User talk:Chuck F
Badnarik wins!!!
[edit]Based on a unique system of counting pioneered by unknown Libertarian Chuck_F, lately of Tokyo, Michael Badnarik, a computer programmer in a nuclear power plant has unexpectedly triumphed in the Presidential elections. Adding all of the individual votes of Libertarian candidates and representing that in % terms, Badnarik just managed to sneak over the line. We can look forward to the following:
- Chuck_F making his first honest $1000
- The abolition of the IRS and Congressmen bearing arms
- Dope in cafes a la Amsterdam
- Porn in every private school classroom (no public schools left)
- Saudi ownership of Boeing and defense contractors.
God Bless America
Reithy 07:17, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm confused.
- How is the abolition of the IRS and Congressmen bearing arms bad?
- What's wrong with dope in cafes?
- How would there be porn in private schools? Would they somehow manage to NOT ban it?
- Saudis can do that now. All they need to do is buy Boeing. And what would be wrong with that, Bush is friends with the Saudis anyhow.
Cheers! Mac OS X 14:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Show Me the Money
[edit]Exit polls show Badnarik has tanked with much less than 1% of the vote. Nader is even struggling to get 1%. You will owe me $1000. Thank you. Reithy 02:22, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
Nice Try
[edit]So you want to add every vote in every election to get a total. No. It's the Presidential ballot we're betting on. If add up all the Republican votes you get to 180% of the national vote. Illogical. Just give me my money dude. Looks like Bush will win, so that's good. Will you send by PayPal? Reithy 03:03, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
Hey Chuck, I checked out the Japanese page on Roppongo Hills (sic) and it had very little o f interest in there. You live there so why not add your own information. It's a very impressive complex and should reflect that. I will work collaboratively with you on it. Reithy 03:55, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
A gentleman honors his bets. Who are we dealing with here? Reithy 05:08, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
Welcome
[edit]Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, again. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! BTW, you can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Here's the standard list of various open tasks you can take a look at if you get bored:
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
Cheers - Nat Krause 14:04, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi Chuck! Can you reply to the replies to your comment at Talk:Exxon Mobil before deleting paragraphs from the main article again! Thanks! —Stormie 22:47, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and please provide a cite for this "Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit" term - I can't see any sign of anyone using it except you. —Stormie 22:55, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
Request for comment
[edit]Chuck,
I want to let you know that I've listed you on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Please read the listing at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chuck F. I encourage you to respond to it and present your side of the story. It's your opportunity to be heard by a larger portion of the Wikipedia community. I think you have made good contributions here but sometimes you are unable to follow the rules. Rhobite 01:06, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
McJob
[edit]I have opened the subject of the line you removed for discussion on the discussion page for McJob. Please go there and discuss it before you try to remove the line again. We should try to avoid an edit war. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 00:29, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Just because he has vandalized in the past doesn't mean the current line isn't valid. And whether or not he is using multiple accounts doesn't matter; if the line is valid, and no one has argued (not reverted, argued) that it isn't, then it should stay until someone does. If you want to give a reason to get rid of the line, go to Talk:McJob and say something about the line, not the guy editing it. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 00:36, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
LGagnon is right. If the article as it stands has faults then Chuck_F has the opportunity to put up an alternate view and argue it, his reasoning seems solely restricted to editing those who have previously disagreed with him. Reithy 09:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Placentophagy
[edit]I can assure you that I am not the same person as the others editing that page. -- 00:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Brisbane Boy
[edit]You work at apnic.net in Brisbane. Mmmm. ReithySockPuppet 02:11, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No Sockpuppet, chuckf is in Japan
[edit]SCARY STALKER REITHY, still a pal.
ring a bell? Reithy 17:47, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Dude, if you check other pages an admin has already told you to stop that, it's Against polcies
Which policy are you referring to from your IP address. I found nothing that deals with that in my reading. Perhaps you can advise me in one coherent sentence. No spelling or other errors. Reithy 21:18, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Temple
[edit]You speak! Congratulations. I made a change which gives greater emphasis to the American campus which is quite substantial. I thought you would welcome it. Reithy 20:42, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Edit summaries
[edit]Please use edit summaries as a description of you edits. Ranting or sniping at other editors is not an appropriate use. Such edit descriptions as "HEY YOU KNOW WHAT? I bet it's probly the largest AMerican Uni in Ambler too or in Harrisburg!!, wow let's just compleatly rape the article so we can go proving points to each other" are inappropriate. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Wikiquette. Thank you. -- Infrogmation 21:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with Infrogmation, it is a challenge dealing with Chuck_F when he:
- Launches personal attacks
- Fails to consult in Talk
- Does unjustified reverts
- Deletes tracts of material that he hasn't written and doesn't like without any explanation or justification.
