Jump to content

User talk:Not a dog/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

"angry"

Ah, i see. I'm sorry. --Striver 12:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to help on A Course in Miracles

Thank you for your suggestion regarding A Course in Miracles! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. JChap2007 16:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a litle bit of a history with this article. Long story short: One of its opponents acted unreasonably on this (chopping it down to nothing) and some other articles and got herself indefblocked. Some admins and editors wanted it chopped down to a stub so that we could start over. The article originally contained no sources. It was also noted that it was a tract, not an encyclopedia article. The editors who were most in favor of keeping it in its present form were ACIM adherents (including our friend). It was proposed that the article be sourced in a month and whatever was still unsourced at the end of that time could be removed. This was resisted by this user with pleas for more time. I say we go ahead and improve this article, but justify any edits we make on the talk page. JChap2007 00:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for keeping me in the loop in this discussion. A few corrections/additions: It is not true that the original article contained no sources. It was sourced but not cited. In terms of, "Some admins and editors wanted it chopped down to a stub so that we could start over.", I think you are referring to yourself and one administrator. The only other two editors that have studied the Course at length and were involved became tired of the conflict and have essentially left WP. You suggested the time frame of complete sourcing and citing in a month. I am weary of the conflict and am about to take a wikibreak. I find it interesting that the two people left editing the article probably have never read ACIM and do not understand it. Instead of utilizing the knowledge of people that know the material, they have been run off.—Who123 02:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Thank you so much for keeping me in the loop in this discussion." is that sarcasm? Anyway, I don't need to have read The Satanic Verses (novel) or Naked Lunch to recognize them as well-written & structured articles about a book. I also don't need to have read them in order to make edits related to extensive quoting, lack of appropriate tone, or redundant mentions within the articles. Same goes for ACIM. Enjoy your break. Not a dog 03:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on this article a bit, saw your comments on the talk page. Let me know if it helped any. The middle section is still pretty jumbled up. Zghost 14:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. thanks. I haven't been around a while, so i'll look at it again Not a dog 10:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Ste4k?

Are you the same person that recently went under the name of Ste4k?—Who123 12:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nope. Not a dog 14:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wireshark on OS X

Well, I don't run Wireshark on OS X myself, but I have seen people using it. You might try following the instructions here: [1]. You'll need Fink and Fink Commander; it can build Wireshark from source (may take a while) or install an older version (of Ethereal, the previous name for Wireshark) as a binary. EdC 14:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hi - thanks for the heads up. This is getting silly. Not a dog 15:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly when it is pretty obvious that based on your edit history you happened upon the Sweetest Day article via your editing of A Course in Miracles, which likely lead you to the linked Miracle Impulse article, then to User:Miracleimpulse's edit history... just like I became aware of the article after it showed up on Articles for Deletion where I used to spend quite a bit of time.--Isotope23 17:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds about right. Mostly doing Random Article hits, and then some stick with me for a while. Not a dog 17:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Sweetest Day Talk

Welcome to the exciting world of unfounded accusations I've been dealing with since I started editing this article. I came across that thread User:Miracleimpulse a few weeks back during mediation when I was looking for some article sources. I never mentioned it up here though because I thought it rather irrelevant but since he brought it up... All I learned from reading the posts there is that User:Miracleimpulse edits from 3 accounts there, likes to reply to his own posts, and apparently has some ill will towards American Greetings and Hallmark over a Greeting card patent they were allegedly interested in but never pursued.--Isotope23 00:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UGM prod tag

You seconded the prod tag on UGM without taking a look at the history, it appears. The article was a perfectly reasonable dab-page prior to vandalism by 193.217.75.52 and by your blind seconding of a prod-tag you aided and abetted that vandalism. Please be more careful next time you go about suggesting that things be deleted. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted wording on Sweetest Day image

I slightly adjusted the wording on the image and explained why on the Talk page. "Creator" vs "Planner" was actually one of the first issues that started this whole Sweetest Day page silliness. If you disagree with my reasoning on the talk page though, I'd be happy to discuss it. Thanks.--Isotope23 19:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like suitable evidence for a WP:CHECK. --Not a dog 22:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

