User talk:King Bee

Please add your comment in a new section by clicking here. Thanks. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)}

Archives: (May 2006 to Jan 2007) • (Feb 2007 to Jun 2007) • (Star Wars Archive)

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Promo_parabola.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Promo_parabola.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 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. Bigr Tex 16:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Integral safe

I am happy to report that our "problem editor" has announced his decision to back off. The discussion which began at Talk:Integral, and was referred to WQA, finally spilled over into WT:WPM, where he found massed opposition. The WQA folks disengaged, and his RfC garnered no support, leaving him on his own. I have known some editors to persist no matter what, so we are lucky.

Peace and productivity having been restored, we could really use that complex integration section, if you're still interested. You can reply here if you wish. Better still, just jump in. --KSmrq^T 05:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I shall readd the article to my watchlist, and I'll return shortly. I'm studying for PhD quals right now, so my time is kind of tied up. Thanks again! –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Brett Favre

Yes, it is he. I've offered him a deal that if he created an account and worked within the confines of Wikipedia process, I would allow him to edit. I plan on evaluating his progress for a period of time, then formally requesting a lifting of the ban if he is editing constructively. If he commits to working collaboratively I'd rather allow him to edit than not. The ban was to prevent disruption; if he isn't being disruptive there is no reason to keep him banned other than out of spite. That said, please don't wholesale revert him. If something needs to be reverted based on content, that is fine, but try and discuss it with him civily on the talkpage so he understands why it is being deleted. Thanks.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. You can probably understand why I am a little perturbed however. His ban was a community ban, endorsed by many wikipedians; I don't know precisely why you think you have the power to subvert everyone else's opinion. However, I am also a believer in second (and in this case, probably 35,769th) chances. I'll cool it for the time being. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 15:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the power to subvert everyone else's opinion... I consider this a trial period of editing for him. If you disagree with this you are completely free to report the situation on the admin noticeboard and another admin will review the situation, but please understand that I'm not doing this to vex anyone and I completely understand your attitude on this given the past history here (I was fairly vilified and subjected to doppelgangers as well). I'm however willing to work with him if it means that at the end of the day he is a contributor rather than a disruptor. I too am a believer in second-ish chances. Regardless I will be submitting this for a community review at some point soon, I just want some edit history for them to review.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not report the situation on the admin noticeboard if you plan to submit this for a community review. I will voice my opinion there when you have submitted it. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 15:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I plan on bringing it up there next week. I'll let you know when I do. Thanks.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad that you let him hang around for a day. This diff is pretty much all the evidence I need to show you that he is not ready to come back. Thanks. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 18:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My own use

Misleading edit summary; deliberately reverting my edit without saying why
Misleading edit summary; these are not punctuation errors
Misleading edit summary; this is not fixing a colon to a semicolon
Misleading edit summary; these are not punctuation errors
Switching order of citations, against consensus at talk page

Unspecified source for Image:StVincent-MarryMe.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:StVincent-MarryMe.jpg. 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}} 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 {{non-free fair use in|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 11:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 11:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for lifting of community ban at WP:CN

I've formally requested a lifting of BarryBonds800HomeRuns's ban at WP:CN.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have limited availability right now so if he pops up again, you might want to report it ANI too & possibly request a checkuser because I range blocked him so he is either editing from a different ISP, he is on a different range, or he has sleeper accounts.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Favre

Hi King Bee. Would you please give Brett Favre a once over. It received heavy editing today by unregistered users and may benefit from a good review. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I'm on it now. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 19:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Inch Nails, man

As a oft contributor to many NIN-related articles, I thought you might be interested to know that the Nine Inch Nails page is up for Featured Article nomination. So, I'd appreciate it if you'd take a gander at the article and post your comments at the article's nom page. And maybe a Pass/Support vote if you feel strongly one way or the other. Thanks! Drewcifer 00:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:HourlyRadioPhotoPrint.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:HourlyRadioPhotoPrint.jpg. I noticed 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 {{di-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 fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rette tast 18:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Starwars1955

You might want to post a Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets report on User:800 Home Runs and request a check user run to discover any other socks created. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Question About the Brett Favre Page

I just had a question about this User:800 Home Runs. I have noticed that you and others users have been reverting his edits each time he edits the page. I made some edits on the page and he reverted them back 5 minutes after i edited the page. I had a discussion with him but he seems very protective of this page. He also seems to be edit warring on the Brett Favre talk page, he keeps on archiving it while others revert it. I was just wondering what the story is here. Please respond here. Thanks!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is the banned user User:Starwars1955. I asked an administrator to block him, but for some reason he did not. Revert his edits on sight. For more information, you may wish to look at the "Star Wars Archive" link at the top of my talk page. If you have any further questions about this annoying menace, please ask. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 11:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have found a new sockpuppet for Starwars1955, User:September 6, 1984. Only contributions are to Brett Favre and a fairly complete understanding of Wiki formatting, I didnt go so far as placing a tag on the User page. What do you think? --Josh Matthews^(Talk ^{♦ Contribs)} 05:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious sockpuppet. Good eye. Glad to see someone else is on the lookout. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello King Bee, I haven't seen you around for a while. I thought I'd just come here and say hello. :) Acalamari 19:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been out of the picture for a while (I had PhD qualifying exams to concentrate on, and I had to back off of wikipedia). I'm trying to get back into it, but we'll see. Thanks for stopping by! –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 21:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! :) I'm glad to see you're still around and contributing. Hope you did well with your exams. :) Acalamari 22:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

If you get any more password requests, send me the IPs via email (which will require you to enter an email account here... suggest setting up a gmail just for Wikipedia). I'll deal with it.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Brett Favre

Sure thing. Looks like Isotope23 and Skybunny are really on top of it as well. Grand master ka 22:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock

Here is the newest sock User:Glenn Aulepp.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics response.

Regarding 1 "One can not have what 1 is not" In the end, infinity is only as infinite at we perceive it to be. If, infinity is computed within the dimensional boundaries of our existence, but not in another's existence, than infinity does in actuality have an end, and therefore is not infinite. It's a quantum-mathematics paradox, and meant to make those familiar with it smile, and confuse and puzzle mathematicians of other studies. It obviously worked. Lostinlodos 06:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay Packers WikiProject!

Template:InvitePackersProject
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibooks Algebra 2 book

We need help over on wikibooks on this book. My user is Laleena, if you want a contact. Thanks.