User talk:UltraEdit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Archive[edit]

  • Archive 1 (May 22, 2008 - January 10, 2009)

your diligence is admirable....[edit]

i've watched you and others work on the FOF article unreliable sources issue. i tried once to explain in talk and revert the article, but it seems to be a game to the anonymous editors who continue to ignore the rules. i do admire your perseverance. --Moon Rising (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. A big part of our job as experienced editors is to educate new editors. UltraEdit (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


My apologies for the characterization I made on the article talk page. It was meant as a compliment, and to make a point about the need to follow policies, but i guess it was in the wrong place. you certainly do know more about wp than most editors i've encountered. do you plan to become an admin? --Moon Rising (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Savannah Jane[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Savannah Jane has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No significant coverage, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO.

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. Epbr123 (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Gia Carangi sexual orientation debate placement[edit]

Hello, UltraEdit. I am not seeing why the information about debate of Caragani's sexual orientation should be placed in her Rise section. From what I know, there was no famous debate about her sexual orientation which contributed to her rise as a star. Debate about her sexual orientation is more relevant to her legacy, seeing as it has been more prevalent since she died. This is why I have put this debate information back into her Aftermath and legacy section. If you object to this enough to want it changed back to your version, I ask that you talk this over with me first. I am more than willing to "hear" your feelings on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sexual orientation looks strange under "Rise", but it doesn't quite fit under "Legacy" either (except for the "lesbian chic" issue that can be detached and placed there). Should we create a new section about her Bio? UltraEdit (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I would not say that a new section titled Sexual orientation should be created; it would just draw unnecessary attention to that section (like for eager IP addresses, whether vandals or not), and it would not be sufficiently long. It is not like debate about her sexual orientation is some in-depth thing. I feel that it fits under her Aftermath and legacy section for the reason I stated above, sort of how speculation about James Dean's sexual orientation (which is in-depth) fits under his Legacy section. Though, yes, it has the subsection title "Speculated sexual orientation." But, again, that is because debate about his sexual orientation is in-depth enough for its own section. The information about debate of Gia Carangi's sexual orientation could be tweaked and expanded a little, but I would not say that it needs its own section. Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking on a section tittled "Sexual orientation", it was more to detach Gia's sexual orientation, a biographical information, from the "lesbian chic" issue, a legacy topic. The problem is that the biographical information is organized in "Early life", "Rise", "Fall", "Death", "Aftermath and legacy" and "Designers and cosmetic firms represented". This may be good for a book about her but I am not sure it's encyclopedic. Moreover, I doubt that somebody looking for general information about Gia (an that is what Wikipedia is for) would be interested in a section like "Designers and cosmetic firms represented." What do you think? UltraEdit (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, I feel that the information about debate of her sexual orientation is a legacy topic (for the reasons I stated above). Information about her sexual orientation is already in her Early life section, but debate about her sexual orientation has been a part of her legacy (it is something that has been prevalent after her death, not during it). And if she were still alive, it really would not be seen as being suitable for any part of her article. But because this is a debated topic since her death, it is a part of her legacy.
As for the other title sections, I agree (except for the fact that the Early life and Legacy sections are appropriate for an encyclopedia). I have been thinking for the longest now that the "Designers and cosmetic firms represented" section should be removed (the information should be incorporated into the article in non-list format if that important or helpful); I tweaked that heading in the past. And, yes, it would be best to go ahead and rename the Rise and Fall sections as simply Career (both under one heading). Though maybe subsection headings to contrast the two time periods would be best. Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, I am thinking that the Aftermath and legacy section should rather simply be titled Legacy. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree. UltraEdit (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I will go ahead and rename that then. Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Liking it[edit]

LOL, I am liking the new design of your talk page. Reminds me of mine. I hope it works well for you, as it has for me.

Anyway, as I stated above...I am all for you renaming sections that need renaming (Rise and Fall). If you would rather I go ahead and do it, since it is quick, I will. Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not asking you first. By the way, did you create the "Whose side are you on?" image? 23:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
You did not have to ask me. And you are not the first to somewhat mimic either my user page or talk page. Also, no, I did not create that image. Feel free to use it if you like, of course. I just hope that if you do, no one then feels that either of us is a WP:SOCK, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Socks aren't so similar, LOL. 16:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate link[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page West Memphis 3 do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

2009.jpg Eckhart Tolle at the 2009 Vancouver Peace Summit[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your upload of the Eckhart Tolle picture. I am currently trying to promote the page to good article status, and we need a good picture like this one. Currently, it is lacking a description, and the "Permission" section says "see below" but there is no copyright tag below (are you releasing the image into the public domain?). The article has been reviewed, and is now on hold, awaiting only clarification of copyright and a description. If you could fill in these details, that would be much appreciated. Thanks! Gregcaletta (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually a friend of mine that belongs to an Eckhart Tolle group sent me the picture -- he told me it is in the public domain. Let me check with him and get back to you. --UltraEdit (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Cheers. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The image has no licensing information, so I put the image up for deletion. However, that someone told you it's free is not enough, and you can't put into the description that you created the image yourself when you didn't. You need to find out who the photographer (or sole copyright holder) is and ask that person to release the image under a free license and then provide evidence of permission (for example per OTRS). Copyright is a serious issue and the image lacks evidence of permission. Best Hekerui (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just uploaded another picture of Tolle that I took myself at the 2009 Vancouver Peace Summit. I liked my friend's picture better, but I understand Wikipedia's policy regarding permissions. --UltraEdit (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The image you uploaded, File:Tolle-Vancouver 2009.jpg, is taken from Flickr, credited to photographer Bradford Noble and listed as "all rights reserved". Please do not upload another copyright violation. Hekerui (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't be too quick too judge -- I uploaded the wrong image. I was in the process of uploading an image when you posted your comment here. I attended the 2009 Vancouver Peace Summit myself and I was trying to find a good picture. May I suggest that you assume good faith and post a cordial message before a block warning (except in cases of obvious vandalism, of course). You can see my long list of contributions since October 2008 and verify that I always followed Wikipedia's policies. I removed the image -- I am sure that one of the thousands of followers of E. Tolle will post one soon. Have a good day. --UltraEdit (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you believe my comment was too strong, it was merely my intention to repeat that copyright is a serious issue and this was the fourth image you uploaded, claiming it was free, that was later deleted (and on both Tolle pictures you wrote "I created this work entirely by myself"). I edited my remarks somewhat. Btw why not upload the image you actually took yourself? Regards Hekerui (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Your edit of your previous comment will confuse a reader of the exchange, since my reply was based on your original posting, not the revised one. Remember that it's much better to think before writing than to edit a previous comment and that it's also better to educate than to warn. Apologies accepted. --UltraEdit (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

NPPbarnstar.jpg

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


Hello UltraEdit! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

Done :-) --UltraEdit (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)