User talk:The strokes

This user may have left Wikipedia. The strokes has not edited Wikipedia since June 14, 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

User talk:The strokes/Archive

Welcome!

Hello The strokes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Meno25 04:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Oil Kings.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Oil Kings.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sage of Ice

Sage of Ice and I worked out our differences eleven days ago by staying cool and trying to find common ground. I'm sorry if I caused you stress in the past, but let's let bygones be bygones. I actually planned on apologizing to you, but I respected your wishes for me to not edit your user talk page. (If you still want a full apology, let me know - I had one all typed up and ready to go.) Maybe just try reading what I write in a happy voice. Really, I think I'm a pretty nice person, and I think we just got off on the wrong foot. I know I'm not perfect, but please don't go around trying to damage my reputation. My reputation on Wikipedia isn't worth all that much trouble, and I'm sure we'd both prefer if you could spend your time improving articles, instead of making comments about other editors. As I said to Sage of Ice, carry on with the good edits, and have a nice day. --Muéro^(talk/c) 05:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really only eleven days ago? Time has crawled far slower than I imagined.

As Muéro said though, Strokes, we came to terms with one another, so don't worry about it. It was never really much of an argument to begin with. I mean, neither of us had really done anything to the other, so it was just casual discourse between editors. I try to keep myself as neutral as possible when dealing with others here on Wikipedia. I do appreciate the fact that you were just trying to help me out, however, so thanks for the thought.

I'm no longer relevant, though, so now it's up to you and Muéro to get things sorted out amongst yourselves so no one has to clash in the future. Best of luck to both of you.

One thing perplexes me though... how were you, Strokes, brought to my talk page so randomly and... how did you, Muéro, become aware of Strokes's message so quickly without anyone mentioning it? Are you guys on each other's watchlists or am I the one under vigilance here? Either way, carry on... Sage of Ice 07:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age in infoboxes

I just happened to see a hockey player page with the birth date and age formatting, and I thought it would be helpful to have the age listed. But, if infoboxes are for critical information only, you're absolutely right, it shouldn't be included. I really don't care if it's there or not, it was just the way I preferred it. Could you give me a link to where you found that infoboxes shouldn't include age, or are for critical information only? I won't bother arguing since it's not a big deal, but I would rather see the rationale so I can learn something new and become a better editor. Also, thanks for letting me know I should stop before I did any more. --Muéro^(talk/c) 04:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to know where this is stated. Of course infoboxes can't contain just about anything, but I still don't see why age can't be included. After all, the height and weight of an athlete is usually given both according to the metric system and in US customary units and that's hardly critical either, since it's fairly easy to convert. Equally non-critical and redundant is the practise of having the nationality accompanied by a flagicon. --x-Flare-x^{Talk) 03:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Date and age template is used in a lot of infoboxes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Birth_date_and_age. I believe it was probably for that the template was created. --claes 06:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?

What are you talking about. Where do you come in? I see, I did make a mistake, but are you the IP or just a different user. I was going through and messed up. Red Skunk ^talk 19:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... so here!

Sorry for mistakenly posting a vandalism template on your user talk page. Red Skunk ^talk

Unspecified source for Image:NewCrest.png

Thanks for uploading Image:NewCrest.png. 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, then 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, then 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-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 07:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Longhair\^talk 07:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rob schremp.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rob schremp.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comments

No need to be sorry, by all means. As for my gang analogy, I was being sarcastic to make a point; that point being that this is not about ganging up on you because they watch each other's back, it's about your unwillingness to accept the possibility that these two editors might just happen to see eye-to-eye without influencing each other through their need to conform. It's also about your unwillingness to accept that they might just happen to be correct. Instead, your comments suggest that their backing each other up is all part of an elaborate scheme to push their collective point across while disregarding their individual views.

Also, I don't deny that you have made some constructive edits in the past. My remark about you being on the disruptive side was meant to reflect your near past edits. This is my sentence from RG's talk page: You just happen to be on the disruptive side right now (emphasis added). So just like I can't deny that you've made constructive edits, you can't deny that you have been disruptive. I mean, you've even admitted to being disruptive in your own edit summaries. One particular instance states: "don't stop agitating me, I'll keep vandalizing your page Addhoc. This is my new username, and it's this for a reason". In addition, most, if not all, of your last 50 edits consists of vandalism on your part and/or feuding with Ccwaters, Addhoc, and RG to push your point across. Now how is that not being disruptive? — It's the very Wiki-definition of disruption.

Lastly, you may accuse RG of being immature for his comments, but making comments such as "I feel better about this disagreement knowing for sure that you're a ********; insinuating that RG is a hypocrite, labelling the three as Wikinazis; and resorting to vandalism when other editors disagree with you under the victimization ruse, neither reflects positively on *your* maturity level, nor does it lend credibility to your claim of endeavouring to reach amicable solutions. — Dorvaq (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't sound like this gang mentality is all in my head. He admits to keeping a lookout for his peeps from "idjits" (I can only assume he meant idiots, but didn't want to be accused of making a personal attack)

So let me get this straight; you're denouncing RG and Ccwaters for conforming to a anti-vandalism gang? Again, I'm not sure what your point is or what exactly you are trying to achieve.

