Jump to content

User talk:Ikanreed

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rsd315 (talk | contribs) at 20:11, 26 August 2011 (→Anthony Romero photo: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

first archive Febuary 13, 2007

response from 21kev

I got the message - please do not remove warnings. The warning I removed was 7 months old. Are they supposed to stay on my page forever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21kev (talk • contribs)

response from 142.110.227.163

So the sandbox can be used like this right? link removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.110.227.163 (talk)

Armenian blogs page proposed for deletion

Hi, I have done changes and am still working on my page - the Armenian blogs to make it comply with the Wikipedia guidelines. I hope you that will change your mind about proposing the page for deletion. I'm ready to discuss any further changes - if you think they would be necessary. Sincerely Artur Papyan 23:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing your adminship?

You defended an accusation of abusing your admin powers by stating that you unblocked a user when they agreed to set their user page to match your perspective on an edit war on it. While your other statements were valid, that particular course of action was totally inappropriate, especially considering you were warring over an undecided policy. In the future please try not to use your sysop abilities in disputes you personally are engaged in. i kan reed 07:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood. With that statement, I was not addressing the block's appropriateness. I was addressing the user's claim that my intention was to stop him from participating in a discussion. Again, I perceived (and continue to perceive) this incident as the reversion of disruptive guideline violations, not as a "content dispute." I would never block an editor with whom I believed I was involved in a content dispute. —David Levy 07:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Surena

Dear Ikanreed - I was advised by Essjay to place the tag in the those pages, since I have changed my Username. ParthianShot 05:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for kind assistance in deleting the pages. Regards ParthianShot 05:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False 3RR warning

It's my Talk page, and I have the right to remove anything which is not a legitimate and necessary warning. Do not make warnings which are neither ungrounded in policy nor which you are capable of carrying out. Report me to WP:AN/3RR and see how far it gets you. --Calton | Talk 07:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Calton, you are incorrect - the warning was a legitimate and necessary warning brought on by your harassment and incivility towards this project. Mr. Ray Lopez 07:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not the case Absolutely wrong. Again, I invite you go to WP:AN/3RR and find out, because I really don't have the time to go dig up the numerous references, and if you want to be educated, you'll have to do it on your own dime. --Calton | Talk 07:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Long quote, followed by a complete misreading. Clue 1: the quote is about article Talk pages, not user Talk pages Clue 2: "edit" =/= delete, on one's own User Talk page.
Presumptuous lectures: bad; presumptuous lectures based on a complete misreading of a subject: worse. Once again, I invite you go to WP:AN/3RR and be educated. --Calton | Talk 07:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I Strongly suggest you review WP:CIVIL Calton. Mr. Ray Lopez 07:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meddling

If I've offended you in any way, I'm sorry. This isn't about proving you wrong, getting you blocked, or anything of the sort. I have no intention of going to a noticeboard until I've fully attempted to resolve the issue by discussing the issue with the other editors involved.

You've persistently inserted yourself -- unasked -- on something you don't understand on behalf of one side, justifying it with policy you don't understand and citing parts of it you clearly haven't even read: why would I be offended?

Since policy seems to be an inappropriate path for discussion here...

A pretty good euphemism for "I was wrong, so let's not talk about this". You DO realize that your understanding of policy was, shall we say, deeply flawed, right?

Could you please tell me on my talk page, why it was necessary to revert Mr. Ray Lopez's edits to your talk page?