- Reithy 00:12, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Arbitration
[edit]Hi., just letting you know I listed your on requests for Arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests_for_Arbitration
with the following complaint
Chuck_F has repeatedly broken the 3 revert rule, engaged in repeated personal attacks, multiple edit wars, unjustified, unexplained reverts, large-scale deletions of relevant material, inappropriate language etc. He has refused to negotiate, or use Talk productively even when given the opportunity from others keen to engage him. There is currently a request for comment on Chuck_F. Comments to Reithy 00:30, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Reithy 00:37, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Copyright Violation?
[edit]Chuck_F, please identify the copyright owner and the circumstances in which they gave you permission to use their copyright. Image will be deleted otherwise. Reithy 00:57, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Oh thank you
[edit]Thank you Chuck for extending me the courtesy of letting me know you are reverting my additions to a page about me. It is much appreciated. You can assume that I will never accept reversions on that basis. Reithy 13:42, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Please stop posting anonymous comments. ~ type in 4 of those and your name and time will appear. Reithy 20:44, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Please explain yourself
[edit]What, exactly, do you have against TUJ? If it's not the biggest American university campus in Japan, I'd like to know what is. (And, incidentally, it's much larger than London and Rome, evidenced by the fact that it offers complete degree programs independently of Philadelphia.) Sekicho 03:50, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
- I have no idea why, but he seems to be a student at TUJ according to one of his IP addresses. Nothing wrong with him having an opinion but it's regrettable he feels the need to impose it on articles. I won't stand for it any longer. Reithy 05:31, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
Please desist from removing the section about GM's recent financial and other difficulties. As far as I know, they are factual; if you have any problems with the factual accuracy, bring them up. If you think the article needs work in terms of balance, work on it! But removing information is not really the way to do it. —Morven 07:51, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Well said Morven, it is kinda crazy. I hope you can resolve it in a way I've been unable to. Chuck_F is hard work. Reithy 08:02, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
Liberal Democratic Party
[edit]Chuck, what's with the reversions to Liberal Democratic Party of Australia? Whatever you might think of Reithy's other edits, these seemed solid enough. J.K. 09:23, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You seem to be having a war with User:Reithy over a couple of articles on the American Libertarian Party. Please do not spread that war to other sections of Wikipedia. Please do not revert the page on the Liberal Democratic Party of Australia again - the edits to it are accurate and you seem to be making your changes just to advance your POV in a campaign against Reithy. --213.120.56.41 13:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You have now broken the three revert rule and continue to re-insert inaccurate and American-centric wording into this article. You seem to be doing this to advance your POV as part of an on-going edit war on various articles to do with the American Libertarian Party. I continue to hope that you are editing in good faith and are simply allowing that edit war to cloud your judgement. The word "Libertarian" does not mean what you think it means in Australia. Look at the website of the Liberal Democratic Party and you will find the word is not used. To avoid further article dispute please revert to this version immediately --213.120.56.41 14:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Chuck, they seem to mean it. Watch out. Reithy 20:34, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Chuck, ignoring all threats from other posters, what precisely are your reasons for your present reversions to Liberal Democratic Party of Australia? It's considered polite to explain yourself on the article talk page. I'm not one to engage in revert wars (or revert at all, if I can possibly avoid it) but I would like the definition of the word "libertarian" in an article on an Australian political party to reflect Australian norms, which in all good faith your version does not appear to do. I don't give a crap about your disputes with Reithy, Rhobite and whoever else, I want a stable, relevant, comprehensive and comprehensible encyclopaedia article. J.K. [[]] 10:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You are breaking the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, constantly reverting Libertarian socialism. Try to reach consensus by discussing the issues on the talk page. Claiming the other party does not listen to discussion is not a valid argument to not attempt any discussion at all. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:32, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
