Jump to content

User talk:Lanoitarus/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a Talk Archive Page .:. Please do not make any edits here- I won't see them!
Click here to leave a new message.



Boeing 777

[edit]

Thanks for nominating this pic of a Boeing 777 being towed across a public road at London Heathrow. It will be interesting to see what happens! I fear it has little chance, only because a few of my other aircraft pics have been nominated and have had no luck!
I was at Heathrow only last Saturday and I watched three aircraft towed across that road (they never have their engines running). Sadly a bypass road is being built around the area so sometime in 2006 that road will be shut for ever. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 22:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You asked on my Talk page if the road is used much, here's the answer -
Yes, that road is in use by the public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, because it’s the airport’s public perimeter road. How some of British Airways maintenance hangars (including the Concorde maintenance hangars, when it was flying) got to be the wrong side of a public road I have no idea.
The aircraft crossing point is almost in line with the approach to runway 28R which is the northern of Heathrows 2 runways (the other is 28L). 28L or 28R are used when the wind is such that aircraft must approach LHR from the east ie they fly across London itself.
Locate the point where aircraft, if landing on 28R, fly across the LHR perimeter road where it runs round the the eastern side of the airport. The map should show a roundabout about 100 metres south of that point, at a popular photography spot that many call the White Huts (because there is a small white-painted industrial estate there, that you can park amongst).
About 100 metres south of that roundabout is the aircraft crossing point. It’s a great place at the crossing because there are views of aircraft queuing for take off on 28R if 28L is being used for landings. Hope this helps - Adrian Pingstone 15:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Your support

[edit]

Hi there, thanks for your support on my Lake Monowai picture. I took it myself while camping in the wilderness a couple of months ago and thought it was a great photo, so I added it to the thing. Have never done anything like this before and I am an extremely amateur photographer so I am really grateful that everyone hasn't starting criticising it and pointing out its faults straight away! :) Swollib 09:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to insert an external link on a page while editing?

[edit]

An inline citation is case 2, which is the case I excluded from being questionable uses. --David Woolley 17:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually encourage marking of individual source references, although I see a problem with direct links in that it is difficult to correlate them with entry in the References section, that should still be there. What I was really cautioning about is the use of links that aren't to sources. A case where I might see a clear valid exception is an article about a well known web portal, where the home page link might make sense in line. --David Woolley 19:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your user page

[edit]

The same anonymous editor who changed your user page yesterday did it again. He/she/it left a cute bunny behind in your intentionally left blank space, but I figured it probably did classify as vandalism. If not and I did wrong, mea culpa. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching it! I personally don't mind vandalism to my user page, but I love that there are people like you out there watching for it anyway :) -Lanoitarus 05:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The following was posted to the top of my user page at 12:35 EST by 24.147.103.146, I have moved it to my talk page instead.-Lanoitarus 05:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copywrite violations, You may call my revisions vandalism, but the copywrite violations are a crime. I am working to report Wikipedia to the hosting company that the server is on. Wikipedia is complicit in a criminal act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.103.146 (talk • contribs)

  • I believe i have addressed each of your concerns on each page you blanked. Several of your concerns were valid, several were not. Regardless, there are correct channels for your concerns, and simply blanking content without regard to protocall (which I left you a long message explaining) is not one of them. -Lanoitarus 05:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

In reply to your comment:

I am not an admin, so I can't help you there. I did however, also leave a message on his/her userpage stating that he/she should follow the procedure listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. And I do believe you did the right thing. - Akamad 05:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the vote of confidence :). I think I have not resolved the problem, anyway. Most of the articles were in fact violations, just not of the site he had listed. Should be all set now. Thanks! -Lanoitarus 05:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to check the page history before adding Edward "Punchy" McLaughlin to the list of copyright violations, thanks for fixing that up. - Akamad 06:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, we had a bit of a edit timing conflict going for a while there :) Looks pretty good now though. Thanks again. -Lanoitarus 06:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked him for 48 hours. Thanks for bringing the continued problems to my attention. -- SCZenz 22:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job!

[edit]

I just want to say that you've done a great job concerning the copy-vio mug shots and dealing with this person. I can't believe this person is actually connected with the Howie Carr website or show because he seems rather thick. I didn't think when I uploaded the mug shot of Jimmy Flynn that I was violating any copyright. But it was so long ago that I honestly don't know where the picture came from. I knew that mugshots were PD but I didn't even think about people claiming ownership of a scan of a PD picture! So I was educated by the corel court case! If I had done something wrong I would have bothered fighting this guy in the edits either. But since it was made clear that there was actually a court case about this type of thing, this guy should have backed off the pictures. I must say I am annoyed with people stealing verbatim from other sites and I'm glad that came to light so these articles can be fixed. Thanks again for all your hard work!!! Dwain 01:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Dwain, I definitely went from grateful (for pointing out plagarism) to annoyed (for the blanking and such) with this guy too. I just hope this is the end of it- I fear we may hear more when the block expires. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 03:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pitchka's comments. You're doing a great job in dealing with the anon users. I've got nothing further to add to your comments on WP:ANI. But can you keep me informed if any major events unfold, I can't see that you've done anything wrong so I intend to support you if any further action(s) occur. Just out of curiosity, what's the "corel court case" thing that User:Pitchka mentioned? - Akamad 06:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, always great to hear positive feedback =). The "corel case" is Bridgeman vs Corel, which was brought to my attention by Mwanner. Its is a US district court ruling which basicially established that even if someone puts a bunch of effort/time/money into creating a reproduction of a public domain image, the new reproduction is automatically in the public domain as well unless it involves some sort of artistic originality. This means that the site the mug shots may have been lifted from is irrelevant, since they are reproductions of PD images. Thanks again for the support! -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 07:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paladins vs Lupins's Vandal Fighter

[edit]

Originally posted at User Talk:Rogue 9:

Hey, I saw your paladin user box in the sandbox (the edit came up in Lupin's vandal filter, actually), and thought it was hysterical. Just wanted to say kudos. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 07:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Thanks. I am not a geek! I'm a level 12 paladin!  ;) Out of curiosity, why would stuff in the sandbox trigger a vandalism filter? Isn't random stuff kind of the point? Rogue 9 07:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for guiding

[edit]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. I am learning and in the process I have done my misstakes. I rolled back many and I think ppl like u will surely rollback those misstakes which I dont remeber. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumar Idh (talk • contribs)

thanks for reverting my talk page

[edit]

Lanoitarus, Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page! --Hurricane111 22:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

=) Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 03:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD vs. CSD

[edit]

My bad. I deleted the page initially, then I looked at CSD and didn't see "Spam" as a valid reason for a CSD. So I restored the article, removed the CSD tag, and listed it in AfD. Then after your note, I looked to see if spam was one of the definitions of vandalism. And lo, it is. So the page is gone. Thanks for the sanity check. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 03:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mozilla Userbox

[edit]

unfortunately even though they appear to be fairly open to uses there are several issues, A) this does not constitute a license that Wikipedia can use and B) There are conceivable times when we would not fall under their scope and their licensing states that they reserve certain rights to their images so it is not appropriate for use on Wikipedia (other of course than fair use on articles about Firefox or Mozilla). JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie McLaughlin article

[edit]

I have tried to find sources other than Carr's sites for the Bernie McLaughlin article without much success, though someone clearly has. I added the Carr site to the /temp article as an ==Ext link==, for honesty sake (in fact, maybe it should be ==Sources==, instead). I have to say, though, that our article now strikes me as a not a copyvio-- it's more than half again as long as Carr's, and has some facts not found on his page. What's more, if you compare different versions contributed by 216.20.1.211/2/3/4/5 (who started this article in the first place) you'll see different facts on different reconstructions after copyvio notices. It's all pretty strange. Who do you suppose 216.20.1.21x is? -- Mwanner | Talk 18:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that it should be listed under sources. I think the fundamental problem is that a few sentences are still EXTREMELY close. I will try to rewrite it completely when i have time this evening, which should solve the problems. As for who 216.20.1.21x, perhaps it is Whitey himself, back from hiding to terrorize wikipedia =D -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 20:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howie Carr

[edit]

Thanks for letting me know about the watermarks on the pictures on Carr's site. The guy must be a Carr flunky after all. It puts Howie Carr in a very bad light in my opinion, not so much about articles that are just copies of the crap off of his website, but the way this guy has been acting and working and the error of insisting that we don't have a right to post PD images. Dwain 21:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My RfB

[edit]

Oh, dear. I appreciate you fixing the typo. It's a wiki, after all!

