User talk:VolatileChemical/Archive 6

This takes me back. Blocking admin was Bobet. Sockpuppet was Robot ambulance. IP address is still 24.66.94.140. 01:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

unblock|IP address recently used by et cetera.
 * I made the mistake of thinking good things can last. Admin is Buchanan-Hermit. IP address is 24.66.94.140. Blocker, whilst 24.66.94.140, was unlogged in for the duration of his vandalism. 08:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We can't selectively block an IP address whilst letting signed in users edit from behind it in the current software. I'll unblock that address but since it is only a short time since it was initially blocked it may get blocked again if the vandalism continues. --pgk( talk ) 08:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done -- Tawker 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My IP address is 24.66.94.140. The vandal was User:24.66.94.140. Admin who blocked me was User:Kilo-Lima. I wasn't given an Autoblock number, probably because I wasn't blocked directly, just through my IP. Okay, me and Milkman1042 are the only people with that IP, and I never edit when I'm not logged in, so why can't the admins just community block User:24.66.94.140? 17:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To unblock, please post your IP and Autoblock number. —  xaosflux  Talk 02:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * God, this is annoying. 00:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, what do you mean if he keeps trying to edit? How is that possible? If you're blocked or banned, it just goes to the "user is blocked" page. What is he editing that keeps getting me blocked? 01:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Same info as before. Exactly the same. Okay, I'm not free. Does this mean I'll keep being blocked on and off for forever? 05:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Only if the blocked editor keeps trying to edit. I've removed the latest autoblock. --pgk( talk ) 09:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly the same as last time to the teeth. IP address is 24.66.94.140. Blocked by Ashibaka. Vandal is C-c-c-c. 'Twould seem I was unblocked after being blocked for his vandalism whilst he stayed blocked, and now I have been re-blocked for that same vadalism because his term is not complete. 22:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a permanently banned vandal, his term will never be complete. IP unblocked. pschemp | talk 20:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Per...permanently banned? I'm free! 00:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Unblocked again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Man, this guy works fast. IP address is 24.66.94.140. Blocked by Ashibaka. Vandal is C-c-c-c. 04:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unblocked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

IP address is 24.66.94.140. Blocked by Andrew Norman. Vandal is C-c-c-c. 21:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unblocked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * unblocked -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My IP address is still 24.66.94.140. The admin who blocked me is Kungfuadam. The user who did this vandalism is still User:24.66.94.140, who still shares my IP address. --VolatileChemical 02:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My IP address is 24.66.94.140. The admin who blocked me is Drini. The user who did this vandalism is User:24.66.94.140, who shares my IP address. VolatileChemical 21:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unblocked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I use IE actually, so I'm not really sure if it is. VolatileChemical 05:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And done again (may I suggest using a non AOL isp?) -- Tawker 05:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Exact same information as last time. VolatileChemical 05:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

unblock


 * Yes, thank you. VolatileChemical 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Good? AmiDaniel (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I was autoblocked by InShaneee. The vandal who caused this block is C-c-c-c. I wasn't provided with an autoblockid. VolatileChemical 22:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it worked. And I'll be sure to include all that other info in the future. VolatileChemical 21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Try again. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, no, maybe so? AmiDaniel (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, I'm just going to assume that I found the right autoblock. In the future could you please provide the name of the blocked vandal resulting in your autoblock, the name of the blocking admin, and the autoblockid (if it's provided). Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Unblocked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Now C-c-c-c is getting blocked for his vandalism on his own user talk page while he was blocked. This guy is just a subjectivity juggernaut.

And again......... (may I suggest not using AOL) -- Tawker 05:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

VolatileChemical 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Try again. I think I found the right autoblockid but I'm not sure. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I almost made it an hour and a half without a block that time. My IP address is listed several times below. VolatileChemical 23:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done again -- Tawker 23:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, forgot about that. My IP address is 24.66.94.140. VolatileChemical 21:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Unblocked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have an IP address or autoblock number to go with it please, can't remove it without -- Tawker 21:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

At least this guy was blocked indefinitely, which brings me one step closer to never having to do this again. VolatileChemical 21:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure whoever keeps unblocking me is as annoyed with this as I am, but come on! What is it about my IP zone that attracts vandals! Is anyone even paying attention anymore? --VolatileChemical 01:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Block should have expired. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You'd think so, but no. During my first block, I was doubly blocked because of vandalization by C-c-c-c (who, along with this nameless vandal, shares my address). I remain frozen. VolatileChemical 22:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, scratch that. C-c-c-c has somehow found a way to continue vandalizing before the block expired. I am now triple blocked. VolatileChemical 23:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

One more time! Everybody sing along now! IP address be 24.66.94.140. VolatileChemical 03:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --pgk( talk ) 18:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, look, it's happened again. Hate to do this more than once, but I guess I just have an unlucky IP address. This time, it's because I share an address with User:U r a fag. What a clever name. My IP address is 24.66.94.140 (not to be confused with User:24.66.94.140). And yes, I know it's only a day and a half (for me, with time zones), but I'm getting annoyed. VolatileChemical
 * I removed the auto block for that user, try again. --pgk( talk ) 17:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it worked. Thanks. VolatileChemical 22:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, and aagain :) -- Tawker 01:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not currently blocked, or ever, blocked. If it happens again (you get caught on an IP), make sure to include the IP address in your request, otherwise we can't track it down. Wikibofh(talk) 04:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally. I've found a way to get my message across. I should be unblocked, because I am not the vandal. I only share an IP address with him. The real vandal is an un-logged-in version of this guy, not me! So unblock me! Please! Hoping someone cares, VolatileChemical 04:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC).