I fond theez allagations imposable to beleive of ChucK_F who is a user held in the higher regerd. Reithy 13:39, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Athru Farnswoth
[edit]ChucK_F, coold yoo pleez consida ravertink ya changes to Athru Farnswoth artical. It wos beta then than it is nowe. Reithy 14:06, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
"Libertarian"
[edit]Please note that we have a three-revert per day rule for any given article. If you don't stop reverting this article to-and-fro, both of you may be temporarily blocked from editing. -- The Anome 14:37, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Wal-Mart - thank you for the note
[edit]Frank, thanks for the heads up, that was considerate. Please see my note on Talk:Wal-Mart, I think my original form of the edits was appropriately brief, however, I have reworded the text and cut it by about 80 percent. Take a look, and see if you can live with the edit I made after your revert... new text in criticism section and in milestones section. Nice to meet you, I'll come back and say Hi again after I browse through your contributions. Thanks again for the polite notice about your reversion of my edits.Pedant 18:07, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
Ron Paul
[edit]Replied on my talk page. —No-One Jones (m) 03:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Reverts
[edit]Chuck, 4 reverts on Ron Paul in less than 20 minutes? That's an accomplishment, even by your standards. You're still under arbitration, and you should know better by now. I'm watching the page, and I assume Sam and others are as well. The differences between the two versions, while material, are still pretty minor. Please stop reverting. Rhobite 14:14, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
User:Chuck F is back with anon ip 210.178.220.65. And also 202.78.94.101.
RADB Whois query for 210.178.220.65
route: 210.178.0.0/16
descr: KT Pubnet
origin: AS9768
mnt-by: MAINT-AS4766
changed: modori@kt.co.kr 20030904
changed: eyeface7777@kornet.net 20040825 #05:51:33(UTC)
source: RADB
route: 210.178.128.0/17 descr: REACH (Customer Route) tech-c: RRNOC1-REACH origin: AS9318 notify: irr@net.reach.com mnt-by: MAINT-REACH-NOC changed: irr@net.reach.com 20040604 source: REACH
RADB Whois query for 202.78.94.101
route: 202.78.92.0/22
descr: SKY-ROUTE-OBJECT-202-78-92-0-22
origin: AS6648
mnt-by: SKY-INTERNET-MAINT-MCI
changed: route-admin@skyinet.net 19980929
source: SAVVIS
route: 202.78.80.0/20 descr: SKY-ROUTE-OBJECT-202-78-80-0-20 origin: AS6648 country: PH remarks: Please report all incidents of abuse and remarks: acceptable use violations to abuse@skyinet.net notify: route-admin@skyinet.net mnt-by: MAINT-PH-SKYINET-INC changed: mla@skyinet.net 20040531 source: APNIC
He's in Korea or dialling into Korea and in Philipines or dialling into there. LOL.
The desperation of the addict knows no bounds. Imagine travelling to such cool places and spending time editing articles on wikipedia. Get out of your hotel room, Chucky.
WikiCorp 09:21, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why did you vandalise the page? -- Martin TB 23:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Moved to appropriate section. Now I know why you deleted it! -- Martin TB 23:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
LIbertarianism
[edit]OK, interesting page. I'm sympathetic to your plight, and wonder why the anon didn't get warned. Chuck, next time you get to 3 reverts, post a message on my talk page and we'll have a quick chat to see if we can work out a compromise or work out what's going on here. In the meantime, keep discussing on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Temporary injunction
[edit]Under the terms of the temporary injunction against you, you (and all of your sock puppets) are prohibited from editing wikipedia pages except for pages related to your arbcom case. Should you violate this, you may be banned for a period of time. →Raul654 22:43, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
- This is the only warning you'll get from me, Chuck. One more edit and I'm blocking you for 24 hours. Rhobite 01:42, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Why did you revert libertarian socialism again? taion 20:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours
[edit]For multiple violations of the Arbitration Committee's temporary injunction, including edits to Liberal Democratic Party of Australia, Libertarian socialism, and Libertarian capitalism, I have blocked you for 24 hours. —No-One Jones (m) 04:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Good job
[edit]Reithy emailed me to ask me to tell you he RESPECTS your decision to withdraw your request for arbitration. He will do likewise when he is unbanned, if this ever happens. As he is pledged to a kamikaze attack on the devil worshipper Uninvited Rectal Cumpany, this seems unlikely.
