User talk:Tykell/Archive2

No source tag

When you are using the no source tag on images, you need to include all the parameters like {{no source|month=January|day=17|year=2006}} so that admins can easily delete them after seven days. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --Tykell 15:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Racine2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Racine2.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 02:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to attempt to argue this but you guys can get so anal about the legalities of this that it's more trouble than it's worth. --Tykell 02:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Tomas_Kaberle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tomas_Kaberle.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Go headhunt some other user's images now, please. --Tykell 02:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users For Deletion

Heh. -Colin Kimbrell 01:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:) --Tykell 01:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Based on what I've seen from you on AfD, I think that you might have something to add to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cart00ney. I'd appreciate you weighing in on the matter in either direction. Savidan 19:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Mattcollinsliar.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Mattcollinsliar.gif. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then 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 want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo.

Image Tagging for Image:Timetraveller.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Timetraveller.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then 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 want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo.

Image Warnings

Stop spamming me with your image warnings, I don't care. --Tykell 15:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been added to the "don't notify" list. This will take effect the next time OrphanBot starts running. --Carnildo 18:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angels and Airwaves

You have been reverted on the Angels and Airwaves. "Are" is right not "is" as discussed on the talk page. Please don't pick up where Drewface left off by changing "are" to "is". If you change it again, I'm going to report you for vandalism too. You need to read the talk page if you feel like changing it again. Thank you. Alex 101 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP NOW!

Tykell, I thought I told you stop vandalizing Angels and Airwaves and you're not doing it. So pretty please, 'stop. Alex 101 23:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GO PLAY SOMEWHERE ELSE!

I'm not joking around, Tykell. Please stay off the Angels and Airwaves article. Alex 101 23:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DON'T YOU STOP?

You've been warned several times, go elsewhere already I hate you! Alex 101 23:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

I've blocked both of you (User:Alex 101 and User:Tykell) for violating WP:3RR. The blocks were placed as nearly simultaneously as I could manage. Please don't edit war. -- Curps 23:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that 3RR in 24 hours is not an absolute. If you continue to revert a page over and over in a short period of time, you can be held to the same standard as if you were comitting a 3RR violation. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Chen.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Chen.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Chick Bowen 23:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your last warning on the Angels and Airwaves article

Please discuss here or don't revert "are" to "is" again or I will ask an administrator to prevent you from editing. I can edit Wikipedia if I want, that's why I come here everyday. Alex 101 00:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have both been blocked for another 24 hours. When you come back, if you continue this edit war, the block will be for 48 hours. And extending beyond that. Please realize that this war is so trivial as to have caused it to be immortalized in the Hall of shame. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break! I didn't go over three reversions. --Tykell 00:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I extended your block to a week. You get blocked for edit warring, then come RIGHT BACK and START IT UP AGAIN? That's the single dumbest thing I've ever seen anyone do on Wikipedia! Ever! — Phil Welch 00:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care, as long as that kid is blocked for the same amount of time. --Tykell 00:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for that, your block is eight days, and his is still only seven. — Phil Welch 00:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse your powers much? --Tykell 06:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, actually. You've given me a reasonable indication that you care little about improving Wikipedia, and that you care more about continuing your sad vendetta against another editor stemming from this idiotic revert war. True, he probably feels the same way, but this way you don't even have the sick sense of satisfaction from knowing you'll be able to start the revert war again once he comes back. You have to wait a whole day! Here's a tip: just give it up, or this is the shortest block you'll get in a long, long time. — Phil Welch 07:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I created this account simply to start a vendetta and continue it. I have no intention of contributing even though I've made hundreds of good edits. Guess what, I don't need to be unblocked to make sure it doesn't happen again, because someone else will do it, guaranteed. Alex 101 is WRONG, and I don't think anyone is on his side on this. You really need to re-look at the situation if you think I'm here to continue an edit war against Alex. I'm not the one typing death threats in full caps and emailing people saying I'm going to come kill their families. --Tykell 07:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two people to edit war. It doesn't matter who's right or wrong, it's an idiotic dispute that you're obsessed with. Hopefully within the next week you'll get over it and find something more important to worry about. — Phil Welch 19:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me what I'M obsessed with. You know nothing about me, buddy, go get a haircut. --Tykell 19:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility and personal attacks will get you nowhere. I've decided that both you and Alex will be blocked again if either of you change that "is/are" thing back again. You've both amply proven obsessional editing behavior over this issue and demonstrated that you can't be trusted to settle this dispute, so you're both banned from it so someone more mature can settle it. For the record, I actually agree with you that it should be "is", but being right doesn't give you license to edit war. Nor does it give you license to be a complete and total asshole. — Phil Welch 20:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to come to this guy's defense, but calling him an asshole also does not fall in line with the policy regarding personal attacks, he is being childish but it is too subjective to call him an "asshole" given that there is no justifiable grounds to prove that he (or anyone for that matter) is as such. Do try to remember that if a matter of arbitration is brought up, such an action could be used as damning evidence against you. 4.225.20.114

I'm not surprised you get blocked.

It may take me a while to undo all the vandalism at the NHS article. May I ask you what business you had removing an image of the school's former location? Explain to me how it does not pertain to NHS's history. Kelisi 04:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit that article again, Kelisi, or whatever your name is, or I will try to have you banned from wikipedia for a period of time at the discretion of the administrators. Tykell and I are both former NHS students, graduates of the 2005 class, and will not have it dictated to us what Tykell and myself can and cannot do. Please go jump off a bridge if you have a problem with the students themselves editing OUR page, or should I say the page that I CREATED when I didn't have an account.

JaysCyYoung 19:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. I am also an NHS alumnus (class of 1982), and if I decide to contribute whatever I know about my former school, so be it. You have me to thank for most of the history section, including the two images, and also for the infobox, created as part of a Wikipedia project, not to mention for sticking up for the article when someone requested its deletion claiming that it was a vanity article (which at that time it was – vacuously so – I hope you're kidding about "creating" it). Furthermore, no page on Wikipedia is "yours".

Moreover, you haven't answered my question about how the photo in question does not pertain to NHS's history. It clearly does since it shows the school's former site and former building.

One other thing: no administrator is going to block me for undoing damage to an article; however, there are rules here pertaining to personal attacks. Telling me to "go jump off a bridge" is hardly reasoned debate. Be warned. If anything like that happens again, it will be brought to an administrator's attention. Kelisi 21:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these jokers should sit pretty with a permanent Wiki-ban. Then they can go trash up some other site with their childish antics. 4.225.20.114

Rrrright. Good luck with that. Ironically the person that wants us banned for incivilty is being incivil himself and calling us "jokers" --Tykell 08:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She's the Man

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Amanda Bynes. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. (I did get a chuckle out of it, but this is an encyclopedia; please use Uncyclopedia for such edits.) --Buchanan-H e rmit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 09:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]