User talk:fethers

See page history for archive. In case they've scrolled back too far:

Here's Archive 1, containing a warning of sorts I got from Metros232.
Here's Archive 2, where I told a combative user to stuff it, amongst other pithy remarks regarding the user's intelligence, because said user misunderstood fundamental things about how en-wiki works, especially image deletion.
Herein Archive 3, highlights including a discussion I had with MartinDK and OrphanBot tagging some pictures I uploaded.

Image Copyright Problems

So, this is quite interesting. Here you are preaching to me about "copyright" issues, and have "my" photos deleted..... and now, the tables have turned! At least the photos that I uploaded are "mine" and that I have the full copyrights to, unlike yours that you plucked somewhere from the internet.... and from the Getty.... which you did not even give them credit for. I'm surprised you didn't remove the name "Getty" watermarked on the photo.

Just an FYI, you argued with me to death about the whole watermark and that how my copyright tag and logo on each of my photos was unattractive. But here you are grabbing photos on the net and assuming "it's ok" to mark as "Fair Use", when in actuality, it is not "Fair use", because the copyright owner, being "Getty" did not give you the rights to use it on Wikipedia. Just because you find it on the internet DOES NOT mean you have full rights to them..... and it certainly DOES NOT mean that copyright owners like me have to give up our rights to our own photos, articles, etc.

This proves my point that everything that you have said and done had "malicious" intent, because "NOBODY" goes out of their way to do what you have done. --Webmistress Diva 07:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you quit Wikipedia or something. I marked them fair use but failed to put links to where I got the images. I don't particularly care whether they go away or not, I mostly uploaded them as part of a spoof article that got merged into a larger article, which is what I was trying to do to your utter crap. It proves nothing. What's more, just to tweak you, I'll go dig up the reference material so they can stay. fethers 15:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgie Thompson

No problem - in fact, I re-added it myself, and Davesmith33 replied, before the page was reverted yet again... That time, I wasn't actually bothered..! Stephenb (Talk) 17:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shrek references

Can you redo the Shrek references you've added into proper WP format, please? See Template:Cite_news for specifics for citing news articles if you aren't already aware (apologies if you already were aware). Thanks. SpikeJones 19:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supercouple article

Yes, I was tempted to remove Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger from the Supercouple article as well, since no valid source was found for them being a huge, important couple. Originally an editor linked them with a fansite and I removed it and replaced it with a blog, as to not wanting to change another editor's contribution to the Supercouple article too drastically again at that time. But I knew that I'd get around to removing them eventually, at least until a valid source is found validating that they are a very important couple.

Thanks for removing them. Flyer22 23:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake

Don't mind the message I gave to you about you having removed several popular couples from the Supercouple article in the Supercouples today section. That wasn't you. And I just blanked that message from your talk page. I was a little sleepy when reverting your edit, and I'm sorry for my mistake. Flyer22 10:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robomosa

Fethers, Whether you like it or not, a Robomosa is a real cocktail, and removing it from Wikipedia would be like removing cocaine or marijuana. The definition here does not condone recreational consumption of Robitussen. Sorry to break your bubble.

What the hell? Tips: sign your posts, and put them at the bottom. Anyhow, aside from the encouragement of the Robitussin cocktail, there was no reference for it. Jeez. Drinking robitussin recreationally. Are you retarded? fethers 02:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Rizzuto

Re: "odd link". I posted that link to support the Tuesday death date. Some sources say Monday, others Tuesday. If you could help find a definitive source for date of death and/or join the discussion on the article's talk page, that would be great! Rklawton 14:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting 2K Games and Securom

Why are you so interested in deleting all references to Securom and its rootkit installation, as links are even provided as references? People are beginning to think you're an employee of Securom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.74.150 (talk) 19:04, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so stupid as to believe that it's a rootkit? fethers 19:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bakelite

just a minor thing, but WP:AGF and all that. clearly not vandalism. might be unreferenced and not exactly WP:V but definitely not vandalism, in fairness... --Kaini (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have assumed good faith had they not put it in the article twice. fethers (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Guys

I removed all uncited text because it violates wikipedia's policy on Biographies of living people. Reverting it opens wikipedia to liability for libel. Unsigned comment by User:Oobyduby at 20:27, April 1, 2008

There were no libelous statements made in any of the information you removed. I will restore it, and if you can point out what sections contain libelous portions then feel free to remove them. I notice you're only after the one article. Is there a specific desire to gut just this article? Additionally, for some reason you're citing 3RR when it has no bearing on the article yet. fethers (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of dodgeball variations

I have nominated List of dodgeball variations, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dodgeball variations. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I see that you're not active anymore, but in case you come back, I'd like to update you about the status of an article you created. The article God of War: Betrayal which you created on June 22, 2007 was promoted to GA-Class on August 29, 2012 and after a Peer Review, it will be nominated for FAC. --JDC808 ♫ 14:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]