This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Could you help me keep an eye on Steel cage match? This user keeps replacing free images with copyrighted ones. -- bulletproof ^3:16 22:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Now his sock is giving him awards. Great...-- bulletproof ^3:16 23:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Awww, that's adorable! Bmg916 ^Speak _Sign 23:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Put this into your monobook.css. + ctlr + shift + r

/* change the logo */

# p-logo a { background: url(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Deer_Park_Globe.png) 35% 50% no-repeat !important; }

• Now to change the image find the url for the image you want and put it in the place of http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Deer_Park_Globe.png
• Say for example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/00/WikiSense.png

Now if only I can find a way to change the link... — Darkest Hour 22:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You didn't try it out, you don't even know if it was cooler than the original logo... *snif* :( You mean to say the code looks good? But you don't want to bother with it. Go ahead click the red button and blow away the universe.

Hm... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkest Hour ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Let me know if he does another one with the Adam account, I'll report to Yamla, who somewhat specializes (and has little tolerance) in vandals who place the wiki in legal jeopardy. Bmg916 ^Speak _Sign 23:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Deskana might want to help with that too. I'll be on the lookout for more socks. Thank you for your help Hybrid. This is very much appreciated.-- bulletproof ^3:16 23:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response...This ruling of fair use images of living persons...where is this documented? There are instances of this (as well as discussions) arguing this type of thing (notebly playboy covers in multiple WWE Diva biographical articles) in multiple places...If there really is a rule that trumps the arguement for fair use, then it would be helpful in ending the discussions...

Why haven't I heard about this before? and not only me, but all the people arguing... -- JohnDoe0007 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well now wait a minute. If there really were such a ruling "per order of Jimbo Wales himself" as you say, especially one based on "a legal issue," why in the hell would it be "buried somewhere within Wikipedia on some obscure page linking to Jimbo's overruling of the community that [you] will never find again?" That definitely makes no sense to me, which adds to my previous doubt, due in part to me, nor any of the other scores of users currently debating about such images never having heard of such a mandate. And such an important one at that. Why would Jimbo bother himself to basically make an executive order to end such fuss and then allow it to fall into the landfill of ignorance? And certainly, someone involved in, or running across such discussions would have heard of such a ruling...but I've never seen anyone else mention it.

In addition to all of this, your comment of the source of such a ruling not being pertinent ("it isn't important anyway") is of great concern. You expect me and others to believe and follow a "policy" you claim is the soul grounds for your grave actions of removal of content and then claim its source isn't important? -- JohnDoe0007 05:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hybrid. Sorry to get in on your discussion last night. As I told John, I was bored. Is this the section of the policy you refer to:
Any non-free media used on Wikipedia must meet all of these criteria: No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as the basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken. (emphasis mine).

That shows that it is policy, regardless of where it came from. -- Tractor kings fan 00:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read the Wikipedia:Fair use article in its entirety. And while I haven't passed a bar exam I have a working knowledge of business law (through experience as well as instruction). My doubt comes from still not having seen any literature that remotely resembles what you were talking about. The first thing you stated to me was: "Fair use images, such as the playboy covers you uploaded, are not allowed in biographies of living persons per order of Jimbo Wales himself. It is a legal issue." I still see no reference to such a policy. Wikipedia:Fair use says nothing of the sort, which is why such a mandate from Wales would be necessary (and its absence puzzling, as there is no reason it shouldn't be included on such a page, and every reason that it should).

If you would, please quote the passage to which you are referring, or at least send me to the right section so that I may see what you are talking about... -- JohnDoe0007 05:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That quote mentions nothing in the way of having fair use images not allowed in biographies of living people. The emphasis you place on the last sentence leads me to believe that is from where you are drawing your conclusions. The fact that a freely-licensed photograph could be taken is irrelevant. The images of the magazine covers are not there to facilitate as images of the person that is the subject of the article. If they were, the images wouldn't even classify as fair use. They are there to facilitate contents within the article, as those particular magazine issues themselves are notable enough and important enough events in the subject's career and personal life to be topics within the article.

Now, you may have a case against them being included in the article on the grounds that there isn't enough commentary on them within the article to justify their presence. But that of course is a very debatable stance and would require at the very least some commentary on the discussion page...

