User talk:Tmopkisn

Thanks For Being Polte

Thanks for being polite about the revert, you are the only person who has ever been polite that I have encountered. I do appreciate it! ~~$Johnny Rocket$~~

You're welcome =] tmopkisn ^tlka 01:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate

I have recently added sources for all of the information concerning Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate. I would have preferred that you simply put "needs sources" rather than putting an afd tag on it. Thanks for your time and hopefully the afd is removed sooner or later because the article is actually pretty legit. Thanks, Excaliburhorn

I just feel that it's not all that notable, nothing against you or the article itself. ANyway, I guess it's up to other people now, because I don't think you can just remove an article from Afd. tmopkisn ^tlka 01:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My main counterpoint is this article College rivalry where there are many many more articles of much less notability. I think you made a mistake and I understand. I would just urge you in the future to use a little more care before you mark an article afd. Thanks, Excaliburhorn

The difference between that article and the article you wrote, is that while your's picks out just one college rivalry, which only a select group of people will recognize; that article mentions a wide variety of rivalries, hence increasing the chance that a person would recognize at least one of them. If your article does, in fact, get deleted, I would encourage you to mention the Georgia - Georgia Tech rivalry in that article. tmopkisn ^tlka 04:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually mentioned in the aforementioned article. That article spurned me to create the article you 'afd'ed. Please refer to College_rivalry#Southeastern_rivalries. Thanks for your rapid responses but this is a terrible hassle for something that could've just been stubbed. Excaliburhorn

Looks like a keep, sorry for all of the hassle. tmopkisn ^tlka 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, that's the case but I will admit that your afd made me work a little bit longer on refining the article. In any case, good luck with your little herp. Thanks, Excaliburhorn 09:25, July 7, 2006

License tagging for Image:Turtlegiovanni.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Turtlegiovanni.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Jose Ramos Horta

Thanks for helping me deal with the vandalism attack on Jose Ramos Horta. This was done with an AOL IP, which I just blocked for 15 minutes. Academic Challenger 07:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I had seen him earlier, too. They put a range block out, but it must've either expired, or he found some more IPs. Anyway, I'm glad someone got him, I went into #wikipedia, but they didn't seem to care all that much... Idk, probably weren't any active admins. tmopkisn ^tlka 07:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message. That one seems to have stopped for now. Unfortunately, I can't give AOL IPs long blocks because there are unfortunately many good users who use AOL. Academic Challenger 07:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand. Recently had a vandal over at uncyc that we couldn't ban because of his extremely large selection of IPs. But heck, I'd be content with reverting all night if I had to... nothing else going on. tmopkisn ^tlka 07:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can continue reverting all night too. You seem to be good at finding this vandal and I can block them. I just blocked the Abraham Lincoln vandal for 15 minutes. Meanwhile, the Ramos Horta vandal's block just expired, so we'll see if that one starts again. Academic Challenger 07:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh, lock and load. tmopkisn ^tlka 07:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn fast, sir, damn fast. I'm impressed. Keep 'er loaded. Kevin_b_er 08:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, will do... tmopkisn ^tlka 08:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You traitor, get your ass back to patrolling Uncyclopedia!

--Splarka (rant) 09:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I'm going to bed. Can't think anymore. tmopkisn ^tlka 09:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison & Sinclair

Just a quick note to say thanks for reverting the edit on Morrison & Sinclair. Given the other activity by this user, it was probably vandalism. I only started the article yesterday! Thanks again. amitch 09:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no problem. That guy's been making the rounds, but the admins can't block him for more then 15 minutes at a time because he's using an AOL range. Anyway, glad to help! tmopkisn ^tlka 09:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the only editor

I have recently edited articles with reasons put as to why in discussion pages, those reasons include making articles factual and then forming articles as to what they are meant for without un needed information in them.

