User talk:Rockstar915/Archive 3

Time out

I've given everyone a day off from your ridiculous behaviour. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is perhaps the most boring application of a block I've seen thus far. And from you, Guy? Please. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, whatever. It's not like IAR is going anywhere anyway. I'm just disappointed that I'm being accused of violating WP:POINT and trolling. AGF has gone out the window, apparently. I'm voting for Kim Bruning, then. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, if AGF had gone out of the window it would have been indefinite. Like I said, I'm giving people a break. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What from? You have edited the IAR talk page in the same way, if not worse. You should know this block was unjustified, as what I did was not vandalism. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Corbin Bleu

I agree with your reversion. I'd appreciate any resources to help me determine when good faith ends, so that I can become a better editor. Thanks! -Superbeecat 00:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! It's not that I assumed bad faith on the part of Punk krunk14 (talk · contribs), but rather that what he/she added was in violation of WP:BLP -- we don't want to have potentially libelous material on Wikipedia. In any case, I can definitely help with any questions, but judging from your edit history, you're already doing an amazing job! In case you don't have my talk page watched, I'll go ahead and post this on yours. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mwahaha

...the reason why I changed the tag on the page was not to create some POV fork ... but rather (and apparently naively) in the hopes that it would bring the two parties to some mutual agreement...

Oh, was that it? Hmm. Was I invited to either party?

...I'm beginning to see why Jimbo (in his statement of principles) says that meta-discussions shouldn't take place here. We're here for one purpose only. The rules, by nature and the foundations of this encyclopedia, are secondary. We really are building the bike while riding it, and the funny thing is, it's worked out quite well. [1]

• Support --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Woo hoo!! Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Main HTML color

In reference to your Help desk question, see: WP:COLOR. I can't find where the Help desk archive page for that day has gone, so I can't update the original question. --Teratornis 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Woo hoo! Thanks! Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nick Palumbo

I've nominated him for deletion here. If you could drop by and give your opinion that'd be great.--CyberGhostface 00:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note -- I'll give my opinion in the next couple of days! Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your query

I don't think they can. If you let me know which article, I can check for you. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

IAR and me

Heya David, I just wanted to drop a note saying I'm glad we can get along in respect to IAR. :) Also, sorry for being an ass a few weeks ago (I was having a bad week). Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries! I'm glad that we're able to work together, and I hope that the situation at WP:IAR is resolved via community-wide consensus.  :) —David Levy 21:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Amen. That would sure be nice... (crosses fingers) Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

IAR and consensus

When you say that IAR is used to justify anti-consensus and unilateral action, what you might actually mean is that IAR is used to justify being a *********. You might be disappointed to learn that people can use "consensus" to be a *********. Ever been reverted to the "consensus version"? My memory is muddy (what's this river that I'm in) but I think you have.

Now I'm not sure what the moral of the story is, but I think it involves always wearing pants. Cheers, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Crap, you've got another good point. Consensus is often used as a tool to act unilaterally, and yes, I've been reverted to the "consensus version." Man, all of these masks are making me start to feel like I'm in an 16th century court. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey

hey did u talk to the record producers? if u didnt tell my name is Tamie or tell em my stage name T. Valentine. i have all my songs written do u know any local recording studios i can record em at? i live in the Miami, Miramar area could look for some for me 2?..=]..thankies!!..=] me + ma sis luv us sum Pretty Ricky!(wat waz dat?) 02:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, and unfortunately neither Warner nor Virgin is looking to sign right now (which isn't surprising, I suppose). Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Talk:Jocelyne Couture-Nowak#Clean-up

Hi Rockstar. Just wanted to say that I agree with your views, and I wanted to encourage you not to be put off by one awkward editor. I'd like to get this article in good shape, and it would be helpful if you could continue to voice your thoughts and opinions on how to best do that. Cheers. —gorgan_almighty 12:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note -- I was just getting tired of the constant back-and-forth and belligerent attitude. Hopefully we might start seeing some positive changes now. But thanks for jumping in -- I really do appreciate it. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

oh ok

thanks anyways u were a big help!!..=] u cant stop me + ma sis we genius!(wat waz dat?) 02:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC) ps i am a little dissapointed now

Courtesy blanking

I didn't know we had a template for that. Thanks for picking up my slack. WilyD 18:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I didn't know about it either until I saw it used on the BDJ arb case. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean attacks!?