Immaterial, and really, none of your business, but easy enough to find out: go here and here. --Calton | Talk 08:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest you refer to the Administrator's Noticeboard - Calton apparently has me confused with "Ruy Lopez" vice "Ray Lopez." Mr. Ray Lopez 08:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page
Yes, MAINSPACE and WIKIPEDIASPACE, not USERSPACE. Did you bother to even skim the page? It's "article" this and "article" that all over it. Note the clause in your quote: "to its associated article or project page." Or are you suggesting that we were discussing edits to my user page?
It was quite close to being libelous to accuse me of having false motivations in this matter.
No, it's pointing out that you're so obviously wrong that making a deliberate attempt to avoid acknowledging it is the best explanation for your sudden change of subject when your error has been pointed out to you. If you're sincere in your misunderstanding, go to WP:AN/3RR and get educated.
Note: this is not intended as a legal threat, just a note that you went out of line in what you were accusing me of)
If you don't intend to imply legal threats, don't use the language of legal threats.
I did not "side" with anyone or anything.
Yes you did: you restored his edits to my Talk page on his behalf -- which I note that you just did AGAIN. You've left several messages on my Talk page and one (1) on his: VERY balanced of you.
Your links don't seem to tell me much of anything about why you reverted those particular edits.
So you didn't bother reading the first link, either. Pity. But your unwillingness to do your homework is not my problem. To repeat, none of your business. If you want to find out, go crazy, but I'm not going to waste any more time on this.
However informing users of policy regarding their actions still seems necessary to me.
Only if true. Pestering someone over a transparently wrong misreading of policy -- even after being corrected -- isn't. --Calton | Talk 08:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of us are really interested in an argument...
...which is why you're continuing it, of course.
...but please drop the "I'm right, and you're wrong" attitude. Not everything is about "winning".'
Considering that I'm actually right and you're actually wrong -- objectively -- then your eagerness to move off a reality-based argument is understandable but unilateral on your part: this whole thing is complete -- and persistent -- misreading of policy and your willingness to pester someone over your complete misreading of polcy, so yeah, it's relevant. You kept holding it up as a justification, and now that I've corrected you, suddenly it's irrelevant. OF course.
...I would like to indicate that you are engaging in wikilawerying(essay not policy)...
Speaking of borderline libellous: no, I'm talking about long-standing practice and enforced policy. Since you refuse to educate yourself or test the courage of your convictions at 3RR violation reporting page -- as I've suggested three times now -- you need to read here, here, here, here, and here. The last should be a really big clue: Wikipedia does NOT have esclating templates for warning people over removing talk page warnings (as they do for spam, personal attacks, etc.) and in fact ones that were created this purpose were explicitly DELETED. Why do you think that is?
...and I merely request that you reconsider your course of actions towards this user "Mr Ray Lopez"
No, but then I don't have to: he's a self-winding watch who's been indefinitely blocked once already -- which you'd know about if you'd read User talk:Theresa knott as I pointed you to. His path over the cliff is pretty inevitable, and I won't have to push. --Calton | Talk 09:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...Aaand, speak of the devil... --Calton | Talk 12:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Templates vs Personalised Templates

I noticed that you advised Mr Ray Lopez to use standard templates instead of personalised ones for Carlton. This has been discussed a number of times on AN and AN/I - I'm sorry I can't find the diffs but they have dissappeared into the archives but a strong consensus appeared in both places that using standard templates on established users was agressive and inflamatory and that personalised warnings were always better in such cases. Regards --Spartaz 08:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Explicitly stated in the comic

regarding your comment: Yes, I see your point and agree. I will delete the line altogether. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 09:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Note

I have noticed you are having considerable problems with User:Calton. If you would like, you may add some of his rude and incivil comments to the WP:RfC page up against him here. If more people voice their opinion and more people know, it is more likely that the powers-that-be will make Calton change his tune. If you wish to stay out of it, that is perfectly OK as well. Have a Good Weekend....SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 16:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

He treated me as an atagonist [sic] after I noted on his talk page that his reversions were inappropriate.

You WERE an antagonist through your enabling of a troll, my reversions were completely appropriate, and your "notes" were vexatious and flatly wrong.

He treated me as if I was out to get him.

No. I treated you as someone who aggressively failed to understand what was pointed out to him, and spent his time back-peddling furiously. I treated you as someone enabling a troll without the least understanding of what was going on.

I wanted to avoid administrative action in this area.

There was no admin action that would have taken place -- the troll you were enabling already "reported" me at WP:AN, and hey presto he got banned immediately. I even called your bluff and invited you -- 3 times -- to report me to WP:AN/3RR so you could find out for yourself, but I notice you avoided that, too. And the numerous links your inattention finally forced me to dig up seemed to have escaped you.

I would have prefered getting through to him by communicating what my concerns were.

There being nothing to get through WITH -- and you know it -- a fool's errand. And congratulations on signing up with another: your cosigners include one editor under suspension (though perhaps its expired now), another at ArbCom due to extreme Wikilawyering, and one whom I've nominated for a community ban (currently leaning toward yes, but not unambiguously). Not good company. --Calton | Talk 00:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not replying on your talk page, as is my standard, because further communication will not accomplish anything. I endorsed the RfC and I'm moving on to deal with other editing concerns. I would again asser that some of the statements here are quite possibly libelous as the are ascribing motivations to me unreasonably. I went to the RfC because I was asked, and I have tried to the best of my abilities to communicate civily, and have nothing more than my already stated views on the matter to give. Your disagreement is totally noted. i kan reed 00:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologizes

I apologize for Calton taking his anger out on you with your signing of the RfC. If I knew he was going to react that way, I would not have told you the link. Hopefully though, us signing the RfC though, will do some good and all this yelling will not be for not. Again, my apologizes. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 00:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

respose to delete order

have made some changes hope they help

Hi

XGC has more sockpuppet accounts, such as I'm Michael. I believe his repeated vandalism towards the Dane, Wisconsin article in each account is good evidence of his sockpuppetry. I already reported him to WP:AIV. --Nevhood 21:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

Just want to let you know, it seems to me that the article on Patrick R. Westerkamp was written by Westerkamp himself, just check the history. I believe this violates the independence section of WP:Notability. --Nevhood 20:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I just did. What do you think? Should the article be deleted? --Nevhood 20:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good plan. --Nevhood 20:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your reversion of Order of the Stick

The editor vandalized a few pages that I was watching (See Moreno Valley, California), so I just checked his contributions and started reverting. Brien Clark 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haley's alignment

Ooops. However, you're not totally correct either. What she actually says is "I'm Chaotic Good! Ish!" That's a little different from "Chaotic Good-ish", in my admittedly entirely pedantic interpretation. The latter, to me, would still leave a degree of doubt regarding her alignment, whereas what she actually says, to me, anyway, comes across as a definitive statement as to her alignment, followed by an acknowledgement that, due to her roguish nature, she may not exactly be the poster child for the Chaotic Good society. --Tailkinker 16:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Americanization

You might want to take a look at WP:OWN again sometime. There's no good reason to care either way what spelling the article uses. i kan reed 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but check WP:MOS: it's not usually kosher to change an article's nationalisation. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 23:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your third-opinion help with User talk:Requestion#Please reconsider. The response was what I expected. I'm going to wait a beat or two while saying nothing, give that editor every opportunity to reconsider, then take it to the next level, where your independent look should be helpful. Thanks. Noroton 16:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moved from user: page

Hi , OK ,thanks for the advice I will add [citation needed] instead- to the Gordon Brown article that is Kennys 00:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(put on user: page and moved here by Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 14:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy on Mismedia

I removed the {{db-nocontext}} link that I added since the page was updated and felt it fit no speedy category so I move it to a AfD 19:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the signature for me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helmsb (talk • contribs) 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]


March 2007

Hello, Ikanreed! Thank you for reverting vandalism to Wikipedia, which you did in The Colbert Report. After you revert, I would recommend also warning the users whose edits you revert on their talk pages with an appropriate template or custom message. This will serve to direct new users towards the sandbox, educate them about Wikipedia, and a stern warning to a vandal may prevent him or her from vandalizing again. Thanks! -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured after posting this message that you probably knew to warn vandals. The template I posted here wasn't entirely appropriate. Just a suggestion, if you want an easy way to warn vandals and revert, you might consider getting WP:TWINKLE; it's a great tool. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 02:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

united States Declaration of Indepedence

It is inappropriate to remove a tag on the top of the article, and then go and change the article against consensus and out of process, in contravention to the tag. The tag only directed to a discussion, it did not make any points itself. You did not use the discussion page to argue your opinion, you simply went ahead and changed it without any external citation or argument. In the future, please do not act unilaterally, or simply disregard sources when modifying articles. If you have something to add on this issue, use the discussion page. - MSTCrow 20:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If comments to the editor should not be in viewable text, why are there tags for NPOV, accuracy, etc that are used either in article or in article section? How are they supposed to know to look in talk otherwise? - MSTCrow 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the tags you mention are essentially requests to do more editing. The comment you placed is a request not to edit, which only matters once an editor opens it up to edit. Wahkeenah 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That guy MSTCrow has gone off the deep end with this "united States" nonsense. He's basically trying to impose his unique interpretation on the article. He's done 3 reverts today. Let's see if he tries for 4. Wahkeenah 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. And as a bonus, a lecture at me for "vandalism". Wahkeenah 00:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Objection noted, but discouraging editors from being bold inside an article isn't something I can support. I have no intention of edit warring over this point, but I strongly disagree. i kan reed 01:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He got his way with 4 reverts in less than a day with no rebuke, which is all he cares about. He's not interested in your viewpoint or mine or anyone else's unless it agrees with his. Wahkeenah 01:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am now done watching that page. I can't help with it anymore. Wahkeenah 01:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erfworld

Hoy. Regarding your reversion, the endearment comment should well be removed if it was only based on the character of Misty, but Parson is on good terms with whipping boys Bogroll and Sizemore. The statement's therefore true quite regardless of the next couple of strips.