Err.... what? I'm not sure I quite understand you. I realize that I'm not the only editor, there are millions of them here... I only reverted your edits because you were removing sections from the article and not replacing them with anything. tmopkisn ^tlka 03:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: revert

Thanks for watching my back. I am just as upset as the annon, but venting here doesn't help. I guess I should stick to something less controversial. TomStar81 21:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh, yeah, guess so... I have to say I haven't seen anything that bad for awhile... You're right, venting here isn't going to help anything, but he definitely needs to vent somewhere... tmopkisn ^tlka 21:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Tmopkisn. Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. - Gimboid13 18:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, Gimboid13. tmopkisn ^tlka 18:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're so cruel

It's true. Your canned "welcome" is funny, however. EricJ 00:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page was just so empty... that and I just wanted to make sure you understood how this whole "wiki" thing worked. tmopkisn ^tlka 01:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIRAPIST! Ericj 17:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Define "Vandalism"

I edited the page on Ameriprise Financial, as much of the section on Fee Structure was biased, anti-Ameriprise, and incorrect. Wikipedia has a policy of no advertising for companies or personal gain....do they also have a policy against slander? Aren't all entries supposed to be factual & non-biased? The purpose of my edit was to provide an unbiased, accurate description of how an Ameriprise advisor is compensated. The garbage that was on the page before I edited it could be considered slander. Is this an online encyclopedia, or just another blog for trolls?

Yes, all of that is true (besides the troll thing), but you removed alot of content, alot of times, never once mentioning what you were doing in the edit summary or on the talk page of the article. ANd that's also a policy around here. If you want to remove a big chunk of content from an article like that you should post your intentions on the talk page along with you reasoning, and then, if there are no objections, you can do what you want. tmopkisn ^tlka 05:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do you work for Wikipedia? How do I request from Wikipedia that the page be protected?

No, I do not work here, I edit here, just like you. I see that you've reverted the page again... which means you've now broken the Three revert rule, I could report you and get you banned, but I won't if you'd just do things the right way and put a message on the talk page. The page for requestiong protection is here, although I doubt they'll protect it, it's usually saved for articles where vandalism is a a normal occurance. Anyway, I'm going to revert the page again, which will be the last time I revert it, because I don't want to break the rule myself, if you remove the content again, I'll probably have to report you, but I hope that won't be the case. tmopkisn ^tlka 05:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What message should I post on the talk page? Should I reference that I'm reverting potentially libellous material? According to Wikipedia, the three-revert rule does not apply to users making a good-faith effort to enforce this provision, whether they are involved in editing the articles themselves or not. So revert again I will....go ahead and report me....maybe that will get Wikipedia on protecting the page from libellous slander.

Ugh... fine, I'll report you, that is if you decide to edit the page again... You should put a message on the talk page saying that you believe some of the information in the article is incorrect and slanderous, and then ask if there would be any objections to you removing it. tmopkisn ^tlka 05:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tmopkisn

Is not a Raptor fan and knows nothing about the raptors.. Else he would know that the reason why carter is a Notorious cry baby.

Heh, yeah... I'm sure he is, but there's this thing called NPOV, and you're supposed to use it while editing wikipedia articles. So, you can't say he's a crybaby, or a moron, or a whipping boy, or anything like that. Even if you think it's the truth, others may disagree. tmopkisn ^tlka 05:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the quick revert on my User page. AlistairMcMillan 13:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it... tmopkisn ^tlka 17:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people like milk!

Apparently this is an award here at the freakshow. So congratulations on your ~~editcountitis~~ ~~nasty tumour~~ ~~malignant growth~~ strong bones. --Keitei (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate milk. This sucks. tmopkisn ^tlka 01:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people like pot? --Keitei (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do... yes they do. =] tmopkisn ^tlka 01:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page for Headington School keeps reverting back from my edit. Emma Watson of Harry Potter fame does NOT go to this school, she goes to Oxford High, the fact is even documented here on Wiki!

