User talk:StyrofoamChicken

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thanks for that I didn't know it was outdated — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEasyE (talkcontribs) 06:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:WEBK.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:WEBK.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

List of The Colbert Report episodes (2009)[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of The Colbert Report episodes (2009), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of The Colbert Report episodes. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2009[edit]

Information.svg Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Enigmaman. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola.svg
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for block evasion as stated here. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

StyrofoamChicken (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

I was updating individual episode pages of The Office to accurately reflect the episode numbers, per the episode numbers in the infoboxes. I was not vandalizing the pages.

Decline reason:

You admitted that you were evading a block. That doesn't fly around here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

{{unblock|I logged into my username because I thought that my changes were being reverted because Enigmaman just saw an IP address editing several pages in a short amount of time. I understand why he thought I was vandalizing pages, which is why I logged into my name. I was not intentionally trying to subvert a block.}}

Yes check.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Discussion below seems production. Editing on an IP could have been a misunderstanding. Further tomfoolery will be looked down upon.

Request handled by: Protonk (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

This sounds to me like a possible misunderstanding; I've not seen an explanation of what the disruption was alleged to be. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Likewise. I have looked through the edits of the IP, and they seem to be in good faith; I am not certain why the IP was blocked. I will contact the blocking admin here to see what is up. 12:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (talk · contribs) appeared to be doing typical number vandalism on a wholesale level - especially since the numbers didn't add up. For example, this edit, the IP incremented the episode number by two, yet changed the overall episode by nine. That observation along with that there are no edit summaries on any of these edits and no discussion seemed to validate Enigmaman's AIV report. The IP didn't see fit to respond to two editors, Jose! or Enigmaman who tried to communicate with him/her before the block. Since then I've seen block evasion and snarky messages [1], [2] after the block that might explain the number switches, yet flaunting the block evasion. There is still no indication how the editor ascertained which numbers were correct (the numbers in the info box might have been right or the numbers this editor was changing might have been right). Does that explain things? Toddst1 (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The case for unblocking would be stronger if StyrofoamChicken would
(a) agree to do all his editing with his logged-in account,
(b) agree to stop modifying episode numbers unless he can provide an online-readable reference.
Though he claims his changes were not vandalism, he has not given an explanation that anyone can understand, and he doesn't cite a source for his information. Though this editor did some reasonable work over at List of The Colbert Report episodes (2009) he did nearly all his edits there with his IP. There doesn't seem to be any good reason for switching accounts like this, and it makes it harder to follow his contributions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if you check edits like this one: [3] it seems abundantly clear what he was doing. The episode was "split" over two nights, showing half an hour on one night and half an hour on another. Reasonable people may this disagree on whether this represents a single episode, or two seperate episodes. All his edits from this point forward were making corrections to other article based on his renumbering. Its not vandalism at all. It may be that his particular interpretation of how the episodes should be numbered is wrong, but he has neither edit warred over the issue (he did not go back and re-edit the same articles one he was reverted) nor is this random, unexplainable vandalism. Its a simple misunderstanding, and his edits are clearly good faith based on that. If we couple that with forgetting to log in, and then logging in later to request input on his block, I really doubt that an indefinate block of this user is appropriate. I still think he should be unblocked, as the initial IP block upon which it is based clearly does not hold up to scrutiny. Yes, I can see how it is easy to misinterpret it as random number-changing vandalism. No one, least of all the blocking admin, acted badly or irresponsibly in issueing the initial block; vandalism may have been a reasonable interpretation of events. However, in light of this evidence, it seems clear that it would be irresponsible to maintain this block any longer. 17:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to unblocking, but I think condition a) above should be a minimum condition. Just promise to log in. Maybe even use an edit summary. Toddst1 (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Even if he was renumbering in good faith, a number of the edits damaged the articles in question, through misspellings and bad grammar. I'm opposed to his wholesale changes even if they are in good faith.
    1. He needs to discuss these changes before making them.
    2. He needs to be sure he's not wrecking the lead sentence. For example: ""Weight Loss" is the first and second episodes and season premiere..." Also, 'ninty' is not a word. Enigmamsg 18:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, we don't keep people blocked indefinately over spelling errors! Blocking is intended to stop bad behavior, where other methods do not seem to be likely to work. No one has even tried other things. It seems unreasonable to say "We should keep this person blocked until they promise to stop misspelling words." 18:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree. Let's see what the chicken says. I'm only really concerned about the multiple accounts. Toddst1 (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I didn't say he should be blocked indefinitely. I just think his edits are problematic. Obviously there are a lot of editors who make persistent problematic edits who are not blocked indefinitely. See all the user talk pages filled with deletion notices of images/articles. Enigmamsg 20:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I should have made my edits under my username and written something in the edit summary. Not only was I updating the episode numbers to make them conform with the episode numbers in the infoboxes, but also to conform with Jenna Fischer's comments that the Season 5 finale of The Office will be the 100th episode. If the episode count isn't fixed and the hour-long episodes aren't counted as two, Wikipedia will have the season finale as the 93rd episode. As someone else mentioned, I'm the primary editor of The Colbert Report episode list, but I usually just update it without logging in. To avoid any problems, I'll make sure I'm logged in when I edit that page. I meant no harm in editing the individual Office episode pages. I just wanted the correct information to be there. StyrofoamChicken (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

List of The Colbert Report episodes (2009)[edit]

Please refrain from removing that section again. It's inclusion violates no Wikipedia guidelines, and is quite frankly more likely to prevent vandal/non-constructive edits in the future. On top of that and if nothing else, it gives a nice chance for me to have edited it to link to Wiki in an object use for a Wikipedia Article. You're welcome to discuss it on the wiki's discussion page, but I see no reasonable excuse to remove it in it's current form. Thankie kindly, --Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course "they" would not be in favor, hence why such an article does not exist. Nor do I wish there to be, nor does this information somehow make ones. Removal is unnecessary, and given the rather (amusing, astounding, interesting; take your pick of verbs) lineage of "audience callouts" in the results of newly-named species to possibly a space station modules... well, you can like these instances however much you please, but I would consider it notable enough that an unobtrusive single line that is within Wiki guidelines is not required to be removed. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to comment considering your massive amount of creation and editing in this and the related Wikis that regardless of that you do not hold a veto power in regards to them. I did not insert this sentence in it's original form, I simply tidied it up to meet Wikipedia guidelines. It is no less relevant than many of the summary contents in this string of Wiki entries, and also serves to summarize much of the reception of the subject book and the interview. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)