User talk:CmdrClow/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello CmdrClow/Archive, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Bushytails 21:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Images

Finally! Someone edits the pages and puts the actual true images of Anakin's spirit on ROTJ! The Wookieepedian 09:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

DocZilla doesn't even read Batman and he's editing the Joker Wiki? I say we remove that Mahnke image and replace it with either the one you had or a new one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xodus900 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Nice Work!

Thanks, man!! Cool contribs in the Animated Batman article. --T-man, the wise 03:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page

Changing people's comments Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. e.g. (unsigned comment from user). Please see Wikipedia: Vandalism for further comparison. Bignole 23:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk page 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. These are considered warnings, please do not remove them again. Also, I have seen your history, and removing warnings about your image tags is also prohibited. If you continue to remove warnings I will be forced to report you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism Bignole 13:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I was "blocked" for "vandalism" by an admin that didn't like me editing his stuff. I was immediately unblocked and he was reprimanded for what he did, because it was against Admin policy to intentionally block someone just so they cannot edit a page. Please read all comments about that situation before you try and use them to justify your actions. These are not personal attacks, they are warnings. If you remove them again I will report you. If you have a problem with the warnings than please feel free to contact a mediator, or admin, so that they can see the warnings and the changes you made. Thank you. Bignole 02:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Removing warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again.

I removed the warnings by this user because I interpret them as personal attacks. The warnings Bignole has given me are for the express purpose of attempting to provoke me. Because they are interpreted as personal attacks and talk page vandalism, they were removed. BIGNOLE, MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO CONTACT ME AGAIN. CmdrClow 03:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Greetings. I have come to your user talk page from Wikipedia:Requests for investigation on which Bignole has filed a report about the conflict between the two of you. After looking at the contributions of you both, I have decided only to remind you that while pages in your userspace are for your own use, the conversation on them pertaining to discouraging other users from certains of conduct, as mentioned above in Bignole's messages, is prohibited and an offence for which one can be banned. As these events happened about three weeks ago, I assume that you have cooled down from the conflict and do not see any further repurcussions from the events that took place back then. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, accessible by clicking the "Talk" link in my signature. Thanks, ZsinjTalk 23:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DX Logo

The one I'm posting is the real logo... the one that you keep putting there isn't the real logo.

I don't care. It's just Wikipedia. Plus I'm posting the real DX logo, not a fake DX logo.

How am I vandalizing pages? I'm just putting the REAL logo on the page!

THAT IS NOT MY OPINION. I AM PUTTING THE REAL LOGO ON THE PAGE. THE LOGO I'M PUTING ON THE PAGE IS THE LOGO WWE USES. THE LOGO YOU PUT ON WITH "BETTER QUALITY" IS SOMEWHAT OF THE REAL LOGO, BUT NOT COMPLETELY.

The logo that was featured on the Vengeance poster had like spray paint around it but this one doesn't. Just take a look at the image I'm trying to put up and the one you guys keep putting up. They look different and the one I've been putting up is the correct looking image. But whatever I'm sick of fighting about it. Just keep you're image up. It's not worth getting kicked off for, because I'm not going to win this anyway so I might as well stop trying to put the real logo up.

[edit] Respect

I respect you as a fellow wikipedian and human. You are looking out for the good of wikipedia as I am. Thanks.

--Mikedk9109 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RamistheMan

I have reported him to two different admins. So he will be block from editing soon.

--Mikedk9109 00:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar Award

The Oddball Barnstar
For your edits and interest in all things Batman I hereby award you the Oddball Barnstar ;) Rosa 05:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hellblazer and crisis

I have removed your crisis comment again - you feel it should be included because "The last Crisis affected the Vertigo titles as well, so it's safe to say that this one also did. Leave it. - that is your inference, that is not how wikipedia works. If you want to suggest that Infinite crisis affected Hellblazer, you need a source. --Fredrick day 09:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't do common sense - I've asked you for a source - wikipedia policy is VERY clear about this, you now need to provide a source to support your statement otherwise, it's will be removed (as in this case it already has been). --Fredrick day 10:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really - common sense is a relative concept and what appears straight forward and obvious to you is not to others, it's why it's not a replacement for sourced material. Yes you DO need a source as I have asked for it - it's pretty straightforward wikipedia policy - the onus is on the editor wishing to add material to provide sources not for the editor removing it to look for them. No evidence has been presented on paper that Hellblazer was affected by infinite crisis or/and is involved in 52. It's ridiculous to add negative/weasel word statements ("it is unknown...") on the basis of inference, it adds nothing to the article. --Fredrick day 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Five-Minute Funnies (TV pilot)

I've nominated Five-Minute Funnies (TV pilot), an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Five-Minute Funnies (TV pilot) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five-Minute Funnies (TV pilot) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Five-Minute Funnies (TV pilot) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. LastChanceToBe 02:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Help regarding Star Trek XI

The title of the article has been changed to a working title. --CmdrClow 02:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That is more of a statement than a question. What is it you need assistance with? IrishGuy talk 03:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
When an article title is disputed, you can try the procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves.--Commander Keane 03:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek XI

Since you partook in a recent discussion, I am informing you of an extension to the debate over the title of the film Star Trek, or whatever it's called. Because the procedure wasn't quite followed exactly, the result has been disputed. This time there will be no question of that. --Stemonitis 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Batman Kane.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Batman Kane.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, 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}} 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 16:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 16:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halloween Havoc

