Some cookies to welcome you! :DWelcome to Wikipedia, Z00r! I am
Cirt and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on
my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on
talk pages you should
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Sorry, all links to ED are banned for any reason. Read the remedies. Insert it again and I will guarantee you will get banned. Will(
talk)11:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)reply
I wish you had notified me about this thread when you started it, or at least at the point when you referred directly to me.
Cirt (
talk)
23:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Yeah, it's pretty funny stuff. :P If you find any other secondary sources that I didn't yet cover about rickrolling/scientology phenomenon, let me know.
Cirt (
talk)
00:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Ah haha We might be able to do even better... On 3/15 a bunch of people rickrolled a college basketball game as part of chanology.
[2] I think we just might be able to get the creator to release a still image from the video under GPL.
Z00r (
talk)
00:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Alright he sent me higher-res versions of the the images with his logo removed and released them under CC-BY. Email has been sent to OTRS. Here are the images
[3],
[4],
[5]. Here is a collage I made showing all 3 images:
[6].
Z00r (
talk)
01:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Holy crap, dude - this story hit The New York Times! Cite below (I'll add it to the relevant articles):
Image copyright problem with Image:Bball rickroll collage.JPG
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading
Image:Bball rickroll collage.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes
copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the
image description page.
FYI - You added these images directly to Wikipedia. You should delete them from here, by placing {{db-author}} on all the images, and instead upload them to
Wikimedia Commons, and do the OTRS thang from there. That way all other language Wikipedias could use those images.
Cirt (
talk)
06:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)reply
I've got to say, the whole media upload system, WP vs commons, requirement to register, OTRS, quick deletions on technicalities or unintentionally omitting a tag, etc, seems as if it was specifically built to prevent people from uploading legitimate things.
Z00r (
talk)
06:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot (
talk)
01:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)reply
We have discussed this multiple times on the article's talk page, I really don't think that splitting this article off just yet is justified - I would much rather keep all the info in one article for now.
Cirt (
talk)
15:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)reply
A lot has gone on since the last time. I gave this to a few friends (who are not familiar with chanology) to read, and the response was consistently 1) its too long, 2) there are too many facts condensed, and not enough summary. This is the right thing to do. Give me a minute to be bold and do my updates, then you can revert them and we can discuss on the chanology talk page.
Z00r (
talk)
15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Let's discuss this first on the article's talk page, please. Multiple editors don't think we should split this off into other articles, and have already expressed that on the article's talk page in other previous recent discussions.
Cirt (
talk)
15:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)reply
If you really want to, you can draft your sub-article(s) first, without removing content from the main article, and we could discuss that on the main article's talk page.
Cirt (
talk)
15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)reply
So first, that discussion was written over a month ago. In the meantime there has been a worldwide protest, many major developments, and several news sources written that have allowed us to add in info that would have previously been OR. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the article is significantly bigger than 74kb (what it was at that discussion) now.
As for condensing vs. sub articles - no harm in both condensing the article AND making sub-articles... The writing is currently very dense, and so condensing the article would necessairily mean deleting information. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of the information in here is relevant, and so such deletions would be a net damage to WP's coverage of the subject.
Another point i would like to bring up is the distinction between historical arrangement vs. thematic arrangement. The article has split personality disorder - the macro-scale organization is thematic whereas the organization within sections is historical (this happened, then that happened, then next the other thing happened...). At first it was a practical necessity that we use historical format, but now that there is so much information, I think we should be shifting towards thematic format.
Z00r (
talk)
16:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I think we should have a larger overall thematic organization, and then chronological within each subsection. As for subarticles - I just don't think they pass
WP:AfD muster enough on their own as subarticles, as opposed to a main article. I would much rather forgo this subarticles idea, and focus on condensing the main article.
Cirt (
talk)
17:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, the sections ripe for moving to smaller articles are the internet actions, and the feb 10 and mar 15 protests. Under any reasonable system those each ought to be notable given the amount of coverage, but there are a lot of anti-anonymous zealots lurking around AfD, so you may be right. Have a look at the changes I've made. I haven't removed that much info - basically just getting rid of statistics overload, moving things around, and rewording. I think it is much easier to read now, I'll start a discussion about this on the talk page after after a couple more edits.
Z00r (
talk)
17:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Timeline image
Please comment about this at the article's talk page, I'd like to hear your take on why you added it to the article.
Cirt (
talk)
06:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Acronyms beginning with 'E'
I think it'd be a good idea for you to use your actual account and not this account - while legitimate to edit about Scientology on a different account, it looks like you support 4chan.
Sure, ER me, but keep the ED stuff out - my dickishness in that area is more than understandable for a stalking victim. Sceptre(
talk)22:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Hello, and thank you for your support at Cirt's RFA. I noticed that you chose to support on an account other than your main account, and as one of
Privatemusings's mentors (as well as one of Cirt's conominators) it would be remiss if I did not post a concern that this treads--at least--rather near to a finding from the case. Please see
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry and consult with a bureaucrat regarding the appropriateness of your vote; I don't wish to see either your support or the candidacy tainted in any way and I'm really not sure what call they would make in this instance. With respect,
DurovaCharge!06:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)reply
If you edit an article long enough and bring it up to a good standard, there is natural tendency to become a gatekeeper - controlling everything that gets added or removed and basically locking the article into roughly a single state. After all, you and others worked hard to get it where it is, and you don't want n00bs coming in and messing it up.
We both know that this is not what the wikipedia philosophy is about. Please be careful not fall into this trap of becoming a gatekeeper.
Z00r (
talk)
09:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)reply
File:3 15 bball rickroll 1.png is now available on
Wikimedia Commons as
Commons:File:3 15 bball rickroll 1.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:3 15 bball rickroll 1.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --
Erwin85Bot (
talk)
11:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)reply