As for the other removed edit, most of Tool's requirements - big, "eats marbits" - are obviously just dramatic irony or watchamacallit, but "plans wars for fun" is a fundamental plot point. That's where the summoning is fixed on a strategy gamer, and that's the source of Parson's abilities, not to mention his entire plot hook. --Kizor 21:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I wasn't clear. I have a tendency to not get the meaning I have across with the words I use. The reason I removed the "endearment" stuff is because 3-4 points of evidence does not represent a trend. It amounted to original research and assumptions about reasons for things. Of all things on wikipedia, I try to fight OR the hardest. Possibly too much, but that's a whole other matter. i kan reed 01:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful for your efforts against OR and remove speculation on sight myself. But while we're talking theory (this is irrelevant to the issue of Erfworld, I admit it), it is possible and indeed not that uncommon to go overboard. My own principle is that there is no need to source the obvious. This would naturally be disastrous in wider use, but it's not in wider use, only a single person's case-by-case guideline. Too strict OR criteria and too zealous enforcement can damage our content, which is entirely counterproductive.
Take, for instance, the strategy game Bahamut Lagoon: at this very moment, an editor is forbidding all mention of the game's graphics being advanced. The game was released in 1996 for a system that was active circa 1990-1996; it's an uncontested fact that its graphics are advanced. Every person who's owned a SNES can attest to that. Yet we're kept from mentioning it, and that does the article nothing but harm.
Then there was the Pretty Face article: The series has a doctor who repeatedly tries to perform a nonconsensual sex change operation on the protagonist because of how cute he'd look. I got into a minor dispute with a person who thought that calling this doctor "eccentric," never mind "strange," would be an unacceptable intrusion of personal value systems.
Or, as I've just found out, the ongoing attempt to destroy spoiler warnings, therefore IMAO hamstringing our entire coverage of fiction, has seen people seriously claiming that calling anything - anything - a spoiler or not a spoiler is original research and must be removed.
We need to be firm, but it's clear enough that we also need a slight degree of flexibility, and that zero-tolerance works here about as well as it does in U.S. high schools. --Kizor 20:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chris faller

I'm in a rush, but I've cleared the page. jimfbleak 20:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars

I saw your work in Smithy Gang. I need some help creating the section for Creatures and races. I'm asking you, because you’rea really good at adding material with relaible sources. Do you think you could help? Thanks in advance! Taric25 16:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a little busy to help right now. I also kind of gave up on that article, I couldn't reduce original research faster than it flooded in. I'll take a look, but I can't make any promises. i kan reed 01:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Taric25 01:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked a user

You blocked User:Qomee for being a vandalism only account. While it was definitely true that all 2 of the user's edits were vandalism, the user had not yet been warned or otherwise notified of wikipedia's policies. Wouldn't a {{blatantvandal}} been a better action immediately? I know vandals get us all down and waste significant amounts of all our time, but banning straight out of the gate seems like it would discourage the rare repentant vandal from contributing meaningfully. I'm not asking you to unban this particular user, just... try not to bite the newbies quite so hard(even the vandals) i kan reed 03:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(responding for him) See Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Genesis_vandal. Gscshoyru 03:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Master of Magic edits

Hi, thank you for editing the article. I feel the grammar quality has been brushed up. However I am puzzled by addition of the {{who}} tags in the lead. The statements questioned have been expounded in the Reception section, and I feel that should be enough since the lead is a summary of the article. Jappalang 00:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Message

Thanks for your recent tips. I am new at this. It takes awhile to get up to speed on the do's and don'ts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Henry 1776 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry bout that,

please don't kick me out, i didn't know it was such a big deal, really, but i made 2 other changes i think , you'll most likely change em , so im really sorry, please i wont do it again, but wen you read the article bout MOVE, it is very biased, making these concerned humans look like savages. For instance, the article says, before i changed it, a quote from onthemove.com,under beliefs, under natural law, i quote from wikipedia, which quotes MOVE, "Man-made laws are not really laws," and then your accepted wikipedia editor attacks this as savage, because he doesn't include the rest of the statement, the whole stament is "Man-made laws are not really laws, because they don't apply equally to everyone and they contain exceptions and loopholes. Man-made laws are constantly being amended or repealed. Natural Law stays the same and always has." You can't tell me that my factual info on MOVE is more biased than the aggresive, ruthless Illuminati controlled authors controlling people's perspectives. so from one scholar to the other,please get back to me, i am very interested on your decision and your reasoning, thankyou. Revolutionary Larry, by the way, if a crackhead can be on wikipedia, can i make a definition for "Revolutionary Larry" who is me. I wish to be a well known figure and wish to start know, tell me whats up. peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthfullyreal (talk • contribs) 05:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject North Carolina Newsletters

