User talk:S3884h

What do I have to do to fix this problem?

I'm what you would considered a intermediate wikipedian, meaning I don't know all the rules and regulations yet, espcially when it comes to image citiations. I never even uploaded an image before on here, let alone know how to do it. With that said, there's an image that was tagged for deletion that I feel strongly about saving. I don't know if I have the ability to save the image, but I'm willing to give it a shot. As a first-timer doing this, I may need a tutor or an extensive step-by-step instruction manual for this. What do I have to do to make sure this particular image avoids deletion? A message on my talk page would be greatly appreciated.

Image:DealorNoDealMissUSA.jpg

S3884h (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do is provide a use rationale for each use, explaining why this non-free image should be used there despite Wikipedia’s preference for not using non-free content. See the non-free use rationale guideline. Pay particular attention to explaining how it satisfies WP:NFCC#8: “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” --teb728 t c 08:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Banker

I've reverted your edit. I think it's better to discuss it on the article's Talk Page rather than revert them. If other agree to remove it then I would understand. Grounded into a double play (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deal or No Deal

You're welcome. I may despite Deal or No Deal itself, but I'm still willing to make sure that its article isn't laden with trivia such as what Grounded is uploading. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you were offended by me posting the banker's image on Deal or No Deal. I thought it looked like the guy and I thought is was a good idea. I wasn't looking to damage the article. If you feel that image doesn't belong I won't repost it. Grounded into a double play (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deal or No Deal (3/1/08)

Would you please explain why you undid my edits? Most of my changes consisted of wikifying the content, in particular: (1) Making the tone more encyclopedic. (2) Removing the repetitive links to Howie and the models (they don't need to be linked every time they are mentioned). (3) Fixing the formatting (the title is not supposed to be boldfaced every time it appears). (4) Removing extraneous formatting (someone confused proper nouns with titles). I'm not going to get into the argument of what belongs and what doesn't, since to a large extent, I don't care. But I think that whatever is there should mirror the rest of Wikipedia in terms of style. (And, for the record, the argument that the tone doesn't match won't work, because the rest of the article has been flagged for non-compliance with WP standards to begin with.) Samer (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If there are lots of runs-ons, typos, etc., that's because I didn't go through the entire article; I started with the tables (since that seemed to be the easiest spot to start). [And, I might add, I ran it through a spell-checker before uploading; the only errors it caught were contestants' names). I should have been clearer about my previous statement "I'm not going to get into the argument...", since it's obvious, from your reaction, that what I meant to say is not what you understood it to mean (and that's my fault). What I was trying to say is that I was not going to be an edit Nazi (for lack of a better term) and hack the article to death. And I agree that style and "encyclopedic tone" are obviously subjective, but there are clearly problems with some of the stuff that's in the article now (e.g., a random "OPA!" interjected for no reason). My goal was not to delete information, but simply to try and make it better, while making it a little shorter. [I can see that the article is drastically different than what used to be there; arguably the most important detail of the game--the actual values used in a normal game--is now gone. That said, I didn't look all that closely at the history page, so I can't yet comment on the 'rogue' editor you discussed.]

But as you suggested, I'm going to leave the article more-or-less alone for now For the moment, I'm going to make just one change to the current article, and that's to delete all the duplicate links for Howie and the models. I think we can both agree that that's unnecessary. Samer (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've left negative information about the Pats in articles, provided that it's properly sourced, and not written in a style that makes the offense seem worse than it is. Samer (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troublemaker on DOND page?

I'm new here, and caught your message, but I don't know who the problem is. Care to elaborate if possible??? Thanks

Dennyg2007 (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meet the Press

Okay... seriously? Click here and let's have a look at Meet the Press's home page.