Image Tagging for Image:DoogtoonsSS.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:DoogtoonsSS.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err... whoops, must've gotten removed when I re-uploaded. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recap episode (Air episode)

I welcome any suggestion on how to expand that article. What would you like out of that article? I realise it is just astub right now but I believe there is enough information on that episode to warrant an article. I just need time to expand it. --Cat out 08:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't even know that it warrants an episode, just being a recap of the rest of the season. If it were to be an article it'd need a detailed plot line, and all the characters that appeared, but I'm not even sure if that's possible (I've never even heard of this show, so excuse my ignorance.) About needing more time, you can always create the article after it's been deleted, it would just have to be alot better. tmopkisn ^tlka 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err. No. I would have to go through undeletion etc etc. I cannot recreate a deleted page. It is a lengthy process I'd rather avoid and spend that time expanding this particular article. I would be able to expand the article had I not been on vacation and have access to dvds.

The recap clarified inter-episode details (I do not particularly recall it completely as its been quite sometime). One good example being how Misuzus condition relates to the 1000 year old curse.

The animes plot does not follow a linear timeline. The first few episodes (I think 6 of them) follow a linear timeline (Yukitos perspective), then the anime shifts back 1000 years for a few episodes (Ruiyas perspective), then forward 1000 years to the time period roughly to the precise day the anime started (Sora's perspective). The last scene of the anime warps back to the begining as well (perspective of two unnamed children). This complexity requires a linear touch.

It is a great show, I highly reccomend it. :)

--Cat out 17:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting, anyway, you could recreate it, but you're right, it can be a long process. Also, I wouldn't recommend trying to rewrite it just based on your own knowledge. People want sources, from other websites, news organizations, etc. If you could get a plot line from somewhere else, and summarize and paraphrase and make it sound goo, that might work. The more sources the better though, simply expanding it on your own knowledge isn't going to gain alot of keep votes.

Anyway, it looks like you've probably got a couple days left, if you still are looking to improve it. I'd gladly change my vote if I saw some sources and maybe a full paragraph or two, providing that most of the information isn't just taken from the other articles of that season. Just one more keep vote would probably get the article kept, not by consensus, but the fact that there wasn't a consensus. tmopkisn ^tlka 17:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The epsiode never aired in the us so I dont have that option. --Cat out 09:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated discussion

hello. sorry for writing to you over here, i am the one trying to put a link to the geen styl page in holland about nathalee holloway, to show the public how the dutch feel about this sad story, they make rude jokes about it, is it forbidden to show this?? friendly greetings from NL!

The link doesn't look very notable, in fact, i think most people thought it was spam. Maybe if you formatted it differently, such as [link Dutch editorial on public opinion of Natalee Holloway] you'd have better luck posting it. But before you try that, you should read Wikipedia's guidelines on spam and make sure that your edit follows the rules. Also consider posting a not on the talk page stating your intentions. tmopkisn ^tlka 22:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merci Beaucoup / Many thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page :D Martinp23 22:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no problem. You know you're a good editor when a vandal puts the gay userbox on your page. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Vandalism

Hello, Just wanted you to know that I have reverted vandalism to your user page. --Brian G 04:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks, much appreciated =] tmopkisn ^tlka 04:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD on Alyssa Miller

...I think you may want to reconsider your vote a little, there, at least as far as the IMDB entry goes. =) -- Captain Disdain 07:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One step ahead of you... =] tmopkisn ^tlka 07:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I see! -- Captain Disdain 08:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zebani

It is not a belief. It is an obvious reality. They are killing muslims for nothing or just for their beliefs. And They are doing this since 1948 it is their establishment date. And I think whole world has to know this truth.

Well, I can't stop you fomr believing what you want to believe. But there has to be a better outlet for you to post these feelings. I know that there are thousands possibly millions with the same feelings as you, and I'm sure alot of them have set up other websites and forums that you can discuss this at. However, wikipedia is not one of those places. tmopkisn ^tlka 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

Hi, I have no idea how to message you privately, or if it's possible or whatever. But I just wanted to let you know that I had no idea about the blanking of your page until after it was done, my obnoxious friend was on my computer. I'm sure that's probably not believable, but whatever, it's true. I also did not know how to put it back, or let you know, so I found this spot today, and maybe this is where I can "message" you? Sorry. Britterz7 02:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is the right place, the only way to private message me would be to email me, and I don't check that anyway. ABout the blanking, don't worry about it, normally i wouldn't believe it, but normally people wouldn't apologize for blanking my userpage, so i'll give you the benefit of the doubt. No harm done really, it's pretty easy to restore and everything. tmopkisn ^tlka 05:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Olivieri

