User talk:TheHorseCollector/Archive3

This would be an archive (3), please don't edit it. If you must say something, go to the active talk page and copy only the text you wish to talk about from this page to my current talk page. Thank you JayKeaton (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image request on iPod

I have reverted your insertion of an image on the iPod article. The image you added is a "fair use" image being used in a decorative fashion, which is not allowed, and additionally, that image is up for deletion as "replaceable fair use". We need someone to take a picture of the 6th gen unit and upload it with a free license. —dgies^t_c 17:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

"Articles should shape themselves, if you need a sandbox to help work out how an article should look then you probably should avoid editing that article to begin with." What a delightful comment. Though I don't mean to brag, I got Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2 up to FA without you, [so saying methods that I and several other editors have decided to use are pointless and a waste of time is a rather stupid opinion. If you're going to be an ass about how James086, Cliff, RC and I thought out an implementation plan, that's your prerogative. But harassing me about it is not helping anything. You are not the be all and end all of Talk:Halo 3. David Fuchs^(talk) 19:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say anything about doing it entirely solo? No- I just said that your stupid bating and put-downs aren't needed. And I'm not going to bother responding to anything else you do, because your talk page archives make it clear not only are you are a condescending ass to plenty of people, but you don't understand Wikipedia's policies to boot. Goodbye. David Fuchs^(talk) 19:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Halo 3's 8.9 from the mentally retarded moron

Okay? THat guy was completeyl retarded. Halo 3 universally fixed, and expanded on everything that was done in Halo 1 and halo 2. While adding a **** load of new things. it's far from a "HALO HD" like that moron said. HOnestly, every game/album gets a horrible critic. there is no need to mention it int here just becuase a tremoundously un-informed critic added it in. I mean hell, The Beatle's Sgt. Peppers album. Widely accepted as the greateset album of all time, has it's fair share of critics who give horrible reasons to bash a game; should we include those in there? Of course not —Preceding unsigned comment added by Testersiki (talk • contribs) 04:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Halo 3

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Halo 3, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Comments like this are totally inappropriate. Mr.Z-man 01:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Discussion

Hello TheHorseCollector. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. The discussion can be found under the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Can someone talk to this user?. You are free to comment at the discussion but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. Mr.Z-man 01:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

We saw that you were interested in Blu-ray or Hi-def Discs and were wondering if you would like to join the Blu-ray Project. We are a WikiProject dedicated to improving the articles completely or partly within the scope of Blu-ray.

--Playstationdude 02:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isulting comments

As a Christian I find these quotations posted on the user page offensive and I want to know if anyone agrees --jojo 15:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. I'm a Christian, and I agreed with (or at least felt compelled to ponder) the quotations. For what it's worth, User Pages are generally allowed a lot of freedom here, and certainly accurately quoting (I assume they are accurate quotations) well known individuals (probably even Hitler) is not against the rules. --Willscrlt (Talk) 04:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought that I was the only one!!! --jojo 14:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojonesey (talk • contribs)

The quotes are meant to be thought provoking and to question the establishments rather than just accepting them JayKeaton 15:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, are you really a 13? JayKeaton 17:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I meant to say a 13 year old Christian! JayKeaton 05:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think about this --jojo 09:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

and by the way yes I am a 13 year old Christian--jojo 09:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

IBA Cocktails

Hi. On my talk page you asked me about the reason for the IBA designation. There actually was a pretty lengthy discussion about this topic, but I forget where it was held. Probably somewhere in the talk page of List of cocktails or in the Mixed Drinks Wikiproject. It has been many, many months since I was active in the project (I'm embarrassed to admit). The result of the discussion, as I remember it, was no strong feeling one way or another. There was a fair amount of concern that the IBA was probably not the best choice for determining what the "official" recipe for a cocktail is, but nobody could come up with a better one.

Wikipedia is not a collection of "recipes", and without picking a single standard, most of the cocktail articles turned into a collection of people's favorite recipes. While the IBA recipe may not be the traditional one, the best tasting one, or the most common one, it is one used in international competitions. Does that make it the best choice? Not necessarily, but without a better alternative (that is not from copyrighted book), it was narrowly chosen as the defacto standard.

Now, indicating that a drink is an IBA drink certainly shouldn't be removed. That is actually much more encyclopedic in nature than the recipe itself. However, some people felt that the way it was presented might be perceived as giving the IBA too much attention. I'm in no way affiliated with the IBA and have nothing to do with mixology, so my choice in picking the IBA (yes, I did it) was based simply on the information I was able to find through Google searches. It seemed like a reputable organization, and it seems worthwhile to me to mention it in the articles. But if there is a consensus against it, then that's fine, too.

The one thing that picking the IBA recipe as the only listed recipe did do was help cut down on the number of articles that were deleted simply for being recipes. This was due to two things, I think.

By picking one "standard" recipe, it prevented the article from becoming filled with alternative recipes. Common variations could be mentioned in the encyclopedia article in a narrative form instead of looking like "just another recipe variation".
After moving the IBA recipe into the infobox and removing alternative recipes, it was very easy to spot articles that were lacking in encyclopedic information. This helped the editors prioritize articles and track down missing information.

So, is the IBA designation important? Who knows. It did, however, bring about some good changes here at Wikipedia. Whether the improvements continue now that I am no longer involved, I do not know.

