User talk:Vybr8

Image copyright problem with Image:MaryKate Ashley Olsen unity.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:MaryKate Ashley Olsen unity.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Problem with Image:MaryKate Ashley Olsen unity.jpg & Image:MKA-Olsen twone.gif
Thanks for uploading these images. Unfortunately without copyright information on the source photo/photographer your license may not be valid. Your work in altering the source photo, while of a high quality, created a derivative work that is subject to the original copyright. I started a discussion about these images at, please offer your input. Thank you. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:MaryKate_Ashley_Olsen_unity.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MaryKate_Ashley_Olsen_unity.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. 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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation, pd_THOR. I've fixed both images to make it clear that I created them both (using Photoshop). - Vybr8 (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Charles JOnes
RE your entry of this into USAFA alum, that links to a diff Jones. Your Jones has no wiki article and one needs to be created for him.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for finding my error. I'm not sure I would have wiped it clean myself. Anyway, someone had created an article about him back in September 2001 soon after the 9-11 mess, so it's now be re-added back to that article.Vybr8 (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tiger Woods
Please see Talk:Tiger_Woods and comment there. Per the policy on biographies of living persons, do not revert the section title until the discussion there has finished.--Chaser (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the check, Chaser. I didn't feel totally ok with that term myself when posting it, but could not think of a better description until you pressed the issue. If anyone wants to change it, I doubt I'll return to it. I do hope the point will stand that the focus on the crash is peripheral. Vybr8 (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

NASA 515
Hi Vybr8, I saw your edit to NASA 515. I started the article but I haven't yet had time to expand it like I should. If you have any time at all I'd like to encourage you to add to it, or edit it, in any way you feel capable of. To directly address the question of your edit, the first flight is from one of the sources that I listed on the article. It's the date that it first flew as NASA 515. Since it was re-purposed aircraft from the Boeing prototype it's going to have two different "first flights"... if you want to add something about that, again, please go ahead and do so. Thanks! — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooh, that sounds even more strange. Your source puts the date of NASA 515's first flight ahead of the very first flight of any Boeing 737. Something is messed up here. I'll keep poking around on my end and hopefully someone will solve this mystery.--Vybr8 (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Help us improve!
Hello Vybr8,

For a few months now, Hmring and Realpolitikz have been working on the Gun violence and gun control in Texas article and would like you to help us improve it. Please feel free to make any comments or edits into the article as we try to further improve it.

Thanks for your time and effort!

--Realpolitikz (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Help us improve!
Hello Vybr8,

For a few months now, Hmring and Realpolitikz have been working on the Gun violence and gun control in Texas article and would like you to help us improve it. Please feel free to make any comments or edits into the article as we try to further improve it.

Thanks for your time and effort!

