User talk:Nphase

This is in regard to your edit here. Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing. --Masamage 01:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. Incidentally, and just for the record, I completely agree with your removal of that entire section from that article. :) You obviously know what you're doing, so I'd hate to see you get in trouble with the admins for something silly. As you can see at the pages I linked above, calling other people's well-intentioned contributions "terrible," "crappy," or "the behavior of a busy-body with nothing better to do" is not considered "within the bounds of civility" by the majority of Wikipedia users. This is not my value-judgement on your behavior; it's a carefully-enforced rule. So while you may define politeness however you wish outside Wikipedia, and call people whatever you like in real life, when editing here you must follow the policies that have been agreed on. People are banned every day for breaking these rules; again, I'd rather that didn't happened to you. Thanks again for your contributions. --Masamage 02:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muahahaha! XD That made me giggle out loud. Cheers! --Masamage 17:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

¿A quién le queda el saco?--Fluence 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "Spell Check"

Umm...are you sure you have the right person? I never made major edits to any of the 12 oz. mouse article. Only small, insignificant ones, and those where all spelled correctly. BishopTutu 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, it's cool man. Don't worry 'bout it. BishopTutu 18:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"[Sic]"

Haha, sorry about that whole "sic" thing. I did look it up, but i misinterpreted the definition. Yeah, it doesn't belong there. BishopTutu 22:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that other one wasn't me; I don't do stuff like that. I'm talking about the "Roostre" sic that i posted up. That other one was some dumb guy. But thanks anyway. BishopTutu 01:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 oz. Mouse

That header specifically says 'See the talk page for details.', and yet, there are no details on the talk page. Perhaps you want to use a different header? MGlosenger 16:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about that. Yeah, change the header, but leave leave the warning itself there. As I didn't add the original header and as I'm not really familiar with the tags, I won't change it - but I really would hope that the warning itself is not removed. Nphase 16:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it though, if the original research is so obvious, why not specifically mention it on the talk page? MGlosenger 22:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you need somebody to say "This is clearly original research" on the talk page for you to believe it. Nphase 00:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to cite the areas that contain original research, so as to actually corroborate your claim. I could add 'this is original research' headers to articles all day long, just because I thought they looked neato.. MGlosenger 02:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I didn't add the tag, but it is glaringly obvious to me (and you) where the original research is. You're just being defensive. You've got this backwards - you should be adding citations for the source material. Going through the article and tagging what would be every other sentence to show that it isn't backed up by a source is entirely pointless. Nphase 02:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the article doesn't need cleanup.. I just think it's odd that you wouldn't specifically mention what needs cleanup, since by putting the header back up you clearly have seen at least one area that needs it, and of course the header itself specifically says 'See the discussion page for details'. In the future I'm still going to yank such headers with no specific reasoning on the talk page. Maybe I'll get fired from Wikipedia, who knows. :) MGlosenger 02:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any speculation or even facts without a source. Any ideas that come from your own head are actually against Wikipedia policy. Example (I am aware that you didn't write this):

"Although Roostre sometimes seems to know the full extent of what's going on, he did not know who Liquor and the Dark Figure were, nor did he know what Liquor meant by "restarting everything" and "setting the alarm". This may indicate that he wasn't very high ranked in Q-109, that it's simply the result of him losing part of his memory, or that The Clock and those under him (Shark, Square guy, ect.) aren't part of Q-109."

Says who? It needs a citation. It is original research, and simply doesn't belong. In fact, there is too much content in general (I don't think there needs to be a Characters of 12 oz. Mouse page at all, but that's another story). Most of this belongs on a fan site, not Wikipedia. Nphase 02:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Personal attacks

I was pretty clear on the personal attack committed against Tom Chaplin and people who like Keane (there's where I'm included), as is textually refered on The Mekon's user page. I cited that to an administrator and unfairly blocked me. I won't retire the comment as The Mekon has been offending Keane a long time ago and now returned under ErleGrey nickname as referred by himself on my talk page. Thanks for letting me know this. I will post a link to my Nahuatl Wikipedia user page where I'll dedicate a paragraph to this guy...--Fluence 00:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ErleGrey is not The Mekon. There's not much I can say about your above work, other than that you are obviously not a sane person. Nphase 09:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“

There's not much I can say about your above work, other than that you are obviously not a sane person

”

. This is a personal attack against me, in your own talk page. If you're sooo sure ErleGrey is not The Mekon, is because you may be in accordance with him only to fuck on Keane. About the samples, five of them are being currently used on Keane's article so that wouldn't disqualifie for fair use, completely licensed. If they're deleted, I'll upload them again, or much simpler, upload them to the Nahuatl Wikipedia and make a link.--Fluence 01:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I will be happy to see you blocked, in that case. Remember, people who donate are PAYING for your tat. You have to understand that as long as you make low quality contributions, you will be edited and corrected. There's no great conspiracy against you. You are constantly hounded only because you don't understand Wikipedia.