From the bottom of my heart, I would like to thank you for all your hard work in keeping Wikipedia a vandalism-free website. I'm sure that you find your job extremely rewarding, and that you like it a lot more than you would like a real job. With Great Admiration, a love-struck student216.56.81.190 16:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry by miracleimpulse

Ahoy, Not a dog. Regarding your question whether the evidence of additional sockpuppets being used by miracleimpulse, I think it is certainly a good idea to add these to the formal accusation. Specifically, both the IP account 68.60.17.31, as well as the account Eyetomhas, probably both should be listed in the accusation. This may be accomplished by adding additional template tags (such as {{user5|68.60.17.31}} and {{user5|Eyetomhas}}) on the accusation page under the line ";Suspected sockpuppets", and also adding a brief summary of the reasons why these are suspected to be sockpuppets of miracleimpulse. Simply cut'n'pasting the rationales set forth in your comment on the Sweetest Day talk page should be just fine. If you encounter any difficulties, please feel free to let me know and I'll be glad to assist.

Thanks for your contributions and help. —Ryanaxp 17:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And based old edits (actually one left on your discussion page a few months back), I think I've identified an IP address that miracleimpulse used quite a bit to edit Sweetest Day (perhaps before creating an account). Would it be appropriate to list that as well? --Not a dog 17:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy again. I want first to express my appreciation for your support in the sockpuppet issue. However, I have reconsidered my position on this, and I have decided to withdraw my accusation against miracleimpulse. The reasons for this decision are several, primary among them: (1) it dawned on me how petty I am for launching a "formal" complaint in response to a fairly minor indiscretion on the part of the accused, notwithstanding that, clearly, miracleimpulse did in fact engage in the above-discussed half-arsed attempt at chicanery; (2) I've generally found it a good policy to just let most things slide, especially when they really don't concern me (the old chestnut about "letting he who is without sin cast the first stone" comes to mind, despite my own profound lack of religious inclination--must be the Hallmark subliminal Christmas messages infiltrating my skull, no?); and (3) as a practical matter, I just ain't got the time or motivation to properly see this through.

In any event, I hope you can consider my change of stance to be reasonable, in light of the above. Nonetheless, I will refrain from removing my accusation template until the end of the work day, in case you or someone else objects or is inclined to pursue the matter further. Thanks again for your support, and best regards during the holiday season. —Ryanaxp 18:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's reasonable, especially given this revelation regarding a few of the accounts in question. Not a dog 18:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Wishing you the best for the holidays and a Happy New Year. I want to thank you for your continued support to the project, and more specifically for working on and helping me with my articles this year. Best regards to you --Lperez2029 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ugh... he never gives up his WP:TE.--Isotope23 13:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

67.163.193.239

Okay, this is getting irritating, can you tell me how to submit someone to be banned? I'm tired of being harassed by her -_-; —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Obscure80 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You can post at WP:ANI for administrator attention.Not a dog 22:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you didn't take my comments the wrong way about the adding of the link, I just couldn't believe this was still and issue. Sorry if I was rude or whatever. I have unwatched the page, good luck, you'll need it. : ) IvoShandor 07:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken. Thanks for your efforts. Not a dog 07:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good I am glad. My frustration level was pretty high. Hey, I tried. It appears that user has been blocked, however. IvoShandor 08:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also

For more common discussions, see WP:PEREN. >Radiant< 12:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Not a dog 13:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee riverwalk.jpg

Hi, You tagged this image for speedy deletion. As far as I could see (from the human readable version) the CC license given does not restrict commercial use or prevent derivative works. Could you please clarify why you think the image should be deleted. I'm no expert on copyright issues so I welcome to opportunity to learn more if you can help. Cheers, Petros471 11:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the flickr link, and then the license link from that page, and you'll see it is a non-commercial license. Not a dog 13:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the link you've given is NC, but the image was incorrectly tagged (the version on the image did allow commercial). I've deleted it now. Thanks. Petros471 15:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonoma County, California

Thanks for watching out, certainly let's give the police enough time to make it internationally noteworthy. KP Botany 01:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr page indicates the image is protected under copyright, not a CC license. Not a dog 13:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Nuts. I was very careful to look on Flickr only for CC licensed images. Either I made a mistake or the flickr user changed his mind (although I'm not sure if that's possible or not). Whichever it is, I suppose it's going to have to be deleted. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The creator probably changed the license, which is a problem inherent with uploading images from Flickr. Not a dog 21:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