He pledges all his sockpuppets in your favor.
He asks that you attach an email address to your wiki preferences so he can communicate his thanks to you directly. Hostilities have ceased and he will be doing all possible to support your exalted candidacy in the ArbCom election, for which he believes you would be a wise and judicious choice. Hang in there, scum like Rhobite, Uninvited Company et al will pay. You can email him reithy at walla.com Speechfree 07:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No offense meant, ChuckF, but I didn't vote for you because I never heard of you until you put a message on my talk page just now. This place has got so big that I seriously fear that it has become unmanagable. Time will tell, I guess. Best wishes, Tannin 11:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
PS: I just checked your edit history. You only just got here! Seriously, I suggest that you withdraw from the election, as you'll need to be much better known before you can entertain realistic hopes of getting many votes. It takes a long time, a cool head, and a whole stack of high-quality edits to attain username recognition here. Of course, you are perfectly entitled to run if you want to, but my advice is to withdraw from this one and, if you still want the thankless task of being on the AC in a year or two, run then. Tannin
Disendorsements
[edit]For the record, the disendorsements were moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Disendorsements. I'm not sure why this is not linked from the main endorsements page right now, but this doesn't stop the page from existing. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:53, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
Temporary injunction
[edit]Both Reithy and Chuck F and any sockpuppets are to edit only on their respective arbcom case [and their own user and user talk pages] and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004. Edits to the mainspace may be reverted on sight. The change to this injunction is supported by the votes of 4 out of 9 arbitrators of whom 2 have abstained, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reithy/Proposed_decision#Proposed_temporary_orders, thus a majority of those voting support the amendment. Fred Bauder 13:38, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Since you appear to be unable to understand this injunction—you have not only edited outside the prescribed areas, but have engaged in revert wars on articles such as libertarian socialism and Wal-Mart—I have blocked you for 48 hours. When you return I'll be happy to explain whatever parts of the injunction you can't figure out. —No-One Jones (m) 17:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And using sockpuppets is not going to fool anyone if you wade right back into the same edit wars. —No-One Jones (m) 07:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Vote for your self
[edit]Are you allowed to vote for yourself on the ArbCom elections? --Rebroad 13:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A Message to my Fellow Candidate
[edit]Friend,
The Arbitration Committee elections are almost here. I humbly ask for your vote in this election cycle. I have been a user of Wikipedia for over a year. I was here before the Community Portal, categories, or <tt>{{stub}}</tt>. I know how Wikipedia operates, and I am prepared to do my part to deal with problematic accounts. I wish to cut out the bureaucracy that makes our website stagnate. We need solutions to our problems now. If you want an arbitrator who believes in action, frankness, honesty, and fairness in every case, I am your arbitrator. Thank you for your time. You are under no obligation to answer this message.
Closed December 3, 2004, therefore the temporary injunction has expired. Fred Bauder 22:07, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Ron Paul
[edit]Your "feeling" that the quote is taken out of context is not adequate justification remove agreed-upon material. If you want more context, it's YOUR responsibility to find it and add it. RadicalSubversiv E 09:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Harassment"
[edit]I'm just giving you fair warning that I consider unjustified accusations of harassment to be a personal attack. RadicalSubversiv E 11:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
LP-poll prep
[edit]I hope that, via IRC, we've come to a decent understanding of things that need to be resolved, that I hope can be handled with a poll that will bind all parties. I've summarized the discussion. Take a look here and let me know what you think. I've pointed a few others at it too, and hopefully we can all work on at least summarizing the issues so eventually we can get this resolved.