Whether the samples are being used or not bears little relation to them passing fair use. The samples simply aren't necessary in the articles. An appropriate use of a song sample would be to comment on its musical structure, or an instance of a particular instrument. ONE Keane sample to illustrate the band's style is enough. Nphase 01:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're being used on singles article where they are b-sides. I commented there about their musical structure and instrumentation. And Nahuatl is not my sock puppet. I am an administrator there because no one cares about that Wikipedia or Huiquípedia as we call it. Keane's style for your information is really variable, as you'd read through the article. Though their main style is piano rock, they've experimented on alternative, soft ballads, trance, house and new age. And what are you paying Nphase? What is low quality for you on Keane? How would you respond if you know nothing about the band? I've looked for information on songs by other artists such as Muse, Franz Ferdinand or Snow Patrol, and even music samples of their b-sides, often misregarded songs as they're not successful, when some of them appear to be the band's best song. Some of Keane's b-sides are included on the samples, something that would be valuable information for someone wishing to know something about the band, as I do with the mentioned, but there aren't fans like me making that. Wikipedia can contain far more information than paper so you're just exclusioning. Bye--Fluence 02:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exclusionist, it's just rationality. Nobody thinks this stuff needs to be here except for you, and it's certainly not YOUR Wikipedia. If you want to make a case about why the clips should stay, do it in the correct place (where the media files are listed for deletion). There's no point appealing to me - it's not my decision. Nphase 02:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Well, however, I've think it over and I hope when can reach a consensus here. I will not upload all the Keane OGG samples, delete them if you want. I just ask you to keep all six appearing on the main article. If you manage to open them, you'll note the difference between style you referred. And I'm not doing that because of being "rational". I hate uploading things so I'll be waiting for your answer. Oh, and I mean "On A Day Like Today", "Nothing In My Way", "Somewhere Only We Know", "Tyderian", "Call Me What You Like" and "The Frog Prince"--Fluence 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's better, thank you. I'm not sure that six is appropriate, but I would feel a lot happier about that, and I would get off your case about it.

I don't think I can remove the deletion tags though - once they're there, they need to stay. I won't say anything if you reupload those six, however. Nphase 16:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about "owning" articles. It's just that the Keane matter is the one I'm most concerned about and my knowledge about it overpasses anyone on the Wikipedia. If all of us make an attempt to good-faithly add all information we've got about something, Wikipedia would be the greatest source of information in the world. About the album, for example, there are things I don't know about, Franz Ferdinand for instance because its article is leaking information. So I'm just trying to fit all I know about the album in one place. Not everybody thinks that way however. --Fluence 23:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this is an important point. You say "I'm trying to fit all I know about the album in one place", and suggest that we should "add all information we've got" about subjects. But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No encyclopedia would include the information that "Nothing In My Way" is played in the key of "Bbm/Db + 0.20 (Si flat minor, Re flat on bass, detuned + 20 cents)", at 86bpm, with a time signature of 4/4 on 16 beats. And the reason people say you feel you "own" articles is because any time anyone makes a change you personally disagree with (even if you are the only person that disagrees with it, and even if your version is against Wikipedia guidelines), you automatically revert them without thought. --Dreaded Walrus 00:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2007

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Main Page, you will be blocked from editing. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, you heard him. Main Page, motherfuckers.Nphase 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you're proud of that? -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. What part of writing "Niggermayor" on the front page of Wikipedia don't you understand? Nphase 10:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant vandal

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. --Dweller 10:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dickinson.jpg

I changed the image back to the earlier one, the one that you uploaded, seeing as the version the other user uploaded wasn't being used anywhere else.

It is now back to the original photograph of David Dickinson. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Vandalism Please

No vandalism to dogwood please. Thanks, dude. ask123 04:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]