User talk:Seriousspender

Important! – your message will be reverted if..

it is a template message from this category, write your own
you beat around the bush

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Seriousspender, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on List of YouTube celebrities. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. In a recent edit you left the summary "reverting self-promoting faggots". This is an inherantly bad faith remark, and potentially could upset other editors reviewing the page history. Wikipedia is a very inclusive community, and you are requested to refrain from such comments in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willirennen (talk • contribs)

Anonymous

		The Anonymous Question Mark
		Is awarded to Seriousspender, for finding vague references for the 4chan article. -Anonymous 13:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"fact" tag

Thank you for your contribution to 4chan, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started. Thank you. Lengthy Cat (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to remove the fact tag, remove the fact tag. You are using that as an excuse to restore your joke edit, and it is vandalism Lengthy Cat (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4chan lead

Feel free to edit- if you want to discuss the matter, the article talk page would be best, so that others can contribute. J Milburn (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:IMG 0305 4chan threat.jpg

Resolved.

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:IMG 0305 4chan threat.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth would the image not be eligible for copyright? J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I DID put up the correct license- it is copyrighted, and not released under a free license, and so we can only use it under a claim of fair use. You can't just grab photos from the Internet and claim that they are inelligible for copyright. Also, it is up to the uploader to explain why the images are the license that they claim they are, not the person who challenges them... J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer? The way copyright law works, an image copyrighted until proven not so. This isn't inelligible for copyright under any law that Wikipedia recognises, and unless you have information about the photographer releasing it under a free license, then I am afraid it is still copyrighted in the usual sense, meaning Wikipedia doesn't like it. J Milburn (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the new image and added to the rationale a little, that looks fine. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape

It does not state unequivocally that players were dissatisfied with the updates, it is clearly inferred however. I could change the description to better reflect the source but it would take much more room. I thought the use of "dissatisfaction" was a neutral enough term and as I put in the talk page, I felt it was appropriate considering the import of the source. If you disagree, I will re-write it. I do not think there is any dispute that the series of updates was not "welcomed" by all players.Mysteryquest (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well its not as if there are many proper "sources" for runescape outside of runescape itself. Its obvious that the updates were met with some consternation however, I'm not sure that I can find a source that meets Wiki standards. Of course there is a lot in the article that is not sourced simply because sources are not available. If you have a problem with me saying that their was "dissatisfaction" with the updates then by all means delete it.Mysteryquest (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes the guide was written by a disgruntled player but he was not the only one. It is quite true that many players reflexly moan about even the most insignificant update. However, this series of updates changed the very nature of the game and there is much information on the web pertaining to the fact that there was a groundswell of opposition to the updates and what they did the game. Of course, most if not all of them, as you point out, do not meet Wikipedia requirements. I will continue searching for a source that does as I believe this would be a significant contribution to the article.Mysteryquest (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree with you, I believe some exposition is necessary inasmuch as this is the acceptable source which indicates the breadth of the changes and hints at the negative reaction to them. Thus, I feel it is appropriate to have more exposition though normally I try to curtail it.Mysteryquest (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was a big deal as many sources plainly indicate. Even though those sources are not "Wiki acceptable" they can not be easily ignored or discarded. Runescape is a very popular game and its decision to manifestly alter the game to combat Real World Trading, an affliction that affects many similar games, was a serious decision with far reaching ramifications and I think that's quite relevant. I will continue to search for an acceptable source.Mysteryquest (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These updates completely altered many popular, important and long standing components of the game. These were not "regular" updates with minimal consequences by any stretch of the imagination. They opened up a far reaching discussion on many aspects of the game, social policy and economics which is reflected in many internet sources. It is true that these sources are not Wiki acceptable, however that does not make them not real. How familiar are you with Runesape, not that that is relevant per se, I'm just curious.Mysteryquest (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, someone else?Mysteryquest (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Gaming HQ

Why has Global Gaming HQ been put up for deletion? Is the Alexa link proving RuneHQ's (one of GGHQ's sites) status as the largest RuneScape help site not significant enough? In addition (but much less significant), RuneHQ is listed as the largest help site in the RuneScape article on Wikipedia. Isn't the notability of the site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikuiaku (talk • contribs) 02:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/The Negotiator for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. IAmSasori (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing multiple redirects/disambiguations of the same subject, some even on the same article, for apparently only the reason that subject is there, consecutively and repeating the actions of a similar user with little edits and is currently blocked warrents suspicion. Assuming good faith is not an issue, as it is only a suspicion, and if you are innocent, then you will come out of this free. IAmSasori (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing to prove a point is a notable guideline broken, as the target seems to be vague references only RuneScape players would type in, yet is obviously only exclusive to RuneScape and decided to change it to an irrelevant target.

This expands to the issue that lies in the fact that the editing to prove a point policy has a connection with the sock puppetry policy, which you are suspected of doing. IAmSasori (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As said, it is the point guideline in conjunction with sock puppetry that is the main issue. Rather than arguing about what you're editing on, argue about being suspected as a sock puppet of an already blocked account. Would you invite a checkuser to prove me wrong?

And I did not include Fagex in the list of evidence, as I know that is inappropriate.

You should assume good faith also if you believe I am enjoying nominating World of Warcraft articles. IAmSasori (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You edit redirects/disambiguations solely for ridding them of their RuneScape relevance, attempting to rid any connection to that game in the first place. IAmSasori (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to check what caused this scenario in the first place to understand the situation. IAmSasori (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked as a sock puppet of an indefinitely blocked user. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/The Negotiator for evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

give up, can't be bothered with this shit--Seriousspender (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you deny that you operated the Snakese account? Jehochman ^Talk 21:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of YouTube celebrities

An editor has nominated List of YouTube celebrities, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (3rd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:4chan Pflugerville bomb threat.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:4chan Pflugerville bomb threat.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Orphaned non-free image (File:Devious2.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Devious2.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. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]