User talk:=CJK=: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:50, 3 September 2007

Edits to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 14

re. your edits to the above page. You may not have noticed, but the debate in question has been closed for some considerable time. Once a debate has been closed it is inappropriate to make any further contributions. There isn't really too much point in adding comments anyway - the future of the category has already been decided at the point where the debate is closed.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 22:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Supremeshego.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Supremeshego.jpg. 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 '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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 08:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:TweenKP.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:TweenKP.jpg. 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 '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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 13:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chamilleaudience.jpg

I have tagged Image:Chamilleaudience.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Character7.article.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Character7.article.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 06:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Drakkenslife.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Drakkenslife.jpg. 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 '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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Kimnotgood.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kimnotgood.jpg. 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 '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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:CyberGhostface--CyberGhostface 22:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was it worth?

Just look at what you gained. I thought you had gotten over the whole deal about the Kigo stuff, but you just had to go back to it with all the determination to delete it, even insulting it by calling it vandalism and pornography. As I expected, in the end you just ended up being blocked away.

Look, while I don’t know the reason, I do understand that you dislike Kigo, but with more than 200 fanfics[1] and fanarts[2] out there about Kigo, without being even near to pornography, its popularity is undeniable, as even those who dislike it know about it.

Personally, I do like Kigo, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to say “Kim/Shego is better than Kim/Ron” anywhere, specially not in Wikipedia, since this is just matter of opinions and likes. That you proclaim it as mere pornography just mean that you have no idea about how much it can be, and I think you should at least give it a chance, at least to know what it really is, besides pairing Kim and Shego.

All I want for Kigo is its existence to be known, and so I’ll stand firm in my position, but this doesn’t mean I want to be against you nor anything like that. We can actually work well together to improve the articles we both like, so I’d like we respect each other’s differences and just stay in peace.

Good luck and farewell. --Alexlayer 05:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry?

I didn't mean so personal and not like I was scoling you. Maybe it was just for humor, but I didn't intend to offend you nor yell at you. And in any case, any personal thing you want to tell me should go into my Talk Page. --Alexlayer 02:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Bonnie (Kim Possible).jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bonnie (Kim Possible).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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 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 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. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper cite?

Excuse me but... what are you demanding here? A cite to authors' words or what? If it is to prove what the phrase says, "one of the main character’s most popular love interests among fan art and fan fiction", the cite I just addeds works as perfect evidence of what it states. Specially if you check the analysis, you'll see what I mean. --Alexlayer 18:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? You want to leave the article with that "Citation needed" note there? Even if it's not the best kind of source, it does work as one, and it has much better chance to get Shego approved as a GA than that "Citation needed" thing. I mean, nobody is going to question it, anyway. If you read the Analysis in the source, you'll see that this source can prove it to anyone.--Alexlayer 19:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be left there. Also, we should let other people in on this, alex, let's move this to talk:shego. --=CJK= 19:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the picture...

Why did you exactly delete the picture of Junior and Shego? What did you mean with "unless it can be made to look good on the page"? Was it looking back in your resolution? 'Cause in mine, it looked perfectly fine. [3] --Alexlayer 01:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess there are three reasons:

It was hanging into the next section (whatever it is).
It wasn't necessary for such a tiny, unimportant section.
We both know how stingy these guys are on pictures, so it's best to have as few unnecessary ones as possible.

--=CJK= 01:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could have taken care of the problem for the first reason, but considering that there are 2 more, I guess it'll be better to leave it like that.--Alexlayer 01:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really just a matter of taste. What do you think? --=CJK= 02:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About what exactly?--Alexlayer 02:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three reasons. How legitimate are they? I think they're things we should take into consideration for each picture, but I'm not the judge of that. --=CJK= 02:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. The first reason can be easily taken care by adding "< br clear="all" >" (Without the first and last space) at the end of the section. For the second, I can hardly agree. Tiny or unimportant, the picture contributes anyway. The third reason, well... I guess we have to take care of that.--Alexlayer 02:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==

Please read [ignole|(tact me)]] 11:187 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bonnie (Kim Possible).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bonnie (Kim Possible).jpg. 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 '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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Prince of Darkness"

Special:Contributions/The_Prince_of_Darkness

I say we go through his edit history, then click the "undo" tag at each article he deleted. ---- DanTD 22:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure he is the same person as "Malevious". He did one thing right, though. He moved Car Alarm (TV Episode) to Car Alarm (Kim Possible) ---- DanTD 00:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, he was doing it again this morning. I'd undo more of his deletions, but I have other affairs to take care of today. ---- DanTD 13:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, you and Rdfox are tackling this problem. He's reverted alot of my edits, check out Special:Contributions/The_Prince_of_Darkness

Blank pages

Metros, can you hear me??? Please let me talk!! There's another vandal out there, way worse than me! =CJK= 15:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can talk. No one's stopping you from talking on here. And there's not another vandal out there worse than you. His actions are not vandalism. When in a content dispute, it is very wise to not call the other side's edits vandalism. He could just as easily call your edits vandalism. Metros 15:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metros, you stopped me from talking but that's not the point. I deserve to be blocked, but could you make it less time? I need to stop this maniac. I mean, two weeks is a little harsh, isn't it? I've never been blocked before and this really makes me feel bad. =CJK= 15:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely why you're not getting unblocked. I'm afraid that if you are unblocked you're just going to go on a mass revert campaign and revert things blindly like you did last time. Remember when you blanked pages? Remember when you removed his edits to Static-X which had absolutely nothig to do with Kim Possible? He is not vandalising. You are in a content dispute, neither of you is vandalising, you're just doing stupid reverting without a full discussion of the matter at hand. Metros 16:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you can block me at will, I don't think that that will be a problem. I've definitely learned my lesson, sir. =CJK= 17:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can request review of the block by other admins by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on your talk page (replacing "your reason here" with your reason for appeal). Metros 17:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I just want a reduced sentence. 2 weeks is, ahem, unreasonable, don't you think? Throw me a bone here. =CJK= 17:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe it was wholly appropriate for your rampant incivility and massive reverting campaign. If you have an issue with someone's edits, you talk to them about it. You do not create redirects on their user pages as personal attacks. Metros 17:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay, calm down Mr. Admin!! What can I do to prove that I don't deserve two weeks? --=CJK= 17:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

METROS!!!

Hey man, listen, I know i've been a jerk but there's a vandal out there that I need to stop: it was that guy's page i redirected: user:The Prince of Darkness. Could you block him too, he's vandalizing up the Kim Possible pages. Talk to me!!! =CJK= 15:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my post one thread up. Metros 15:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
 Nah, I just want a reduced sentence. 2 weeks is, ahem, unreasonable, don't you think? Throw me a bone here. [[User:=CJK=|=CJK=]] 17:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 :No, I believe it was wholly appropriate for your rampant incivility and massive reverting campaign.  If you have an issue with someone's edits, you ''talk'' to them about it.  You '''do not''' create redirects on their user pages as personal attacks.  [[User:Metros|Metros]] 17:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
+Okay, okay, calm down Mr. Admin!! What can I do to prove that I don't deserve two weeks? --[[User:=CJK=|=CJK=]] 17:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 == METROS!!! ==