Perhaps the "executive order" you were thinking of was in reference to the use of fair use images as the subject-depiction image at the top of the article. Those must be free because their soul purpose is to simply show what the person looks like, and if the person is still alive, an image to suit that purpose could be obtained and made free (meaning a copyrighted image would not qualify as fair use in this case). However, images used for other puposes, such as the magazine covers in this case, are a completely different issue.

Essentially there seems to have been a misinterpretation of the policy, and the images were removed prematurely. Unless you can find any documentation that states what you claimed, I would suggest placing the images back (along with reverting the other changes that were inadvertently made to the text along with your edit) and open a discussion on the talk page.

And thanks about the vid. I appreciate the work and talent something like that piece of art takes to create. -- JohnDoe0007 06:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me how to get my signature to have those links on it. Cow boy Rocco 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"This user is sick of hearing about how evil the admins are. Admins oppose edits and/or actions that violate policy. They do not conspire with the Forces of Darkness", NICE!! HAHAHAHA, why does "this user" link to god?!?! SO RANDOM!! Props on awesome headline thing -- ÄtΘmic R€£igione ^sїgñ

This is very true. Admins conspire with God and the Cabal for the benefit of all humanity (apart from the Encyclopædia Britannica bastards). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak _Sign 02:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at my talk page! What happened to the bottom half, it all became huge and bold!! What happened!?! -- User:Atomic Religione

Bad HTML coding in signatures, with font tags that are not properly closed. When I looked at your talk page just now, it wasn't huge and bold, but a lot of it was in an odd font. What individual users see probably varies by browser version and system configuration, but if you use proper coding you have a better chance of it working correctly for everybody. *Dan T.* 15:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just went through and corrected about 20, 25 talk pages where Atomic's signature was screwing up the formatting. Metros232 15:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Is my font, un-retarded now? -- ÄtΘmic R€£igione ^sїgñ

This is true. The Deified Jimbo is omnipresent and his divine influence is in all of us. The Holy Trinity is Jimbo, the Cabal and Wikipedia and all three are the One. I think I should prepare another sacrificial offering for Him. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak _Sign 05:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A rodent has been newly sacrificed. PRAISE BE TO JIMBO! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak _Sign 05:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I appreciate it. But all of us at WP:PW must start getting in gear so to speak sourcing these articles so we can get rid of all these maintenance tags and the BLP Enforcement Squad will leave us alone. We also must become more rigorous in our standards for creating articles. For instance Combat Zone Wrestling is a mess, and should probably just be scrapped. Also, Wikipedia is getting real screwy,as my talk page fonts are all over the place. Bmg916 ^Speak _Sign 12:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just letting you know, you don't have to come looking for me or respond to this message, « razorclaw» 17:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Check the history pages of articles instead of trusting your watchlist because they're acting up again. Damn this is annoying.-- bulletproof ^3:16 23:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Its not just the watchlists now. The contrib pages are also messed up. Your comment on my talk page hasn't even shown up on your contribs page. -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The green,red and blue. how do i do that to get it to link certain things with diffrent coulers? ( Mr Richardson 00:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC))

1. Bored out of my mind 2. I want to get someone to archive my talk page! Lazy Laces 02:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems a bit wrong. And also: I've had problems with TJ in the past, in my opinion it's bad faith for him add it after I had just removed the cruft once again. I started a talk page discussion, if you care to comment there. RobJ1981 05:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I heard that once Nash's contract with TNA is up that he might sign with WWE again. I also heard that we might see an nWo reunion if this occurs. Nash said that if Hogan and Hall were willing to do so that he would. Hall apparently has agreed and so has Hogan. What do you think? Big Boss 0 21:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did you read that Hogan and Hall had agreed to that?? There's no chance of Hall wrestling in WWE again. Nash's health problems preclude him from wrestling. Hogan and Vince are not on good terms. None of these three have wrestled a proper schedule in AGES. Please don't post this on any articles. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak _Sign 22:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No intention to. However Hall has been getting back into shape. And from what Hybrid has told me Nash can leave anytime he wants. Also I doubt that Hogan and Vince can be mad at each other for too much longer. Especially when money is involved. I bet that Vince will try to takeover Raw, SmackDown!, and ECW hostilly. We will probably have Donald Trump bring them back or something to that effect. I also think that the nWo might be packaged as faces when they return to fight an evil Mr. McMahon. If it is done right it might even lead to a DX vs nWo feud.

Also why is my talk page bold? Big Boss 0 14:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's talk page is bold, it's a wiki problem I'm guessing. As for this whole nWo thing, my friend whose mom's cousin's uncle's former college roommate is a fortune teller, and he told me that this guys crystal ball looked real cloudy on the situation. Bmg916 ^Speak _Sign 14:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a wiki problem. It's a problem with User:Atomic Religione's font that's screwing up every page he's signed basically. Metros232 15:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

nWo led by Donald Trump? My wikibuddy Edge told me he thinks it unlikely. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak _Sign 14:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't suprise me if Edge would be a part of the nWo when it is revived. Him and Hogan were a great team. There however would probably be a face turn sometime soon for him when this does happen. Big Boss 0 01:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmiiiiiiiiiiiistttttttttttttttttttteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...............................Richhhhhhharrrrrrdddddddssssssssssooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn................................................................................Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicccccccccccccchhhhhhhhhhhhhhharrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrdddddddddddddssssssssssssssssooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn ( Mr Richardson 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

And i am Atomic Religione, the editing GOD, but even i make mistakes

-- ÄtΘmic R€£igione ^sїgñ

Editing GOD vs The Cabal...I smell a overhyped, overpriced, PPV!! ---- ÄtΘmic R€£igione ^sїgñ

Hell I'll pay to watch it! Big Boss 0 02:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about pics. I recall you were discussing the issue of fair use pics in articles (and the other person's writing is less-than-concise so I think I missed something). If I'm correct, fair-use pics are heavily discouraged in infoboxes (?) but this doesn't seem to preclude them from popping up everywhere else, even to illustrate wrestling moves. I'm not really sure why this is. It seems unfair to less well known wrestlers who are much less likely to have free-use alternatives. Unless the underlying theory is that people notable enough for inclusion will always have free-use images available (in which case WP:PW bios are fairly screwed...).
Btw, like the JBL picture. I didn't realise his role-model was Basil Fawlty. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak _Sign 15:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Crikey, that's going to be one hell of a job coming up. How about, say, a picture of Fred Ottman as Shockmaster? It's a gimmick unused in 14 years and the chances of his career and/or the gimmick being resurrected are nil. Or is it the case that somebody might have a free-use picture of him somewhere? (I'm sourcing WCW so these crappy one-off gimmicks are now engraved on my psyche) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak _Sign 02:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll be more than happy to assist with a crackdown. Admins seem to have less tolerance for copyright violators then they show to vandals, maybe it won't be too bad. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak _Sign 02:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were going to make me your hair man, because I can make ramen!Bmg is your feather man! Bmg with all his linking, and chicken wings..(unintelligible muttering) -- ÄtΘmic R€£igione ^sїgñ

Hey! I heard that! Bmg916 ^Speak _Sign 16:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Man, just wondering do you think im in line for a barnstar? of course im not the one to judge that but i just wanted to see what you think, Peace ( Mr Richardson 00:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

cool Hybrid thanks for the insight :) oh and i would love to edit with you in the future, Peace ( Mr Richardson 00:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

Image is Obsolete and unnecessary in WWE Backlash because the images currently on the page already include the event's logo and serve their encyclopedic purpose in the article which makes this image completely redundant. An unnecessary fair use violation since its practically a lower quality version of the some logos in the posters already up there in my view. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

But the logo is already on the posters. The only thing the new image does is show the exact same thing thats been shown in the article already. The note about it being used since 2000 is also pointless and quite obvious.-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Lazy Laces 15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This user is sick of hearing about how dead John Cena Sr. and John Cena are. Jim Ross opposes the logic of naysayers who adhere to the CENA IS DEAD campaign with his commentary at WrestleMania 23. Bah Gawd damn you straight to Hell!

Good stuff! Although I have to admit I will be sorry to see the end of the frantic "Is Cena dead?" posts, mainly for the sheer comedy value. Tranquility-- ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak 06:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

John Cena is dead?! (Takes deep gasping breath)...wait a second, i never did like him anyway (shrugs it off). JK, funny template nice to see some originality on wikipedia -- ÄtΘmic R€£igione ^sїgñ

Nahh, it's his dad that's dead. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak 02:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if you aren't you'll be snickering after this:

It took be a few hours to get this right. And it is 100% my own work. Add any comments that you would think would add to the funnyness (yes its a word) of it. Regards, « razorclaw» 22:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• See User:Razorclaw/ad.css & User talk:Razorclaw/ad.css & Template:Click.