Kind regards, Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 03:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psst! It's okay! You can vote too! *nudge nudge* ;-) Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 03:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Salemme

[edit]
  • Lanoitarus,
I apologize for bringing this to your attention however, I recently transferred an article from Wikipedia:Articles for creation and, while admittedly it seemed to contain some wording from the website provided I had been in the process of reformatting and rewriting said article when 24.147.103.146 placed a copy violation template citing "To change a few words does not make this original work. This is a violation of the US Copyright laws.". I've since left a message on his talk page and, while I don't believe including publicly known facts such as a birthdate, dates, leader of the Patriarca crime family, etc. included in the article is a copyright violation (particularly when the website of the subject is included as a source), I would be more then happy to rewrite the article. I would have started on a temporary page however, as most my previous work would be included, would this still be seen as a copyright violation ? Again my apologies for bothering you but I wasn't sure where to bring this as it isn't vandalism or a similar offence. MadMax 19:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the article to remove any copyvios there were, it shoudl be clean now. new article is at the temp page Frank_Salemme/Temp -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 06:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job, thanks for helping out with this mess. --Michael Snow 17:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The normal procedure is to replace the page with a warning, list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and rewrite it on a temp page (exactly as you did) or start over later after any infringing versions have been removed. --Michael Snow 18:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs Moran

[edit]

Re: Image:Bugsmoran.gif, just a comment-- we never had this image id'd as a mug shot. Rather, User:Kwertii marked it PD, without stating a source, when he uploaded it. Granted, that makes it nosource, and some of Kwertii's other images have been deleted as copyvios. I only mention it because its frustrating that we find ourselves in such a defensive posture. I would love to be able to turn it around and say "OK, prove that you hold copyright on the image", but after banging my head against copyright law for some time now, I admit that I am baffled about how it is supposed to work. I just get the feeling that we may be being bullied by someone who has no better claim to the image than we have. Note that it also appears at [1] which pretty clearly is not a Howie Carr site.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have marked it as a copyvio-- I think it's the right thing to do under the circumstances. I'm just not convinced that it really is one. Wouldn't you think that if he did have a valid claim, he'd trot it out-- say, 'look, I acquired this image from such-and-such stock agency' and be done with it? Or simply file a take-down notice under the new ISP laws? -- Mwanner | Talk 13:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do I redirect a page?

[edit]

I really dont know where to ask and whome to ask this question so I am bugging you. I want a page kumar chetan to redirect to my user page. Actaully I was trying to create a page with kumar chetan and I use kumar_ldh as my user name in all sites. I am still confused how to do it. Kindly leave a message on my talk page. Thanks a lot in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumar Idh (talk • contribs)

  • Hey, sorry it took me a while to get back to you, I was on vacation. To create a redirect you can check out Wikipedia:Redirect, but basically you just type #REDIRECT [[NAME OF PAGE 2]]. However, you really arent supposed to be making articles about yourself anyway unless you are someone famous, in accordance with WP:NN-- What exactly is it you want to do? Let me know and im happy to help. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 23:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I am not vandalizing

[edit]

Please don't block me or send any messages to me. I did not vandalize anything. I barely ever even use Wikipedia. Just for research. I did not do anything. I don't understand how my IP is said to be vandalizing. Please help, I didn't do anything! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.65 (talk • contribs)

  • Looks like you are an AOL user, so you have a dynamic IP which makes it very likely that someone else was vandalising, not you (dynamic IPs are used by multiple AOL users) The best way to avoid this is to create an account of your own. Its free quick and simple. Thanks and sorry i took so long to get back to you, i was on vacation -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 23:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bruegger's Bagels

[edit]

Hey, looks like you are crossing the limits of the 3RR over on Bruegger's Bagels. Im gonna help you keep a eye on it, because much of what is being added does seem to be corporate, but please do follow the 3RR in the meantime. Some of what is being added is good info, too.