It's not notable to the event though. There are only 3 articles that really need to include it (at all): Monday Night Wars, WCW Monday Nitro, WCW. Bring it up on the talk page if you feel otherwise, rather than reverting. TJ Spyke 23:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

More like A leads to B which leads to N. The only reason the re-airing is mentioned at all is because the PPV cut off. Just being re-aired on TV is not notable, and Nitro's ratings have nothing to do with the Halloween Havoc article. TJ Spyke 23:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I know that an admin would not agree (unless they don't know policies). The re-airing is notable because the PPV was cut off, that does NOT mean that the ratings Nitro got (which is for the entire show) is notable too. Do not continue reverting because I will report you if you willingly violate 3RR. I have showed good faith by encouraging you to bring it up on the talk page, whereas you have shown hostility and have now shown why something a Nitro rating is notable in a HH article. TJ Spyke 23:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Again though, it's not relevent to the HH article since it's not about HH. It is about Nitro (so it can be mentioned there), WCW (so it can be mentioned there), and the Monday Night Wars (so it can be mentioned there). TJ Spyke 23:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Nightwing 118.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nightwing 118.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. BetacommandBot 21:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jokerpic.jpg

I have tagged Image:Jokerpic.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. BigrTex 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Batman_keaton.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Batman_keaton.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, 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}} 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 11:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 11:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Batman_Kane.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Batman_Kane.jpg. I notice the image 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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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 non-free media 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. MER-C 11:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Power rangers movie poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Power rangers movie poster.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, 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}} 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 12:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ejfetters 12:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This message also applies to Image:Gacy clown.jpg. Thanks. KrakatoaKatie 04:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Power rangers movie poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Power rangers movie poster.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia 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 non-free media 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. Ejfetters 12:09, 25

[edit] Re: Superman Image Change

I am sorry for this inconvieniance, and will do everything in my power to fix the mistake I made.Johnnywalterboy 23:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Dark Knight

You cannot include a non-free image in an article for the sake of having an official screenshot from the film. A unique fair use rationale must be declared for the image, like one has been declared for the IMAX and Batpod images. Discussion about this image has already taken place on the talk page, and disregarding this discussion is considered disruptive. Please see the talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Dark Knight (film). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Providing a rationale on the image itself, doesn't equate to "perfect to use". Non-free images must have critical commentary within the article. If they don't, then it doesn't matter what the image itself says. Images are not for eye-candy. Also, there are 3 images on the page already, all non-free. How is that a "lacking in images". There shouldn't be an image per section, unless there critical commentary for that image, and if that image is really necessary. Since there isn't any critical commentary discussing the differences between the look of Ledger's Joker and all the other Jokers, then the image does not serve a purpose other than eye candy. Also, you have no source for the image. Part of the criteria for non-free images is that you have to show it was published outside of Wikipedia. So, there's no critical commentary on the image in the article, which is a must for non-free images, and there is no source provided for the image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i saw someone else revert it saying the same exact thing, so don't call me a vandal or make false claims that you can't back up. DurinsBane87 22:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

How was I being an asshole. You called me a vandal for disagreeing with you, and then asserted that i was the only editor reverting the picture. In the last 24 hours 2 other editors reverted the picture. So you made false claims. I then asked you not too. I fail to see how I was being an asshole. DurinsBane87 22:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You have to have reliable sources doing the comparison for you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Remarks like this aren't helpful, no matter how irritated you are. See WP:CIV. Raymond Arritt 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

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 at The Dark Knight (film). 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.

- KrakatoaKatie 03:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "The reason for the reverts were to add an official image from the film into the article, in a relevant fashion. Limited images of The Joker's appearance in the film are publicized, and assuming Wikipedia gets many casual visitors, it may be of interest and benefit to show the publicity photo in question. I found the reasons for removing it lacked substantiation, and I reacted accordingly. I did what was aksed by providing a fair use rationale, and it was still dismissed. It was frustrating, as it seemed the editors felt singular of purpose and selfish in their desire to remove the image."

Decline reason: "These are not circumstances in which a violation of the WP:3RR rule is justified. — Sandstein 08:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

[edit] Smile

LOZ: OOT has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Gacy_clown.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gacy_clown.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. 07:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Batman244.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Batman244.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. BetacommandBot 00:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Outsiders

I'm not sure I know what the argument is. It just seems like a simple discussion to determine formatting and word use. I'm not familiar with the comic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would try User:ThuranX, he works on comic articles I believe.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bluewater Productions.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bluewater Productions.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia 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 non-free media 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 05:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bolding

Ultimately it's really unnecessary, especially when only a select few items are bolded. In fact infobox script is written so that items are bolded when you are the page that link is link to. It's a rather cosmetic and trivial application of bolding text. WesleyDodds 21:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

But is it really all that necessary? I suggest it's not, and is even unslightly and distracting. WesleyDodds 08:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed the recent changes and thought it best to drop in to give a second opinion: WesleyDodds is correct. The Manual of Style is very clear about the use of bold - it should be used very rarely and only in strictly defined situations, and this one isn't one of them. There is an overuse of bold in Wikipedia and if I'd spotted this first I'd also have removed it too. (Emperor 18:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC))