This is an archive of past discussions with User:Allstarecho. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Take a look at this diff: [1]. The reason I bring up the diff is that this is the revision you reverted to on mutualism. Please ensure you revert to good version. Thanks. Richard001 (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Take two seconds and do some friggin' research, the Jackson South Coast League team isn't gonna happen for '08 - it's listed on the South Coast League web site, as well as its wikipedia page. It's correct with the four teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicken Parm (talk • contribs) 04:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
hey, i have no idea what .net is so my question is, can a whole apartment building go to the same ip address? i'm sure i didn't edit anything unless it was a george bush page :) so please let me know if you know about the ip situation. otherwise my wife is being weird on wiki and i highly doubt taht.... she barely knows it exists??
Hi ASE, tough one. No other sources, eh? We do prefer reliable secondary sources to primary ones, as you know... The only possibility I can imagine is the use of this template, but I don't really recommend using personal interactions - and, as you say, interactions which can only be verified by those with OTRS access. ~ Riana ⁂14:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Allstar, this version of your page has major overlap of text with boxes and images for me. I use an XP system and Firefox. I don't know what it looks like in other systems. AletaSing03:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a bit of overlap for me too, but just the top logo of Allstar's name overlapping the User label. It goes away when I reduce my browser from full-screen, though. Rachel Summers (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
AllStar, my laptop monitor doesn't go beyond 1024 by 768 - and your user page looks sub-optimal on my screen, fyi. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
My screen resolution is set at 1024x768pixels. This new setup is actually worse than before. In the previous version, I could read all the words; some of them just sat on top of boxes and pictures. Now, the pictures on the left cover up a lot of the text completely! :( AletaSing15:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Me thinks your puter is wonky. I changed to 1024x768 to see what it looked like and it still looks fine. No overlapping text/images, or anything else. *sigh* - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo16:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Otay, it's just our computers then. No worries. We're just nosy and wanted to let you know if your page was being trippy (though I like "wonky" too). ^_^ Rachel Summers (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Obama/Clinton in Mississippi
Just a note to myself that Obama whipped Clinton like a gub-ment mule in the Mississippi primary last night, 61% to 37%. Obama took 17 delegates to Clinton's 11 delegates - which is an odd number since there are 40 delegates in Mississippi. Hrmmm. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo13:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't care how much that CNN lacky kept saying last night that black folks weren't voting for Obama just because he's black. That's a lie. I live here and I know. And they had more reason than Obama to get out and vote. Bennie Thompson is also up for re-election and they come out in droves for him, whether there's a presidential candidate on the ballot or not. Kind of like how all the straight folk came out to vote for same-sex marriage ban amendments but hey, Bush was on the same ballot so why not another 4 years. Another thing that was proven was Rush Limbaugh's call to Republicans to get out and vote for Clinton since McCain already has the nom. Last night, Clinton won sections of Mississippi that were Red in 2004. They feel that if McCain runs against Obama, there will be another Red president. Fun times here in Dixie, they are wonky. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo14:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The difference between 11+17=28 and 40 would be the superdelegates - the party leaders whose delegate votes are not tied to what the voters say. They can still cast their ballots either way they want. Things are close enough between Clinton and Obama that the superdelegates may end up deciding the candidate. AletaSing15:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Tis why I hate all this electoral college vote and such. The people, in the end, really don't have a say. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo21:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
You definetly deserve this.
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For giving me a reason to still be awake at 3am in the morning (competition), and for your tireless work in reverting vandalism, I award you this barnstar. Steve Crossin (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe I do. But, I'm not going to award myself a barnstar, am I? :P And besides, I saw your name pop up alot too, and you were beating me to the revert. I think my internet is a bit slow at the moment :( And, the new version of Buggle (called buggle as it has bugs) is not working, so I'm stuck with the old version, I hope Gurch fixes it soon. Steve Crossin (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, a while ago, I was told by addshore to add this piece of script to the huggle.css file, apparently extend reports causes problems. Here's the code.
Thanks for the award :D. When I saw "You have new messages" I thought it was more vandalism. So, I'm glad it wasnt. :) Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Because you can't get it removed from WikiProject Scouting, you go and nom it for deletion? Seriously, what is your motivation here? There is nothing wrong with a userbox pointing out one organization's homophobia over another one. If the articles can do it, so can a userbox. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo18:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Namecalling just isn't appropriate for anyone to do. I nominated it because you won't consider a compromise that is less inflammatory, per the recommendation given on my talk page from the other editor who reverted my removal. He's not supporting one way or the other, just not wanting an edit war. Would you accept a userbox that said "This user supports the BSA over Camp FIre USA because of Campfire's immoral policies"? That's essentially the reverse of what your box says. I wouldn't accept that either, and I'd make that MfD just as quick as I made this one. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Would I accept a userbox that said "This user supports the BSA over Camp FIre USA because of Campfire's immoral policies"? You bet your ass I would! Firstly, because it would give balance. Secondly, because I may not like what a userbox says, but I'll defend its right, and it's creator's right, to say it. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's why we have MfD and various other processes to sort out differences such as this. I happen to think you are wrong, but we'll leave that up to the community. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You are free to do what you feel like doing, however I fail to see how letting the two people who contacted me regarding this issue (one on my talk page and one via email) is canvasing, especially considering that of those two, only one participated in the MfD, and of the 7 votes for delete, he was the only one I talked to. Not quite the conspiracy you are making it out to be, but do feel free to exercise your rights afforded to you. Justinm1978 (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
"They" closed it because it met criteria for speedy deletion, per the closing admin who has no relation to the BSA or WikiProject Scouting. Justinm1978 (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Dreadstar, you're out of line. The second version did not mention the Boy Scouts of America in it anywhere and as such, was not recreation of previously deleted content. Look for a notice on ANI soon. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo05:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This kerfuffle is pretty odd--I thought the point of userboxes was in part because as user page accessories, they're one of the few outlets of subjective expression allowed here. I understand the "define what you are, not what you aren't" argument but a cursory glance at other available userboxes shows quite a few that could fit in that category, but which don't seem to be as aggressively targetted for deletion. Rachel Summers (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right. The reason this one was targeted was because former Boy Scout editors didn't take too kindly to the userbox. In the words of Will Beback, "Better articles are our goal, not better policies." AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Truth hurts. The scouting movement does a lot of good, but that doesn't make entrenched homophobic policies acceptable. Stopping ASE commenting via a userbox may make former scouts feel better - but it shouldn't. Preventing someone calling a spade a spade doesn't change the nature of the spade. Jay*Jay (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oy. Reading is FUNdamental. It was "targeted" because it was listed in WikiProject Scouting and was pitting one scout group against another, which is something the WikiProject is actively not doing. They are providing the facts of each scouting group without promotion of one over the other. Allstarecho refused to modify it so it wouldn't be attacking one over another and also refused to let it be removed from the project. Because he refused to cooperate in any way, I took it to MfD, where it was clearly seen as an attack and deleted accordingly. The only aggression comes from Allstarecho's unwillingness to collaborate, which is against the very purpose of wikipedia.
It doesn't make me comfortable to have this removed, it makes me uncomfortable that name-calling has to be used at all. I'd immediately MfD a template supporting "the BSA because they Keep Out The Pillow-Biters" as an attack userbox as well. The issue lies with the qualifier, not the message , which has been stated many times before, but apparently it's just so much easier to believe that there is a Sinister Boy Scout Cabal out to squelch opinions. Rachel, you are using the other crap exists argument as reason against deletion, which is not valid. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, reading is FUNdamental, and it's apparently a skill that you are lacking. My motivation isn't that it criticizes the BSA. I have my gripes about their policies and have said that many times. My issue is that it's a divisive userbox that serves no other purpose than to attack. My side issue is the fact that Allstarecho chose to stonewall instead of collaborate. I do find it interesting to note that for three people who wish to not be judged based on their beliefs and orientation, you are very quick to judge and make assumptions about me based on my affiliation with the BSA. I have made no such judgements about you, and the hypocrisy of this shows through greatly. Kind of makes me question the motivation behind supporting such a divisive userbox instead of work on something collaboratively... Justinm1978 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Speaking of being proven wrong, you're trying to get the admin that agreed with you to delete the current userbox that others (so far, Black Kite, DuncanHill, Orangemike, me, etc.) seem to think is fine. This is not devisive, it's just a message that you don't like and you're whining about it and contacting admins to try to get your way. That userbox does not have the BSA logo, does not mention BSA and is stating a message that many find admirable. If you don't like the userbox, then don't look at it? You don't seem to have an issue with this userbox, one that uses the BSA logo and says the user doesn't want to be associated with BSA. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you are apparently so wise in the way of Wiki, please explain how asking the closing admin his opinion is "trying to get the admin to agree with me"? Two users think it is fine as is, that's ok. That's part of consensus and community building, and if I choose to put it back up for deletion, they are free to comment just as you are. Making blanket assumptions about my reasoning is incredibly typical of the very thing you wish to not have applied to you because of your orientation. Your hypocrisy is disappointing. Let it go before you embarass yourself more. Justinm1978 (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear...So much for collaboration, then. Not too surprised to hear that though--after all, there's four people _here_ disagreeing with him. Personally, I have no problem being judged on my beliefs and orientations, and will readily admit to judging others by theirs; maybe I'm just overly pragmatic that way. In any case, what may have started out as an honest effort to uphold one's interpretation of userbox policy seems to have turned into a personal crusade against Allstarecho and anyone else who even suggests he might be in the right, with the tone getting to be one of "I'm going to pursue this just to 'teach you a lesson'". :( Rachel Summers (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Rachel, you hit the nail on the head. Justin, are you trying to tell me you in no way contacted Dreadstar to get some "backup" for your personal crusade to get rid of any userbox that deals with BSA's homophobic policies? (the newest userbox doesn't even mention BSA and you haven't responded to why you think the new one is wrong even though it doesn't use BSA images or mentions the organization & why you think the userbox I linked above that mentions a user not wanting to be associated with BSA is fine, but this new userbox by ASE is wrong) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried to collaborate several days ago, but Allstarecho wouldn't have any of that. As for judging, apparently assuming good faith doesn't apply here, because it has yet to be followed by anybody and their pre-conceived notions of motivation. There is no point-proving or lesson-teaching going on here. I am not content with the change, so I'm exercising my right to seek community consensus, which is the same right everyone has here. Considering the background of the original MfD, as well as general Wikipedia preference against polemic statements, I have a valid reason to seek consensus, and am now going to seek said consensus. Justinm1978 (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
How about answering the questions in my previous comment. Why do you think the new userbox is wrong and why the other one that actually mentions BSA is fine. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you are fighting a lot of the vandalism that is going on at the moment. Got a quick question. Are you using Huggle? If so, are you using the new version? I have been using the new version, but it keeps crashing, and the vandalism level is "Severe". Any suggestions? Steve Crossin (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The latest version (0.7.1) crashed on me also as I was writing a user warning. So far, only once, I added the extend-reports:false flag also. Lets see. — Becksguy (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I sent Gurch an email 2 days ago about it and haven't heard back from him yet. I'm sticking with 0.6.3 until a fix is released. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo22:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. The flame on top of the gay pride emblem can probably be interpreted in a manner that I did not consider. Perhaps one icon on each end using {{Userbox-2}}? --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk - 01:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I was just posting that while I've not witnessed one of these situations before, it seems to be going quite well...I was going to vote "keep" then saw the page, looks moot now... Rachel Summers (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course, I still don't feel there was anything wrong with the original since it linked to facts sourced and found in various Wikipedia articles. I guess the Gay Cabal swishes just a little harder than the Boy Scouts Cabal. You think that's because we're already out of the closet, waiting on them? lol - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo21:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting theory...though to be fair, the guy who put it up for deletion did say he disagreed with the policy. I guess it came down to whether or not one thinks it's worth it to go after userboxes, which I think should be pretty much sacrosanct as outlets for user expression (even if that means someone using one to attack gays, promote neo-Nazism, etc, as I believe you basically said yourself). Hell, I'd rather some homophobe have a box basically saying they are, I know to avoid them then. Rachel Summers (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and the ramifications of it. I'll get accused of WP:POINT and/or disruption by some rogue admin. Then again, it would be interesting to see the outcome considering many believe, as I do, that there was nothing wrong with the original. A DRv would also give more people a chance to wade in, unlike the original MfD since it was closed so fast robbing people of a chance. I'll post back here if I decide to do it. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo05:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right about possibly being accused of disruption. A rogue admin might abuse his admin tools (aka to some as "powers") to silence you about this issue. I notice Dreadstar didn't vote on this latest nomination. I wonder why. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I meant AGF.. as Dreadstar wasn't doing it, although I mis-spoke and said policy rather than guideline. He knew what I meant. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo22:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone just added a paragraph about him admitting to using drugs. The drugs listed are not mentioned in the blog post sourced. (BTW, I know blogs aren't reliable sources...but does the same apply to BLP's that were written by the subject of the article...cause if it's not allowed, then I'll go ahead and remove it.) The second sentence totally mischaracterizes what Erik said in the comment. My question is (besides the blog thing) would this be considered unncessary info, aka WP:UNDUE? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see how it's relevant and indeed, it could be UNDUE. Not sure if you read the right source though because the one I read, he does admit to having used Crystal Meth in the first entry titled "God fucking with me again". In the third entry titled "Time to make a change.", he admits to having done Cocaine, GHB, and pain killers. The second line in the article, Also referring to anyone that does not like the drug use, to "take all the porns you own with me in them and throw them away. What the fuck do i care?"should be removed as it was a direct reply to someone named Travis and not to "anyone" as the content suggests. So yeah, you could remove it all, or leave the drug part. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo05:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I meant to say the drugs listed (except tina) aren't listed, but I didn't see the other post where he admitted to using the other drugs. So does a blog count as a RS for that article? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, we went through this with Matt Sanchez. The difference was that Sanchez admitted being a paid whore then denied it. As far as I know, Rhodes has admitted to the drug use and has not denied it since. So, me personally, I would say it's reliable until he denies the drug use elsewhere. However, I'd suggest leaving a note for Satyr and get his input. That's about the only thing he and I had any major disagreement over, the Sanchez blogs and writings he did for other outlets. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo05:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm
Notice comment number 8 and my reply. It seems that WP:BITE would apply to those of us that are new to that side of WP. Note to self, from now on avoid the nomination process and related discussions. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Question...I'm writing an article about the historic Raleigh Water Tower. There's a picture here and do you know if I can use it since the picture was taken before copyrights laws were passed? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the one I linked to above is the one I uploaded.
The one you uploaded actually can't be used on Commons or Wikipedia and here's why: For Commons - While it is indeed a government image, it's a state government image and that can't be used free and clear unlike images from federal governments. On the web page you got it from, under the picture it says courtesy of Raleigh Historic Districts Commission. Raleigh Historic Districts Commission would be a City or County government agency and not a Federal government agency. Yes, the image is being hosted on a federal government web site but it is attributed to the local government. Long story short, government images are clear and free if they were taken by a federal government agency or employee. This does not apply to state, county or city governments. For Wikipedia - the issue here is whether or not a free image can be obtained. And one can, if the water tower is still standing. Anyone can go there and take a picture of it. So you can't use it on Wikipedia and claim fair use because a free image is likely.
Now, the image I uploaded to Commons, the black and white one, can be used freely because of it's age, even though it too is attributed on the federal web site to a state government agency, North Carolina Division of Archives and History. The reason it can be used is because it was taken before January 1, 1923 and it's copyright has long expired.
I did and it's been quite useful in knowing how to license an image and where to upload it (Wikipedia or Commons). - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo22:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Would this picture be considered fair use since it's from the NC government? It's the only picture I can find of the man and I want to have at least one pic if I nominate it for DYK. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you can use it but you have to upload it here on WP instead of Commons. You'll have to supply a FUR (Fair Use Rationale) explaining why it's being used since it's a non-free image (because it's from a state government so it's not free for use). That explanation would be something like "Fair use because the subject is deceased. Therefore no free image can be obtained and there is no known free image available." Lemme know when you've got it done and I'll look at it. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo10:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, now I see it. I had been trying out the "Modern" skin, and it doesn't show the WP globe, nor, apparently, flags you put behind it. I've changed it now! AletaSing19:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little puzzled. A savvy editor like you should know that a cite to a sound print source, complete with page number, is plenty sufficient without a live Internet link, and constitutes a WP:RS. --Orange Mike | Talk20:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
True but I don't like unlinked sources I can't verify. Anyone could make up anything (book title, page number, author, etc.) - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo00:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, but:
Regarding what you said on AgnosticPreachersKid's talk. Please understand that that is an old view of mine, about the feelings of other users not being important. I've long-since reconsidered this bit; just haven't gotten around to fixing that yet. But yes, I fully support the bit about keeping all my received messages, even the nasty ones. It's the history of the page, and I like to preserve history exactly as it was, in full detail. But thanks for noticing! Have a good day! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Allstarecho. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
