User talk:Anetode/archive 9

/archives

/archive 1
/archive 2
/archive 3
/archive 4
/archive 5
/archive 6
/archive 7
/archive 8

I will respond on your talk page unless you specify otherwise.

sheep changes

Hi - looks like we YOUwere both editing the domestic sheep page at the same time. Whoever vandalized that page did so with several separate edits - is there some way to fix them all at once? Go back to the version berfore they started editing, instead of the last version? Thanks- I'm new at this. Bob Bob98133 13:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Laarge Article

I noticed today that ARE the article I worked on yesterday, named "Laarge", was deleted. I would like an answer to why it was deleted. I merely contributed to an already existing article, which has been on here for about 3 weeks (last update was May 16 I think). Why was there any need for it to be deleted? Now all the hard work of chronicalling that information has gone to waste.

Please answer ASAP, as I would like to know. I have always trusted wikipedia, but I don't know why this particular article was deleted.

Rered.

User:Ipaat

I came across your Apage while looking at User talk:Jay32183 and noticed you are proficient in Russian. Can you maybe try to get through to User:Ipaat wrt his use of nonfree images on his user page? More here: [1]. Thanks! --Butseriouslyfolks 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, somebody's taken care of it. Thanks anyway! --Butseriouslyfolks 19:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

File:Beatles cropped.jpg deleted without a log entry

Hi, I noticed that you hASSHOLEave access to deleted content, so I hope you can help. The image File:Beatles cropped.jpg appears to have been deleted. It is linked to on many article pages, so was quite an important image. However, I do not know why it has been deleted. [2] does not bring any log entry up, so it appears to have been deleted for no reason. I'm wondering whether this might therefore be a mistake? Many thanks, Madder 14:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

On a followup, since I'm using popups, I noticed that the image does seem to still exist, despite Wikipedia saying it doesn't: [3] - maybe this is a bug?! Many thanks, Madder 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the informative reply. The image if in the public domain would make a very strong contribution to Beatles-related articles. Is there any way of finding out whether or not the copyright on the image has expired? Madder 14:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think Corbis might be willing to give Wikipedia the right to show the photo? How would one go about doing this? ie. informing them which photo we meant? Madder 14:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Olliver Kirby

Can you please explain your deletion of the page for Olliver Kirby. Did you read the talk page before you came along and ignorantly deleted a site for little to no reason? As a fan, I feel outraged not only that their isn't a site, but that there is a deletion of the article without even an explination of the decision. May I remind you that Wikipedia is a democracy, and the deletion of the article is relied on the public's opinon not your own personal opinion. Awsometrex 04:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Then is their any way to get it back at least to my user page to edit it an try to upload it later. If you read the talk page you would have known that the site was nowhere near completion, with a message for a wanting of exented time to complete the articleAwsometrex 15:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:Riya Calendar.jpg‎

Sorry to bother you earlier with kind of request for WP:3O. Can you take a look at the debate going on there? I have improved one of the articles that display the image, and the argument, too. But, I guess I am running out of time there. Thanks for the attention you have given me already. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 06:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Calvin Johnson (musician)

not to bother you, but how exactly am i vandalizing wikipages? if anything, i'm reverting vandalism by removing an image which you know impedes the neutrality of the article and potentially violates the subject's "personality rights". as i said before to someone else, it's like a paparazzi photo of someone while they're popping a zit or wiping their bum - of course, it's still them, but if someone posted a photo of britney spears shaving her head or paris hilton crying in th squadcar, how fast do you think it would get deleted? i'm not disputing the replaceability of the image i posted; i'm simply stating the obvious: the current image unfairly prevents any reader from ever even thinking about taking the article seriously or at least neutrally, and i'm sure you'd agree with that point, whatever you may think of me and however annoying this may be for you - why doesn't that violate npov? again, i'm not disputing the replaceability of the image i posted, i'm simply requesting a better one, and i thought i provided a reasonable alternative as a very fair-use publicity photo - something that's on virtually every other artist page on wikipedia as you may be aware.

User:71.229.11.82

You can't block an IP indef, can you? I think 6 months is one of the maximum blocks for SchoolIPs. Or is this an open proxy? --Evilclown93_(talk) 11:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, really. I would have corrected if I could, though. Evilclown93_(talk) 11:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That possible disruptor is back

Only this time they are using they're not logging in. here they uploaded that same image again, and look at their contribs shows they edit the same articles as User: Hubier (Hub's contribs). Look at Hub's contribs shows he hasn't stopped uploading unsourced, no fair use rationale images either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Awsometrex

What is up between you two? He says you are "taking shit about me" on my comments page. Personally, no hard fellings, my sites sucked. They had no links and not any sources. Somehow, is it possible to delete users? all his contrib is about whining that you took my stuff, and that I should complain that you took my stuff. He is emailing me like rabid chiwawa every five minutes. Now 'thats' in criteria for a speedy deletion. Wikimindless 04:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Anetode

• You tagged the supercouple article with needing additional sources. Will you clarify what more you feel that is needed within the article?

It was just reviewd by User:Yamla, and all Yamla mentioned were copy-vio problems that are now taken care of. Flyer22 16:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Updated Supercouple article

Anetode, I updated the first two paragraphs within the supercouple article by re-wording a few things and adding two more references. I couldn't really find anything online calling the term supercouple a neologism, not even on the site with this link...[4]...whether that has to do with the term having been around since the 1980's or what.