I'm comfortable with how this reflects on my maturity level on wikipedia, because I (unlike some others) realize that this is a pretend world, where people easily manipulate who they really are; any "brownie points" I may accumulate by acting out of character don't mean squat in the grand scheme of things.

So why do you continue? Why are we still having this conversation if you care so little about this? Why have you persisted so much if it "don't mean squat in the grand scheme of things". You are trying to sway me into believing that you're the wiser and more mature by not caring about what others think of you, yet your actions betray your words, my friend. If you care so little about what others think of you in this "prentend world", then why were you so quick to rebut my comments on you being disruptive? Why was it so important for you to legitimize your actions? Again, why do you continue?

You know what however, you don't even need to answer as I could less. The whole point of my intrusion in your discussion with RG was to give you a friendly warning; being, that divulging RG and Ccwaters's not-so-secret, secret of protecting each other's pages against vandals or sharing many similar points of views in ongoing discussions isn't going to get you very far. One can only speculate that your subtle threat towards RG was meant to inform him you would be taking steps towards having disciplinary measures and/or sanctions imposed on him and possibly Ccwaters as well for their actions... it won't happen. You may be comfortable with how your disruption reflects on your maturity level, but I can tell you that if you continue at your current maturity level, you will not gain the support of those who have the power to impose such actions.

And, if it's not what you are attempting to do, then I'll ask you again; what *are* you trying to achieve? Are you trying to gain the sympathy and support of other disrupters living the same frustration *that they don't really care about* in order to better push your point across — are you actually telling me that you are trying to form a gang? Again, no need to answer.

Lastly, I'm sticking with my friendly warning and pulling out of this conversation. I'll allow you to have the last word, because I know you'll want to have it that way anyway seeing as you care so little about this. I wish you good luck with your endeavour, and please continue in your search for amicable solutions. You make the pretend society of Wikipedia proud. — Dorvaq (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CCwaters

I agree with you on your point about CCwaters, as he and his cronies have tried to gang up on me too. However, I have been able to counter them with civility and they rarely say anything to me unless I posted something erroneouly. Your incivility and rampant vandalism doesn't prove anything you wish to get across or that they are incorrect. It actually proves to them that they are.

JaMikePA 16:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

meh, I was bored (and tired of wikinazis). Even if it didn't prove anything, it served its purpose (to inform them that people know of their 'gang') The strokes 23:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am sick of their bullshit. Giving each other awards for "diligence" is retarded. They have threatened me with reporting my supposed incivility, but they never even try. They hope to get me to write something over the top, but I stay right below the radar. That's how you get under their skin.

JaMikePA 05:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your username...

Might be inappropriate under WP:USERNAME unless you are really a member of The Strokes - you might want to think about changing it. exolon 18:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Messwithcup.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Messwithcup.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 00:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern about your username

Hello, The strokes, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Let me reassure you that my writing here means I don't think your username is grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate; such names get reported straight to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention or blocked on sight. This is more a case where opinions might differ, and it would be good to reach some consensus — either here or at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued participation on Wikipedia. Thank you. Bsroiaadn^Talk 06:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Image:EdmontonClinic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Image:EdmontonClinic.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 01:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NHL Team Outline

Hi, I just noticed that a template you created, Template:Infobox NHL Team Outline, is unused and appears to be abandoned. I've marked it as deprecated, meaning it'll be deleted in two weeks' time if nobody objects. If there's a reason to keep it please leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Deprecated and orphaned templates and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. Thanks. Bryan Derksen 09:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ice Hockey Player

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Infobox Ice Hockey Player. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Djsasso 06:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks in edit summaries

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Reso lute 15:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ovechkin2.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ovechkin2.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. _→AzaToth 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Old Crest.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Old Crest.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ovechkin goal

As per the above comment, there has been a move to delete the image. I strongly believe the image should stay-- I figured you should weigh in since you are the uploader.PStrait (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Ovechkin2.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Ovechkin2.gif. 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.

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 22:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Kopitar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kopitar.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Yzerman

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Steve Yzerman, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Asher196 (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Steve Yzerman, you will be blocked from editing. Asher196 (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:EdmontonClinic.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:EdmontonClinic.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello The strokes! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 687 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Cabbie Richards - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Cabbie Richards

I have nominated Cabbie Richards, 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/Cabbie Richards. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Pilsner.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Pilsner.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 19:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed ...

... that you'd been gone for five years! Ah, what a good feeling, any time a serial vandal like you leaves Wikipedia for good. Ravenswing 12:56, 9 September 2015 (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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:MohaliLights2.png

The file File:MohaliLights2.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, unclear use/purpose

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zinclithium (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merger of Template:Infobox National Hockey League coach

Template:Infobox National Hockey League coach has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox ice hockey player. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Connormah (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]