Blocked for 3RR violation
[edit]For violation of the three revert rule on libertarian theory, I have blocked you for 24 hours. The diffs: first, second, third, fourth revert. —No-One Jones (m) 04:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you continue using proxies to get around the block, I'm just going to block those too, and I'm going to block them indefinitely. —No-One Jones (m) 06:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Chuck has just now violated the 3RR on McJob: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. He should be blocked for another 24 hours. RadicalSubversiv E 08:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Request for arbitration
[edit]I have filed a request for arbitration regarding you -- see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Note that this case is not limited to your actions with regards to myself, Reithy, or any other individual user, but encompasses a three-month-long pattern of unacceptable behavior. RadicalSubversiv E 12:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Chuck, you are violating the rules of the evidence page by adding comments in my section. Please stop doing so and move your "evidence" to your own section. See the top of the page where it says:
- "Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section.
- If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user."
- RadicalSubversiv E 20:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
He's right. Create a section for yourself (you can copy stuff from his section into yours to respond to if you wish). Fred Bauder 21:07, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Article Licensing
[edit]Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)
I'm not reverting you again right now, but I will if you don't state your case on talk. RadicalSubversiv E 11:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please stop removing accurate information from this article. There is no reason to remove that information except to push a POV. If you believe that section should be structured as a pro- and con- list, then you move that information down to a bullet point at the start of the con- list. Similarly, if you don't believe there should be rebuttals in the pro- section, you move or remove the rebuttals in the con- section. By simply reverting and deleting you again make it look like you are just a vandal, battling the rest of Wikipedia in order to push your POV. Incidentally, I've never used AOL in my life. 195.92.67.209
Absent hard evidence that Libertas is a Reithy sockpuppet, you don't get to revert him just because you feel like it. I, and probably others, will revert you if you remove acceptable changes without offering any explanation. RadicalSubversiv E 07:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am not you and I am not Reithy, please stop saying I am someone else. Is there any way of proving I am not either of you? Libertas
Phrasing
[edit]ChuckF, have you had the chance to place your revised phrasing on the draft for USLP-related articles yet? --Improv 15:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- ChuckF, any news yet? I see you're editing the relevant articles again. --Improv 21:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- ChuckF, why arn't you working on building a consensus instead of going back into revertwarring? Please work on your revised phrasing on the draft so we can hold this poll, reach a consensus, and abide by it. --Improv 14:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hey Chuck, sorry I reverted you mid-edit stream. I think we can assume Ron Paul campaigned when he ran for President. Btw, I share your admiration for the Congressman, easily the most principled politician in the United States.
Libertas's identity
[edit]I don't know of an official process for getting someone to look at his IP address -- you could try posting at the Village Pump and seeing what happens. However, even if Libertas is Reithy, that doesn't allow you to violate policy, including evading bans. RadicalSubversiv E 04:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Your return
[edit]Sorry to see that the New Year hasn't changed your editing habits. You might want to take a look at the ArbCom case, realize that you're facing a possible long-term ban, and consider modifying your behavior accordingly. RadicalSubversiv E 08:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Image:Rateatingplacenta.jpg
[edit]Hi. Image:Rateatingplacenta.jpg has been tagged as a possible copyright problem. Could you please give more info on the source and status to help clear this up? Thanks. -- Infrogmation 07:30, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
ArbCom final decision
[edit]ChuckF (and all user accounts and IP addresses used by you) - A final decision has been reached in your case. You are hereby banned for a period of 2 months and are subject to various paroles and limitations once you successfully serve your ban period. Below are the remedies and enforcement, for principles and findings of fact go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Chuck F#Final decision.
- ChuckF is banned for one month for blatant disregard for the Arbitration community's previous rulings.
- ChuckF is hereby banned from editing any article related to libertarianism, socialism, or political ideology. Should he do so, any administrator may block him for a length of time up onto and including one week. Administrators are authorized to determine what relates to libertarianism, socialism, or political ideology at their discretion.
- For repeated violations of the three revert rule, Chuck F is placed on a 3 month general parole. If during this period he violates the other remedies passed in this case, then he can, at the discretion of the Committee, be ordered to serve the rest of his parole period banned from editing the English Wikipedia. This parole period starts after Chuck F successfully serves whatever bans may be imposed by the ArbCom.