Note that the name of the show given in the heading, the "About us" section, the page's title, the transcript for the last two shows (here and here), the show details for the last two shows (here and here), as well as press releases related to Gregory's becoming the moderator. They all say the show's name is "Meet the Press". At no point, ANYWHERE in the text, does the show get identified as "Meet the Press with David Gregory". If you plan on arguing that the logo reads "Meet the Press with David Gregory", consider that, based on the fact that this particular phrase appears nowhere else on the web site, that it's simply a title card that identifies the moderator's name. In other words, it's "Meet the Press", with David Gregory. Even the logo image's alternate text reads "Meet the Press".

In the future, please do some basic research before aruging something so very easily proven to be untrue. It wastes everybody's time. Thanks. Warren -talk- 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it is not my intention to be mean and hostile, but you just opened a big can of worms with this.

First of all, you live in Canada. For all I can tell, you probably do not have Meet the Press where you live, let alone watch it. Secondly unlike you, I don’t go around editing articles I have absolutely no knowledge about. I actually watch the show on Sundays. When Tim Russert was still alive, the show AND ARTICLE was called “Meet the Press with Tim Russert.” When he died, it was temporality called “Meet the Press.” Finally when the new permanent moderator was named, everything changed, Buddy. The title card that is shown the moment the show goes on air every Sunday morning. That is the same title card that is shown on this article. The website, which is also the link you provided me. ALL OF THEM say “Meet the Press with David Gregory.” At the very beginning of the show, the announcer say “From NBC News in Washington, this is Meet the Press with David Gregory.” Third, the “about us” section, and all those links that you provided me, those are not relevant sources. I don’t know where on earth you got that idea.

You really think you can just go to any article you wish and put whatever you can pull out of your rear. You are no better than those obnoxious vandals who go around putting a bunch of nonsense on any wikipedia article for nothing more than pure amusement. I’m not a fan of David Gregory, but at least I will put credit where credit is due, unlike you who wishes to cause controversy. You tell me to do “some basic research before aruging something so very easily proven to be untrue. It wastes everybody's time.” No offense, I look at that statement, and I laugh my butt off. Everything considered, you really made yourself look very unintelligent with that last remark. Knowing that you have a history of run-ins with other wikipedia editors who have a bone to pick with you, why the heck should I listen to a word you say. Why don’t all of us reputable editors a favor, and do some REAL research before making yourself look like a particular part of a donkey in front of everybody.

On and one last thing, Merry Christmas. S3884h (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... I'm astounded that you have the gumption to come to my talk page and lie straight to my face, while asserting that somehow because my user page identifies me as Canadian, I'm not qualified to edit (or even know about) a topic. You need to understand a few things:

1) Meet the Press is broadcast in Canada on NBC, as it is in the United States (TV Guide Canada listings for Sunday morning). MSNBC is also available in Canada on top-tier cable and satellite offerings (Rogers, e.g.). It's also available from MSNBC's web site (and via iTunes) as a podcast, and yes, that podcast is available in Canada. There also used to be a MSNBC Canada which broadcast Meet the Press.

2) Me personally, I've been watching Meet the Press on and off since 2000. After watching Russert's role in covering the 2000 Presidential Election, I decided I wanted to follow this guy some more. By the time 2008 started I was watching every week, and I watched MSNBC's coverage of Russert's death in its entirety.

3) But now the important thing as far as Wikipedia is concerned: Neither of #1 or #2 matter, because Wikipedia operates on the principle of reliable sources and verifiability, not stupid things like whether or not you're from the "correct" country or are "qualified" to write on a topic. Newspaper archives and the Internet have plenty of historical and analytical information about Meet the Press, and ((I can't believe I have to tell anyone this)) we get precisely the same Internet in Canada as we do in the United States (modulo advertising), and our newspapers routinely report on United States news, and on things that have taken place on Meet the Press and other Sunday morning political talk shows.

4) The edit history of "Meet the Press with Tim Russert" shows pretty clearly that at no time has it ever been anything other than a redirect to Meet the Press. The move log for "Meet the Press" pretty clearly shows that the article was never called "Meet the Press with Tim Russert". That name has been used in the Infobox, but it's been incorrect all this time. It happens.

