User talk:Stuthomas4/Archive 1

Image source problem with Image:JHNcolorheadshot.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:JHNcolorheadshot.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Genisock2 (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:JNH headshot.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Stuthomas4!
We thank you for uploading Image:JNH headshot.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Clayton

Thanks for backing up my edit of Michael Clayton with the Monsanto stuff. - CaptainAmerica (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting...

Minutes after I reverted your edits, an anon who edits the same pages you do vandalizes my talk page with "nipple". What a coincidence.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the following articles: Burden_Of_Proof, Presumption_of_innocence, Wikipedia:Edit_war Stuthomas4 (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CyberGhostface thats a terrible word, "Nipple". --AdultSwim (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 00:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lame! Stuthomas4 (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's not lame. But I'm taking the hit. But I agree that CyberGhostface should be knocked down to 24 hours. Stuthomas4 (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I wanted to apologize for the accusation I gave you before and the trouble that was caused.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Please do not mask your edits with false summaries. Your recent edits to The Dark Knight do not reflect the action you claim to be doing. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't intentionally mask the edit. My computer autofilled the field with an old edit summary. Stuthomas4 (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. It's happened to me before. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your attempt to tell it like it is, but I seriously doubt the person's behavior is going to improve. If the behavior persists in affecting the welfare of the community, it may be necessary to resort to a wikiquette alert. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That editor.

I don't know. I suspect it's meant to distract from the real issues with a lot of huffing and chest puffing. Apparently as a scholar, that editor has relinquished our antiquated XX and XY perceptions of chromosome based gender and transcended to a higher plane, or male, female, neutral and scholar. And that editor seeks to keep us distracted until that editor gets that editor's editing done on that page. That editor has pushed three regular editors away by constantly playing such games. ThuranX (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit war on the heading. It's called digging himself deeper. Let him. ThuranX (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call the editor a "royal pain"; it's not really recommended to use such terminology even if you don't think highly of another editor. It's best to describe as neutrally as possible how the editor's behavior is being detrimental to the project. For example, he/she is not able to conduct a friendly discussion with other editors about any of his/her challenged edits. He/she also considers criticism of his/her conduct to be personal attacks that make him/her to be the victim who is only trying to improve the article. Not to mention this false warning toward me about attacking him/her in regard to Heath Ledger... that's a whole new (and very unfortunate) level. I personally don't think that editors' habits change often, so my best hope is a parting of ways. I have other articles to edit, so I'm willing to do the parting. Still, though, other editors and I had worked on The Dark Knight (film) since way back when under the title Untitled Batman Begins sequel and before it had even begun production. It would be nice to personally help add content to the premiere and beyond, but I'm sadly forfeiting that involvement. Let's not worry too much about it; ultimately, there is no grievous harm being done to the article, and after all, it is not the end of the world if a Wikipedia article cannot match community standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a redaction underneath the original comment --Stuthomas4 (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did the right thing. :) A correction to make from my comment above: NYScholar meant to say the pages for The Dark Knight, not Heath Ledger. He/she is not doing anything malicious in this regard. I obviously have edited on the TDK pages, and he/she is probably referring to edit summaries like me calling the update of EL access dates "anal-retentive", which I later apologized for. I suppose it's the addressing of the tone that is considered a personal attack. Anyway, we haven't officially met, so it's a pleasure to meet you. Sorry that it's under these circumstances. You are welcome to discuss films with me, either in terms of article work or in terms of films either of us have seen (see my own list). Happy editing! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to contact me off-wiki, you can go to my user page and under "toolbox" in the left column, click "E-mail this user". I would request not to do so unless necessary; I prefer to keep all Wikipedia-related discussions in the open for the sake of transparency. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It wasn't for anything salacious or duplicitous (extra points for the big words!) but I like the idea of keeping Wiki transparent. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop this Wikipedia:Harrassment on talk pages of articles, on others' talk pages, and on my talk page. I do not welcome such harrassment and strenuously object. I remove all such harrassing comments from my talk page. --NYScholar (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC) [I have now posted several warnings to this user, to no avail. --NYScholar (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)][reply]

This user has done nothing but actually shout about how they're being violated when in fact there is a growing consensus that they are indeed violating the very spirit of what they claim to uphold. A look at their archived talk pages will show this unequivocally. Unfortunately they also immediately remove anything overly critical of them so that trails are hard to come by. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that when I actually tried to have a civil discussion they were totally unable to admit any wrongdoing. The response was basically go look at *your* behaviour. This user wants constructive editing but is wholly unable to muster that kind of conduct in their own work. I move for a temporary banning of this user so they can go cool off. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this. It is perfectly acceptable to use editor talk pages to discuss problems on Wikipedia, especially when the problem involves an editor dominating a talk page and article via wikilawyering and intimidation based tactics. You're not alone in finding his attitude disgusting, at least five editors find it problematic, probably more if I went and counted all comments about his conduct. ThuranX (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I have filed a complaint about your behavior in the administrative incident noticeboard. Please stop posting comments on my talk page. You are violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines and I have asked for administrative assistance with this problem. I will be offline and will not have time to respond to your comments. There is no point in posting them on my talk page. If I see any more of these comments from you, I will continue to remove them. Enough is enough! --NYScholar (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made several good faith efforts to engage this user. Tonight He/She/It (this user insists on no gender identification) has requested administrative help. By looking at the edit history of Dark Knight (film) and the comments by several users, ThuranX, Erik, among others, you will see that there is a consensus that this user has been abusive to other good faith editors. This user declines to engage the real issue of their abusiveness by instead resorting to quoting wiki laws and shouting that they have been the victim all along. I admit that there has been some hostility that has arisen from this entire interlude and I am guilty of an uncivil tone at times. Nevertheless, I believe that there are several users that will attest to the fact that NYScholar has driven many long-time and collaborative editors from this article through brow beating and the sheer mass of the number of edits. I have copied this response to the NYScholar talk page with the full expectation that it will be summarily deleted.--Stuthomas4 (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find more rebuttals to this absurd complaint at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. The administrative assistance will be unlikely as my position is more than backed up by several other users who have come in contact with this user who fails to see the error of their ways. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin

Did you make a mistake with this edit? Your edit summary says you were just moving a paragraph, but it looks like you moved a whole lot more than that (looks like a whole article was copy and pasted). Hope this helps!-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what happens when you drink and edit. I fixed it now. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Virgin birth of Jesus. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -Andrew c ^[talk] 12:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I stopped at 2 revisions and made a specific request for discussion at the talk page. I appreciate the warning but I was well aware of the guideline and followed it accordingly. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]