User talk:Depakote/archive

Response

I'm not a vandal. --WikiFan04'

I just think the organization should have what it deserves. It's a recognized orgazation (trolling or not), and it does have products. It's really not my call, but I enjoy to effect and personally think it should stay... But that's me.. Sorry for that. Fondly, --Depakote 07:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being disefranchised on RFC

Just thought you should no that someone is removing your votes on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:girlvinyl, User:DreamGuy keeps reverting to put your vote back but it would probably be worth putting it on yourself.--ElvisThePrince 23:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbott, Depakote, whatever, I suggest the same thing as User:ElvisThePrince. Add your vote at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:girlvinyl if you haven't changed your mind, because someone's trying to erase our names from the voting list at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:girlvinyl#Users certifying the basis for this dispute. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Are you rude, or just afraid to have a civilized conversation with me?

You know Mr./Ms./Mrs. Depakote, I have asked you numerous times various questions regarding issues in the Talk:Encyclopædia damatica discussion, but you have yet to respond to my points, you just ignore them. Don't you think that is rude? I do. If you're going to comment about an article, then you should be mature enough to respond to other's comments.--Azathar 16:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize Azathar, but typically the points you make have already been answered by me at another time on the talk page. I understand how you may find this minsunderstanding rude and I would appreciate if you could please bring these questions to my attention here. Thank you! --Depakote 13:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent ED image

I've listed the image on IfD, as the photo isn't encyclopedic and it's a copyvio. --badlydrawnjeff 11:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the notification. I disagree to both though! I gave full proof that the image is allowed for us, plus it's the creator of the site. Sorry! --Depakote 12:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. The image is not allowed due to the copyright information on the source page. See the copyright info for images from girlvinyl.com here. Chances are that archive.org has no right to archive those, either, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff 13:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more research for you. The archive.org FAQ (see "Can people download from the collection") states that, thanks to language in the terms of use, users are not to copy from the archive.org collection. Thank you, drive through. --badlydrawnjeff 14:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have such interest in the ED article?

Depakote, why are you so interested in this article to begin with? Do you have any connection to ED or something? I'm curious. You have no consensus with your edits, yet you continue to come back and try to make them. You've told me somewhat rudely to go and mess with other articles, but you see, I have some interest in ED, since I am a member there, but you don't, so perhaps you should go and mess with other articles and leave the ED article alone.--Azathar 17:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your not making much sense to me. The article isn't important to me as I feel the rules on wikipedia are. I feel like I'm doing the right thing. Why are you so interested in this article? Your a member? So that's where the POV comes from I suppose. I don't know. --Depakote 07:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now you are making some sense yourself. The rules are important, ok. But where in the rules does it say a image needs to be on every page? As far as I know, it doesn't. Sherrod is just one person at ED, yeah, he/she may be the "owner" of the domain, but that doesn't mean that he/she own the whole website. Its not something that isn't notable. As for me, yes, I am a member, as for POV, I could care less if the site is up or down, and if you look at I haven't contributed anything in over a month. I'm defending Sherrod's right to not have her picture on a website if he/she doesn't want it, I don't care otherwise. I would do the same with anyone else. Image copyright is different then software copyright. Sherrod removed any permissions to use the images, we have to respect that and not use them, but you don't respect that, you ignore that and say its not relevant, when everyone else is trying to tell you it is. Honestly, if you can respect the wishes of someone regarding property they own, then perhaps you shouldn't be here editing articles. Respect is very important in any endeavour. I don't know how old you are, or how you were raised, but for the past 30 years, my parents made sure I showed and gave respect to everyone, whether or not I liked them. My wife and I plan on doing the same thing with our kids. Respect Sherrod's wishes regarding her picture, and stop putting it up please.--Azathar 20:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The image I deleted was a crudely MS-painted frowny face described as "nonsense, copyvio, previously deleted content, uploaded by troll".

That said, I have read the article on Encyclopedia damatica, and the related talk pages, and I have even gone so far as to examine the photos from Sherrod's trip to Vegas in 2003. And in my opinion, the article doesn't actually need images of Sherrod.

It really doesn't.

So calm down. Choose your fights. And don't choose this one.

DS 12:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your making little sense, first stating this is a fight, secondly assuming that I'm even aggravated to the least. Sherrod DeGrippo is a had working individual and a big part of the culture of this website, she deserves of little light shined o n her, for better or for worse. I'm sure your a very responsible sysop, and worked hours a day for a longtime to make wikipedia a better place, but maybe your opinion isn't the best of opinion -- looking through your talk page, it wouldn't of been your first either. --Depakote 16:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even a SysOP agrees that this article doesn't need an image of Sherrod. Now will you stop putting the image in Depakote?--Azathar 20:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's not the foundation wikipedia was founded upon. --Depakote 08:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you've baited me, what foundation do you feel that wikipedia was founded on? I've got to hear this.--Azathar 08:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_machine, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground, Wikipedia:Make_articles_useful_for_readers. I myself am founded from a neutral POV - What does Encyclopedia damatica and Sherrod DiGreppo have to hide from me showing a picture? Funny, the Microsoft article can have picture(s) of Bill Gates, The NewGrounds website article can have pictures of Tom Fulp. So, what makes ED so special that it doesn't deserve to be represented by this? Isn't GirlVinyl/Sherrod DiGreppo a major focal point on the website?[1][2]. Also, while I'm at it, it wouldn't hurt to show that you, Azathar, are an avid member of the site, and a sysop/moderator. [3]. Doesn't wikipedia state that it doesn't accept it when you write about yourself? And you are writing about a site you represent. What does this cause? More POV! And schmuckythecat. [4]

Dude, I don't even know where to start with you. Take a look here first ED Admin List. Do you see my name there? Nope. BTW, before you say Azathar is a sock puppet, I use Azathar on a bunch of wiki's I am on (Beta Division InfoBase,

FE Database, Wikipedia, Polaqu - D&D Campaign Setting, Encyclopedia damatica, Memory Alpha - A Star Trek Wiki, An RPG Wiki). I don't have another user name on any of them. Also, if you go and look at [my ED Contributions], you'll see that I am not "an avid member". I contribute more to wikipedia then I do to ED. Where I have I written about myself on wikipedia? NOWHERE except my User page, which I am allowed to there. I don't represent ED, nor have I ever said that I do. I have said, and I continue to say that am here making sure you don't violate some one's copyright permissions. Thats it. When you stop trying to add in picture, and you stop fighting over this article and leave it alone for others, I plan on doing the same, and going back to editing the other articles I am working on. And, you shoot yourself in the foot by linking to Wikipedia Guidelines. You're the one trying to promote Sherrod having a bigger role on the ED site, and you're the one who is making this a battleground when no one else see's a reason for a picture of Sherrod. Sherrod is NOT a major focal point of ED, go and look around, she's one Admin, and helped to found it, which is mentioned in the article here in wikipedia. Bill Gates is important to Microsoft, and your NewGrounds article is a red link. Depakote, get over yourself.--Azathar 18:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ED

I noticed you editing the ED article. Just a note to say that if the ED users continue the vandalism, please inform me so I can get an admin over there to hand out some bans. Erwin

Hy depakote

check out User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs we could use your votes. kthxbi

The very same Depakote?

Are you the same Depakote that was an admin for Another Place Never Sleeps over at GameFAQs? - Hbdragon88 04:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, can't say I am/was. --Depakote 04:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Depakoter.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Depakoter.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags.

Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising

The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 23:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Although, after reading Jimmy Wales remarks on it, I think it's worthy of further examination. --Depakote 21:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]