A newsletter has been planned for WikiProject North Carolina, a WikiProject where you are a member. As a member, you will automatically receive the newsletter on this talk page unless you choose to opt-out. If you wish to opt-out of the newsletter, then please leave a message on the project's talk page. If you would like to help write the newsletter, then please add your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject North Carolina/Newsroom. Thank you. Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message was delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot (talk · contribs), a bot operated by Diligent Terrier (talk · contribs).

WikiProject North Carolina May 2008 Newsletter

NEWSLETTER
Issue One • May 2008 • About the Newsletter

News

Cape Lookout Lighthouse

Hello WikiProject North Carolina members! A few of us at the The Newsroom Team decided to get together and re-energize the project, through these newsletters. This newsletter is hopefully the first of many to come. We want this project to be active in creating and expanding articles related to our state. If you're a current or former resident of the state, we hope that you will help spread the knowledge of how much there is to learn about North Carolina.

  • A great way to expand new articles is by keeping track of the new articles list. Please add any new NC-related articles or older ones you come across that have not been tagged with the project banner. When you notice an article has been added to the list, read over it and check for citations, grammatical errors, and spelling. If you've written a NC-related article in the past 5 days, read the requirements for Did you know... and add your article to the DYK nomination list. It might be chosen for the Main Page!
  • If you see a new member added to the project list, a great idea would be to leave them a welcome message on their talk page. Show them we notice new members and that we want them to become active participants.
  • If you have any questions in regards to the project, feel free to contact someone from The Newsroom Team. Thanks for all of your hard work and happy editing!
Archives • Newsroom
Newsletter written by The Newsroom Team.
Newsletter delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot
If you would no longer like to receive this newsletter, please post at the WikiProject North Carolina talk page.

The message above has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot, a bot operated by Diligent Terrier.

Proposed deletion of Kinetic Style Sheets

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kinetic Style Sheets, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

CSD on Chicago slim

Thanks, but please notify the editor next time. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • [moved from my talk:] I couldn't find the templates to put on the editor's page. Where can I locate these? i kan reed (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look at the template that "db-whatever" places on the page, at the very bottom it says, in small print, "Please consider placing the template:..." The line that follows, {{subst:nn-warn|Chicago slim|header=1}} ~~~~, you simply copy and paste onto the editor's talk page. If you use WP:TWINKLE or something like that, it does it automatically. Happy days! Drmies (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ikanreed. You have new messages at Blanchardb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

United States

If any of you who feel the death of bin laden not belong in this article would like to make a case more then you feel it’s not worded properly please feel free to explain -The lost library (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the Seal of the USA

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 33 > § 713


§ 713. Use of likenesses of the great seal of the United States, the seals of the President and Vice President, the seal of the United States Senate, the seal of the United States House of Representatives, and the seal of the United States Congress


(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(b) Whoever, except as authorized under regulations promulgated by the President and published in the Federal Register, knowingly manufactures, reproduces, sells, or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seals of the President or Vice President, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(c) Whoever, except as directed by the United States Senate, or the Secretary of the Senate on its behalf, knowingly uses, manufactures, reproduces, sells or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seal of the United States Senate, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(d) Whoever, except as directed by the United States House of Representatives, or the Clerk of the House of Representatives on its behalf, knowingly uses, manufactures, reproduces, sells or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(e) Whoever, except as directed by the United States Congress, or the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, acting jointly on its behalf, knowingly uses, manufactures, reproduces, sells or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seal of the United States Congress, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(f) A violation of the provisions of this section may be enjoined at the suit of the Attorney General, 

(1) in the case of the great seal of the United States and the seals of the President and Vice President, upon complaint by any authorized representative of any department or agency of the United States;

(2) in the case of the seal of the United States Senate, upon complaint by the Secretary of the Senate;

(3) in the case of the seal of the United States House of Representatives, upon complaint by the Clerk of the House of Representatives; and

(4) in the case of the seal of the United States Congress, upon complaint by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, acting jointly.

this information is why to your edit of my user page was incorect you will want to look a section A(also this information is from this website http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000713----000-.html) thank you and please do not edit my user page
-The lost library (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not a lawyer, and won't be persuing this. i kan reed (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

goodbye and thank you

Well i am done congrates becuse clearly, i have been bullied my mulltiply people on this website i have decied to stop editing or even using wikipedia. I though wikipedia was a place were most can get along and edit articals withou the consent battering my other user or at the very least admins that has proven to be imposable. The biggest offender among them would have to be User:Golbez. Now if i find out latter from any of my friends that action has been taken to rectifi this then i may return. Now on that note i do want to thank User:Ikanreed if there were admins out there like you i would not have had this problem. With all that out of the way i bid you all a farwell.

