My First Archive! Hooray!
My Second Archive! Yahoo!
My Third Archive! Joy!
Some Quick Notes

1. If you're about to leave nothing but a template on my talk page, please don't. They irritate me. I'd much rather get something typed out than copy/pasted. If you must slap a template down, please also include a personal message.
2. I keep an eye on my watchlist. If any pages I still am concerned about are put up for an XFD, chances are I know. I appreciate that you're bothering to give me notice, but I probably don't need it.
3. Since you came here, I'm going to assume you want the answer to your question or concern here. If you want a reply on your talk page (or somewhere else, even), just ask and I'll go there to comment.
4. If it's about a prod I removed, go and read WP:PROD carefully before coming here to argue about what it says. Make sure you read all of it. Honestly, your time would be better spend setting the article up for AFD rather than fighting for a Prod that won't go through (and can be overturned at WP:DRV in a matter of minutes).
5. I don't feel like joining any Wikiprojects, so if you're inviting me to join one, I appreciate the invitation...but I don't feel like contributing in that way.
6. If you need help with anything, I'll do what I can for you. Unless you're a jerk. If you are, forget it.

Since I can't create subpages (Which deletion processes require). Thanx, 68.39.174.238 (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, I've filled in the rationale. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While Shaliya waya's comments at that DRV are out of line, responding in kind isn't going to improve the situation. Please consider refactoring or withdrawing your comments. I have warned Shaliya waya separately. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I meant what I said, and I don't think I was out of line. I'm not gonna "withdraw" it or try to couch it so I seem "nicer", he doesn't deserve it. I won't escalate things any further, however. --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Q. Schmidt, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Q. Schmidt (2nd nomination). Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?[reply]

The Polish National Top 50 was deleted per afd as being non-notable, so 'stubify' is probably not a good idea. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. While consensus was against deletion, I don't believe there were strong feelings about the specific target. I don't see any issues if you change it. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I am for keeping user pages of even the most mildly active users, no matter how self-promotional, the key fact that appears to have been missed is that this editor has precisely one (1) edit to his credit, that edit was to create the self-promotional user page, and it was created on 31 October 2007. So that nomination came exactly one year and ten minutes after it was created. I'm not clear on the review process for MfD but it might be worth revisiting this decision. - Dravecky (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, UsaSatsui ...

Just thought I'd ping you that I'm still around, and still using User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/Anon sig. :-)

So, how's life at your end of the swamp?

Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 (talk · contribs) _{15:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

• Yeah, I keep tabs on you, believe it or not...it's always good to know which numbers you're hiding behind this week. You should put your current IP on your "named" page. I'm not up to much except wading a bit deeper into the XFD wars. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for helping me out, and pointing me in the right direction. much appreciated! Randomran (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind commenting here? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of that image is a sysop for ED. I am an admin. It was made for use for ED sysops/admins.--Zaiger420 (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, it is not a copyrighted image, it is the product of boredom and photoshop. Secondly, can we have this conversation without the memes please. I am going to reupload it tomorrow. If you would like an Email from the creator of the image let me know where to send it. --Zaiger420 (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad. --Zaiger420 (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, added the location names from William Manchester's book. I'm working from the Swedish translation of that one - could you please check the footnotes and see to get the right page number - it's at the start of the book? And please see to collapse it into one source note, referred to from all the names - that's SOP but for some reason, it came out as a number of identical footnotes all with different numbers. ;)Strausszek 25 November 2008, 08:35 (CET)

• I fixed it. See WP:CITE for the proper way to do your citations. To collapse them into a single note, you need to name them...that's one that'd hard to explain (I just copy/paste it from other areas and change the name). You don't need the page numbers for the cites, but to do it properly you do need the publisher and the ISBN. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had endorsed at least one summary in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...And why does 34 (number) need a mention of this at all? It's just gonna sit there with {{fact}} forever, because there ain't no sources out there that'll ever verify such a thing. It's a major Internet meme, sure, but there're plenty of memes (at last count, over NINE THOUSAND) that are well-known on "teh internetz" that should never have articles. For the record, in no way am I trying to get rid of "teh pr0nz", just "teh uns0urced". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What article? I don't see an article. I see a minor mention in a disambig page that explains just what this "Rule 34" is for someone who saw it someplace and looked it up. I do not see the problem with this. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How about the fact that it's unsourced and never will be sourced? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop trying to apply article guidelines to non-articles. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 34 (number) isn't an article? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought we were talking about the redirect...and 34 (number) looks like a disambig/list to me. I'm sorry, you're just not making a convincing argument to me. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't lists have to be sourced too? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the link again. It has been posted there by various users due to the fact that teachers use the link for their classrooms. First of all, it is not pirated and we have originals of every item on the site. Secondly, the items in question are for a machine which 99.99 percent of the companies including the one that created this game are no longer in existence.

