User talk:Duchamps comb

I AM THE MASTER! Chinese martial arts

United States military casualties of war (1775-Present) = 1,343,812
Abortion statistics in the United States (1970-2007) = 48,106,910

It's about more than just Dog Meat! [1]

Well, I could recon the reasons for pushing through the article your version of vz. 52 pistol designation, but I could not understand why you've changed also the title of the reference? That's something I would call a falsification, hadn't been forced to assume good faith. --ja_62 ^(t|c) 12:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Bilderberg Group, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 21:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to the article were reverted with the comment "We're not sourcing to birther websites". Please look through the WP:RS policy to understand why this is correct. The site you used is not going to be considered a reliable source for information. Ravensfire (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Climategate.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NW (Talk) 18:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article only states "(dubbed "Climategate" in the media)". Their is not a section as to the Etymology, yet there is over 2 million hits on Google. NFCC #1&8 states, "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The screenshot clearly illustrates the media (FOX News) using of the phrase. So if there is no written section about the media "dubbing" the Incident it can only be represented by a photo, how are we to get one that is for free/fair use (Note: that almost half of the ref used in the article use the word climategate). As far as Contextual significance [2] Climategate became very controversial and garnered lots of media coverage, a screenshot of that term in news coverage would likely be appropriate.--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have just re-uploaded File:Climategate.jpg, which was speedily deleted on 30 November 2009 as a blatant copyright violation. Please do not do this again, as repeated copyright violations are likely to lead to an automatic indefinite block. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you tell me why the file Climategate.jpg had a copyright violation? I took the screen shot myself. Also can you tell me why you speedy deletion the file? File added on 18:37, 23 July 2010 [3] deleted on 18:50, 23 July 2010 [4] looks like the file lasted a whole 13 minutes? --Duchamps_comb MFA 19:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll explain this for you. There is a long policy page at Wikipedia:Non-free content and a set of criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria which you should read but I'll give you the gist of them.

Fair use images are permitted on Wikipedia but only in certain very limited circumstances. In the case of television screen shots, they are acceptable for critical commentary about television. An example might be a screenshot from a particular TV show, which is used in an article about that show. However, the usual presumption is against using any fair use images where a free alternative might be available. In the case of your Climategate.jpg image, it failed Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, specifically criterion 1 - that the information it contained (which in this case was just the text of the chyron) could be represented in the article text. When it was deleted on 30 November 2009 by User:Black Kite, he wrote: "F7: Violates non-free use policy: Screenshot which will never pass WP:NFCC#1, any information can be given in text." NuclearWarfare deleted it under the same rationale, but he could just as easily have deleted it as a re-created version of a previously deleted file. Restoring deleted copyright violations is strictly not allowed. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO I was not seeking your answer. Please do not post again on my talk page regarding this issue as you seem to be on a point making mission that is hounding and stalking me. You comments will thus only fall on deaf ears. I will await NW's answer as well as other admins who would like to answer.--Duchamps_comb MFA 21:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way and I apologise if I've given you that impression. I'm simply trying to give you some advice and pointers to Wikipedia policy, since I've been involved for many years in dealing with copyright issues on Wikipedia. I don't think NW or any other admin would be likely to tell you any differently. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ChrisO's original statement of 19:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC). You may wish to ask User:Stifle or User:Fastily for a third opinion, both those admins have been uninvolved entirely with climate change as far as I know and also work in NFCC enforcement. NW (Talk) 22:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm writing to let you know that I found copyright issues on this new article. There are whole sentences copied from a New York Times article. This really isn't OK. We must use our own words. I want to give you a chance to fix the problem before anything else is done. We must not have major portions of articles that duplicate the contents of their sources. Dawnseeker2000 17:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see something other than direct quotes as the problem. These two sentences are a direct copy of the New York Times article:

One of the most gripping and, increasingly, controversial television images of the violence was a scene of two Korean merchants firing pistols repeatedly from a military stance. The image seemed to speak of race war, and of vigilantes taking the law into their own hands.