I hope that explains why the IBA designations are there, and I leave it up to you and the rest of the active WikiProject members to decide. Good luck! :-)

--Willscrlt (Talk) 04:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbledore vote

Hi. All the arguing over where we should discuss Dumbledore's sexual orientation is proving useless. We need to work out just who is in favour of what and a vote seems the only way to go about it. I'm asking for your opinion since you had a say in the general argument. Thank you. asyndeton 10:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your input, but your comment is slightly ambiguous; it makes it sound as if you think that we are voting on whether or not to include the fact that Dumbledore is gay in the article, which it isn't. Could you please fix it, otherwise your vote probably won't carry any sway. asyndeton 18:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please be advised that you are presently in violation of the three-revert rule on Walther PPK. If you are not familiar with the policy, please take a moment to read through it. I will be monitoring the article and your contributions -- if you continue this revert war, I will have no choice but to block you. If you are unclear about the policy or why you are in violation of it, please contact me. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you will find that I did not make more than three reverts in one twenty four hour period. Please look closer at the edit history in the future JayKeaton 11:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Galaxy Talk Page

He's either grown and doesn't know how to deal with these problems or he's immature; I addressed two solutions, either grow up or learn to control anger. It's obvious the chances of my statement calming someone down are slim to none, but I can't think of how to say "You have problems. Fix them." in a politer way. (I guess not saying anything at all towards him could have been the best solution, but I'm only human.) Besides, becoming more aggressive toward because of that statement is similar to saying "I didn't do anything wrong.", "My way is right.", or something along those lines...

I hate aggression. It ruins Wikipedia, and my experience here. I want to edit and add on to the encyclopedia, not argue about it. Why do you spontaneously assume that I'm trying to aggravate him? Please don't act like you know everything, since in this case you are (partially) wrong. (At least I know you are. It's not like others know what I meant...) While I wanted to make a comment to get back at him (Which is likely to produce more aggression, now that I think about it), more aggression is not my goal. I wanted to end the argument there. Similarly, I don't want this dispute to continue either. Kalidascorp 20:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Almighty

Thanks for leaving the barnstar to those who contributed to the article. I was able to add multiple sources and information in one free day I add and I looked over dozens of websites to find relevant information to include in the article. I was surprised at the amount of information there was. If you're interested in helping with film-related articles on Wikipedia, consider joining WikiProject Films. Again thanks for the star, and keep up the good work on Wikipedia. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 21:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't miss the Wikia expose

Just want to make sure you don't miss this. -- Vividraise 03:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits?

Jay, is that you who keeps editing my user page? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah whatever, I guess no one can force you to explain yourself. JayKeaton (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your support

Redmarkviolinist ^(talk)^{Editor Review} 16:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chat

Your chat comments were out of place, and 35 hours is hardly the sign of a "dead" discussion. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphors about pots and kettles come to mind. Sheesh. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh woah ho ho, I didn't notice this one here because I assumed I dealt with you a week ago. I did not get spanked, you do not have the power to "spank" me. You tried to take up an issue, you got called on it, YOU lost face. Don't post comments to try and make people think I was punished, when I never was and you never will have the power to punish people. JayKeaton (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you need to believe. - JasonAQuest (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were lied to if you were told I was spanked or reprimanded in any way, so I do not need to believe it because it is a blatant fact. JayKeaton (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice to see that you finally admit defeat. You admitted that you were in the wrong and I can respect that. Just try to be more sensible in the future, or you WILL be threatened with a ban. You have been warned. JayKeaton (talk) 08:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth the golden age

Hello JayKeaton, Although you are right in shortening the list, I think my addition is an important one which should be in the article. The claims made in the movie (which, I agree, is just a movie, and not a historical documentary) deny credit to the Dutch people which contributed as much to the victory over Spain, as the English did. From the point of view of a Dutchman, I think it is proper to at least note this fact, and much more important than pointing out that the age of some characters is of. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.99.236.19 (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure if you can actually get to your own talk page as I have not really needed to send messages to unregistered users before and I know that IP addresses can change without warning. I can understand your feelings about the dutch and I do sympathize with you. But the Elizabeth article is not the correct place for it, even if you did have sources that related to the dutch AND the movie. However, I could suggest that you make a ==See also== or ==Related articles== section with a link to an article that mentions the dutch involvement. I cannot find any articles that are exclusively about the dutch involvement, but you could add the Spanish Armada article to the related articles section as it does have a few mentions of the dutch in it. It would look something like this, placed just above the References section:

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FamilyGuyGame2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FamilyGuyGame2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FamilyGuyGame4.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FamilyGuyGame4.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Kitten Huffing

I have nominated Kitten Huffing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar given with your signature

Just a quick heads up, a user appears to have given themself a barnstar in your name.diff I've removed the barnstar, but I don't know if you have any past interaction with the user, or would want to take any further action. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he didn't like that I pulled it, and of course has re-added it. At least this time he did some token editing to the Evan Almighty article including 1 article edit[1], and 1 talk(+signing) [2]. But you may want to ask him to remove the barnstar or add something more to your comments or archive them on the Evan talkpage so other users don't do the same. Since this would be a really boring and wasteful argument to have with that user. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proctor spock

As I've told Ray's doppelgänger, calling him what he is is not a personal attack. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in the future, please don't forget to sign your comments on other users talk pages. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop the personal attacks Locke and you wont be banned, ok? JayKeaton (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BOGOF Question

I was reading the Talk page for the Buy one, get one free article, and left a question at your comment. I'm not sure if you're watching that page, so I've decided to let you know here. You can view my question here. - Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 01:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: 150 MiB =/= 18.75 megabytes

I already erased it once. Why did you feel the need to repeat the same error? I would think you'd get it right the second time around??? ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You added this sentence to floppy disk. "Sony introduced their own floptical-like system in 1997 as the 150 MiB (18.75 megabytes) Sony HiFD." Your math is wrong. It isn't even close. ---- Theaveng (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bette Milder.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bette Milder.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Iced Coffee.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:Iced Coffee.GIF. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]