User talk:Thekohser

April 2009

Please make sure that your talk page complies with our rules at Wikipedia:User page. Your user page may not be used for advertising. Please be careful as you may be blocked. Regards, EhJJ^TALK 04:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, if you had read my User page, you would see that 146 cases of advertising pre-date my use of external links to identify off-site places where I participate. When at least 10% of the external links to Wikia, Inc. are removed from other pages here, I will accordingly modify my User page. I'm sure you understand the principle of "fairness", correct? -- Thekohser (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care if en:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you think all the external links to Wikia are wrong, you should discuss their removal, not add more bad external links. I'm sure you understand that "two wrongs don't make a right", yes? Also, please read again the section at WP:User page#What can I not have on my user page? if needed. Particularly, "Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia". Furthermore, note that external links to other website ARE permitted, but NOT if they are for advertising. Please make sure you understand this important distinction. I'll leave this to your judgement; there's no need to reply. Thanks! EhJJ^TALK 21:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me, how is it "advertising" if I provide a link to a site where I can be found, and that site just happens to allow contributors to install Google AdSense ads and they can keep 100 percent of the revenues that their ads generate? But it is not "advertising" when people provide a link to the Wikia, Inc. site where they can be found, and that site does not allow contributors to earn or keep any revenues, because the revenues are all kept by a sitting Board member of the Wikimedia Foundation, and his investors and shareholders? If you are over the age of 21, and you have ever held a position in management anywhere, I would be astounded if you cannot see the distinction I am making; but if you are under 21 and have never held a serious job of any distinction, then I can sort of understand your ignorance of the situation. -- Thekohser (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, the distinction is as follows: Someone reading an article about Star Wars wants to know more about it. We provide a link to the Wikia website that has information about Star Wars (along with links to other Star Wars websites). Your link contains the phrase "this amazing website" and then goes on about how wonderful it is. That sounds like you are promoting your website and is (in my opinion) not from a neutral point of view. This is how I consider it to be advertising, while not all external links are necessarily advertising. If you think your link as appropriate, then keep it. I simply wanted to give you my opinion and suggest that you tone it down. Regards, EhJJ^TALK 18:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard from some other users that I seemed a bit confrontational. My apologies if that was the case. What I meant by "I'll leave this to your judgement; there's no need to reply." is that "I think you are smart and mature enough to make your own decision, and I'm fine with whatever it is you decide to do. I'm not expecting you to reply, but you are welcome to do so." I'm sorry if this came across wrong. EhJJ^TALK 19:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgiven. The link(s) on my User page have been converted into one, powerful, centralizing link to "my" article on Wikipedia. This will add credibility to my cause, and probably lead to more click-throughs to my website than I would have obtained from direct links from here. Not that click-throughs were my mission, anyway. I get about 400 uniques per day on my website, and maybe 7 or 8 of them come from Wikimedia properties. -- Thekohser (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Well, this was interesting but we don't do "threats" here. You should desist from this kind of behaviour if you wish to continue editing here. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I'm sure you're familiar with an en.wiki concept of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We'll happily remove your links, delete your userpage and block you if you continue this disruptive kind of editing. Then we'll address the other "links". But thanks for drawing our attention to them. Not all is wasted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone's clear, I received the following threats from "Razorflame", via the Wikipedia community at Yahoo! Answers:

Hello thekohser (thekohser),

You have received a message from another user!

From: Razorflame †O-G&R†

Subject: You need to stop

Message: You need to stop giving people crappy answers in the Wikipedia category. If you don't like Wikipedia, or you want to give all the faults that Wikipedia has, feel free to rant elsewhere, but this is against the Community Guidelines here on Yahoo! Answers, and I have already brought it up with Yahoo! Answers staff.

A warning.

Then, a second note to me:

Hello thekohser (thekohser),

You have received a message from another user!

From: Razorflame †O-G&R†

Subject: Lol

Message: You think that telling people about $1200 dinners and $700 steaks is helpful?

I don't, which is why you were reported.

You will not be able to respond to this message because you are blocked by me, meaning, you will not be able to write me any emails, or see any of my questions or answers.

Until we meet next, or not,

Razorflame

Note, I have nearly fifty "Best Answers" in the Wikipedia category, and I am ranked # 5 out of the Top 10 contributors to that category on Yahoo! Answers. So, where did the threats begin, Rambling Man? -- Thekohser (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what happens on "Yahoo Answers". Threats to other users here will not be tolerated. Simple (no pun intended) as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it, then. About all I've experienced here thus far is threats. I mean, what is "You should desist from this kind of behaviour if you wish to continue editing here," if not a threat? Motes. Planks. You know the drill. -- Thekohser (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While this discourse is fascinating, and while I'm sure you really, really are Gregory Kohs, it makes no difference. Continued violation of Wikipedia policy will result in your account being blocked. Pretty straightforward, yes? If you wish to contribute constructively then go for your life. If you're just here to make a point or threaten other established users with being brought up "... on charges at Meta Wikimedia..." then expect for your account to be blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, I can sympathise with your viewpoint and Razor has clearly overstepped the mark in my view over at Yahoo but I should warn that although this is a very small community, it is very Jimbo Juicey! Soup Dish (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

Hi, thanks for your new articles. Can you please make sure you categorise them, and tag them with {{stub}} if they're very short. Thanks, Majorly talk 17:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try, but the collaborative process should allow other editors to do that work, too. It is very taxing on my mental faculties to even author these short, concise, pertinent stubs in such a talent-soaked way, that there is very little energy left over for categories and tags and such. -- Thekohser (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do better with these two, Majorly? I'm sorry for my rude response yesterday. I was feeling rather harried by certain individuals here who were really extending themselves to make me feel unwelcome. -- Thekohser (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are great, but please try and keep the language simple - it looks very similar to the enwiki version (the "last accessed" dates in the references gives this away). But thanks for helping out. Majorly talk 16:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. I did try to simplify a good portion of the words, though, such as "wood" for "timber" and things like that. It was not a verbatim copy of my original content, I assure you. -- Thekohser (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compliments will be removed

Under the auspices of the remove, user posting is a blocked sockpuppet, with username harrassing (sic) another Wikipedian Patrol. Funny, I came here to try to end another user's harassment of me in another Wikipedia-related forum. I wasn't a sockpuppet, and my username doesn't harass anyone, but I've had my edits reverted, too. Seems like this project is really, really "revert happy". -- Thekohser (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly wasn't actually calling you a sockpuppet or saying you had a bad username. I reverted a message from a banned user's sockpuppet. Jennavecia obviously didn't know this and undid my revert. Majorly then removed the text again as RHMED is the banned sockpuppet with a bad username. Not you. 08:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned comment by: Kennedy (talk)

Nice to see that I have a wiki-stalker on my Talk page. It took you less than 7 hours to respond. Am I only on your watchlist, or do you have some sort of "e-mail me when this page is changed" thing in place? Look, lad, I never said or suggested that I was being called a sockpuppet, nor was I suggesting that my username was being called bad. Additionally, I have a good hunch that what you "obviously" know about Jennavecia is actually very little at all. Please, do yourself a favor and just stop trying to "explain" All Things Wiki to me. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, and neither did Jennavecia. -- Thekohser (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm surprised you could hear me from up there on your high horse. No I only have your page on my watchlist. I'm not even sure if there is an option for it to email me if the page is changed. I can assure you the timescale for me to respond is solely coincidence. I do regularly check my watchlist. Also, forgive me, your rant above did look as if you thought Majorly was calling you a sockpuppet etc. Kennedy (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High horse? No personal attacks, Kennedy. My "rant"? Funny how a truthful observation becomes a "rant", but your flowing elucidations are to be respected by all. Don't flatter yourself, that my "rant above did look as if (I) thought Majorly was calling (me) a sockpuppet"... it appears you're the only person who thought it looked that way. You must have a special vision which with we high-horsed ranters are not bestowed. -- Thekohser (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a Wiki. Anyone can edit. Why do you dislike Wikipedia so much? Do you really think that making comments on your userpage when you notice someone you think has made a mistake will bring this website into disrepute? Grow up. Kennedy (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that a wiki is generally something "anyone can edit". I would love to start contributing more new articles here, were it not for these constant distractions here on my Talk page derailing my efforts. Especially comments from people I've politely asked not to keep engaging me! But, you ask why I dislike Wikipedia so much... I'd love to give you an answer, but first you must promise me that you'll consider it objectively (and, for kicks, promise not to call it a "rant"). Could you possibly do that?