Thanks. I realized I was at my third revert, so that's why I didn't revert again. I think 68.9.138.84 went a bit over the line with a few comments in reverting his text; e.g. "Fuck off, deuce bag. I am telling you, I made this from scratch." and "Damn you, you son of a bitch, leave this page alone." don't necessarily tell me that he's trying to work as a team here,... I almost think he should be banned just for using edit comments like that, though it's hard to deal with anonymous users. Dr. Cash 23:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up yours, deuce bag. - —the preceding unsigned comment is by Peteg9130 (talk • contribs)

  • Its "douche", actually. Oh, and please stop violating the 3RR, if you don't mind. If you have changes to suggest that are good they will be incorporated, but this edit warring is not productive. Use the talk page or talk to the other parties directly. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 23:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You people really are off your rockers. In fact, I am finished with wikipedia all together. Oh yeah, I almost forgot. BURN —the preceding unsigned comment is by Peteg9130 (talk • contribs)

Hey, I actually deliberately removed the Corporate History section during middle of the revert war, but the removal was quite purposeful: it was lifted verbatim from http://www.brueggers.com/founder.html and is therefore a copyright violation, so I went ahead and removed it per WP:C. Looks like in the craziness with vandalism people thought it was removed accidentally.

Oops, didn't realize that. Copyright violations would be a bad thing. Dr. Cash 00:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. This guy really needs to get a clue. We'll just have to keep checking and reverting, I guess,... Dr. Cash 22:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:216.20.1.215

[edit]

Hi Lanoitarus - noticed you have put a note at this IP number talk page saying that vandalism dome by this number will be reported to the number owner. Someone at this number has been vandalising Fig; could you report this as stated, please? - Thanks, MPF 13:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Jimbo Wales

[edit]

I was not about to delete the anon's comments, I only reverted the previous blanking. Maybe he did it by mistake. Cheers. Cyberevil 05:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

Hello Lanoitarus,

You seem like a good guy, I'd like to chat with you off line. Could you send me an email at capncarr(at)comcast.net? Thanks

[edit]

Hello Lanoitarus,

The violation is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade

The trigger for the First Crusade was Emperor Alexius I’s

and

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/fh_aug_chapter21.html By Craig Winn http://www.YadaYahweh.com - All Rights Reserved - 2005

The trigger for the First Crusade was Emperor Alexius I’s

My IP has been blocked by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adam_Bishop. I've sent a note on the previous ticket of violations which is being worked by Michael Snow of this.

Some system. They steal content and when you push the issue they block your IP address.

As you may know, I have issued complaints with the hosting company and the FBI on other issues. These (crusades) are not content I control but will notify the original authors and provide the information they will need to issue a criminal complaint if in fact (provided they are the content owners) If the admins want to block me I will bypass Wikipedia and work directly with the owners and law enforcement. Not that I can't use alternate IPs.

PS How about unblocking my other IP address? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.138.1 (talk • contribs)


  • Ok, I went and found the copied sentence you mentioned, but it has been removed from the article since then anyway. Was it just that one sentence? As for your blocking, I do think it was a bit out of turn, especially since noone seems to have bothered to notify you or warn you on your talk page. However, I am not an admin so I have no power to unblock you, but I'll see what I can do. In the future, especially with obscure copyvios like this, I think it would help your cause allot if you provided the specific violation detail up front. You can add this to the article talk page or directly below the copyvio tag. Frankly, given how hard the one copied sentence was for me to find in the article, if I didnt know you had a history of finding valid copyvios, I would have thought it was senseless vandalism too. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 19:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I'm not sure that was actually a copyright violation; who knows, maybe that guy took the sentence from here in the first place (it has been here for over a year). I interpreted the anon's actions as simple trolling, so I'm not particularly interested in listening to further complaints from him - if an anonymous editor knows enough about Wikipedia to use the copyvio tag without ever making any other edits, they are obviously not some random person who happened to stumble across the site with good intentions. (And it was simple enough to reword the sentence, which I have done.) Adam Bishop 19:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, alright. I've unblocked him. Adam Bishop 21:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Please see update to copyright removal post thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.9.174.130 (talk • contribs)


Question

[edit]

Why did you re add the advertisement tag? It was removed by the community. I have reformated this article to correspond with the guide lines and terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remagine (talk • contribs)

Important

[edit]

I have fixed the article countless times (REMAGINE). Made it so it doesnt read like an add and more of and informational page but yet the advertisment tag keeps being added. Had other members of the community remove the link, but yet it remains. What gives? View the discusssion page on REMAGINE for details. Remagine 01:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Appreciate your help. I think in the future I'll just notify the copyright holders of how to register a complaint with the FBI & hosting company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.103.146 (talk • contribs)