He has messed up my user page, images on them, and my plans for making my user page messed up!He constantly picks on me! Starting from now, I never want here the name "Durin" ever again! And that's final >___<! --Angel David 21:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

By attacks I mean calling Durin a "tyrannical policy-obssesed idiot," "flea," "vandal," "wiki-bully," and saying you hope he sits on a tack. You were flagrantly violating WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Durin was acting within policy, and his actions were completely justified. Sorry, but that's that. End of discussion. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Excessive use of fair use images ?

Yester day August 27th, you have removed image links from all MÄR-related article in accordance with WP:NFCC, while I was under the impression that those images were fair use instead of non-free contents. In case they were removed due to excessive use, non-free or not, I pray you rescind the removal since not a single one of them was uploaded for any purpose outside pictorially demonstrating the contents of those articles, which was not uncalled for by any means. In case it was due to being non-free, please cite what notes I should include in my fair use rationale. Please reply ASAP. Profet 666 09:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Profet, fair use IS non-free. "Fair use" doesn't mean we get to use it anywhere we like. Fair use materials are still copyrighted, and not available under a free license. Overuse of fair use images is being cleaned up across a broad variety of articles on the project. Please see User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse for a sampling of this work. The Wikimedia Foundation has taken a stance against overuse of fair use images. Please see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Also, our fair use policy at WP:NFCC strongly encourages minimal use of such images. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. --Durin 13:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In place of non-free images, can the URLs of the source images be placed in articles as links? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That's actually an interesting question. I don't see why not, though the person who will be able to tell you for sure is Durin. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that. I'm not concerned so much with the images of characters that already have their own articles as much as I am with those that don't merit having individual articles made about them...seems to me that having a bunch of stub- or Start-class articles with one image apiece isn't any better in terms of Wikipedia content than having one concise article with an image for each character, but that's me. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to disagree with that, and I totally understand the frustration and concern. Unfortunately, though, in the end, when the Foundation speaks, we must adhere. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Willybr; putting in URLs to images is, in my experience, unprecedented. If you want to put a ref tag on the character, and in the ref tag put a reference to an external website with detailed information on the character, perhaps including a picture, that would be fine. But, putting a link directly to an image is unusual and would probably be removed. --Durin 12:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm...alright, I'll see what I can do about working with this. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willbyr (talk • contribs) 12:33, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Justification for fair use image removals

I suggest that you link to Durin's fair use overuse explanation when pulling such images from article space, it'll help explain in more detail the reasons for the removals. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 19:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call -- I'll definitely start doing that in the future. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:

1.) I do not support just removing alot images. I do not they will do anything good in the long run.

2.) I just followed what Ignoring rules says; I tend to ignore Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. I could have sworn it was tagged as just beeing an essay. Your assuming I will use ignoring rule it in any situation.

3.) Please do not use "Thanks, and have a great day". Those things annoy me.

4.) "Please do not revert the edit again as it will eventually result in your editing privileges being revoked." whatever.

