User talk:Antoshi

Your article

Your article appears to be about yourself. This is known as "vanity" and is not permitted on Wikipedia. I've undeleted your article so that you can move it to your userpage if you'd like (that's permitted), but I'm afraid that autobiographies are frowned upon. — Dan | Talk 20:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I copied the content of the article to User:Antoshi (if you don't want it there, of course, feel free to replace it with whatever you'd like). I hope you'll continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Your first article to ensure that your content isn't deleted. — Dan | Talk 20:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I did read the whole article about Autobiographies before I posted the article, and what I have seems to be permissible. It's not really "vanity", and more about what I have a personal involvement in. Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine states, "you are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in." --Antoshi 20:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

This means that, if you're particularly interested in programming or Scouting or cars, you should write articles on C plus plus, Philmont Scout Ranch, and Scuderia Ferrari. Your article appears to be about yourself only; that's the purpose of your userpage. If you're interested in Pokemon, please feel free to edit and write articles on Pokemon, but you should only write about the game, and not about yourself or a character you created. — Dan | Talk 20:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't seem fair. Why is it that a character I created not applicable to something I have a personal involvement in? --Antoshi 20:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

re: Deletion

Hi, I deleted the page Antoshi (which was a redirect to your user page) because redirects between namespaces (from an article to a user page, for example) shouldn't generally be done on Wikipedia. If you've seen other users do that, you should have listed them for deletion as per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. - ulayiti (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection

Page is now unprotected. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

MapleStory

I didn't intend to revert the changes to the Game Issues section - I didn't see that in the diff as it was further down the page. For section titles, the WP:MOS suggests that it should be in lower case unless it is a proper noun. So, I've reverted my changes to MapleStory World and Cash Shop, but left Character classes with a lower case c. Hope this makes sense, and thanks for cleaning it up - it's such a messy article. enochlau (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop creating new userboxes

There is currently on moratorium on the creation of new userboxes pending final policy decision on what is the best way to delete all of them. So please stop creating new ones. In addition, the ones you are creating were simply duplications of extant userboxes and thus entirely unnecessary. --Cyde Weys 02:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the point of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia. There's certainly nothing about the point of Wikipedia that has anything to do with creativity or userboxes. (Actually, creativity, at least in article space, is discouraged). You can have userboxes ... if you really want, but they shouldn't be in Template: namespace, which the ones you were creating were. A better solution though is to just use prose. I.e. type something on your user page, "I'm a fan of professional wrestling", or whatever. --Cyde Weys 02:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

But, really, there's no point in saying "the point of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia", otherwise Userboxes never would've been created, and we would have never even had user pages. Yes, Wikipedia is about creativity, what's wrong with you? Wikipedia was created off of one man's creativity, to make an encyclopedia that everyone can update. So, please stop passing it off as something bland and boring where everyone is supposed to do things the same, and remember the point of being bold. --Antoshi 02:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You can create your own userboxes if you really want to, just don't create a new page in Template: to do so; simply put the code directly onto your userpage. And in regards to this whole userbox thing, you might want to read up on "that one man" himself actually says about these things; see here. --Cyde Weys 03:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio deletion of BabeRuthSox.jpeg

Hi Antoshi, this image was deleted after a listing at WP:CP. I've also deleted the replacement that you uploaded.

Copyright protection depends not only when the image was created, but when it was published. Since this image wasn't pulbished until 1989 it's still under copyright protection. from [1]:

Works in existence but not published or copyrighted on January 1, 1978: Works that had been created before the current law came into effect but had neither been published nor registered for copyright before January 1, 1978, automatically are given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for new works: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. However, all works in this category are guaranteed at least 25 years of statutory protection. The law specifies that in no case will copyright in a work of this sort expire before December 31, 2002, and if the work is published before that date the term will extend another 45 years, through the end of 2047.

Please don't upload it again unless you can show an earlier publishing date. --Duk 06:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: NPOV on Griefer

Are you aware that when you add an NPOV tag to an article, you are expected to state your reasons in a section on that article's talk page? Please state the reasons why you feel Griefer violates NPOV on that article's talk page, or I will remove the NPOV tag. Thanks, Kasreyn 06:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Adam Copeland

I removed the paragraph in question because phrases like "nearly suffered a career-ending bump", "Luckily, he did not" and "The extent of his injury is unknown" are, respectively, speculation, opinion and redundancy. The paragraph had no place in a neutral encyclopedia based upon confirmed facts. McPhail 09:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your view that the bump was nearly "career-ending" is an opinion, nothing more, and thus has no place on Wikipedia. "The extent of his injury is unknown" is redundant in that the extent of the injury would presumably be mentioned in the paragraph were it known; the absence of such a divulgence indicates that the details are unknown. McPhail 16:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:696109312 m.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:696109312 m.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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. Chowbok ☠ 06:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hello!