That IP was blocked for 1 week. I'll look it it. M o e  ε  21:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Someone responded. Thanks, Moe υ. --VolatileChemical 22:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Birch barlow.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Birch barlow.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 05:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleopatra
Hey, thanks for your expansion of the Cleopatra (Clone High) article. I've been working on improving the Clone High articles, and I was not looking forward to how much work would be needed on the Cleo article. So thanks for the help! Good info too! --Gpollock 04:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. --VolatileChemical 05:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio of Desert Punk
Hi. You tagged Desert Punk as being a copyvio, but I can't find the text on the website you gave - can you point me to it so I can confirm the article should be deleted. Thanks. Kcordina Talk 12:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. I was mostly going by the website's character descriptions (which is under "profiles" on the "information" menu to the left), which shouldn't come as a surprise as characters made up most of the article's text. I could give you some direct examples of text that was copied, but if you want to check it out for yourself that's fine as well. VolatileChemical 13:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheers,It looks like only some bits of the profiles are taken and theres been a lot of changing done. I feel that the parts taken are small enough for it to be OK. Kcordina Talk 14:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC) That's cool. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't coming to close to the source. VolatileChemical 14:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff, all looks OK so have reverted to the article. Kcordina Talk 14:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Kingston jamaica.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kingston jamaica.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. 03:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OrphanBot! My old friend. How ya livin'? Oh, wait, you're not! A-ha-ha-ha-ha! VolatileChemical 23:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Seal belmopan.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Seal belmopan.png. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "Public domain", "Free license", and "Fair use" sections of Image copyright tags.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If the tag on right now was good enough for Seal Belmopan Belize Central America.jpg, then it's good enough for my version of the exact same image. VolatileChemical 11:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Battleships
Hi there; before I say anything else, I will say that I am aware of, and fully endorse and support, the Wiki policy as stated regarding merciless editing. And I know that I do not own the articles that I write. Having said that, what is wrong with the infoboxes on the Victorian-era battleships that you have tagged as unsatisfactory? As to the images, yes; if anyone has, and can add, images of these ships no-one will be more pleased than I.--Anthony.bradbury 13:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I merely replaced a template set to ask for a ship infobox with a template made to ask for a ship infobox because it's easier to post. I'm in no way claiming any of the infoboxes already on any of the pages I posted that template on are unsatisfactory. I just put up on pages that already had  . Whether or not the pages that had  on them actually didn't have an infobox, I didn't have time to check. I had sixty-two articles to edit so I was kind of rushed. If you find any articles with  on the talk page when the article actually does already have an infobox, then by all means remove the template from that talk page. I hope that answers your questions. VolatileChemical 01:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

La Vie Boheme
The article La Vie Boheme now has lyris with references inside, please check it out if you would like and edit it or revert it as you see fit. --Cbrown1023 17:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Um...okay. Wait, are you sure that's legal? VolatileChemical 17:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

unblocked
I think I have cleared the autoblock. If you are still experencing any problem please drop me a message or use again. --WinHunter (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLA
Are you a member of WP:BLA you seem to know a fair bit about blackadder
 * No, I'm not...I didn't even know it existed. That's awesome. 06:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to join bro


 * †he Bread 22:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done and done

WP:FILMS Newsletter
The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 23:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Stewart crest.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stewart crest.jpg. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "Public domain", "Free license", and "Fair use" sections of Image copyright tags.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as that template is fine at Image:UK Royal Coat of Arms.png, then it's fine on this image. VolatileChemical 11:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit to Template:Infobox Legislation
Thanks for adding Template:Infobox Legislation to the appropriate infobox category, but please remember to place tags around the category in order to avoid it being included on article pages. For more information on this see Category:Infobox templates. --Safalra 20:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry about that. I'm terrible with  s. VolatileChemical 05:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter
The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 01:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

First Crusade
Picture_tutorial -- Stbalbach 00:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In case you expected a response from me, consider this that response. VolatileChemical 04:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Second Law exclusion
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Great. So, the law applies unless it violates the First Law...but application of the law can violate the Third Law as it pleases? VolatileChemical 17:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're asking if following the second law (or first) allows it to break the third law, then yes; i.e. A robot will destroy itself if by doing so it will protect a human, or even follow its orders. &mdash;ScouterSig 17:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, I could've just checked Talk:Three Laws of Robotics. VolatileChemical 18:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)