We must use our own words. I see that there's a history of copyright problems with your additions. Thanks for your invitation to work on the article but I must say that I'm not interested in helping out there. I'm only interested in keeping the articles tidy and to build this encyclopedia by the book. Can you please re-write the problem areas using your own words? Dawnseeker2000 17:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Korean armed resistance during 1992 L.A. riot necessary? It's covered in the riot's article. B-Machine (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Second Revolution flag is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Revolution flag 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was renominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Revolution flag (2nd nomination) and I closed it. However, I don't see that you were notified of the second nomination, so I've undone the deletion, for now. Mandsford 16:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought the discussion to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 28. Mandsford 16:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that outcome, it's back on the table at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 30. Mandsford 20:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified your Obama-related topic ban, as discussed at the AN thread you initiated. Your topic ban from all articles and discussions related to Barack Obama will expire 1 April 2015. Due to repeated near-identical unban requests, showing a lack of understanding of the problem, you are limited to one unban appeal per year. To avoid a Catch-22, this decision to limit unban appeals can be appealed directly to ArbCom at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment without falling afoul of the limitation on unban requests. But the AN thread is closed, and I will consider it a violation to post to it further. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[5][reply]

Hi Du - please don't edit anything in to the article about Pieczenik that you don't reliably source. I'm reverting your latest set of edits, because any contentious claims absolutely require sourcing (and those are contentious claims, because both me and the other people looking at the AfD have failed to find any evidence for them and doubt their veracity.) Please edit it in if you can find any confirmation that he *did* work for the state department in that capacity or that the clancy characters were in fact based off of him, but only if you can cite it to a reliable source that is intellectually independent of Pieczenik. Kevin (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Korean armed resistance in the Los Angeles riots has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Most info directly lifted from source material. Merge to 1992 Los Angeles riots and delete

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deathsythe (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed. Lionel (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've just tried to introduce material defaming scientists using an unreliable source, and then a blog source. This clearly violates WP:BLP policy and contravenes the WP:ARBCC sanctions which apply to the article. You'll also note that the article is under a 1RR restriction as highlighted by a banner above the editing box. Please don't edit war to introduce fringe views, present your proposals on the article talk page with reliable sources for discussion. Thanks, dave souza, talk 22:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are receiving this notification because you have made a number of edits within the Climate Change topic area. This notification does not necessarily imply that there is any problem with your edits.

Just as the topic of Climate Change is highly disputed in the wider world, the Wikipedia articles on the subject have also a been the source of many difficulties. Consequently, the arbitration committee has authorised administrators to impose sanctions at their own discretion. The purpose of this message is to ensure that you are aware of the additional authority accorded to administrators within this topic area. The full decision can be viewed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change; subsection 23.3.1 gives full details of the discretionary sanctions arrangements.

CIreland (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For two weeks. I strongly considered making indefinite. There is nothing at all acceptable about this edit. NW (Talk) 00:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't get it, do you? I have blocked you indefinitely for disruptive editing, as exemplified by this edit. If you wish to appeal, please see WP:GAB. NW (Talk) 18:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's changed since the last unblock request? MastCell ^Talk 18:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What can change if I am blocked and cannot edit? I'm really not a fan of psycoanalisis/talk therapy. If you have a point or question please be direct. --Duchamps_comb MFA 16:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that was pretty direct. You were blocked after a prolonged pattern of disruptive and hyper-partisan editing. Why should we expect anything different from you if you're unblocked now? MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As usual no matter what you do or don't do it will all be used against you; the Wiki-Gods are vengeful and very passive aggressive. I addressed the reason for an unblock the first time around. All you guys want to do is play (head) games and use what ever I say or don't say against me (as usual). [6]] This place is a joke with its Liberal bias just like the mainstream media, Jimmy Wales even said this place is mob rule. -- Mastcell let me now answer your question, I have learned that you cannot fight the machine, you cannot go against a cabale, you cannot have a minority pov on any article (or even a single edit). Thus why even try to edit political pages? Their protected by government alphabet agencies anyway. So I would try to stick to martial arts pages and un-eventful editing, because anything else just gets you on the radar of asshats with their own agenda to protect and administrators with buttons to punish you with. I hope my direct speech in this matter is not considered in violation of the Patriot Act. --Duchamps_comb MFA 01:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]