User talk:Stanley Ipkiss

We appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. You are entitiled to your opinions about Angelina Jolie but please do not use Wikipedia to express them if they are POV.

Thanks Bubbleboys 21:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Blundell

I live in Toronto, and haven't listened to a radio station that wasn't CFNY in, oh, about ten years now. You're telling me nothing I don't already know. The point is that Wikipedia has a policy against articles on stuff whose notability is purely local, and the article doesn't suggest that Blundell's notability is anything other than Toronto-specific. The criterion the article has to meet is not whether Dean Blundell exists or not; it's whether there's a reason why someone who's never been to Toronto in their life might actually need to know about him. Bearcat 16:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beckinsale

Speaking of which, beside the IMDB crap about her mother being half Burmese, why are you reverting me? We're not usually supposed to have trivita bits on Wikipedia, I've seen them taken out of articles time and time again. We're supposed to insert the information into the article, which is what I did. I don't what your problem with this could be? IMDB trivia, btw, is submitted by fans and rarely ever checked. This is why people now think Burt Reynolds's mom is Italian, which is what it said on the IMDB for about a year before I submitted a correction. DocOck 16:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about her father? You mean Beckinsale's father? or Judy Loe's father? That info is crap and is re-posted from the IMDB to yes, dozens of websites. That's how these rumours spread and this is why it is so essential Wikipedia doens't follow those idiot websites' suit. I've seen incorrect bit after incorrect bit get reposted on site after site, simply because people lift the trivia directly from the IMDB and don't double-check.

Here is the Beckinsale link again http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/24/1082719677731.html?from=storyrhs and another one: http://www.geocities.com/sentstarr/quote.html This one says that Richard Beckinsale was 1/8th Burmese. But it's a quote so maybe the guy who knew him was wrong. Either way the ancestry is from Richard's side. You will not find a single reliable source (i.e. interview with Kate) that says her mother was part Burmese. Only websites that lift IMDB info.

The only trivia bits I didn't put in was the birthdays she shares (which isn't encylopedic), her height (I've seen height info repeatedly taken out of actor articles with claims of being un-encyclopedic) and the knickers bit, which isn't that relevant. Everything else I either put in, or was already in the article (I.e. Hello Magazine)). I know you mean well but trust me when I say the only thing the IMDB is good for now adays is movie credits, everything else has to be double-checked before being trusted. DocOck 16:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Jkelly 17:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aerodynamics Edit

I don't agree with the statement that the most aerodynamic shape is a raindrop. What about a needle shape of the same mass and volume? For that matter, what is a raindrop shape? They change all the time. --Orthografer 00:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asking you to cite your sources is not "vandalism"

Asking for sources to be cited is not vandalism. You are apparently unfamiliar with how to cite sources and what vandalism is. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources and Wikipedia:Vandalism for what vandalism is. Uncle G 01:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add that pasting your source into the description of your edit is not citing it. You need to cite it ON the page. You could have done this yourself, but instead you kept complaining about other people asking for a source. You never fixed the problem. You had no right to complain about it and you could have easily fixed it yourself. Try to remember this for next time -- Rediahs 07:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up your act

Repeated edits is NOT a violation of any policy whatsoever. Repeated reverts are, however. This is to prevent revert wars. Please don't perform any more silly stunts like this Silent Hill (film). -- Rediahs 07:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You said you reverted for "excessive edits" but there is no such policy on wikipedia, as I have explained to you already. People are perfectly allowed to make "mass edits". There is no policy against it, okay? It's completely and utterly acceptable. You had no reason to revert. -- Rediahs 19:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is reverts, not edits. As I have already said. I don't particularly like to repeat myself, so read more carefully next time. Thanks. There is no rule against repeated edits, and if you read on that page, it even says, and I quote: "This policy does not apply to self-reverts, correcting simple vandalism, or reversions for the purpose of maintenance (such as on the Introduction or the Sandbox)." -- Rediahs 20:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe doing that to irritate me would count as vandalism, as you are not doing it to help wikipedia; you're doing it out of spite and to intend to be annoying. Please refrain from such childish actions. -- Rediahs 02:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said there was a policy against it. I said it might be vandalism for the sole fact that you are not doing it to better wikipedia, instead you are doing it to annoy. Do you think I or anybody else would honestly care if you did that? Go ahead; it has no consequence upon us. It is, however, incredibly childish and a waste of your own time. -- Rediahs 21:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated Vandalism

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Crumbsucker 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Crumbsucker 17:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text, deliberate misinformation, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Joyous | Talk 01:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:DavidStrickland.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DavidStrickland.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 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. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:ElishaCuthbert.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ElishaCuthbert.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:PayItForward.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:PayItForward.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Capote poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Capote poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]