User talk:NexCarnifex

Thanks for your comment. I'm making $15 an hour, 12 hours per week, if I'm lucky. I work as a tutor, and we are not allowed to be thwe only adult in the home. I lose siginficant hours when parents have to work. If I don't find a new job soon, I will be evicted.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm at a full-time job making $18,000 a year, wich, after raxes, amounts to $1,152 per month after taxes. The only reason I have this job is because I went to grad school with the guy who hired me.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The pay sucks, especially for someone with as much education as I have. I still need to request an economic hardship deferment. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got let go. I have $218 in the bank. I looked at a homeless shelter and got on the waiting list, but I don't want to go there. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now six years in the New York City homeless shelter system, but I've been an activist with Picture the Homeless, including co-developing the game, Trustville, and co-authoring the comic book, Fighting to Save Our Communities and the whitepaper, The Business of Homelessness.-- Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Smiledog.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I added a tag, it should suffice.Nex Carnifex (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please just get rid of your own image as it just makes me sick looking at it. What the fuck is that?? - Another n00b (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your mom

NO U!! - Another n00b (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Smiledog.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nex Carnifex (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)== Hey, what the heck is your problem? ==[reply]

Speedy deletion doesn't mean delete right after you put it up, I didn't even have a chance to defend it! I researched Wikipedia's guidlines before uploading it, I found under fair use rule 8 that it can be uploaded, it has been heavily discussed and heavily distributed throughout the internet, and there are no other images that can convey the same message, therefore I request you undelete it or I'll turn this into a huge thing. Nex Carnifex (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use" I DID claim it to be fair use! This is just bs! I had the tag and everything! im letting someone know about this abuse of power. Nex Carnifex (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're talking about File:Smiledog.jpg. You can re-upload it from the source you specified, but before you do, I'd think on how to justify its presence on wikipedia and complete a proper fair use form and the summary of what is shown. See, e.g. File:Californium.jpg Materialscientist (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think NexCarnifex's intent is in bad faith, as it shows little educational value. Plus, looking at his edit history, why is he trying so desperately to get this image uploaded on wikipedia?? /b/tard detected. - Another n00b (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not I assure you, I think it's important for Wikipedia to encapsulate heartily the details of such internet phenomenon that so largely affect our culture in these electronic days. Creepypasta and horror itself have ingrained themselves into this internet culture just as the rest of the memes on the page have, and Smiledog being so prolific deserves a visual mention on the page. Nex Carnifex (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Smile.jpg is not even notable enough for the article. Considering that there are many other creepypastas of it's type, some of which are even more famous ( such as The Licked Hand ), I don't think it is not even notable enough for the article. - Another n00b (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a creepypasta, and from my knowledge and experience with 4chan, smiledog is the most famous creepypasta...the grifter coming in close second. Nex Carnifex (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, to be more precise, who gives a fuck?? - Another n00b (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly do, to the point you had to whine to other users to get an image down that for some reason offended you, it's not that scary, jesus. Nex Carnifex (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't find it scary. But I, due to my personal tastes, find this more disgusting than Goa-Tse. Ok?? just so you know. - Another n00b (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's so disgusting about a dog with a big smile? Where do you get the idea it has no skin, its just a tinted red. Nex Carnifex (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It just doesn't look right, y'know how dogs don't smile 'n' such. Also, take into account there are other, less pop-out-in-your-face-type-of-scary variations of the "smile dog" legend. Plus, if we don't have an article on Creepypasta, then how should we document it?? I personally don't think it is enough to be called "internet phenomenon", and more just "minor 4chan meme". If we get an article on Creepypasta itself, then go ahead and insert that image. - Another n00b (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had never went on 4chan and I heard about it from my friends, when stuff reaches real life it must be pretty popular, and the Oklahoma News even did a story on it. Nex Carnifex (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the heck are you so intent on uploading this badly photoshopped pile of junk?? It's not an iconic image, it is an obscure creepypasta from 4chan's /b/ board. And just because it was used in a feature on some news channel about internet culture, it does not warrant uploading. It is the equivelent of trying to upload hello.jpg from goatse.cx because it was an "iconic image". Lemon party was an iconic image, and you wouldn't upload that. That is all. - Another n00b (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those images are just way too over the top, jesus, calm down. And it is an iconic image, at least from my experience, and it's discussed all over the internet. It is certainly not obscure, I would go as far as to call it the icon of creepypasta.

This is literally the first fucking time I've ever seen, or even heard of, this image and I'm a 4chan regular. I still don't see the point in this image's use. And what it is I don't even know. - Another n00b (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly knew it's tagline "Smile. God Loves You." when you vandalized my user page.Nex Carnifex (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I decided to google it while you where absent. Don't you know how many possibilities there are in a couple of days?? while we where arguing, Osama bin Laden died. Which just goes to show. - Another n00b (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Smiledog.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 in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fences&Windows 22:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no legitimate use for the image, it's not even the "original" smile.dog image. Fences&Windows 22:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's used in the list of internet phenomena as an example of a smile dog image. I didn't want to put the real one due to it's supposed mental affects mentioned on its description. That would be too ironic. However some douchebag from unencyclopedia keeps deleting it from the page since he thinks its too scary and it shocked him. Nex Carnifex (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please. No calling anyone a douchebag, no baiting, no battleground mentality. I highly doubt that the smile.dog image will actually cause mental breakdowns (and see WP:NOTCENSORED), and even then you'd have to provide a proper fair use justification that goes beyond "discussed in the article". See WP:NFCC and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Fences&Windows 01:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been widely discussed throughout the internet, so widely that it was one of the only creepypastas ever to make it to the news. Nex Carnifex (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Ranting and insults removed. Fences&Windows 23:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)]. Phew, I really needed to get that out of the way and tell you that. Y'know. - Another n00b (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted more than enough to become blocked on grounds of a edit war. I would suggest using the talk page and discussing it there before you are. Edits:[1], [2], [3], [4]. Kyle1278 03:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts yo

u have made on List of internet phenomena. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MASEM (t) 14:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to the page Encyclopedia Dramatica appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thar. Saw your last thing on the talk page for that article, your point is right, but unless the new ED gets a mention on a "notable" blog, in the press, by an academic, or similar, "they" are not going to allow a link. Read the talk page carefully, if the new site survives it will get a link in the end. I checked this reference carefully (and it was painful reading), the author mentions the new site but not the URL.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why you on the sulk, baby. Reply to helpful posts. Typical Asperger's suffering channer.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the fuck are youNex Carnifex (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who has a lot less thumb in mouth (or butt) than you (clue: none, always disliked late teen and adult thumbsuckers).

Maybe if you try thinking once a month or so, you might approach highly functional Asperger"sBorgmcklorg (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Maybe if you tried being funny for once you'd seem like less of a complete loserNex Carnifex (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an information site, not a humour wiki. Could you stop trying to post smiledog?? Sorry about that. - Another n00b (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was trying to be witty and funny and failing, not me. And we came to an agreement about that, if you don't remember.Nex Carnifex (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Dragon Ball, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kamehameha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I remember you! Yeah, from Oh Internet. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:343 Industries logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also got banned from Oh Internet, a few hours ago, even though I have more wikipoints than Sherrod DeGrippo. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Sherrod unbanned me! By the way, I got banned by Hipcrime for getting in an edit/deletion war with LulzTroll. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already asked Sherrod three times to unban you, so it doesn't look like she will. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2012 (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) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Smile dog and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 4 § Smile dog until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]