5) NBC, in their press releases and transcripts, pretty much always refer to the show as "Meet the Press", regardless of who was moderator at the time. There are occasional uses of "Meet the Press with Tim Russert" as a show name, but those are few and far between, and are vastly outnumbered by the number of references to the show being titled "Meet the Press".

6) The MSNBC web site is very clear in that the name of the show is "Meet the Press". You're outright lying when you assert that it says "Meet the Press with David Gregory". You know you're lying. I know you're lying. I can produce screenshots that back up what I'm saying; you can't. I wouldn't be making this assertion if I couldn't prove I'm right.

7) The reason, the -only- reason I get into a lot of arguments with people is because there are quite a number of people who come to Wikipedia to push their pet causes or to cause trouble, and really take a great deal offense when they get push-back on that. It's part of the drudgery of being a regular editor across a wide variety of articles, something that, let's face it, you don't have much experience with. Your contributions to the Deal Or No Deal articles are great and well appreciated by all, but that work, and a dozen edits on the Meet the Press article is very nearly the sum total of your editing experience here. Then there's me -- I've edited about 5,000 different pages on Wikipedia; you're at 124.

8) I'd love to hear the line of sound, logical reasoning that can equate an editor who in three years has made over 17,000 edits to 5,000 pages, has never been blocked, has had articles they've worked become some of the encyclopedia's most commonly-read pages, and has been a supporter and insistent enforcer of Wikipedia's content policies, with being a "vandal". What a hoot.