--Realpolitikz (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Original research
Please read WP:NOR and do not add text to articles that can't be reliably sourced (see WP:RS and which must mention the subject of the article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Domestic violence against men is original research? Just ask Phil Hartman. Oh, wait. You can't.
 * I do agree with the criticism of me having failed to cite reliable sources. I've just fixed that.--Vybr8 (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't even dream to talk to me about violence against men - but you still need to read WP:NOR. I see another editor removed your edit which was, as he said, editorializing in the lead. Your source didn't mention constitutional challenges, for a start. Take it to the talk page, but you need sources discussing the Violence Against Women Act, not sources discussing something else. And take this as another formal warning. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if you are going to threaten me for my good faith edits of a Wikipedia article, I can guess where you stand on domestic violence.
 * I've re-added straight facts from well documented sources. It will be curious if you or any other editor gives a reason for reverting this, as it conforms to criticism I've received. There is nothing that can be construed as OR or editorialization.
 * Anyone can choose to take it to the Talk page. I see this is not the first time that editors have made efforts toward a balanced article.--Vybr8 (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't threaten you, I pointed out that your actions can have consequences - you are using sources that don't discuss the act and I would have reverted you if I'd seen it later. You still do not understand our policy on original research. As for your personal insult, you have no idea of my stand on domestic violence. I don't intend to get into a lot of personal detail, but the problem you are concerned about is one that was only resolved when my mother died. I find it very difficult to stay civil with you after your comments but will try to do so. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Women getting killed in a domestic homicide is a tragedy, especially for all the loved ones affected. But men get killed to. And Wikipedia is supposed to be about presenting facts with an NPOV. Phil Hartman, as one example, had two children who no longer have their father. My efforts were toward de-skewing a heavily biased article. I presented facts. I accepted criticism. I worked further toward improvement. You tell me here to "take this as another formal warning". Formal? You did not identify yourself as having authority over me. And in your first comment you actually thanked me. If you had someone close to you, a female, killed in a domestic violence incident by a man, I will suggest to you that you take a step back and examine your own intentions for bias. I've examined all the criticism toward me here regarding my edits. I scoured it down to straight quotes, and still it got deleted. This indicates to me that the issue will continue to remain emotionally charged, and that as a result, the bias will continue. For that I am sad.--Vybr8 (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for disruptive editing, culminating with your personal attack. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that reversion took all of 9 minutes. And the stated reason:
 * "Considering your second ref contradicts your first one, "straight fact" seems an overstatement"
 * Reversion (and block!) by "SarekOfVulcan". I'd be very interested to know why my previous comment above was taken to be me making a personal attack. And I'd also be curious to know Wikipedia's policy on cyberbullying. SarekOfVulcan appears to support making threats to members of the community who are making good faith edits toward the improvement of this website.--Vybr8 (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia; they should not be intended as a punishment". Most curious. My edit that was admin-reverted is now seen to have been damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Either that, or the above block is a case of an Admin abusing their power.--Vybr8 (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It was obviously a personal attack on me. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue in this section here is regarding the block. This block does nothing to prevent my posting on this Talk page, where the "attack" is said to have occurred. Therefore it is clear to me that the admin action was intended as punishment, in clear violation of stated Wikipedia policy. The question is who polices the Wiki-police?
 * Another quote from Wikipedia policy:
 * "During day to day operations Wikipedia administrators routinely block accounts and IP ranges, to reduce or prevent vandalism and other serious inappropriate behavior."
 * This would say that my edit was seen as vandalism, or I have done other serious inappropriate behavior. Now unless you were blocked along with me, it would appear that at least this one admin believes that threatening members with these "formal warning"s (as though you have authority over me in this Wikispace) conforms with non-inappropriate behavior. I do not see any notice of being blocked over on your page, so this is further indication to me of Sarek's abuse of power. I have maintained complete civility in all of my edits and comments. I would be very interested to see specifics as to why this action was taken, if Sarek would like to explain this blocking action as not being an example of abuse of power.
 * One obvious explanation would be that Sarek is you, and that you are reacting emotionally toward me. And when you were giving me "formal warning"s, you were hinting that you are an admin and that you were preparing to clobber me. That's just one theory. I would like to hear from "Sarek" with a complete explanation.--Vybr8 (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Doug, I've just looked closer at your User Page and see that you're an admin. I will suggest that it would be an improvement to Wikipedia if admins are more clearly identified. An obvious way to do that would be with something like 'Admin:Dougweller' instead of 'User:Dougweller'. Or when an admin posts in their admin function, they simply state that they are admins. Consider how chaotic our society would be if police went up to people's doorsteps without letting them know that they are police. And then when the cop decides to slap handcuffs on the citizen, the standard reaction is, "you could have told me you were a cop". Actually it is my understanding that cops are required to identify themselves as such, when performing official actions.--Vybr8 (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just read the Wikipedia definition of disruptive editing: "disrupting progress toward improving an article" Given the info on that page, I'm even more baffled about the blocking action (that is, if the benefit of the doubt is given that it was not done as a punitive measure - in violation of Wikipedia policy).--Vybr8 (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23
Hi. When you recently edited Cunning Stunts (video), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cunning Stunts (album) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin plagiarism
While appreciative of LZ, I agree with you and commend you for your comments on the evidence for their plagiarism being thick. As you were, I was impressed by the youtube videos. Their wrongs were not isolated incidents or incidental accidents.Dogru144 (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I just added the link to that first video to the bottom of the article. Hopefully it will help turn the tide of the article toward historical accuracy.--Vybr8 (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2013
Your recent editing history at Masturbation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.  Neil N   talk to me  19:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Masturbation
Kindly refrain from adding useless references like Letterman's "Top 10". And per WP:LEDE, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." That is, the into should not contain concepts not discussed in detail in the body of the article. -- Neil N   talk to me  19:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I invite you to move all comments that are salient to the article in question over to that article's Talk Page.Vybr8 (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you.  Neil N   talk to me  20:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Over on the article's Talk page, it has been suggested that a more productive approach could be for editors to work together to collaboratively improve the article.Vybr8 (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD suggests you stop forcing your content into the article and wait for editors to work together to see if/how the content should be added. -- Neil N   talk to me  20:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I am totally fine with me going into a read-only mode with that article. Thanks.Vybr8 (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, please take care not to edit war or you may be blocked in the future. The BRD article has some very good advice. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have stated this elsewhere, but I fail to see how my actions constitute an edit "war". When my edit responses are to re-add info while making corrections for objections that have been cited, then I call that "progress".  YMMV  Vybr8 (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not progress when you add an unacceptable reference to address objections and then expect others to do your work for you. -- Neil N    talk to me  21:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Au contraire... I happen to see Wikipedia as being all about having other people jump in and doing constructive work. If any statement appears to be unsubstantiated, one action is to delete.  Another action is to tag with 'cite needed'.  An even more constructive action is to go find a reference and post it.  And if any one particular source is seen by any one particular editor to be "unacceptable", this does not necessarily mean that no other "acceptable" references are available.  The web is a wide and wonderous place, and Wikipedia is perhaps the best place for distilling that into reliable useful knowledge.Vybr8 (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2013 (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) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)