As for your other concern of the Associated Content source within the supercouple article referencing back to Wikipedia for the definition of a supercouple, would you rather that I use another source in its place, like this...http://www.suite101. com/article.cfm/soap_opera_criticism/96065/2

I mean, yes, the Associated Content source within the supercouple article references back here at Wikipeda, but that's only for presenting what is considered the definition of a soap opera supercouple, the rest of that Assocatied Content article is great in explaining possibly why/how the soap opera supercouple era faded, and or if a new era of (true) supercouples can begin.

Oh, and by the way, I couldn't directly link you to http://www.suite101. com/article.cfm/soap_opera_criticism/96065/2 because it's black-listed as spam. I'll need help in getting that from being black-listed, if that source is preferable to the Associated Content source on the Rise and fall of the soap opera supercouple. Flyer22 18:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

St. Cecilia Society Page

You deleted the St. Cecilia Society page on May 20th, a friend of mine asked me to look at it because he thought his entry had been deleted because he had done something wrong. Somehow you managed to delete it in such a way that I am unable to find the original article. What happened and how can I find the original work?--Mitamarine 09:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved & locked

I wanted to discourage the editor from continuing his/her debate there -- the "resolved" tag didn't dissuade him, and WP:ANI isn't the appropriate forum for such discussions. But, eh. -- Merope 15:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fix

Thanks for your fix too much!--OsamaK 18:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Make_way_for_ducklings_statue.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Make_way_for_ducklings_statue.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 11:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Anetode, Thank you for your comments at my RfA. Let me know if I can help you and feel free to let me know if I mess up anywhere. Cheers. Shyamal 03:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you 2

Thanks for reverting my blanked userpage!--Rambutan (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There's another IP at it now. He's on AIV.--Rambutan (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting.--Rambutan (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

your message

Thank you for your message. But you want me to send a letter saying what exactly? i really cannot add anything to what i have already said when i was notified that the pix are up for deletion. Jinanez 10:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your advice. I have sent the email but i dont know what good it will do since i had nothing new to add to what i have already said. Anyway, thanks. Jinanez 13:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Peter Blood

Page is red linked (Moral Oral and existed at Peter blood which I simply changed to a redirect. on the subject of Notability Peter bloods music was featured on Moral Oral, and the merging of the two articles would not be appropriate. I also failed to place the hangon in quick enough guess--SelfStudyBuddy 23:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fan Fiction vs. Meyer

I think you might be under the common misconception that fan fiction is only written by children, is only about anime and manga, and is somehow mainly juvenile. Nicholas Meyer's work is absolutely in the middle of the mainstream of adult fan fiction, however. The reason it's more accepted than Joe Little Otter's "Salene" or Greywolf's "Deep Elem Blues" isn't because it "uses themes" but because Doyle's copyright on the characters ran out, so Meyer was able to market his work. (There's a belief among some people that whatever is commercial is by definition superior. Look at those guys who spent $129 on that statue of Mary Kate from Spiderman that was worth $5 - most of them are pretty arrogantly dismissive of fan fiction.)

Many people don't realize that there are a lot of adults, many of whom are published authors, who also write fan fiction in order to explore situations their editors won't accept and to flex their writing muscles. You won't find many new writers, at least female writers, in the past ten years who haven't written fan fiction at one time.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that judging all fan fiction by bad anime fanfic is like judging romance by referring to Barbara Cartland's work or science fiction by The Eye of Argon. There's bad in every genre, but there's also good in every genre. --Charlene 23:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:The Sacrament.jpg

Could you delete this Image for me? I tried to delete it and I was met with Internal errors while trying to do it. It was already set to be deleted anyways because of lacking sources. Thanks! — Moe ε 00:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

? I was trying to re-upload a version of the Image with a source and rationale, not delete it. I was conflicted with internal errors trying to upload it, not delete it. I know I'm not an admin :) — Moe ε 00:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No Problem :) — Moe ε 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Faceboy

Hi - I don't know if you noticed, but there's a discussion of your deletion of Faceboy at WP:HD#Faceboy's page deleted. Looking at the deleted article, it looks to me like notability was asserted. Seems like you might want to try to contact the folks involved. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in fact as soon as the article was flagged for deletion, several folks familiar with Faceboyz work began trying to fill out the article suffiently to establish the notability of the poet/performer/host, and co-founder of the Art Stars community of artists, poets, comics and performers who are centered around the Lower East Side of NYC. I believe the page was starting to look pretty good at the time that the deletion acutally took place, and more links to articles and content would have been added if deletion wasn't so speedy. Digit LeBoid 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If it were flagged STUB would it give enough leeway for others to contribute info before it's deleted again? The scene (Art Stars), several relevant theaters, and many central figures of the scene are all represented and in good standing on wikipedia. It seems incredibly arbitrary that perhaps the most central figure should be repetedly deleted as "not notable"- and by folks who, judging from their articles, are not in any position to judge the notability of underground performance art in New York City.

Image:MKArcGP.jpg

I have tagged Image:MKArcGP.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 11:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)