Oh, and don't think that this edit of yours where you changed the lead sentence of the Sarah Palin article to add "who I want to have hot passionate anal sex with", the day before the 2008 Presidential Election, hasn't gone unnoticed. Between that and your assertions that what a television's own web site says the name of the show is not relevant... is this a a sign of the quality of contributions you plan on bringing to the encyclopedia in the future? Because frankly, we'd be better off without. Warren -talk- 20:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, what?S3884h (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the best you can do for a response, then please, do the encyclopedia a favour and stop edit-warring on Meet the Press. What you're doing at this point is engaging in vandal-like behaviour and edit warring. Consider this an official warning -- it must stop. Continued behaviour along these lines will result in your being blocked from editing the encyclopedia, and I'm pretty sure that's not the goal you have in mind here. Warren -talk- 07:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous references have been provided on Talk:Meet The Press to document the title as "Meet The Press." You've reverted both User:Warren's edit and mine (adding an additional reference) without providing justification, additional references, or contributing to the talk page. Are you willing to work towards Wikipedia:Consensus or do we need to move to one of the dispute resolution processes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardw (talk • contribs) 14:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your allegation on Talk:Gerardw that I am a Warren sockpuppet is not reasonable. Please compare my edit history "User contributions Gerardw". vs. his "User contributions Warren".. May I infer you do not intend engage in discussion on Talk:Meet The Press? Gerardw (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Hi. The encyclopedia would be better served if the ongoing stream of insults on your behalf, directed at me, were dropped in favour of actually improving the encyclopedia by applying our policies. Keep in mind that Wikipedia:No personal attacks is policy, as is Wikipedia:Edit war. If the only thing you're going to do on Wikipedia is go to people's talk pages to complain about me (and your recent contribution history demonstrates that this is the direction you're going), I'm going to have to resort to filing a complaint using one of the venues outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I'm presently doing research on the history of Windows NT from 1997 to 2000 in an attempt to improve History of Microsoft Windows; I'd like to think I could focus on that instead of being dragged down by this pettiness. Thanks. Warren -talk- 13:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the BS name-calling has to stop, but S3884h, you need to read the same WQA report you filed - I clearly stated (as someone who is neutral and involved in the industry) the difference between the LEGAL name of the show, and the "legal name + host". Additional violations of WP:NPA on article or user talk pages will not be well-met. ♪BMWΔ 14:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, not once did I use offensive slang in my comments to the editor in question. I may not have a lot of nice things to say about him. But honesty within boundaries is not against the rules. While I will oblige by what is set by Wikipedia, one thing is not perfectly clear. Why is this editor focusing his time and energy on just one or two talk shows? There are other talk show articles on Wikipedia where the names are clearly on them, but he is not touching them one bit. Call me crazy, but I say this editor is bias against only a few talk shows, and they are the ones that he and I have been edit warring over for the last couple of weeks. If what you say is true, which I’m not saying that I’m doubting, then the focus of you, as the administrator, is to make sure all articles on talk shows, whether Sunday morning or not are uniformly followed clear across the board, and not just on a selected few. To say the very least, I’m not too thrilled about this particular rule. But if that is what the rule say, every article in question must follow it. And from what I see, that is clearly not the case. S3884h (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know something, fool me once. Shame on me. Full me twice, SHAME ON YOU. I just took a look at your profile on here, and from what I read, you hail from the exact same Canadian town as the editor in question. What a coincidence. Give me a reason I shouldn't think that this is not one of your ridiculous sockpuppets, WARREN!!! Your editing mannerism is almost a carbon copy of each other. I take back my previous statement, because I was right about what I said to you a couple days ago. You are nothing but a phony. Tata!!! S3884h (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I just had to copy this across from my talkpage, as this is humourous. Although I don't think it takes too much investigation by even an novice editor to note a) my almost 5000 edits on Wikipedia, b) the topics I tend to edit, c) the difference in my use of language and grammar than another editor, d) the fact that I have never edited any of the topics in question, e) a myriad of other methods to differentiate me from any other editor on Wikipedia. As the old saying goes about accusations of sockpuppetry: put up, or shut up. Please, I encourage you to file a sockpuppetry case here or retract the statements. ♪BMWΔ 16:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that I just scanned Warren's userpage. As specified on my userpage, I live in a city called "Ottawa" - with a census metropolitan area population of more than 1.2 million people. It's located in the province of Ontario, which has the largest population of any province in Canada. I see no place where Warren states that he's from "Ottawa". He is apparently from "Ontario", but that includes Toronto with a CMA population of over 4 million and quite a few other CMA's with more than a half-million population. Still, I stick by it ... file your SSP case or STFU. ♪BMWΔ 16:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put this clearly: You want to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, file it here right now, put your BS in writing, or else STFU ... that's the rules on Wikipedia. ♪BMWΔ 20:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette alert

Based on the above lack of good-faith response to my prior request to work towards dispute resolution, I have filed a Wikiquette alert calling attention to your recent activity on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:S3884h. Thanks. Warren -talk- 18:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's noticeboard

A notice regarding your Meet The Press edit warring is being posted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardw (talk • contribs) 20:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put here by the sockpuppet of the ruthless editor who is going toe to toe with me, and it clearly too coward to reveal himself. You do not fool me, and you certain do not scare me. And learn to sign your name after every statement.S3884h (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please post your accusation at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets. Sorry about not signing the post. Gerardw (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please at least pretend to read the article talk page. You've been told there by multiple people, including myself, who don't give a flip about the show and have no dog in the fight, that you are wrong. --B (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Meet the Press. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 24 hours for your disruption on Meet the Press. Numerous uninvolved people with no concern have looked into the issue and found your contention to be without merit. If, at any point, you are willing to agree to stop reverting on that page, please use the {{unblock}} template, state your willingness to abstain from reverting on that page, and I or another admin will immediately unblock you. --B (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'll wait out the 24 hours. Don't intend to continue this at hour 24:01. In any case, I would like to thank you for my temprorary block. Now I can go about the rest of my day in peace and serenity, while others, not quite so much when here on Wikipedia. Happy New Year. S3884h (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of A.J. Almasi

Orphaned non-free image File:Facethenation.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Facethenation.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, S3884h. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]