User talk:The strokes

Welcome!

Hello The strokes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Meno25 04:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Oil Kings.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Oil Kings.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 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sage of Ice

Sage of Ice and I worked out our differences eleven days ago by staying cool and trying to find common ground. I'm sorry if I caused you stress in the past, but let's let bygones be bygones. I actually planned on apologizing to you, but I respected your wishes for me to not edit your user talk page. (If you still want a full apology, let me know - I had one all typed up and ready to go.) Maybe just try reading what I write in a happy voice. Really, I think I'm a pretty nice person, and I think we just got off on the wrong foot. I know I'm not perfect, but please don't go around trying to damage my reputation. My reputation on Wikipedia isn't worth all that much trouble, and I'm sure we'd both prefer if you could spend your time improving articles, instead of making comments about other editors. As I said to Sage of Ice, carry on with the good edits, and have a nice day. --Muéro^(talk/c) 05:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really only eleven days ago? Time has crawled far slower than I imagined.

As Muéro said though, Strokes, we came to terms with one another, so don't worry about it. It was never really much of an argument to begin with. I mean, neither of us had really done anything to the other, so it was just casual discourse between editors. I try to keep myself as neutral as possible when dealing with others here on Wikipedia. I do appreciate the fact that you were just trying to help me out, however, so thanks for the thought.

I'm no longer relevant, though, so now it's up to you and Muéro to get things sorted out amongst yourselves so no one has to clash in the future. Best of luck to both of you.

One thing perplexes me though... how were you, Strokes, brought to my talk page so randomly and... how did you, Muéro, become aware of Strokes's message so quickly without anyone mentioning it? Are you guys on each other's watchlists or am I the one under vigilance here? Either way, carry on... Sage of Ice 07:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age in infoboxes

I just happened to see a hockey player page with the birth date and age formatting, and I thought it would be helpful to have the age listed. But, if infoboxes are for critical information only, you're absolutely right, it shouldn't be included. I really don't care if it's there or not, it was just the way I preferred it. Could you give me a link to where you found that infoboxes shouldn't include age, or are for critical information only? I won't bother arguing since it's not a big deal, but I would rather see the rationale so I can learn something new and become a better editor. Also, thanks for letting me know I should stop before I did any more. --Muéro^(talk/c) 04:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to know where this is stated. Of course infoboxes can't contain just about anything, but I still don't see why age can't be included. After all, the height and weight of an athlete is usually given both according to the metric system and in US customary units and that's hardly critical either, since it's fairly easy to convert. Equally non-critical and redundant is the practise of having the nationality accompanied by a flagicon. --x-Flare-x^{Talk) 03:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Date and age template is used in a lot of infoboxes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Birth_date_and_age. I believe it was probably for that the template was created. --claes 06:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?

What are you talking about. Where do you come in? I see, I did make a mistake, but are you the IP or just a different user. I was going through and messed up. RedSkunk^talk 19:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... so here!

Sorry for mistakenly posting a vandalism template on your user talk page. RedSkunk^talk

Unspecified source for Image:NewCrest.png

Thanks for uploading Image:NewCrest.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Longhair\^talk 07:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rob schremp.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rob schremp.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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.Z-mantalk¢ 18:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comments

No need to be sorry, by all means. As for my gang analogy, I was being sarcastic to make a point; that point being that this is not about ganging up on you because they watch each other's back, it's about your unwillingness to accept the possibility that these two editors might just happen to see eye-to-eye without influencing each other through their need to conform. It's also about your unwillingness to accept that they might just happen to be correct. Instead, your comments suggest that their backing each other up is all part of an elaborate scheme to push their collective point across while disregarding their individual views.

Also, I don't deny that you have made some constructive edits in the past. My remark about you being on the disruptive side was meant to reflect your near past edits. This is my sentence from RG's talk page: You just happen to be on the disruptive side right now (emphasis added). So just like I can't deny that you've made constructive edits, you can't deny that you have been disruptive. I mean, you've even admitted to being disruptive in your own edit summaries. One particular instance states: "don't stop agitating me, I'll keep vandalizing your page Addhoc. This is my new username, and it's this for a reason". In addition, most, if not all, of your last 50 edits consists of vandalism on your part and/or feuding with Ccwaters, Addhoc, and RG to push your point across. Now how is that not being disruptive? — It's the very Wiki-definition of disruption.

Lastly, you may accuse RG of being immature for his comments, but making comments such as "I feel better about this disagreement knowing for sure that you're a ********; insinuating that RG is a hypocrite, labelling the three as Wikinazis; and resorting to vandalism when other editors disagree with you under the victimization ruse, neither reflects positively on *your* maturity level, nor does it lend credibility to your claim of endeavouring to reach amicable solutions. — Dorvaq (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't sound like this gang mentality is all in my head. He admits to keeping a lookout for his peeps from "idjits" (I can only assume he meant idiots, but didn't want to be accused of making a personal attack)

So let me get this straight; you're denouncing RG and Ccwaters for conforming to a anti-vandalism gang? Again, I'm not sure what your point is or what exactly you are trying to achieve.

I'm comfortable with how this reflects on my maturity level on wikipedia, because I (unlike some others) realize that this is a pretend world, where people easily manipulate who they really are; any "brownie points" I may accumulate by acting out of character don't mean squat in the grand scheme of things.

So why do you continue? Why are we still having this conversation if you care so little about this? Why have you persisted so much if it "don't mean squat in the grand scheme of things". You are trying to sway me into believing that you're the wiser and more mature by not caring about what others think of you, yet your actions betray your words, my friend. If you care so little about what others think of you in this "prentend world", then why were you so quick to rebut my comments on you being disruptive? Why was it so important for you to legitimize your actions? Again, why do you continue?

You know what however, you don't even need to answer as I could less. The whole point of my intrusion in your discussion with RG was to give you a friendly warning; being, that divulging RG and Ccwaters's not-so-secret, secret of protecting each other's pages against vandals or sharing many similar points of views in ongoing discussions isn't going to get you very far. One can only speculate that your subtle threat towards RG was meant to inform him you would be taking steps towards having disciplinary measures and/or sanctions imposed on him and possibly Ccwaters as well for their actions... it won't happen. You may be comfortable with how your disruption reflects on your maturity level, but I can tell you that if you continue at your current maturity level, you will not gain the support of those who have the power to impose such actions.

And, if it's not what you are attempting to do, then I'll ask you again; what *are* you trying to achieve? Are you trying to gain the sympathy and support of other disrupters living the same frustration *that they don't really care about* in order to better push your point across — are you actually telling me that you are trying to form a gang? Again, no need to answer.

Lastly, I'm sticking with my friendly warning and pulling out of this conversation. I'll allow you to have the last word, because I know you'll want to have it that way anyway seeing as you care so little about this. I wish you good luck with your endeavour, and please continue in your search for amicable solutions. You make the pretend society of Wikipedia proud. — Dorvaq (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CCwaters

I agree with you on your point about CCwaters, as he and his cronies have tried to gang up on me too. However, I have been able to counter them with civility and they rarely say anything to me unless I posted something erroneouly. Your incivility and rampant vandalism doesn't prove anything you wish to get across or that they are incorrect. It actually proves to them that they are.

JaMikePA 16:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

meh, I was bored (and tired of wikinazis). Even if it didn't prove anything, it served its purpose (to inform them that people know of their 'gang') The strokes 23:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]