May 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Cow tipping, has been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 16:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how that could be considered vandalism. Not a dog 18:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Themes in Blade Runner

I agree totally with you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vaceituno (talk • contribs) 06:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]


May 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Cow tipping. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ≈ Maurauth (nemesis) 13:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a good reason in the edit summary and in the talk page. Please don't leave vandalism warnings when that ain't the case. Not a dog 14:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Themes in Blade Runner

I agree totally with you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vaceituno (talk • contribs) 06:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]


May 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Cow tipping. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ≈ Maurauth (nemesis) 13:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a good reason in the edit summary and in the talk page. Please don't leave vandalism warnings when that ain't the case. Not a dog 14:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No where did I say it was vandalism, I said it was removing content. You may have good-faith behind your actions, but your thoughts are not any more important than anyone elses. There is a clear consensus of what should be in the article, please stop removing it when you are against the consensus or I will have to report you. ≈ Maurauth (nemesis) 14:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary said it was vandalism. And the warning you left implied that I'm removing content "without a good reason" and that I'm not using edit summaries, which clearly isn't accurate. Please take care when warning users. Not a dog 15:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is all uncontrollable as it's done by TW, which it even states in the edit summary. ≈ Maurauth (nemesis) 15:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you know an edit was not vandalism, and you know that your little tool will automatically label it as vandalism, then don't use the tool for that edit. Not a dog 16:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the tool isn't as uncontrollable as you state - it gives you the option to label an edit as vandalism. You made a similar revert without such a label here. So don't try to blame the technology - it was YOU who chose to say it was vandalism. Not a dog 16:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I selected [1] -> page blanking, removal. Not vandalism. The point is, I gave you a correct warning that you're removing parts of the page that have been decided upon by a very large consensus, and advising you not to remove from the page again. ≈ Maurauth (nemesis) 17:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the above conversation

It is really rude to do what they did. For edits like that they shouldn't use automated tools, and they definitely shouldn't label it as vandalism. — MichaelLinnear 19:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know - and he didn't label yours as vandalism, but why mine? It obviously was in his power not to. Whatever. Not a dog 19:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's also rather rude to do what you're doing after I already explained it was not intended. ≈ Maurauth (nemesis) 08:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Catbert

I really must protest your removal of the "evil polices" section in the Catbert article. First of all, it's similair to the "Pointy Haired Boss" article which has similiar and longer sections. In fact there are hundreds of articles with similair lists. Secondly, it DOES help to explain what Catbert is - in that it gives examples of what the article means by "evil policies." "Evil policies" could mean virtually ANYTHING without a clear example. Thirdly, no one else has complained yet. In fact two people actually liked the "Evil policy" section enough to contribute to it. I request that the "Evil Policy" section in the Catbert article be reinstated. -- 69.42.6.193 04:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Not a dog 11:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annika Sorestam and Charlotta Sorenstam fair use images

Hi, You contacted me because you disputed that the images used on Annika Sorenstam and Charlotta Sorenstam. Please understand that we have previously settled this dispute on Wikipedia with regard to the use of images provided by LPGA.com of their players and it has been established that these fall under the definition of fair use because their are provided as promotional materials to promote their players. These images are provided now for almost all of the LPGA players in their articles. I understand that you are new to Wikipedia and were probably not aware of this. Thanks for understanding. --Crunch 21:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to that discussion and policy decision. thanks. Not a dog 21:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I can't find all the exact discussions. I'll make an attempt to find the admin (which obviously you are not) who worked on the dispute. In the meantime, perhaps you can contact lpga.com and ask them if they object to the approximately 100+ images we've been using on this site for the past two years. They don't. You've been here for about two weeks and are running roughshod through a lot of articles and making a whole lot of enemies in short order. What's your intent? --Crunch 22:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I've been here since August 2006, so spare me your "you're just a newbie" rhetoric. Second, the best practice for fair use is to defer to free images when possible. The very tag you used states, in part: "Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. If this is not the case for this image, a rationale should be provided proving that the image provides information beyond simple identification or showing that this image is difficult to replace by a free-licensed equivalent." Since these are living people who regularly and predictably engage in public activities, free images are readily available. I have no "intent" other than ensuring free use of Wikipedia's content.Not a dog 22:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2006? That's not very long ago. In any case, you just started editing with this name and have quickly come under attack for not understanding policy. Anyway these people do NOT engage in public activities with free images and free images are NOT readily available. The LPGA prohibits use of photography at tournaments by all but their strictly regulated media at tournaments. For this reason, they provide these images. The correct rationale is nonfree promotional --Crunch 12:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QUit trying to pull some "i've been here longer than you" rank bullshit with me. You were wrong when you stated "You've been here for about two weeks" and you're wrong again when you state "you just started editing with this name". Not a dog 13:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and guess what - these players also appear in non-LPGA events (charity events??) where cameras are allowed. They appear at clinics, openings, etc. Cameras also are commonly allowed during practice rounds and pro-ams, such as noted with this weekend's very tournament. Your fair use argument that free images aren't available simply is not accurate. Not a dog 13:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Street artist2.jpg