I tried that route, it didn't work. Only when I started to file criminal complaints was the problem addressed. As to "Jimbo", I never once rec'd a note back from him. I sent out my first notice to an author yesterday, complete with how to file a criminal complaint. I'm now thinking about building a website devoted to what's going on here. The reality is that editors and admins are so hot on climbing the ladder that they steal content to add to thier list of articles. Once it's up there it's very difficut to get it removed, just about impossible if you try to deal with the editors and admins. Another other problem is with groups who "own" pages. I've dealt with a group in the past that refused to take the advise of consensus and push thier pov. There is no way to deal with these guys. Then, I find that content I or a pal wrote has been stolen wholesale. Instead of fighting them I'll spend my time informing others of how to file criminal complaints. I tried to "play the game". Guys like Jmabel, Jpgordon, Robert McClenon, Gamaliel, Hall Monitor, and Kelly Martin have ruined the project. It's thier way or no way. Well, no way is fine with me. Guys like them damage the project more than any vandal. You can fix vandalism, you can't fix a group of "editors" who protect each other.

Need your help

[edit]

Hello, you were helping me the other day on the copyright issue for the name REMAGINE. I have left you a new post on that copyright violation wiki article. I need your advice and help to resolve this matter. Take care. Remagine 16:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator Levitation

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Elevator levitation, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.137.7 (talk • contribs)

  • Although i appreciate your grasp of our warning templates, the article I re-added was not a copyvio, and your deletion of it was vandalism. Please don't mis-use our warning templates. I consider your comment above as vandalism to my talk page, but since I firmly believe in paper trails I will not delete it. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 18:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The content posted on Wikipedia is based off a trade secret - one specifically designed by Peter Loughran. The work within the manuals which talk about the secret are copyrighted work. Maybe people here at Wikipedia have the two reversed - copyrights and trade secrets? Maybe a quick review of Trade Secrets as defined by Wikipedia should be review -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_rights_to_magic_methods#Trade_secret and also trade secret information -> http://www.howstuffworks.com/question625.htm
There is obviously a big differance between information that can be easily found by the public as for one that cant...which in this case purchasing the product gives you the rights to use the trade secret to use in your act and not to divulge this to your audience. In this case it is easy to see that it is being used harmfully towards to the originator.
You can argue that this is just a method...but what you buy is what you have on Wikipedia...thus harming the originator of his profits...the method is barely even mentioned...which would be patter and how to rigg yourself...etc....instead what is here is mainly the trade trade secret he worked hard at and what you purchase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.137.7 (talk • contribs)
Unfortunately, whether the information here is the same as is for sale elsewhere is irrelevant. Wordings are copyrightable, methods are patentable. We have not taken your wording (therefore no copyvio), and the method is not patented, so there is no patent concern. While I am very sorry that you feel we are taking money from the trick's inventor, we are violating no laws-- Perhaps you should write to your congressman. Besides, anyone who actually wants to perform the trick would still have to buy the rig from the commercial site, so I find it hard to believe we are harming much. As an aside, I personally feel magic tricks have no place here on wikipedia- But the point is, your grounds for deletion are totally false, and you are not followign our procedures. Feel free to list the article for a vote for deletion at Articles for Deletion- I personally would vote to delete, and im sure others would. But your current approach is in violation of our procedures and will be enforced as such. Please stop vandalising our site. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 18:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry that you feel that way. As far as vandalizing...I have not done such thing. There is a differance of someone vandalizing a site and someone that is protecting ones interest. In concern to this issue I am only attempting to make one aware of content that should not be part of the site. Now I can and will make one last attempt. Keep elevator 1 and just delete elevator 2 information. That will make both I and the inventor happy as well as many others that i represent.
As for deletion I have to say this site is very complex and complicated on how things are setup...doesnt make things easy for deleting. I will ago ahead and attempt to submit the articles for deletion.
This illusions/trick is also simlar to the Cris Angel Self Levitation also found to have copy righted issues. Has nothing from the manual but does expose information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.137.7 (talk • contribs)
  • I think you are mixing up the law with my "feelings". I'm just telling you what the law says, and why what you are saying is not correct. Thats fact. Blanking is Vandalism. You are also now in violation of the Three Revert Rule which states that you cannot make essentially the same edit more than three times in 24 hours. If you want to discuss this, please do so at the articles talk page or at articles for deletion. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 18:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry it seems that way. But it is far from what my attempts are. As for placing in the articles for deletion I have posted it -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_14