Simply eg:

Ad.css

{| class="plainlinks" align="center" style="border: none; background: #F5F5DC; line-height: 1em; font-size: 90%"
|-
|
<imagemap> Image:Red Button.gif|center
rect 1 1 160 160 [[User:Razorclaw/War]]
desc none </imagemap>
|}

Ad talk.css

{| ALIGN="CENTER"
|-
| {{User:Razorclaw/ad.css}}
|-
! DO NOT PRESS
|}

War

{| align="center"
|class="nounderlines"|
{{Click |
| image = Red Button.gif|center
| link = User:Razorclaw/War#top
| width = 165px
| height = 165px
}}
|}
<center>'''DO NOT PRESS'''</center>

Also my new message button

{| align="center"
|class="nounderlines"|
{{ClickA |
| image = Big Red Button.png
| link = http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:{{{1}}}&action=edit&section=new 
| width = 75px
| height = 75px
}}
|}
{| align="center"
! DO NOT PRESS
|}

If you want this on your userpage just put

{{User:Razorclaw/Button|The_Hybrid}}

Regards, « razorclaw» 23:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any details on where his funeral will be held? Thanks. RIP TO A GREAT MAN

He isn't dead as far as I have heard. -- The Hyb rid 22:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

3.5 Whacks with the ugly stick for that. Bmg916 ^Speak _Sign 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinkin around 7, actually. They brought the bullshit to me, rather than leave it in the article. -- The Hyb rid 23:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil. If the need arises, I will invoke that same rule. You are libeling people such as Scott Steiner by accusing him of being arrested. Kevin Green342243 23:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Kevin Green342243 23:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC) How about this, I will manually go back and revert some of the content that after our talk I agree the removal of should be reconsidered. How does that sound? Kevin Green342243 23:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to interrfere with the project Kevin Green342243 23:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Hybrid, please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. Unsourced negative comments, especially those which are disputed, should be removed immediately, and can be replaced when they are sourced. Your discouraging newbies from doing the right thing is very discouraging to me. It is not appropriate to add {{ fact}} tags to such things, whether they are part of a Wikiproject or not. Wikiprojects cannot override WP:BLP. People who are engaged in improving the article can look in the history for statements which were removed because of sourcing concerns. Mak (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm logging off for the moment. I need a chance to breathe

Sorry but I totally don't understand what you mean. (I'm confused) Kevin Green342243 23:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(double edit conflict) That's totally unacceptable. WP:BLP is non-negotiable. Biographies of people on Wikipedia can have a real effect on their actual life, we can't have unsourced crap in them, and when we find it, we should immediately remove it. The people sourcing the articles can use tabs or something. Mak (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello I read this that you posted. You do know that WP:IAR is only to be used when the rules get in the way of improving the encyclopedia. While you may think it is ok to bypass this, it probably is not a good idea to do so. It is not proper to state potentially negative and or controversial information without providing a source. All that you need to do is put a {{ cite}} statement at the end of the paragraph or whatever. It is critical that wikipedia strive to be reliable. Not citing where you have gotten infomation only delays the eventual work of going back and citing it anyway. You should see the backlogs for {{ fact}} :). Also it is better to cite it while you have the information right in front of you, rather then trying to re-find the information. In short, please use citations, especially on biographies of living people. Cheers! (if you have questions ask me on my talk page). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you still need to source your additions. Make sure that it gets done :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify it is not permitted to add controversial information about living people. Please cite those on the spot (when you and the project adds them). As for other non-contreversial information it is fine to add a {{ fact}}. But really please do make sure that everything ends up cited in one way or another. Controversial information should be cited the instant it is added. :) Cheers —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What's up Hybrid? I'm taking a break from anything constructive to see how you are doing. -- Tractor kings fan 04:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Same old, same old. I've been doing a lot of editing, since I've had a few days off from work. Basically sitting on the couch, laptop topping lap, watching basketball and cleaning my fish tank. All that's missing is beer. Better go to the store. Cheers my friend. -- Tractor kings fan 02:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that will help you, it's the best choice. I came back a much stronger contributor after only a few days off. But don't let it get you down, regardless. -- Tractor kings fan 02:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Good thing he retired, he just got indef blocked and busted for copyright infringement. Bmg916 ^Speak _Sign 15:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Is see you're expanding your horizons! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak 15:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out my page! Lazy Laces 18:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Got an RfA. It'll fail miserably. Lazy Laces 21:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)