- Chuck F is hereby limited to 1 revert per article per day and must discuss all reverts on the relevant talk page. This probation will last for 1 year and will start as soon as Chuck F is done serving whatever bans may be imposed by the ArbCom. Admins can treat anything more than 1 revert as a violation of the 3RR and act accordingly. If Chuck F demonstrates good behavior in a minimum of 6 weeks, then he can petition the ArbCom to stay this ruling.
- Chuck F is hereby banned for 1 month for vandalism and use of open proxies to violate policy and to evade blocks.
- ChuckF is hereby prohibited from removal of information or substantive content (including external links and references/sources) from any article. Should he do so, any administrator may block him for a length of time up onto and including 24 hours. Administrators are authorized to determine what constitutes a removal of information or content at their discretion.
- ChuckF must give legitimate edit summary for every edit he makes, excepting those to his userspace. Should he not do so, any administrator may block him for a length of time up to and including 24 hours. Administrators are authorized to determine what constitutes a legitimate edit summary at their discretion.
All the above have passed and are enforceable as of 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A non-ArbCom admin will issue the block shortly. --mav 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- My understanding is that this ruling would prevent you from making edits like these: [6] [7] [8] and your edits to Ron Paul. Please stop. Dave (talk) July 2, 2005 20:30 (UTC)
Man I know what you is goin through. They tried to get me blackballed off Wikipedia too. But you just gotta ignore them and represent and they'll split. BrowardPlaya 2 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)
Chuck, I had hoped that you'd make a fresh start and edit constructively after serving your ban. Unfortunately you're getting back into your old habits. You've been blocked for 1 day for removing a large amount of content from Ron Paul. Block lengths will quickly increase up to a week, as allowed by your arbitration decision. Rhobite 03:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
- I asked you not to do this. Please stop violating ArbCom rulings. And by the way, you're wrong. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses the terms left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism. Dave (talk) 14:58, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
You've been blocked for 2 days for editing libertarianism. Block lengths will quickly increase up to a week, as allowed by your arbitration decision. Rhobite 16:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
You've been blocked for 4 days for editing libertarianism and Ron Paul. Your next block will be for a week, as allowed by your arbitration decision. Rhobite 17:34, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
You've been blocked for one week for editing libertarianism and Ron Paul. This block is allowed by your arbitration decision. Rhobite 18:29, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Could you please provide more specific information on Image:Rateatingplacenta so I can remove from images deleted section. Coqsportif 08:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
You've been blocked for 2 days for editing Ron Paul. Sorry, Chuck. --Golbez 13:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
PS, I just want to point out this editing pattern:
08:02, August 11, 2005 (hist) (diff) Ron Paul (getting rid of quotes accidently re-added in) (top) [rollback] 06:04, August 11, 2005 (hist) (diff) Ron Paul (okay, you are going a bit too far with the edits, making the page have incorrect english) 05:39, August 11, 2005 (hist) (diff) Ron Paul (not acceptable pov quotations) 14:05, July 29, 2005 (hist) (diff) Libertarianism (The wording on that bothers me horribly, it's almost as if you come across the article you should expect it to be about libertarian socalism) 14:02, July 29, 2005 (hist) (diff) Ron Paul (→Views - Wow, I didn't even notice that new quote, really stupid and POV quote, you can't directly pov say that oh he voted this way, he's not a libertarian. Please research the reasons, thank you) 13:54, July 29, 2005 (hist) (diff) Libertarianism (yes it was, in another languagage, not english)
As y'all can see from Rhobite above, he was blocked for a week on July 29. He came back without a bit of remorse. If this ban is going to be taken seriously, harsher methods need to be used, even if I agree with him a little politically. --Golbez 13:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Blocked for another week for editing Ron Paul. Rhobite 03:50, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Blocked another week for editing Ron Paul and Libertarian Party (United States). Rhobite 16:52, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Image Tagging for Image:JT-bw.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:JT-bw.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. 11:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for experimenting with the page User:Dismas on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Puppy channel sm.jpeg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Puppy channel sm.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of The Puppy Channel for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Puppy Channel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Puppy Channel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ravenswing 00:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Puppy channel sm.jpeg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Puppy channel sm.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)