As for your interesting theory of mind about my intentions behind "making comments on (my) userpage" and their impact on bringing a website into "disrepute", how did you conceive of this and draw this conclusion? -- Thekohser (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compliment restored

You know what? This is my Talk page, and I think I know best what should or should not be allowed here. So, I'm going to restore the compliment to me, and I will be a decent fellow and "modify" the username so that it doesn't "harass" anyone. -- Thekohser (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MyWikiBiz - Thankyou for giving the world the opportunity to share knowledge without hassle and still keep the revenue. It's really good. R...P...S... (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you very much, User:R...P...S... Best wishes, and good luck with Simple English Wikipedia! -- Thekohser (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

I am notifying you as you are the subject of the discussion here. Regards, Kennedy (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia - copyright requirements

It appears that the two articles you just created included content from the English Wikipedia. In order to comply with the copyright requirements, in the future when you copy information from one Wikipedia to another, please state that you got the material from that source and link to it. This applies even you have modified the content of the article. Thank you. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... The provenance copyright of those articles resides with me. I was the original author of both articles. I released the articles some time ago under the terms of the GFDL, and they were ported into Wikipedia. I do not need to "credit" Wikipedia for re-publishing my creative capital. But, thanks for the warning. I can see how you'd be confused if you didn't research it fully back to the start. -- Thekohser (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as I think about it, if I were to provide a "link to it", the original source would be a website that some fellows here have told me I am not welcome to link to. So, we'd have a bit of a conundrum, would we not, if I were to link to the original source? -- Thekohser (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you were the original author then of course you don't have to cite to it or anything like that. "A link to it" would be a good way to avoid future confusion, though presumably not required. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding the GFDL here. Once you release "your" work under the GFDL, it is no longer yours. Regardless of where you get it from, it must then be cited under GFDL if it is at all copied verbatim. Not complying with the GFDL is a blockable offence I would like to add. A tip: you're on thin ice already, try not to cause drama or draw attention to yourself :). Gob lin 17:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that isn't correct. The requirement is that the author may not further restrict the work. The author can release restrictions any time he wants (obvious example - releasing into the public domain) including by not requiring himself to cite to himself. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want to get into an argument over this? I've spent a long time looking into GFDL for other websites, with lawyers at one. Trust me. If you release it one place, even as the original author, then it must be released at all other places under the GFDL of the first place. I can get the WMF's lawyer to confirm if needed. Gob lin 18:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I agree with Philosopher here. The original author retains copyright of the work and does not lose it by releasing it under GFDL. He can always relicence his work under CreativeCommons, put it into the public domain or even sell it. Furthermore, he can re-use his own material as often and in whatever way he'd like without having to cite himself. As long as Thekohser is using his own original work (not modified by someone else under GFDL) then he does not need to cite it; he can re-release it under GFDL here. It appears this is the case. EhJJ^TALK 18:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegoblin7 and I discussed this and agreed that the notice might not be necessary but it certainly isn't harmful and may as well be there. One of us will fix it up. EhJJ^TALK 18:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the assistance, everyone. I hope Bluegoblin7 has come around to a more rational interpretation of the balance between creative rights (inalienable) and licensing rights (subject to human modifications). I will be very interested to see how you resolve this perceived problem, given that the attribution issue was one of my primary concerns when Jimmy Wales told me and the world that it was not for me to worry about, since NPOV (not attribution rights) seemed to be his only concern. I was expected to trust the GFDL to have the power to enforce the "credit where credit is due" principle. In practice, however, I found that a good portion of the content that I've ever created "off Wikipedia" that has been copied "into Wikipedia" has been trampled in various rights- and license-related ways that would make a lawyer's head spin. Bluegoblin7, if you wish to bring Mike Godwin in on this, I would welcome that. Godwin should also look carefully at what happened here between 20:06 and 20:07, on 2 January 2008. I would appreciate your judgment of what happened there, too. Was the GFDL served and upheld? Or was it trampled? -- Thekohser (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion was given to me that off-site content attribution should be provided on the page of the Article, not the Article_Talk page. An example of how this was done by another offended Wikipedian on another wiki. -- Thekohser (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution is generally done on the article talk pages or in edit summaries, regardless of wiki. "Sources" are