User talk:Ceejayoz/Archive 2

; Archives
	through May 31, 2006;

Please click here to leave me a new message. If your message is urgent, feel free to e-mail me or contact me via AIM (screenname: ceejayoz).

Dispute[edit]

Hello, thank you for your message. I have no idea about the procedure for the resolution of a dispute. I am busy for now, sorry. You should explain me why this user has deleted my article so many times with no conensus and why Wiki adminisrtator are here pretending that nothing is happening. Give me just one serious reason. Brian W 19:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Brian_G._Wilson#Re:_Dispute — ceejayoz ^talk 19:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

links for my personal reference: Talk:Club music, Talk:House_music, Electronic_dance history, etc.

I'm less guilty than him, becouse I was trying to contribute to an existing article, those guys instead are aiming to destroy, without asking other users' opinion. Also, today my user page has been vandalized by an anonimous user. Stating that an exagerated eurocentrism is a nazi attitude is not the same as " guy, your a fucking nazi "... No, I'm not innocent, but my reactions can be understood.Brian W 20:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Brian_G._Wilson#Re:_Dispute — ceejayoz ^talk 20:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes[edit]

I'm sorry ceejayoz. I wasn't referring to the article as "my article" and "Brian's". I'm sorry for the inconvienence. I just want all this to end, and for everyone else to stop getting angry over nothing. All we should do is get some experts and settle it. Again I'm sorry if I've caused any confusion. Hope to make up to you in the future.

By this I refer to the talk page for Kiand.

The Ronin 00:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

featured article dispute[edit]

Do u enjoy looking at peoples medical deseases, because many other people do not and would not wish to see them, think about other people on this topic --Andy 11:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Swainstonation#Re:_featured_article_dispute — ceejayoz ^talk 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republicans arent grusome first of all,second of all i can just use the toolbox button to sign my posts, and third of all i never said to censor wikipedia, i just dont want people to think wikipedia is a website based on shock value rather than facts and if that is the first thing they see when they come to this website than there going to get the idea that wikipedia is here to disgust people--Andy 02:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC) immature sig spam removed — ceejayoz ^talk 02:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Swainstonation#Re:_featured_article_dispute — ceejayoz ^talk 02:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do u allow vandals to do what they do? --Andy 11:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC):Huh? — ceejayoz ^talk 02:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO u alloew vandals to vandalize a page or do u revert back to the way it was before?--Andy 02:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC

NO u "censor" there opinion of the page and revert, or u revert/ ban the vandal or person making the attacks it when someone is making personal attackes "censoring" their opinion , so wikipedia is censored and your part of the problem--Andy 03:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism is not censorship. Vandalism is itself censorship, as it generally removes legitimate data. — ceejayoz ^talk 11:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how is vandalism censorship, and i bet more than half the stuff on this website is not legit anyway, even if it is on the talk pages u remove it, that is vandalism --Andy 11:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Swainstonation#Re:_featured_article_dispute — ceejayoz ^talk 13:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

u violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks, i mite have to report u --The Nation 03:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I feel an administrator will ask you to stop vandalising my talk page. I attempted to disengage from my debate with you as it was clearly going nowhere. Instead of respecting my attempt at resolving the conflict, you persisted in attacking me via my page, calling me a loser, spamming your signature, etc. Again, absoultely please do get an administrator involved - I'd like them to tell you to stop. — ceejayoz ^talk 03:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete[edit]

it says avoid deleting comments not absolutely do no, and hey you are the one to talk, you have deleted a lot of what i said on your talk page, dont be a hyppocrte you jackass--The Nation 02:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not permitted to remove administrator warnings, and you're clearly violating Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks in your edit summaries as well as your comments to other WP users.

I find it ironic that you're proud of being anti-vandalism while taking such a contemptuous view of Wikipedia's attempts to make this a nice place for its editors. What the hell is wrong with just being nice to other people? I had a discussion with you. I tried to keep it civil, and withdrew when it became heated. Other editors have run into the same problem. Do you just not care? — ceejayoz ^talk 02:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should ask u the same question , u only cARED ABOUT YOURSELF AND WERE ONLY NICE TO YOURSELF WHEN YOU SAID TO KEEP THE PICTURE, AND YOU PERSONALLY ATTACKED ME WHEN YOU called me a asshole so you have no rom to talk--The Nation 04:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC), by the way im pro-vandalism i just dont do it myself--The Nation 04:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. "The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page", where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors.--The Nation 04:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My deletions of your bad-faith comments on my talk page were supported by an sysop/bureaucrat here on Wikipedia - you even received a block for them. Clearly, not vandalism. I was civil and professional towards you despite repeated provocations from you.

In the text you quoted, note the bit about being prohibited from removing warnings. You have violated that. — ceejayoz ^talk 04:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kept the only worthy and real warning by P3do, the others werent--The Nation 16:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar[edit]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You have numerous edits per day and you work hard to keep wikipedia safe from vandalism or any thing else, even if you do go a bit overboard. --^The ^Nation 18:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

hiding Last Updated on the Main Page[edit]

I posted the code. Cheers! — ceejayoz ^talk 13:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've inserted the code. Thanks! —David Levy 14:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPR mediation[edit]

Hi. User:MSTCrow has requested a mediation at Talk:National Public Radio. It would be very helpful if you could participate. Cheers! David L Rattigan 14:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On this day[edit]

Well it wasn't the fact that I thought that the bombing should have been included it was you comment "just one-more London bombing" or whatever it was. That is not a very nice thing to say is it especially only a week or so after the first anniversery of last years attacks. No, this event shouldn't have made On This Day but you should never refer to a bombing as just another bombing. As someone living in New York I'm sure you understand the devestation these can cause to families. The bombing wasn't a major incident in the great scheme of things but is never "just another". By you reckoning all this LebonenIsrael stuff should be taken out the In the News, after all it's just another missile they've been doing it all week! Jimmmmmmmmm 10:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "On This Day" has any criteria about the relative "importance" or whatever of an event, more probably it should reflect whether Wikipedia has a signficant or interesting article on it and Hyde Park and Regents Park bombings is a relatively new article and so worthy of attention that OTD would give it. The bomb in 1982 is on the BBC On This Day page. It also has theTurkish invasion of Cyprus, but no-one seemed to put Turkish invasion of Cyprus up as a candidate. Or did i miss it? Jooler 17:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Alex_garden.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Alex_garden.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. 09:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Aeriks a-200.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Aeriks a-200.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salmon Fact Dispute[edit]

I left a note on the Talk:Salmon concerning the issue. meatclerk 05:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of War[edit]

On this day, I hereby declare war on you, etc, etc. Make your time. --Karafias 07:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cirrus Design[edit]

Apparently Ceejayoz fancies himself an editor for Wikipedia, deleting entries repeatedly made to Cirrus Design--an unsafe aircraft with a terrible flight record--by an Aeronautical Engineer with extensive experience with small aircraft. It is precisely the mission of Wikipedia to allow the public to publish information that the public needs to know. It is not the place of Ceejaoz to delete that which he finds offensive or inconvenient. A quick review of his site indicates that there are other complaints against him for identical activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Right Brain (talk • contribs) 22:26, 4 November 2006

Why is it SPAM to llink software products to the underlying platform?[edit]

We often get questions about the software that supports our product. Since Apache tomcat is a very important component of Open-Xchange, we thought it would be helpful to our users to find this software in a wikipedia search.

DKusnetzky

Image:Alex garden.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Alex garden.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. 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 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. --Rossrs 08:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge? Haditha[edit]

I was unaware that there were now two pages! There was a "title war" or a "move war" (I'm not sure which) for a while, but then it settled down to H. Killings, with redirects from H. Incident and H. Massacre to H. Killings, and I urge you to return it to that status, if at all possible. Thanks, htom htom 15:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! It is surprizing how fast Wikipedia fixes itself. htom 16:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

iPhone forum[edit]

No clue why a link to a discussion forum would not be appropriate. Especially if it is non-profit and not from a company. Wikipedia often links to forums. It is useful for the users. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.157.130.95 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such." I'd say it's pretty hard to argue a forum with 9 posts (spread across two users) is a 'major fansite'. There are and will be far more notable forums relevant to the iPhone. — ceejayoz talk 16:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, then link to one of those. And it's hardly a suprise that a product announced a couple of hours ago hasn't a forum with 10,000s of posts yet ;-) And don't call someone "spamming" just for making suggestions and following instructions (such as posting to the discussions page).

Hey[edit]

Hey. How are you. Good to see a relic forum admin in wikipedia. :). --SkyWalker 12:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]