118.20.52.173 (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to brush up on your copyright laws. You're distributing commercial software that is not public domain, and you can still purchase Oregon Trail in stores. It's also a spam link that serves to add nothing to the article..."an easy eay for teachers to have the link in their classroms" isn't a valid reason. And in particular, these links do not beling in the body of the article. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I believe it is you who needs to check the copyrights. Two, it is no longer being sold, nor has it been sold since 1999 when the company was closed. The computer it runs on also has not been sold since 1993. But I suppose you are too young to know that. I also suppose you need to check the history and see who added it. You are NOT the sole authority on this issue. Every time someone like you has removed it, others have added it back in order to keep the page up as a resource. I also suggest you check the talk history on the page itself before you delete anything you decide to delete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Oregon_Trail_%28video_game%29 118.20.52.173 (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I bought a copy in 2006. The page itself says there was a release in 2009. No, the IIgs is no longer sold, but Oregon Trail is still clearly being sold as a commercial product. I don't see any convincing reason to keep it in the article on the talk page there, only that there was a minor editing skirmish. I also don't see any Wikipedia policies that would warrant inclusion, though I see a few, mainly WP:EXTERNAL, that would exclude it. And if you want to bring the conversation to the talk page of the article, feel free. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might have bought a copy on EBay but it has not been sold since 1999 commercially for the Apple II series. There was no release in 2009. It was a re-make of the game for the iPhone, not a program made by MECC or The Learning Company and is not related. It has already been in the Talk page. As far as commercial, your being able to buy it on Ebay or any other close out type facility does not prove it commercial. You ability to purchase it online from a publisher or from the company themselves does. So keep trying to prove it, but you will get laughed at for trying to say Oregon Trail (1985) for the Apple ][ is commercial or that it is pirated. One additional note for you. Just because it says something on Wikipedia, does not make it true. You are dealing with a flawed product that anyone can edit. You, Me, or anyone else. 118.20.52.173 (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Did I ever say "for the Apple II?" No. The program named "Oregon Trail" is copyrighted, no matter what platform you put it on. And for the record, it doesn't matter at all whether or not it's still being sold. "Abandonware" is a term with no meaning, you cannot abandon your copyrighted program without specifically doing so (they have not, and trust me, the rights to the program are owned), it is just a term used to justify downloading old games. Please do not assume I don't know what I'm talking about. And even assuming it is legal and such, you still haven't shown a valid Wikipedia policy that allows it on the page. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have to guess or assume anything about your lack of knowledge about the game, as it shows when you make a statement like "The program named "Oregon Trail" is copyrighted, no matter what platform you put it on."

The program name "Oregon Trail" cannot be copyrighted. There were multiple public domain versions of the program released on many platforms by various authors prior to any commercial version being available. Also the name Oregon Trail itself is in the public domain. That means anyone can write a program and call it Oregon Trail and the program itself is copyrighted by that person. However, once again, the name cannot be copyrighted nor any such claim to trademark be made over it.

You can copyright a work but that copyright is only enforceable when a company or author is in existence. MECC has not existed since 1999 and The Learning Company, which bought MECC closed its doors as well. The product Oregon Trail (1985) also has not been available since 1999 and thus cannot be considered a commercial product under current copyright enforcement laws.

I suggest highly you read the (talk) on the Oregon Trail Game page itself before making any further blanket statements. I also recommend highly that you take a look at the changes in copyright laws from 2006 concerning works that are abandoned or for which no author or license holder is in existence. 118.20.52.173 (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You're wrong, but it's moot. You still haven't shown why the link should be on the page. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is you who is wrong. You are the one who deleted it and you have not proven that it is commercial or that it is pirated. I have made a valid argument here and you think the only answer is "you are wrong"?. I am going to write the admins on this one as your opinion is NOT the only one that matters even though from your completely uninformed argument, it is apparent that you believe so. 118.20.52.173 (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free. Drop me a link to the discussion. I gave up on trying to convince you about the legality of it two paragraphs ago. There's still nothing I see in Wikipedia policy that allows a link to that page even if it is legal. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Located here, came to my attention. Aside from a short apology for being 'a pain in your ass', I couldn't help but laugh, as your reaction was mine as well. --M^ask? 00:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hah, I remember that! I found that when googling my name for the hell of it. I don't know how I could be accused of being a sockpuppet of anyone (though it's happened before from clueless people). I don't really share a "style" with anyone, as far as I can tell. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, and you did WP:NOONECARES? One of my favorites. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats how I found it (well, searching for my name, not yours.) And yeah, i had a bit of fun typing that one up :) --M^ask? 00:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, UsaSatsui ... I'm still here, and you can track my IP changes by bookmarking User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/WikiGnome#Recent IP accounts ... Happy Editing! — 70.21.2.219 (talk · contribs) _{09:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

The article Paper crane has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lack of content, the bit of content it has is already mentioned in the Origami article. Notability is also questionable.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. Buxbaum666 (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List: Oldest Pitchers to Start a Postseason Game. Since you had some involvement with the List: Oldest Pitchers to Start a Postseason Game redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the article using newspapers and magazine sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

blue truck 2607:FB91:44E:A822:DC7E:E64:17BF:57BC (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]