Hello Lanoitarus. Thanks for your efforts at Elevator levitation and for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elevator levitation. I am pretty sure I agree with you. I'm very interested to see how the AfD goes. Best, Johntex\talk 02:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Avenue Subway

[edit]

Thanks for the compliments regarding the 2nd Avenue Subway page. I think the original Second Ave page covers it pretty well too. Perhaps the parts to keep from 2nd Ave version are the A New 21st Century Attempt and See Also, because they have relevant information that isn't covered in the orginal artical and the links are useful. Regaring the image of the 2nd Avenue Subway from the MTA website. The one arguement I would make in favor of using it is the fact that it comes from a publicly released PDF document about the project scope. It seems to me that such a publicly required document should be rather easy to reuse in a non-commercial format like Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock nj (talk • contribs)

  • As I said on the images talk page, the problem isnt the legality as much as it is wikipedia policy. We can only use images that are Public Domain, Fair Use, or Licensed under GFDL or similar licenses. This is none, so although it might be legal (a debatable fact anyway), its still against our policy. If i have time i might recreate a image to replace it with. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 00:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess if it's against Wikipedia policy to use the 2nd Ave subway map image from the public planning document, then we can't use it. I just thought that in this case, since it is a proposed public works project, that using an image that depicts the route (useful information for the reader) would be worth making an exception.

The image is in the public domain and is usable, however your credit is wrong and violates the copyright. DMJM Harris did not create this image (my company did) and the credit should read "MTA NYCT/Capital Construction". Also, the 2nd Avenue Subway project is a JOINT venture between Arup and DMJM Harris and should be credited such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukem3d (talk • contribs) 20:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting clone?

[edit]

Sorry, I don't get it? You reverted a insignificant clone of the Balducci levitation back to its own page, making research more difficult. See talk page on the clone's page - check my edits on Balducci, then (unless you find valid historical reasons to keep the clone separate) merge it to Balducci again. --TStone 04:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another "sorry" - this time for the lack of diplomacy shown by me above. Your last comment on my page was very kind and curteous (is that how it's spelled?), and had me in a good mood for several minutes :-) I should have understood your position better. Anyway, thank you for the kind message --TStone 20:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

[edit]

Lanoitarus, what is that header crap on your user page?

68.9.138.84 01:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is pretty funny. :-)

Barnstar, OTR & PUA Review

[edit]

FYI. You may want to look and comment here: Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Proposed Changes. For your reference, the guidelines are referenced here: Barnstar Proposal Guidelines. Thanks -- evrik 18:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

203.32.119.33

[edit]

Hello and you are welcome. 31 hours is an auto option along with others. A block can be any amount of time. 31 hours is an odd amount of time which gets the vandal off schedule since most of them will be right back 24 hours later to go at it again. Thanks for the good work.--Dakota ~ ° 04:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Vandalism reverts

[edit]

As a student how do you have the privilege of taking care of vandalism that is put on pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.159.229 (talk • contribs)

Alright got it, didn't know about all this stuff. Now I want my IP address off the site is it possible to do somehow? Creating an account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.159.229 (talk • contribs)


Vandalism on Muhammad page

[edit]

Perhaps that was the wrong way to deal with it, but User:RedCrescent has, along with many others from both sides (see the history, I am vigilant about each, most of my edits are eliminating spam links such as Answering Islam or Answering Christianity), been essentially vandalizing this page by coming back from time to time and eliminating language that has been hammered out, if occasionally with contention, on the talk page.Timothy Usher 08:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFM

[edit]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Medical analysis of circumcision, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Alienus 02:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Led Zeppelin page

[edit]

you sent me this message:

Please stop. If you cntinue to vandalize pages, as you did to Led Zeppelin, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

All I did was remove the line "fuk this site" from the bottom of the article. Please tell me where the vandalization took place as I am greatly confused. Thanks

Mistake

[edit]

