, or you're going way too by the book. You're an admin, and I'm talking to you. If you're willing to let your bias get in the way of the SG VFD, at least let me delete some CLEARLY irrelevant comments that were around long before my article. I have no problem taking this to another admin if you continue to threaten me rather than help resolve the situation. --Tykell 18:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) I have no bias; indeed, what bias could I possibly have in this case? That you insist on assuming that my disagreement with you can't be explained in any other way but dishonourably suggests either that you're rather too attached to your own position, or that you yourself have entered this with some prejudice.  Have you used another account, and had some disagreement with me before?  If your assumption (and belligerence) are sparked off by, I really should try to shake off that influence (I notice, incidentally, that he's just been banned indefinitely by another admin).
 * 2) Can you explain why the comments must be removed? What harm are they doing, exactly?  If there's some very good reason for removing them from an otherwise empty Talk page (rather than labelling them as related to the speedied article), they can be archived. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 20:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

They are completely unrelated to the current article, and only serves to confuse people who don't know better about who Burnie Burns really is. I don't understand why you are trying to keep them. --Tykell 20:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Images without sources
I have just added the  tag to all of the images that you have uploaded without a source attribution. This is a large number of images. Please review your contributions, and note where they are from (by URL, author, whatever you know), and then see Image use policy for more information on providing licensing information were possible. Thank you for your time. -Harmil 22:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I see that you tried to address the image source problems by adding the fairuse tag to most of them. This tag requires enough information for other editors and the Wikipedia administrators to assess your claim to fair use. To do that, please enter the following information for each image you uploaded:
 * The source of the image (URL or offline source)
 * Your rationale for considering this to be fair use.
 * If you're not sure exactly what to say, just say what you can, and provide as much detail as possible about where the image came from and why you added it. I'll then see what I can do to help you out in appropriately attributing the license information. -Harmil 04:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I see that, instead of providing source information or communicating with me, you have decided to simply revert back to the fairuse tags. Well, I guess that explains your position sufficiently. Thank you for your time. -Harmil 12:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No need to act snobbish like you're somehow above me, Harmil. I clearly stated the site I took them from, and where the images originally came from, as you requested. --Tykell 17:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes you did. You also claimed permission, which I have verified with the administator of uboat.net, you do not have. I'm listing the images for deletion. If you can explain the "permission" involved, then I'm sure the images will survive said listing. Add information as needed to the talk pages of the involved images. -Harmil 18:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a tad ridiculous anyways. Uboat.net doesn't own the copyright to those images. I'm not sure what you want me to do, maybe go to the graves of these naval commanders and request permission to have these images up? --Tykell 20:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, those commanders don't own these images. I imagine that the German government does, and you could always go request originals from them, but as far as I can tell, these versions of the images are licensed to uboat.net from an archive of some sort. As for the claim to fair use... had you not falsely claimed that you had permission to use these images, that might have been an option, but now it would be hard for WP to defend a fair use claim (given that uboat.net admin could ask, "if it's fair use, why did you have to claim that I gave you permission?")


 * For future refernece on other images that you wish to add, claiming fair use is easy: Give the URL from which the image originates (or offline source), cite a rationale that is in line with Fair use, and add the appropriate fair use tag such as fairuse or a more specific tag like promophoto. It really is that easy. Others may disagree with your assessment of the image as fair use. That's not a judgement against you, just caution on the part of other editors. Be forthright and remember that none of this is about you, it's about Wikipedia and its ability to keep functioning. -Harmil 03:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * PS: Deleting the comments of other users is considered extremely bad form. I request that you restore the comments that you blanked. The specific comments about deleted images could be archived to a sub-page if you wish, just make sure you link to that sub-page from there. Keeping track of such comments from other users is important for future reference. Deletion of those comments might be seen as an indication that you're not acting in good faith, and that won't help you in any further discussions. -Harmil 03:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * They're cluttering up my user page, and I really don't have the knowledge to move them into subpages. Feel free to do that if you want. Anyways, delete the images if you're worried about the legalities, you're just going to be ruining some good articles in my opinion. --Tykell 03:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Lao Che
I saw that you were wondering about this VfD. In case you don't have it on your watchlist, I've closed it out as "no consensus". Fernando Rizo T/C 22:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, all right. Thanks. --Tykell 22:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Rita Picture
I have nominated the picture Rita 2005 five day track.gif for deletion because it is not needed anymore. It says on the image page that your page links to it. Just letting you know so you can delete the link. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 20:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Image of Matt Collins that you uploaded has been tagged as a candidate for deletion.

Please stop removing content from Ludacris. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- get crunk  juice  00:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This message is regarding the page Katanga Raiders. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- SoothingR(pour) 17:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Your article on Matt Collins has been deleted also. Your contributions history shows you've been around for a while and have done useful things, and are thus capable of being a non-jackass. Why the sudden change? DS 18:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, an admin who has BALLS for once? I thought all of you guys were pacifists. --Tykell 04:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Grow up? --Untruth 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That edit to Talk:2006 Horn of Africa food crisis was way out of line. I see that you have been steadily blanking warnings off your talk for a long time. Since you obviously already know what all the warnings are, I've gone straight to the 48 hour block. Whatever your issue is, I suggest that you deal with it off the wiki. - BanyanTree 01:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Given your history of bad edits, I have pulled your complete talk page history up so it is easily available for other users to evaluate. Attempts to blank it will be reverted.  Also, your block has been extended to one month. - BanyanTree 03:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

New Message
I can appreciate your desire to "not have a cluttered talk page" but it would be looked upon in a better light if you would revert back, blanking past warnings is considered vandalism. Try archiving it if you do not wish it to be on your talk page? Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, how do I archive? --Tykell 06:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * On another note, why do I need to keep this stuff warning me about images that I uploaded that are long gone? Do they really need to be archived? --Tykell 07:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Create a subpage with a slash, such as /Archive1. Place older messages that are no longer relevant into the new link and save it.  Archive links are normally placed at the top of the page. - BanyanTree 12:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for being late in answering you! How to archive a talk page this give a detailed explanation of how to archive your talk page. Hope it helps if you need help let me know thanks. Knowledge Of  Self  |  talk  19:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tykell, I've been going through your contributions and you've made plenty of good edits here. While I still think that your comment was one of the most incivil things I've seen from a user that was not an obvious vandal, I've been thinking it over and feel that I was overly harsh. I've just made a block for a six days, which should make a total block time of about a week. - BanyanTree 20:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, well that wasn't me, but I won't bother going into that. Thanks. --Tykell 06:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If this is a shared account, I would really suggest that you just create another account. Frankly, the credibility of this one is shot and being blocked is no fun. - BanyanTree 16:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess you could call it "shared". It really is my fault leaving my computer to auto-sign in. Anyways, a new account won't do much good till the blocks off anyways. --Tykell 17:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * ETA on the end of the block or a possible early end? I'd like to make some changes to some articles on my watch. --Tykell 20:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are unblocked. Please figure out some way to keep other people from accessing your account so easily.  Thanks, BanyanTree 23:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)