I have expanded and sourced the article. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 10:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, wow, great job, I'm going to go change my vote right now... tmopkisn ^tlka 17:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude chat

Hi there, I was just wondering if you could clarify your vote in this AfD discussion. I agree with you 100% that the "nude chat" phenomenon is notable, but the reasons given in my nomination of the article had nothing to do with notability; rather, the article seems to be mostly original research and unverified dictionary definition. -- NORTH ^talk 03:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I still disagree, as it's not just unsourced but OR as well, but I understand your comment a lot better now. -- NORTH ^talk 04:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we'll see how it turns out... tmopkisn ^tlka 04:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. -- Gogo Dodo 07:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I think I've been accused of molesting farm animals once or twice as well :) tmopkisn ^tlka 07:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should say that, because he struck your page with the same tired vandalism. You would think somebody would come up with more creative things to say. Luckily, somebody who is afraid of clowns came along and took care of things. =) -- Gogo Dodo 07:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yeah, just noticed that. You have to give him some credit though, at least he made the sentences flow. Most vandals just insert big capitalized curses wherever their mouse clicks first. tmopkisn ^tlka 07:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, I'll give him half a star for that. =) -- Gogo Dodo 07:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

! Have to be careful though, if we start giving them stars they'll start to actually work at it. The repercussions will be tremendous, and equally devastating. We'll have the main page covered with Image:Penis.jpg and Jimbo will be out of work. tmopkisn ^tlka 07:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I just got to return the favor. =) Now that was an interesting bit of vandalism. -- Gogo Dodo 08:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Looks* Yeah, uhmm... yeah. I don't - I don't even know where that came from. Looks like they got some other people's userpages as well... hmm. Well, I've never really held an opinion on Prince Charles, so I guess I won't take it too personally. Heh, thanks for the revert though! tmopkisn ^tlka 08:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's got to rate a

, too. Perhaps even a full star just because it was so out of nowhere. =) -- Gogo Dodo 17:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course, the fact that the userbox was so absurd makes it that much better. And they got an indefinate ban, props for that! tmopkisn ^tlka 20:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page from me too! --Gpollock 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC) --Gpollock 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. tmopkisn ^tlka 00:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh???

What page did I vandalize? I think my friend is at it again, she used my IP address to edit and now you are blaming me.

Well, someone keeps on adding weird edits to User:Bethicalyna, if that's your username, please log in so the edits aren't accidentally reverted, if it's not, well then... don't edit it. If you haven't made any edits to that page then I guess there's nothing you can do, but I'd tell your friend to stay off of your computer because she could get you blocked. tmopkisn ^tlka 00:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too Late

My friend never listens, she's a befriender and she is never going to listen to me because I went on a date with her brother.

If it's your computer I'm sure there are ways for you to keep her off of it. Anyway, it looks like you have control over your editing again, and you've stopped editing other users' pages. As long as you stop vandalizing you won't be blocked. tmopkisn ^tlka 00:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prove me wrong

If elephants haven't tripled in numbers in the last 6 months, then prove me wrong.

Trust me, they haven't, and I'm not going to waste my time finding you an official source. It's a joke from the Colbert Report, an most people who posted it got banned, so consider yourself lucky. tmopkisn ^tlka 20:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an article!