You have caught me in a bad mood. I do not think I will understand what your doing. You removed image from a GA article Sailor Moon. What was the point of that? It still reached GA class. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 20:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, I removed the images because they were in violation of policy. Plain and simple. Now, in terms of WP:IAR, Wikipedia's policy for ignoring all rules means that you do not have to learn every minute detail of the rules before editing, not that you can do whatever you feel like doing and then use IAR as an excuse for your actions. In short, edit warring against consensus and policy will result in a block. Oh, and I was being serious about you having a great day; it was not some semi-dickish means to annoy you. So thanks, and have a great day -- life's too short to be angry. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Chess Pieces

I really don't know if you're an admin or not, but you have no right to suddenly appear and delete every image there is. At least try to discuss the matter like I did. We can't give articles to every character because, even though they are notable enough for one, they lack proper information, except mabye Diana, Halloween, Peta, Ian, Rolan, Ash, and Loco. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand the issue at hand. That said, the images are still in violation both of Wikipedia's policy for non-free content and the Foundation's principles. I know you've been told to read Durin's excellent explanation for why images like these are to be removed, but I highly suggest you familiarize yourself with the policies before reverting. And I'm not an admin, but per Wikipedia's policies, I absolutely have the right to remove anything in an article that is a flagrant violation of policy. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

He actually hasn't, and in my opinion that explanation of his is more along the lines of a collection of information for an excuse to do what he is doing as freely as he wishes. Look, at least THINK before you act and actually discuss with the people working on the article before deleting all the images, as not all images should be deleted. It is for that that they are angry, which you and Durin have yet to realize. To further prove my point, it is through not talking things through (or rather not soon enough) that the List of Akatsuki members article is going to be deleted. Before you try anything anymore, at least talk things through with the editors on that page and come to a comprimise. Wikipedia says that three images non-free is permitted on an article somewhere (new, don't know every policy yet), yet he deleted an image when only one was there (I don't count the ones in the corner, it is required that they exist so that would limit the number to a rather strict two) on the Chess Pieces (MÄR) article. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• There's no policy that suggests that three fair use images per article is acceptable. Sorry. --Durin 21:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Do or Die

Why did you undo my addition to the Do or Die page? BT--Can-eh-dian Redhead 14:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Simple formatting issues -- it should be fixed now. Sorry I didn't get to it sooner, but I was out of town last week. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

IAR revert

I'm not sure this was wise. This is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules#New_version_about_.22working_with_others.22 and I don't see where you've even commented in that section. Obviously, many people object strongly enough to the added words to be willing to revert- so I don't think it's remotely accurate to assert that this has already gained consensus. Friday (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's gained consensus due to the fact that it's been sitting up on the project page change-free for months now. You can't just go and change it without serious discussion first. I'm open to changing the wording, but a blind revert back to the old version (and yes, it's the "old version" now) is just as unacceptable as someone changing it back to the "nervous and depressed" version without consensus. And just because it's being discussed on the talk page doesn't mean it has community consensus to change. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Unchanged for months? That is not remotely what I see when I look at the history. Friday (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Close to two months. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Quick question

Hey there - actually I'm not really much of an image patroller, but I came across it today and noticed it was uploaded and placed there by a user who has been warned about images in the past, so I removed it. Then of course I got distracted with something else and haven't made it over to WP:PUI yet. But thanks for reminding me, I'll go and report the thing. See ya! - eo 19:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Tractor (band)

A came across the AfD for this while writing up There is Some Fun Going Forward, and I'm going to take it on board as per comments made in the AfD. It would be good, if you have time, to keep an eye on it. Regards, --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll put it on my watchlist! :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Josh Gotti

Don't know why you have your aim set on Josh Gotti, but if Tracy Foster is one of his socks, Teddy Bairz probably is too. Kww 21:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I'm in the process of compiling a case against Josh for ongoing vandalism. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please use archive not delete on talk page

Please archive your talk page rather than delete stuff, okay? --Busy Stubber (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Most Wikipedians don't archive template messages. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not? --Busy Stubber (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Template messages are used to alert a user about an issue, not to promote conversation. The purpose of an archive is to serve as a useful reference tool for previous discussions. Because template messages do not by definition facilitate discussion, there is no need to reference them in the future. Therefore, they are often not archived. Hope that helps. Rockstar (^T/_C) 07:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)