That customized skin was actually the Windows Vista Transformation Pack. The screenshot was taken back when I still had XP and wanted to make it look like Vista. Recently, I upgraded to the real thing.

Fair use rationale for Image:Gunz0148gp2.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Gunz0148gp2.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 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 07:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sneaselcard.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sneaselcard.gif. 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 00:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 15:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:AcclaimBots.gif

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:AcclaimBots.gif. 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, 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, 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:Non-free content, 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 11:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 11:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Kittyloaf.gif)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Kittyloaf.gif. 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. Coredesat 04:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoo!

Ahoy! Re: Your message... Fantastic! To your questions, G'kar is pronounced Juh-karr or Jeh-karr... both times the J is hard, like in the word judge, with the accent on karr. Straczynski is pronounced Struh-zinn-ski, with the accent on zinn (and a silent c). If you have any other questions at all, feel free to let me know. Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

GunZ

Don't know if there's an applicable WP:MOS guideline for it, but I simply don't like seeing interwiki links in an article. External, non-Wikimedia project information should always be in the external links section, not in the article itself. I know StrategyWiki is important (I can't imagine why because I tried using it for Pokemon R/S and it was horribly incomplete) so that's why I didn't remove both links. Yeah yeah, I know, I know. hbdragon88 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gunz0148gp2.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gunz0148gp2.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Screen04.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Screen04.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) 05:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Roddy Piper

I've been here for a while, but thanks for the welcome. I realize this, so I cleaned up what was said. I never added to it. I didn't delete it as I wasn't sure if there were any references. Sorry. KP McZiggy ^{(Allow Me To Introduce Myself...)} 19:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

If you check Template:The Nexus, Skip is shown to be a former member, can you move Skip back to current?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Anoshi, here's your source:http://www.24wrestling.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1290084535&archive=&start_from=&ucat=6& I will return the info I previously added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K.O.K Kev (talk • contribs) 03:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Nexus

If that is the case then why is CM Punk listed at the bottom of the "Current Nexus"?--Evil Maldini (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Corre

I posted the comment on WT:PW before you posted on my talk page. I apologize; I thought the editor who contested the CSD was "stupid" because he was doing so just out of spite, but I see that you have good intentions. The thing is that the subject matter isn't notable wether or not the article was created before they debuted. Per WP:CBALL, notability can't be speculated. Lack of notability is assumed until significant coverage evidences the contrary. "Unnotable until proven Notable". Feedback ^☎ 20:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have opened up an AFD. You are open to post your concerns there. Feedback ^☎ 20:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Antoshi. You have new messages at Dcheagle's talk page.
Message added 02:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

License tagging for File:TransformiceLogo.png

Thanks for uploading File:TransformiceLogo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Repost of Transformice

A tag has been placed on Transformice requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Active Banana (^bananaphone 00:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Antoshi. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JamesBWatson (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

...and another one. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The article has been re-nominated for deletion as still failing WP:N - significant coverage in reliable thrid party sources. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformice (2nd nomination). Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

When I posted the AfD there WAS an alarming lack of third party reliable sources. AFTER I posted the AfD some marginally reliable sources were added which allowed the trivialists in the community to exercised their voice and make a case that community consensus supports the existance of the article. Please do not alter the historical facts to fit your perceptions. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: Transformice

Interesting. Guess the bots aren't running as smoothly as they should. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: Banana Skins

Just wanted to maybe make you feel slightly better by saying that I agree with your analysis of a mutual friend of ours who seems to take delight in lets say a rather dogmatic application of the 'guidelines' of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not and will never be what it sets out to be, and the unusual and esoteric content (ie that which cannot be found in any of the other myriad 'encyclopedic' sources, which is real but not 'notable') is what makes it interesting, even if just to those few who are involved in that area in 'real life'. He talks of 'historical facts', which is of course utter rubbish, and even if it were true which 'historian' exactly is the expert? Not him, as he chooses to edit heavily handed, subjects which he has no interest in. I won't bore you with the details of my case, suffice it to say it left a nasty taste in my mouth as I realized just how egocentric some of these 'editors' (probably types that never produce original content in their lives) are, and what advantages it gives them to just be judge and jury, having nothing to go on trial for themselves. --Filmmaker2011 (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)