Please see the following. An article was not blanked, material was simply moved to a sub-article:

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Winnipeg, Manitoba. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! -- KOS | talk 20:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC) I have struck out this warning, it was a mistake, this user did not blank the page in vandalism. KOS | talk 21:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you investigate you will see that any reversion is unnecessary. Thanks. --207.161.43.149 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that, as soon as I relaized my mistakes I reverted it back to your revision. Once again, sorry for any inconvenience, I'll try to be more careful next time. tmopkisn ^tlka 21:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but

Thanks for noting that an anonymous IP had edited my userpage, but it was just me who had forgot to log on :). Torte 02:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, heh, sorry for the inconvience then. It just looked suspicious, since he was downgrading your speech abilities, but I'll go strike out that warning if you'd like. tmopkisn ^tlka 03:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand it and it was perfectley fine :). It'd be nice if you could strike out the warning though. Torte 01:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. tmopkisn ^tlka 05:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO Gas

Please see my comment there. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do... tmopkisn ^tlka 22:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

64.180.186.108

I overwrote your test template warning on their talk page with the one I had written out. It was a valid edit to Friedrich Nietzsche, just a misplaced use of the signature. The IP has never edited wikipedia before, and I wanted to avoid a bite. Hope you don't mind too much. Kevin_b_er 05:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, sorry if I was a bit harsh, I didn't mean to be. Less bites we have, the less page-blanking trolls we have. tmopkisn ^tlka 05:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

leet

Wow, could you just give me a minute? I've got a lot on my plate, and I did make a post to the talk page. WP:AGF McKay 06:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A longer explanation has been given on the talk page, but I'm not up to keeping up with the quantity of (bad) edits on that page, and with people who don't WP:AGF, particularly so quickly, so I'm out of the leet article. I'll focus my energies elsewhere. McKay 07:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I would like to thank you for reverting vandalism on Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2 so often. That article is like a heaven for trolls...--KojiDude (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. If the vandalism gets to overwhelming, you could always try your luck with a request for protection. Though I don't think it's quite at that point yet. tmopkisn ^tlka 01:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord thank you

Thank you for your comments in regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US history of exporting democracy. This is the third time someone has attempted to delete this page ever since I wrote this a few months ago:

First: speedy deletion Talk:US_history_of_exporting_democracy#Please_explain_your_reasoning [1]

Then this: Talk:US_history_of_exporting_democracy#Adding_a_deletion_tag [2]

...and now the deletion tag today. I have argued again and again that the most veteran wikipedia editors use wikipolicy to push their own POV.

The only contribution has been people attempting to delete it. I was expecting it actually, and I welcomed the merge suggestion by the last person who attempted to delete it.

I really appreciate your comments.

Any suggestions how to get this speedily closed? Travb (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I was originally going to suggest a speedy close due to a "Bad faith nomination" before noticing you had merged it (a good idea, btw). I still think it was a bad faith nomination, just politics getting in the way of the truth. The article is very well written, and about very un-biased as far as political articles go, I doubt those trying to get rid of it even read the article in its entirety. Anyway, you're welcome :) tmopkisn ^tlka 06:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks again, I didn't want to merge it, but this user gave me the encouragement, and the vote to merge was 3:1 on the other page. (I abstained). Travb (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the interest of keeping the peace, it was a good idea. As for getting it speedily closed, an admin should come by sooner or later and take a look at it, it wouldn't hurt having a few more "close" votes though. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, Mr. Black did it as I was writing, so you're good to go! tmopkisn ^tlka 06:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking Vandal?

Hello, I'm sorry, but I can't tell is a vandal blanked your user page or if you just made some edits without signing in. Anyway, I would revert normally, but I will not in this case, in the event it is you. Just thought that you might like to know.... --Brian G (Talk) 01:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, that was just some guy I warned. Thanks for telling me though, heh, I probably wouldn't have even noticed for a few more days... tmopkisn ^tlka 03:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP

Oh, I just signed out a few minutes ago...Actually, I'm having my name changed on here.