I'm fairly sure the users in questions had reasonable complaints about edit warring, which has to be avoided for article stability. I'm sorry you've decided that you can't edit wikipedia anymore, but that's your choice. i kan reed (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy

The difference is that a user talk page is not an article, and I didn't need the contents of a talk page copied onto my user talk. I can read the talk page. Removal is acknowledgment, and is a valid response to any statement on a user talk page. --Golbez (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re

I indef banned him, then waffled on maybe if I should cut it to 48h for first offense, and not being able to immediately find the 'indef banned' template made me consider it even more, but then I went 'meh' and got on with it. :P --Golbez (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi

please change the pics its so old and out dated put some new pics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewnadar (talk • contribs) 14:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

k thank you but try to put some his new pics of mohombi tcz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewnadar (talk • contribs) 15:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

previously i posted pics its i taken from mohombi official site. and he is new star and if u should his pics and his new look so awsome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewnadar (talk • contribs) 15:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

X-Com

Hi - I am pretty sure the 'All your base' information that I added to X-com page was accurate. Let me poke around and find a source so I can document it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niado (talk • contribs) 18:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I thought the timing was interesting. This must have appeared in some re-release that was distributed after the meme became popular. I'm going to investigate a little more for the sake of curiosity and I'll let you know what I find out. Definitely my bad for posting original research though; my apologies. I got a little too excited I guess. Niado (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick W. True

I don't see any issues with your updates to this article. I updated the other reference information for this article since it had been using a single source. --Big_iron (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ID Third Opinion

Just an FYI- simply putting the {{3O}} template on a page doesn't automatically generate a third opinion request; you have to go to WP:3 and add a request to the list. (I would normally give one, but I'm not exactly uninvolved in the dispute) Mildly MadTC 17:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Soilleux

He has played a first-class match, which per WP:CRIN makes him notable. The university team he plays for, Loughborough MCC University, has first-class status against county opposition, playing three matches per season which hold that status. Sources from CricketArchive are also highly reliable sources. It is a statistical authority on cricket. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Creation–evolution controversy

My edit did not state a fact but rather it removed a statement that was someone's opinion.

The whole controversy is that there is no proven evidence that evolution exists, it's purely a theory. Otherwise there would not be a debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strahan321 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(TPS comment) You seem to be confused about the definition of scientific theory. A theory is not an unproven guess, but an explanation of how something works. Unless you mean to suggest that the theory of gravity and the heliocentric theory are also unproven. That a debate exists does not mean there is no proven evidence of something. Despite evidence to the contrary, there was also a religious debate concerning a heliocentric cosmology, for example. If you feel that the information in the Creation–evolution controversy article is incorrect or needs to be changed, please feel free to discuss it on the article's talk page. - SudoGhost 18:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute to the Wikipedia process, not block it.

I don't believe your spamming me was constructive. There are hundreds of thousands of articles published on Wikipedia that showcase books, people, companies and more. I'm not entirely what more sources you need than the book and company website to define a book. If you're going to pose as an editor on Wikipedia, then please contribute to the discussion, provide instructive feedback and develop articles in a fashion that doesn't act as a roadblock, prohibitor or nuisance to the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahcargill (talk • contribs) 20:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 21st Century Cancer Access to Life-Saving Early detection, Research and Treatment (ALERT) Act

I have removed the prod tag you placed on 21st Century Cancer Access to Life-Saving Early detection, Research and Treatment (ALERT) Act, because the article was discussed at AfD and the discussion closed with no consensus, thereby making this article permanently ineligible for prod. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this; I have no argument for or against deletion. If you wish to pursue deletion, please open another AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Romero photo

Hello Ikanreed. The ACLU owns the copyright to the photo. A similar (although not the same) photo of Mr. Romero taken by Richard Corman lives on our website, here: http://www.aclu.org/leader/anthony-d-romero. I have filled out a declaration of consent and emailed it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and added the OTRS pending tag to the description box, per your suggestion. I hope this will suffice, and thank you for the advice!

rsd315

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ikanreed&oldid=446873684"