User talk:Etafly

Non statutory female on male rape

May I ask why did you (double) tag Non statutory female on male rape? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwc4life (talk • contribs) 20:03, 17 March 2007

I thought the tags spoke for themselves -- the article makes a lot of assertions which lack citations. Stylistically speaking, the article can use a lot of improvement as well. I'll make some changes in the near future to reflect my addition of the tags in question, and perhaps cite specifics in the talk page as I trudge through editing the article. -Etafly 02:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad, but I agree it needs deletion, I will join in on the discussion. --Kyle112 22:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Hostage Crisis

I am tired of debating the current situation. As I have stated a couple times, I am happy with putting Iran's implicit demand, even though I think it's clearly a hostage situation. But in response to your comment: "In the '79 crisis, a group of militant students barricaded themselves in the embassy for over a year. It wasn't conducted by the country itself!" That is misleading. The students took over the embassy, and then afterwards they asked the government if it was okay. The Ayatollah then endorsed the takeover, and the government refused to break up the students for over a year. It was completely official. During that time, just like communism and the red scare in the US, anti-Americanism drove politics. That's what it is today, and that's why we're in the current situation. To blame it on 5 people being arrested is naive. That's why I have edited in Iran Hostage Crisis. Thanks for your contributions to wikipedia :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeyman334 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That's all well and good, but you have to put things into perspective. That's an opinion (albeit an educated one), and I can see why you're inclined to believe that it's a hostage situation -- Iran isn't doing much to alleviate that notion in its bid to win a PR war. Regardless, it's a POV. It's not fact. You can't connect the dots, you have to let the readers do that themselves. They can come to the same conclusions you did, and I'm sure many of them will, but what I'm trying to avoid is Wikipedia assuming your POV. As an editor, you're the one who provides the narrative, and from the discussion page, it seems like a huge POV shift in the article is on the verge of taking place. I'm simply trying to prevent that.

On the issue of the Iran government and '79, I'm not saying that they have no culpability whatsoever, I was describing the differences between then and now. Iran's government offered moral support to the students after the fact, as in, they had no part in the hostage taking. I'm not saying that there's no culpability, however, one has to distinguish between the taking of hostages by a militant group of students (through invasion and seizure of a sovereign embassy) and the capture of troops purportedly traveling in their waters (which they still maintain.) I really don't know why you fail to see this. I think Iran's actions were beyond stupid, it's done nothing but provoke ire in the international community -- and the videos. Moronic. But keep things into perspective. This is not the same as the hostage crisis. Not. The same. Not. Get it?

Not. Please, for the love of God, get it. I can't be any clearer. GET IT!

Get it yet? -Etafly 15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it's a law enforcement action is incorrect, because they are not charging them with anything. I don't see anything wrong with distinguishing between students and government (I have heard that the military that took them enjoy some independence anyway, but that's anecdotal), but it's still hostages whether demands are made by students or government. Regardless, we're both pretty educated on the subject, even if we draw different conclusions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeyman334 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Dude, where's my point? No demands. As things turn out, they've just been released without the fulfillment of any of the imaginary demands put forth by unreliable sources (namely Iranian blogs and blabbermouth politicians (they have those too, I would imagine!)) so really, at best, this is an international incident. I say incident to stay neutral, but spectacle would be a better word. Maybe I'll propose a title change to Botched 2007 Iranian PR Spectacle. Cheers! -Etafly 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: Regarding the lack of charges, does that make Guantanamo Bay prisoners et al. hostages? If so, we've got a lot of work to do! -Etafly 17:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I only cited the IRNA. The most pro-Iran news source I could find. Oh well, they had their fun.

P.S., I don't know anything about that. I really have studied Iran. I've even read *books* and taken classes on the subject. Shocking for the interweb, I know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeyman334 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Deleting warnings

"I've been searching for policy discussions on this very issue, but I'm drawing blanks (shudder. forgiveness, please.) Seeing users blanking warnings and block notices, essentially concealing information on their character as an editor, really gets under my skin. I realize that the page history is still in tact, but really, nine times out of ten, I only check when I notice something missing. Having to check every user's history for an accurate account of discussions pertaining to his/her edits is basically in contradiction to the spirit of WP:AGF. While removing vandalism and personal attacks is completely understandable, I think policy should explicitly address this issue. One's userspace is still the property of Wikipedia, and I think that removal of content in bad faith seems to be in contrast with the goals and standards of the community. Any thoughts? -Etafly 02:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC) "

I could not agree more with you. Have in the past and currently dealing with IPs who seem determined to hide their warnings. Some have done this and just continued to vandalise. Others have not. Either way wiki really needs a policy on this. Seems such a simple issue. Say you can't for x amount of time. to 'clear' the record of past warnings. I to like you look at their talk page not the history to see what past warnings they have gotten. I really hope this issue is brought up again and something is done. The more vandals that find this quote of 'frowned apon' the more vandals are going to blank them at will and say they can. Its going to make it harder for those who are trying to clean up the messes they make. Thanks for your time. --Xiahou 00:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any time! As much as I'd like to see some sort of policy change, in the link I posted, there were some pretty convincing arguments against. Over the years, it's been attempted again and again to make some sort of rule to that effect, but it's always been rejected. As much as I would love to see it change, it doesn't seem likely to happen. Cheers! -Etafly 00:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of Vandalism on My Talk Page

Hi. I'd seen that, but not got round to getting rid of it as it wasn't too offensive. But it needed to go, so many thanks! Pedro | Chat 07:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always a pleasure. -Etafly 07:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Unitedphoenician

I've seen a lot of relentless edits from this editor about it. I recommend you open a user request for comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiLeon (talk • contribs) 22:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hm. Going through that user's contribs, it seems that he/she is rarely active. When there is activity, it occurs in spats of edits during a fairly narrow time frame. All edits are disruptive, but I suppose it's a stretch to say that they are in bad faith. Simply an issue of linkspamming/soapboxing/attempting to use Wikipedia for political self-promotion. The RFC process seems a bit daunting (and somewhat intimidating if truth be told), and I have no particularly vested interest in seeing this user blocked, so for now, I've simply added the targeted articles to my watchlist, and will revert edits accordingly. If the vandalism escalates into edit warring, then I suppose I will take steps to escalate the issue accordingly. If you feel, however, that an RFC is the appropriate step to take at this time, then by all means, I'll be willing to follow your lead. Best regards, -Etafly 18:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imagery

I suppose one could expect tasteless images on some articles, and our policy specifically allows for that. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a forum for self-promotion (indeed, WP:COI). For any article that already had an image, it would seem that his image doesn't really add anything other than, well, self-promotion, and I would suggest listing those images for deletion. For any article that did not have an image yet, I suppose this would be an improvement assuming his license is adequate. If he does a lot of the former (especially after deletion, and frankly, this does seem to be a single-purpose account) then at the very least a warning would be in order. >Radiant< 11:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected. Thanks for the input. :) -Etafly 19:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Nguyen.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Nguyen.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Message: Xenogears

I remember that part of the game clearly, but I haven't watched any of the Evangelion series unfortunately, so I didn't know that that scene has an anime counterpart. I remember Xenogear's article used to have something about comparisons on Evangelion, but I didn't know the part about the creators denying the similarities and calling them unintentional.

But I really think they are intentional seeing that the number of similarities are WAY to many to deny. I just don't see why the developers of Xenogears denied it at the first place(probably because of copyright infringement? That I will never know). The biggest similarities I guess would be their religious allusions and undertones.

Pathbinder (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewishness" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jewishness has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 2 § Jewishness until a consensus is reached. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]