Ah, okay, it makes sense now... most of it :) tmopkisn ^tlka 03:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalismto your userpage

I Aeon present you with the *Purple Barnstar* for having your userpage wounded by enemy (vandals) fire. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 05:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else reverted it but you still get this from me. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 05:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shall treasure it forever, and if I ever become a politician or something, I'll look you up and we can talk. :] tmopkisn ^tlka 05:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome! Æon ^{Insane Ward} 05:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Thanks for the revert

No Problem :D °≈§→ Robom æ yhem: T/←§≈° 05:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Fox News Controversy

I was just trying to parallel the language on the CNN controversy page. The Fox News page mentioned complaints of "critics", the CNN page mentioned complaints of "conservatives". For a neutral point of view, either both pages should cite "critics" or they should cite partisan critics. To have one formulation on one page and another on the other page is to show a point of view. I look forward to your change on the CNN page. 71.246.198.90 16:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, instead of changing the CNN page - which I'm sure wasn't what you really wanted me to do anyway - I reverted back to your edits on the Fox News article. I didn't really read the Fox article closely enough before I reverted, and I apologize for that. I was never trying to imply that the edits you made were not the truth, but rather that they were unneeded. however, after seeing the CNN page, I understand your reasoning (though I'd bet that there are liberals that criticize CNN as well). Anyway, it's there for now, as I mentioned in the edit summary a couple sources would be nice, but it's not something I'll hold you to, as most of the things said on this encyclopedia are unsourced. tmopkisn ^tlka 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Democracy

What I added to this article was not nonsense, you self-important hack, put thank you very much being so quick to condescend and label me a vandal. I corrected a spelling error within the article. The Offspring had planned to call their album "Chinese Democrazy (You Snooze You Lose)" , not "Chinese Democracy". This playful misspelling was a jab at Axl's infamous history of erratic behavior. Here's an article from Billboard that confirms this:

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1991765

In the future, I hope you will not jump to conclusions so quickly, you jerk. 24.147.174.105 02:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies... the nonsense warning may have been a little much. However, I have three links that seem to agree with the orginal text of the article, in which the album was to be named "Chinese Democracy" ([3] [4] [5]), the first of which is from the bands official website. Now, I could still be wrong, but perhaps you should review your sources, and maybe find a few more reputable sources to back up your claim. tmopkisn ^tlka 05:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rveert Error

Yeah, thank you very much for alerting me to my revert mistake. Curse 56k dial-up internet! :P –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 15:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I feel your pain, I was stuck with AOL 6.0 running dial-up on an iMac OS 7.2 for 7 years... Luckily, those days are over. tmopkisn ^tlka 16:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the vandal revert on my user page! BryanG^(talk) 05:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad I could help =) tmopkisn ^tlka 05:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Terminator

I did not add nonsense to that article. O.J. Simpson was actually considered for the part of the Terminator, I just forgot to cite it.

Haha, really? Well, if you've got a source, then I won't revert it. I just assumed it was a bad joke... Sorry for the misunderstanding. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. Sometimes, there's stuff out there that sounds too unusual to be true. I'll find a source for this. Also, in the "history" section of an article, how do people add comments (in plain black text) about the edit?68.14.20.221 20:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. To make a comment about the edit, look for a small box where you can enter text right underneath the main box. In front of it it should say "Edit summary." Just type your comment into that before saving the page, and it will appear in the history of the page, as well as on recent changes. tmopkisn ^tlka 21:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woaa

THat was one hell of a fast edit

Yeah, I do my best. Yo ureally gotta stop adding all this nonsense to article though, because chances are you'll be banned if you keep it up. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What'd I tell you? Well, hope you've learned your lesson, you seem like a pretty good guy all in all, maybe you'll make some worthwhile contributions around here someday :) tmopkisn ^tlka 00:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viking

Hi -- sorry; VandalProof seems to be doing something strange -- I don't mean to be reverting you. I'll give you a minute to revert it properly; or I'll do it if I see it stay there. Sorry for the confusion. Mike Christie (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no problem, not the first time something like that's happened, and I know it's not your fault. Thanks for the apology though, that's one thing that doesn't happen so often :) tmopkisn ^tlka 23:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:DoogtoonsSS.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:DoogtoonsSS.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nilf anion (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was going to use it, but never did. It can be deleted. If it's still here in a week I'll list it. tmopkisn ^tlka

Fair use rationale for Image:Doogtoonsbanner.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Doogtoonsbanner.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 01:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Carstuckgirls.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Carstuckgirls.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. Sdrtirs (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2008 (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) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]