attributed on the page, though I don't think this is a source... And as I keep saying, I don't care at all about other wikis. Gob lin 19:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<--- reset) Frankly, I don't care about other wikis, least of all the English Wikipedia. We are talking about this Wikipedia here and I do care about other people's rights etc. I've attributed the article to the original posting at MyWikiBiz (which I don't have a problem when being attributed too, but I would have a problem if it was "advertised"). As far as I'm concerned, it's case closed. Thekohser: I still suggest keeping your head down, not bringing up other wikis and not disrupting, or the chances of your ban being brought here are high (by myself if needed). Regards, Gob lin 18:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? I'm counseled here and there to just let things lie, without little barbs at the end of my comments; but you feel at liberty to close with a suggestion that I "keep (my) head down", and not "disrupting", and threatened with a looming ban? All after you were shown by others to be ~~dead~~ wrong about my rights and licensing requirements, too! It seems that the cloaking of admins in a robe of tough authority is no different here on Simple English Wikipedia than it is on English Wikipedia. In fact, I'm inclined to think it's worse! -- Thekohser (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an offer: you redact that last sentence of yours above, and then I'll redact these two most recent comments of mine. -- Thekohser (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't shown to be "dead wrong" at all. Differing opinions I like to think of it as. Myself and EhJJ spoke about it on IRC and agreed what was said above. I was actually trying to help you out by giving you a warning, so I won't be redacting it at all. I couldn't care about what you say to me, believe me, i've had worse. Now, i'm going to say it once more, do you want to help this wiki, or just create drama and stir things up? Are you insisting on posting links to MyWikiBiz? Do you want to waste more of my time and other admin's/user's time by continuing this thread? I know of at least one who has their mouse hovering over the block button (not me). Gob lin 19:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c with PeterSymonds' intelligent observation) My opinion is that you were, in fact, wrong. The "dead" was unnecessary, and I'll redact that. I am not sure I wish to help this wiki or not. I am evaluating my future path of action based on the relative merits and drawbacks of what this community provides. So far, your community has not impressed me; but I have nonetheless given my time and creative capital to help you create four new articles that you didn't have when I got here, and to further ground your understanding of attribution rights within various free licenses. If you or others are itching to "block", and you're just looking for a "good enough" editorial moment that takes my account over that threshold, why should I be the one to stop you or your secret posse? Not one of you seems to be capable of saying to yourselves, "Hmmm... we seem to just be feeding him and his performative dramatics every time we respond to him. Maybe we should just let him be for 48 hours, and let's watch what happens." So, are you trying to be more like English Wikipedia's admin community, or less like English Wikipedia's admin community. It's for you to decide, right now. -- Thekohser (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. One more reply from you like above Thekohser, and that's it. I agree with BG7 on this. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c with PeterSymonds' intelligent observation) What will be the basis of your block? "User has correctly added creative capital to the Simple English Wikipedia, but he bristles when long-time contributors incorrectly assail him with legally-questionable guidance and threats"? -- Thekohser (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, stop it. Everyone just back off and get back to what you were doing. This argument is silly. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thekohser: Just listen to PS and just keep quiet. Enough's enough. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. -- Thekohser (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfowl

Thankyou for your incredible article on waterfowl. You have improved this wiki and we all appreciate your effort. Can I nominate you for the admin tools?

Compliment

Dear Thekohser, you are the greatest person in the history of the world.

Thekohser for admin

In a few months I would like to nominate you for the tools. You are the greatest Greg Kohs in the whole Wikipedia. 210.87.17.46 (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why wait a few months? I'm ready now! -- Thekohser (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would be suited to higher office? Would you accept nomination as a 'crat? We have heard that you are working on a groundbreaking e-book. 93.186.171.203 (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You guys from the Australian and the German IP addresses, you do realize that nobody's reading these gems of yours, right? -- Thekohser (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. The reality is, you have the intelligence to be an excellent Wikipedia administrator, assuming you had the desire. But - let's face it, you would be wasted on the Simple projects, and the English Wikipedia is probably too far gone by now. 93.186.171.203 (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I don't think that you'll pass an RfA here as you are indefinitely banned on the English Wikipedia, and you've been banned several times before on this project, as well as having a history of promoting promotional material, so I am pretty sure that you won't pass. Razor flame 07:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thekohser has never been banned here. Majorly talk 13:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]