User talk:Allstarecho/Archive 14

Why can't I have this photo uploaded?

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090628/capt.856cd44b928c42aa8ad30bdbcbe2b5aa.obit_billy_mays_ny113.jpg?x=359&y=345&q=85&sig=xZlZtY7QgxkcNb5EgY6.uw--

What's wrong with it and how do I do it? How do I upload it? I want the one they have up right now removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hightek669 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I explained it already to you at Talk:Billy Mays: Files - photos, images, videos, etc. - have to be in the public domain and freely available to use. Please read Wikipedia:Non-free content. The photo you have linked to isn't and can't be used on Wikipedia. If you upload it, it will be deleted. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Allstarecho. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding personal attacks and intimidation. Thank you.Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If all Republican politicians looked like him, I'd consider rejoining the GOP. I was going to add two pictures, but I guess they should be uploaded to Commons. Can you be of service? I'll add the pix and Commons link if you upload. (Do you want me to get down on my knees...and beg?) APK is your own Personal Jesus 02:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just let me know which ones and where ya want 'em. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 02:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You know where I want it. Muchas grassy ass mi amigo homosexual. 1, 2 3 (these may work, if cropped: 1 2) APK is your own Personal Jesus 02:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

1. File:Illinois Congressman Aaron Schock at a press conference in 2009.PNG
2. File:Illinois Congressman Aaron Schock at Beardstown River in 2009.PNG
3. File:Illinois Congressman Aaron Schock at a school in 2009.PNG

There you go. Assholes need to date their images. I figured out what day the 2 images at the school were taken but have no idea on the one at the Beardstown River. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 02:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Gracias. There's a short caption on each photo (move your mouse near the top of the image), and the photo sets have a short description. But yeah, no dates = sucky. APK is your own Personal Jesus 03:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have boldly closed Delicious carbuncle's ANI post on you. It seems he is block shopping and two users have said that no admin assistance is needed. I have asked him the same and I will ask you the same, please stay as far away from each other as you can and you will not have any issues with each other. No good can come from that ANI post. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Delicious carbuncle has reverted my bold close. I will not revert him (so as not to start an edit war) so the ANI post continues. Sorry, I tried. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary when I made my one and only post there yesterday, that was my 1 and only reply to that thread, there will be no more. So I'm not even going there to say anything. I know what he's trying to do. Others, such as yourself, know what he's trying to do. I noticed throughout the day how he gradually added bits to his "opening statement" of the ANI thread, trying to bump it so others would pay attention to it. Needless to say, I'm not the one following him around Wikipedia. He's the one following me around. That's why I made the decision that I would not participate in that ANI farce except for that one lone reply to it yesterday. Thanks for the heads up and for trying to spread some common sense at ANI. :] - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 04:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

+ = you have a new message elsewhere APK coffee talk 12:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. If you take a look at the Matt Sanchez talk page over the last 30 days, you will find many similarly written arguments from various SPA anonymous IPs [1] [2] [3] have been placed there, all with the goal of turning the article into self-promotion. I'm not going to sock-tag the IP pages, but I'd like to call it to your attention, as you have a history of dealing with this in a civilized manner. Thanks --StephenLaurie (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Now he's trying to work the refs. His latest anon ip here resolves to Afghanistan, where Sanchez is currently blogging from. --StephenLaurie (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a GFDL violation of WP:HOTTIE. Please acknowledge my note here, as it needs to be deleted. This is evidence you just cut and pasted. Please db-u1 now to keep it easy. Thanks Allstar. Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said on EVula's talk page, please note that it's an old page, not a new one. Also, please see User talk:Moonriddengirl and thanks for pointing this out. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter weather it's new or old. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been taken care of per User_talk:Moonriddengirl#GFDL help. Now everyone can calm down and go back to doing something useful. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear me. "It's old" is utterly irrelevant. If it was 50 or 75 years old maybe, but - well it isn't. Allstar, I really do like your work but you really need to read up on some stuff as at the moment you are causing far more harm then help. And Moonriddengirl is not wholly correct - you should have attributed it from onset - I'm not sure retrospective approval does the job at all as it then becomes unclear. So why not clear it all up - get it deleted and start afresh? Simple solution. Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It is relevant when you brought it up as part of my recent copyvio drama. It must be said that it's not something new I've created, ignoring the recent drama. Look at my block log where an admin thought something was new and blocked me, then reverted. So yes, it is relevant to point out something is old and not new. I've asked Moonriddengirl to clarify the GFDL notices I've done. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not really the best way to deal with suggestions of controversial subject matter. Unless it is clear vandalism or patent nonsense (of which the ANON's edit was neither), we need to address it in due course, without the shots at Fox News. Gracias. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Spamming a talk page with some conspiracy and web link is vandalism and added nothing for improving the article. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You did a stellar job getting the LGBT project article alerts all sorted. Woudl you be willing to suss it out for talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality? they are the LGBT parent group and overlap with many of the issues. i think a nudge would be quite appreciated. If not I can deal with it at some point but I thought you might like a wonky challenge. -- Banjeboi 01:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Created: Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Alertsnav and templated to WT:SEX so you may want to watchlist it. Also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Article alerts/Header which will be used by the bot. No need to watchlist it for any reason other than to keep an eye on vandalism to it if you'd like.

Will be created by the bots eventually: Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Article alerts and User:AlexNewArtBot/SexologySearchResult. You may want to watchlist them for when they go live and vandalism patrol. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You rule! that would have taken me waaay too long to even sort. -- Banjeboi 04:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 13:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey I noticed you placed a Speedy Delete template on File:Mississippi08plate.jpg. I thought it was a copyright violation, but I wasn't sure. I knew the guy that uploaded it didn't own the copyright, but I wasn't sure if it was in public domain or not. Can you look over at WP:MCQ#Copyright_status_of_license_plates and respond there? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't place the Speedy tag on the license plate image, User:TEB728 did. I only removed it from the Mississippi article because of the Speedy tag. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Allstarecho. I've had the Millsaps revisions page in my RSS feed for a while and have noted your attention to the Millsaps page and its edits, and I thank you. You have been a great safeguard of the integrity of this informational page. And yes, I really do work at Millsaps - Lucy Molinaro, molinll@millsaps.edu, Web Manager, - feel free to contact me directly to confirm this. I'm also listed here, http://www.millsaps.edu/news_events/staff.shtml. I did remove the postgrad, undergrad and endowment numbers - mostly because I wasn't sure what they were because I'm getting this info from another staff member. I'm getting that info today and will make the edits to the page again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molinll (talk • contribs) 14:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Molinll (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Lucy Molinaro, molinll, July 9, 2009

Thank you for providing the updated numbers. I noticed you removed the "founding history" content. What's your reason for this? I have restored it to the article. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

An oversight on my part w/the Founding History. It needs to be in there, and it works to have it as its own section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Molinll (talk • contribs) 10 July 2009

You have e-mail. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Your writing on the Chico's article continues to be misleading. While the police may have cited the law struck down by Lawrence v. Texas as the basis for a "homosexual conduct" citation, the article should not imply that L v. T actually did strike down a "homosexual conduct" law. L v. T struck down sodomy laws on the basis of privacy. Even if there had been a public homosexual conduct law, L v. T would not have struck it down because the basis of the decision was privacy, not treating gays as a protected class.

That makes this statement wrong because it implies L v. T struck down a "homosexual conduct" law:

"police threatened to cite the two gay men for 'homosexual conduct', a law that had already been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court via Lawrence v. Texas."

--davidstrauss (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Homosexual conduct" law is the same thing as the sodomy law in which L v. T struck down. Search the Texas criminal code and you won't see any such separate law. Privacy is irrelevant as to why the law was struck down, the law with which they were threatened to be charged with was still struck down. As one who wrote part of the amicus brief for the Supreme Court case, I can assure you this is correct and valid. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The law struck down in Texas was "§ 21.06. Homosexual Conduct." So, yes, the title of the section was "Homosexual Conduct." But it was not a general homosexual conduct law. It was a homosexual sodomy law. Your writing in the article implies that the "homosexual conduct" law extended to the situation the police were handling, which involved kissing.

The writing needs to make the following clear:

(1) The officer cited "homosexual conduct" as the violation.

(2) The Texas "homosexual conduct" law was struck down by L v. T.

(3) The Texas "homosexual conduct" law would never have included gay kissing to begin with because it was a sodomy law.