I did not vandalize the World War I article; instead, I cleaned it up. Searching for World War I, I came across the main article, which had "HI MOM EAT POOP" written in it. I deleted that because I found it silly and offensive. How is this vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.129.250 (talk • contribs)

  • Yep, i already saw that and deleted the warning from your user page, terribly sorry for the mixup, i meant to warn the person who added it, but you popped into the edit history a moment before and i mis-clicked. Welcome! -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 19:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for deleting the warning and for the welcome. :)

VandalProof 1.1 is Now Available For Download

[edit]

Happy Easter to all of you, and I hope that this version may fix your current problems and perhaps provide you with a few useful new tools. You can download version 1.1 at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Let me warn you, however, to please be extremely careful when using the new Rollback All Contributions feature, as, aside from the excessive server lag it would cause if everyone began using it at once, it could seriously aggitate several editors to have their contributions reverted. If you would like to experiment with it, though, I'd be more than happy to use my many sockpuppets to create some "vandalism" for you to revert. If you have any problems downloading, installing, or otherwise, please tell me about them at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs and I will do my best to help you. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deny recognition poll

[edit]

(Note that this is a form notification.)

Hello Lanoitarus. Since you commented on the Deny recognition proposal, this is to notify you that a formal poll has been opened concerning it. If it is accepted, it will be be used as a launching pad to amend other policies such as the deletion policy; that page itself will be marked as historical, not policy. Feel free to reread the proposal and place your vote. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 07:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

[edit]

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fraud

[edit]

Wikipedia is a fraud. The fact that some 'higher up' at an organization can revert a statement or edit by a free speaking individual is disgusting and a slap in the face. Freedom of speech should be upheld at any cost; WIKI is the downfall of this god given right. The creators of Wiki need to realize that this creation is now in the hands of the public at large; they are not god and therefore it is not their place to determine editing reactions due to any criteria. Please allow users to edit and complete articles at will and only interfere when slanderous or blatently untrue information is presented. STOP CENSORING OUR FREEDOM TO INFORMATION AND SPEECH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.202.169 (talk • contribs)

Image:California State Route 1 Looking North

[edit]

I am working on recaptioning images to provide context for the images. I was wondering if you could identify where on SR-1 you were when you took this image: Image:California State Route 1 Looking North.jpg.

Thanks!

Epolk 23:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
  • Lanoitarus,
I'm not sure if you remember me, although I had previously contacted you in a conflict with User:24.147.103.146 regarding Frank Salemme. In recent weeks an anonymous user has repeatedly inserted messages claiming a copyright violation of a photo I uploaded in September 2006 from the book "Paddy Whacked: The Untold Story of the Irish-American Gangster" by T.J. English. The image in question, a photo of Boston mobster James "Buddy" McLean, is cited in the book as property of the Boston Police Department. Under this reasoning, I feel the photo falls into public domain and is used under Wikipedia's fair use policies, as "a historically significant photo of a famous individual" and "used only for informational purposes".
The anonymous user (User:24.34.42.90), who claims the photo is property of the website http://whiteyworld.com, has repeatedly inserted his opinions on the image summery. I have tried to discuss the matter with him on the talk page, however, he has continued to rewriting the image summery. I would certainly concede the two photos are similar in some respects, and he is certainly entitled to point out copyright violations and infringement when he may see it; however he had apparently begun making unwarranted accusations and has at this point stopped responding. I've recently talked to User:Sam Spade regarding this issue and I'd rather not get involved anymore then I have already. I can produce the actual page from the book if necessary; however I am concerned that any other images I have uploaded (as well as those I may in the future) would come under similar attack. MadMax 19:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

[edit]

Stop changing Cory Lidle. He is DEAD! NeoExelor 21:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SigEp

[edit]

Are you a SigEp? -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislk02 (talk • contribs) 13:20, November 13, 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry I forgot to sign my page. I will do it right this time. Chris Kreider 22:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Avenue Subway test edit

[edit]

I hope that my very short-lived test edit of the SAS article did not violate any guidelines. I added a deliberately (and obviously) incorrect statement, that the full SAS would open in 2007, merely to illustrate a point on the Subchat discussion board, and deleted the edit in less than five minutes

PROSA

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lanoitarus/archive1&oldid=189336059"