The copy of the email from Denis Mojado specified clearly that he released his photos, that I had already uploaded, under the by-2.0 CC license. Only for future uploads he required the by-nd-2.0 license (see the talk page of the image). There were no future uploads, since this license was incompatible with Wikipedia. (bolding by me). Therefore I ask you to reconsider this speedy deletion request. JoJan 18:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for missing that email on the talk page - went too quickly through that one. However, I urge you to follow the procedures at WP:ERP: post the details of the permission granted at Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission. You should also send a copy of your request and the response to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" where it will be permanently archived. Not a dog 18:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

I know those kind of references aren't the best ones, but they are the ones that have been used. The text on those year articles is a summary of text on other articles from having checked the "What links here" section for each page. So "Wikipedia articles that link to this article." is actually a very accurate description of where the information has been found. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 22:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. Is this in the manual of style or somewhere else in policy? Not a dog 22:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What makes no sense? If you go to 226 BC and click "What links here", you'll find the list of references. The information in those articles is what the info in the year article is based on. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 14:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is circular logic. You're stating that "these facts happended in year XX because all these articles say they do". Not a dog 15:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because hopefully, those articles have accurate sources and the info on the year articles was based on them. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 20:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Please would you stop wikistalking my images and article, thankyou. ≈ Maurauth (nemesis) 13:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not stalking - please calm down. It is common (and helpful for the project) that if a common error is found by a editor, to double-check other contributions by that editor to ensure the same mistake isn't made twice. Secondly, I also frequently monitor the list of images with fair use and cc-2.0 claims to check for errors, and that's how I came upon some of them in the first place. Worry about the policies, not whether you feel I'm stalking you. Not a dog 15:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you call this?? Not a dog 15:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a very expert knowledge of all things Maiden, and have been watching every Iron Maiden related page, worry about the content, not the contributor! ≈ Maurauth (nemesis) 18:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expert on "all things Maiden"? Good luck with that. Not a dog 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, I am quite proud of my level of knowledge ≈ Maurauth (nemesis) 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Please don't say I was blocked when I was not. Thanks.--James, La gloria è a dio 11:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Look here. You were blocked twice for 3RR violations on Evolution in March. Perhaps you didn't notice, but it happened. Not a dog 11:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you openly acknolwedge and discuss/dispute your previous blocks here and here. Perhaps that will shake your memory. Not a dog 12:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were saying I was just blocked.
I agree with you that I was blocked 2 times for 3RR in March on the Evolution article, but just because I had 2 edits on the article in a 24 hour period in June, does not mean I have broken policy. You have no case against me sir that will get me blocked again. Have a nice week.--James, La gloria è a dio 23:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read more closely. And I suggest you read and heed Seraphimblade's warning to you here. Not a dog 00:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Help

Quote: Original posted by Not a dog Saw your request for help at Sir james paul's page. You can find general help at WP:HELP, and specific help for creating a page at Help:Starting a new page and Wikipedia:Your first article. Not a dog 04:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ty!

Wiikipedian 13:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cow tipping

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. C.m.jones 17:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mess with the bull, you get the horns. SakotGrimshine 17:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's that directed at, Sakot? Not a dog 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Not_a_dog/Archive1&oldid=1096968446"