(4) If Texas did have a law against gay kissing, L v. T would not have struck it down.

(5) It's not clear whether the cop was threatening to cite the men under §21.06 or some non-specific "homosexual conduct" thing he had in mind. So it's not 100% clear that L v. T has any relationship to the supposed ban the officer had in mind.

This is how your writing currently reads:

(1) The officer cited "homosexual conduct" as the violation.

(2) The Texas "homosexual conduct" law was struck down by L v. T.

(3) The Texas "homosexual conduct" law extended to gay kissing in public. (You imply this by saying they kissed and the police threatened a "homosexual conduct" citation without refuting the association.)

(4) L v. T struck down gay kissing bans. (You imply this by saying L v. T overturned what the cop was trying to cite the person for.)

See the problem? --davidstrauss (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No, no problem.

(1) The officer cited "homosexual conduct" as the violation.

(2) The Texas "homosexual conduct" law was struck down by L v. T.

End of story. You're making the content imply something it doesn't. Even the news sources refer to the L v. T issue. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still going to add a clarification that the officer's attempt to cite the men under "homosexual conduct" would not have been valid in any case, given that the law was limited to sodomy, not public affection. I've already seen several people misinterpret current coverage of the Chico situation to mean L v. T struck down a gay kissing law. --davidstrauss (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added the L v. T reference back to the article with clarification to reduce confusion resulting from the officer's faulty interpretation of what "homosexual conduct" laws ever meant in Texas. --davidstrauss (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Chico was gay? Wow, he had everybody fooled. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Per your request I have deleted two subpages to your userpage. Please advise if I missed anything.Dave (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to overhaul the male actors in gay porn list and reconcile it with Category:People appearing in gay pornography. Would you, could you help close an odd technical gap for me? I need the list of all those in the category - 238 on two pages - recollated and listed by first name instead of las name. This also brings up the question if the list is fine being listed by first name or not. I'm not bothered either way. Anyway that's the request. Thank you! -- Banjeboi 09:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess you already got it taken care of because when I looked at Category:People appearing in gay pornography, all of the entries were already listed by first name. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 17:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't do anything and they still seem to be sorted by last name. Do you have a word processing ability to alpha sort by first name? I could run it through an accountancy pragramme instead. -- Banjeboi 00:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Odd that you're seeing them last name first and I'm seeing them first name first. Go look at User talk:Benjiboi/catsort where I have pasted them. That's how I see them and should be what you need. All of them first name first, last name second. So odd you're seeing something different. Anyway, go look at that page I created for you, you'll have to wikilink them. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol. I explained it poorly but solved my own challenge. I wanted the list sorted by first name not listed first name first. So Adam, Alan, Alaine would be together instead of the cat list which bundles by last name. Thank you for looking at it though. -- Banjeboi 03:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's both the Mississippi state tree and state flower, but it's not in the state wikiproject. Shouldn't it be? LadyofShalott 02:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes'm. Never thought about it really. I've tagged it. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool. (I just thought I'd mention it to you since I know you're active in that project.) Cheers, LadyofShalott 03:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you were the one who set up the archive on the Skynyrd page. There are no links to the archive on the talk page, so I'm hoping you could just send me a link to the discussion where consensus was reached on setting up the archive. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a link near the top of the page, at the bottom of the first box. Do you object to the archiving? I think it's perfectly reasonable, given that it removed over 20 threads, some as much as 15 months old.  Frank  |  talk  14:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not that we need a consensus for archiving. It's not deleting, just moving stale conversations. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ARCHIVE does require consensus for setting up an auto-archive, or any other archive. My concern arises from the fact that there appears to have been a dispute over how long to wait before archiving. I'm trying to get a link to the discussion that led to consensus, assuming it exists. If not, would you mind at least self-reverting to the 180-day wait until we get consensus for a shorter period. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Require" is such a rigid word. Everything that happens on Wikipedia requires consensus; it's a given, but that's not all there is to it. Practically speaking, there's already a general overriding consensus that goes something like this: "when the talk page gets too long, start archiving it." If you have an objection to the archiving on that page, I think the appropriate place for discussion is there, not here. What's been implemented is a commonly accepted practice. I understand you've come here to the editor's talk page to question it, but I think the reality is that it shouldn't be a problem, and if you're looking to establish a consensus to change it, the appropriate place is there, not here. I'm not trying to divert (or subvert) your goal; it's just that I don't see the problem, and I'm trying to point you to the most likely place to give whatever your problem is the proper forum. The first thing I'd recommend is starting a thread over there and stating what your goal is regarding archiving.  Frank  |  talk  22:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. When I see article talk pages with old, stale conversations, I set up archiving - because what's the point of having old, stale conversations on a talk page? If it's that important to you that I didn't get a consensus for something so mundane, you can remove the archiving code or change the length in which old, stale conversations remain on the page before the bot archives them - yourself. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Childofmidnight of accused you of pushing an agenda on this article at the BLP page ChildofMidnight is the most active conservative POV pushing editor on wiki that I've encountered. Scribner (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, he's the one that hasn't been blocked yet. He knows just how far to go without going over the Axmann8 line, so to speak. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of the BLP/N rant. I have replied there. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question is at it again, now with edit summaries intended to bait. I've reverted, but I wanted to give you a heads up. --StephenLaurie (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho, you do seem to have an unfair agenda on the Matt Sanchez article. Stephen Laurie also is pushing an agenda. Sanchez is listed as a war correspondent by Fox News[4], that should be more than enough. 217.163.18.130 (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no agenda other than making sure Sanchez doesn't dictate/whitewash the article. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 17:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left some comments on the Sanchez Talk page regarding recent activity there. --StephenLaurie (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Due to certain interaction restrictions placed upon me by the august body of the Arbitration Committee, it would be completely inappropriate for me to respond to your comment concerning the absolute fucking hypocrisy and extraordinary audacity and/or self-delusional madness of the dramamonger extraordinaire you may be referring to. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realize Arbcom was now telling user who they can and can't speak to/about. What a daft bunch. My apologies then. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 17:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm exaggerating for the sake of amusement. ArbCom aren't going to restrict editors from talking about other editors; however, I have tried to avoid even thinking about our mutual friend for the sake of my own sanity. Of course, this conversation isn't really in the spirit of my pledge at WP:NODRAMA either. I am full of fail. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize you had signed up for the no drama thing. Sorry for causing you to fail. lol - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 18:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Via a spokesman, a claims it was sarcasm, of course. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, that is amusing. There must be some ironic title like "Superior non-drama queen" available? -- Banjeboi 23:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in the info I posted on User talk:Horologium; I'm looking for common ground and I found some there. Doc Tropics 23:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this edit today. Please don't do that anymore. Your contributions to WP:CFB are extremely valuable, but there were two things wrong with this one:

1. Don't "fix" redirects that aren't broken. WP:NOTBROKEN. If ULM Warhawks football was changed from a redirect to an actual article, then we want the link to point to the new football article, not the general athletics article. Killing the redirect prevents this from happening.
2. {{cfb link}} is extremely useful because it will automagically link to that team's specific season page when it gets created. Your edit resulted in the Ole Miss article not linking to the newly created 2008 ULM Warhawks football team article. No telling how long the Ole Miss article would have sat around happily linking to ULM Warhawks had I not stumbled upon the change by accident and fixed it.

Keep up the good work. In the future, please don't de-template instances of {{cfb link}} unless you're pointing the link at the season-specific article. Thanks and happy editing. DeFaultRyan 15:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It was broken. I noted it as a redirect kill, and changed it, because 2008 ULM Warhawks football team was redirecting to ULM Warhawks. So I cut out the middle "man" so to speak. I killed the redirect and made it go straight to the article it was redirecting to - which as I understand is perfectly acceptable. 2008 ULM Warhawks football team wasn't created until June 28, 2009. {{cfb link}} may automagically link to that team's specific season page when it gets created but it shouldn't be used until it is created to avoid unnecessary redirects. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 15:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I fail to see how the redirect was broken. Reason #1 on why not to change redirects is "Redirects can indicate possible future articles". This applies here. If ULM Warhawks football were turned into an article, it would be a more appropriate link target than ULM Warhawks. Therefore, {{cfb link}} pointing at ULM Warhawks football (even though it redirects to ULM Warhawks) is still the correct and desired behavior. Furthermore 2008 ULM Warhawks football team has never redirected to ULM Warhawks. Perhaps you misunderstand the beharior of {{cfb link}}. It checks for the existence of the season page, then checks for the football page, then the athletics team page, then the school, and chooses the most specific existing article to link to. In April (at the time of the edit in question), the season-specific page didn't exist, so {{cfb link}} was pointing at ULM Warhawks football. This is why {{cfb link}} exists - to successively link to more specific/appropriate articles as they are created. There's no need to cut out the middle man. The behavior was correct as-is. DeFaultRyan 22:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There's only one way. Yes, please! APK that's not my name 10:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's funny. I saw it on Consumerist.com. Someone wasn't getting any at home. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 18:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Bluemarine, I've blocked him for 72 hours for his attack on you, but I do recommend you unwatch his talk page and forget about him--Jac16888^Talk 13:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits to Mr. Sanchez's comments on his talk page. Please do not edit other people's talk page comments, even if they are perceived to be of a personal attack. In this case, if anything, they deserve to stay in place in order to justify the speed and severity of Jac16888's block. Going forward, I would echo Jac168888's concern and strongly recommend that you stay off Mr. Sanchez's talk page - he has made it very clear that he does not welcome your visits and comments. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. It is common practice to remove personal attacks and you are way out of line by restoring them. You said, "they deserve to stay in place in order to justify the speed and severity of Jac16888's block" however that is moot as they can be seen in the history. I am asking you now to remove those personal attacks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with Jac16888 that you're too close to the whole Bluemarine situation and should disengage, I must also agree that restoring the personal attack (especially for "justifying the block") was grossly improper. I've removed the entire attack and replaced it with the diff;[5] please don't restore it again, as it isn't needed. WP:NPA trumps the idea that we shouldn't be editing other people's comments. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi AllstarechoPer a clear consensus at ANI [6], I am formally notifying you that you are now subject to a community imposed restriction from commenting on, about or to Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez. This applies on any namespace. The exact terms are Allstarecho is banned from commenting on or to Bluemarine anywhere on Wikipedia. While I realise that this is an unwelcome outcome for you there was a clear consensus for this from the discussion. You are welcome to appeal to either the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales against this outcome and may also open a further discussion at ANI at any time to seek either variation or voiding. Best wishes Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I will most certainly be appealing part of it to Arbcom - the part that doesn't allow me to report him at official Wikipedia venues. Thanks for the expected notice. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 11:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two ways to appeal, send an email to arbcom-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org for the bans and appeals sub-committee to look at or list it as a fresh request for arbitration. The latter step will result in a full case covering the whole subject area if accepted and the committee will be free to add, remove or vary the conditions of any restriction. If you do this, you need you list me as a party, which is fine as I'm just going to refer the committee to the discussion at ANI. Do think this through though as arbitration is stressy and time consuming and can be very unpleasant for everyone concerned. There is also a way of making appeals but this is usually against existing arbitration cases and usually the committee prefer to hear a fresh case for this kind of appeal. You can always send the committee an email and ask for advice on how to list this I guess if this note isn't clear or straightforward. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(not posting as an admin) Obviously you will be unhappy with the outcome but calling the archive of the discussion an "idiot ban" is going to needlessly upset some participants. It doesn't bother me because I edit with a British sense of humour but I'm sure others will be offended. May I ask you nicely to change the name to something less contentious to keep the overall drama level down? You choice of of course. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling myself an idiot won't make some participants upset. In fact, some of those very same participants have called me the very same thing on IRC and in emails thanks to the ANI thread. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 11:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh? I misread the title and thought you were referring to the discussion, well thank you for clarifying that and my apologiues for the misunderstanding. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is to let you know I have deleted your user subpage, dealing with the topic ban on ANI. Please do not attempt to recreate this. You really need to step back, realize you're in a bit too deep in this situation, and find parts of the encyclopedia that you feel less strongly about. So far, the community has said that you need to step away, and the Arbitration Committee is in the process of telling you the same thing. IF something needs to happen in the Bluemarine situation, it will happen. It doesn't need to come from you. SirFozzie (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed some of the content you posted [7] as BLP enforcement. You can't watch a film and then claim that film as a reliable source. That would be original research. BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, not just articles. If you write facts about a living person, they should have a proper source. From now on, please comment on conduct, not the editor's person as a general rule. In addition, if I ever see you call another editor a "dick sucker" or synonymous phrases, I will immediately block you for harassment. Jehochman ^Talk 13:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the films are reliable sources, it's also reliably sourced in the very article right here on Wikipedia. So no BLP vio issue at all. Incidentally, please keep in mind that us gay people call each other "dick sucker" as a term of endearment quite often so when and if I ever do call someone that, make sure it's not followed by an "lol" or a smiley face or a non-angry reply by the person I may direct it at, before you go trigger happy with those blocks. ;] - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I am not up to date on the lingo. Will keep the in mind. FYI, I removed the whole edit and told you so you could restore the parts you wanted. That was better than me modifying your statement and either risking a change the meaning or leaving an ugly [REDACTION] placeholder. Jehochman ^Talk 10:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This was fuckin' great. :) Thanks for the laugh, →javért ^stargaze 08:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite welcome! :] - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 09:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If the mentor you have in mind isn't able to help, please consider User:Kubigula for the job. He was my mentor and did a great job with me. If he isn't available, my next go-to person would be User:Acroterion‎....after that User:J.delanoy‎. I am not sure if the last two do mentoring, but I know Kubigula does. If I can be of assistance, in a non-mentoring capacity, please let me know. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for inserting my nose where it might not be wanted, ASE, but depending on what sort of mentorship you're looking for, I might be able to help. If you're interested, let me know. If not, sorry for interrupting. Jakew (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. In reference to this, it might be best to simply use the default undo/rollback edit summary. There's really no point in feeding the trolls. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. That's the default summary for rollback as set in my monobook.js and as seen in the thread just above this one, humorous and appreciated by the people that matter: non-vandals. Might you reconsider your request? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, fair enough. Just something to consider. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thisimage was uploaded to WikiCommons then cropped. There are three guys pictured the very tall one on the left is John Amaechi; I'd like to pull a cropped photo of him from the trio and use it as the new leded photo on the Amaechi BLP. Is this something in your bag of tricks? -- Banjeboi 19:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This whatchoo want? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You're a gem! -- Banjeboi 21:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this may seem rather trivial but I'm trying to gauge community consensus on including or removing "Order #" and "Results" columns from the performances section on the Adam Lambert article which you have been in some way recently involved. The poll is here. Your time is appreciated. -- Banjeboi 21:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I think you might have misunderstood the purpose of the straw poll about "Shooting of Lawrence King". It isn't about what people think is the best possible title; it's about whether or not "Shooting of Lawrence King" is an improvement over "E.O. Green School shooting". To keep this straw poll useful, it excludes other options (I'm not trying to stifle discussion of other options, it's just not a useful poll if the question isn't addressed). Which do you feel is a better title? -kotra (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you adopted my sig :) Some editors were asking about it earlier, so I made User:M/Notes. I think that to fit your name, you omitted the margin-width - without this, though, the line that your sig is on develops noticeable spacing above and below it. The bigger problem is that that version will seriously bork up Opera pages, due to a strange bug in Opera. You might want to use the newest version (see current sig), but then, I think it breaks and looks ugly in a couple of popular browsers, including IE.    M   19:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I actually adopted it from User:Bsmithme, whom I guess adopted it from you. But since there's some issues with it, I think I'll go back to my original sig. Again, thanks for the note.   allstar▼echo  21:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked it in Opera and MSIE. Seems to work fine. I use Firefox and it's working fine too. I guess I'll keep using it until someone complains that it's borking up a page layout. -    allstar▼echo    21:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Your sig is borking up page layout. Plz stop using it. :-p (j/k) →javért ^stargaze 23:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You just wanted to use the word "borking". :P -    allstar▼echo    23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Neat new sig layout. I likes :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! -    allstar▼echo    00:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure :) I'm glad to see it used more. If you were interested, the original complaint was User:M#Your_signature_and_Opera, you may want to check that you have the latest version, just in case. When testing, I think you need to reload when at the top-left.    M   20:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm using the same version of Opera, 9.64, as him and it's working perfectly normal. Maybe he's got a plug-in or widget that's causing him issues? I dunno. -    allstar▼echo    20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)