User talk:HelloAnnyong

archives
1 2 3 4 5 6

Saw character pictures

Am I allowed to add some pictures to the Saw character pages (esp. the 'main' characters). Screen shots of the characters in the movie, or promotional shots via Google Images, etc?

I think it would add a lot to the pages. I noticed Amanda Young has some good pictures, so last night I added some to Jill Tuck's page. I don't want to add pics to all the pages and then it get reverted because of some rule I missed. Thanks --Micwa (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. to be honest, I would avoid filling the page with screenshots and things like that. Maybe one or two if there's something in the film (or whatever) that would be greatly enhanced by having an image, then that would be okay. But to have an image for every character would be total overkill and would wreck the flow of the page. In fact, I'd say that character images would be better suited for the character articles (or sections of the List page). And of course you have to be extra careful of WP:NFCC here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah mostly just the character page of the main cast. This page is already long enough. I think Mark Hoffman, Peter Strahm, and Jill Tuck's section are way too long, since they already their own page, so I tagged them. From what I understand about the non-free media use is that you can use screen shot from the film that wouldn't adversely affect the movie owners right. Copyright laws if very confusing and sometimes silly. Thank you. --Micwa (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion on La_Belle_Epoque

I asked for a third opinion yesterday on La_Belle_Epoque. I think the redirect should go to the disambiguous page Belle_Epoque. The other editor User:Softlavender thinks it should go to the specific article Belle Époque. You provided the third opinion and set the redirect to go to Belle_Epoque. User:Softlavender has since undone your update. So do you want to weigh in on this or should I ask for another third opinon (guess that would be a fourth opinion)? I don't wish an undo undo undo battle with User:Softlavender GloverEpp (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh. I opened a thread at Talk:La Belle Epoque#Redirect discussion and left a note on Softlavender's talk page about it. After this, the next step would probably be a request for comment, not another 3O. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canisius fight song/alma mater

Hey, I saw that you deleted the lyrics to the Canisius College songs, and your notes referenced a general guideline regarding lyrics. In this case, there is no indication that these lyrics are under copyright, so why eliminate them. I plan on reinserting, unless you point out something I'm missing. Cheers --Cjs56 (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion on ANI last night about a user (Mizzoufan1) who was going around and adding fight song lyrics all over the place. Several users agreed that song lyrics fall as a copyright violation. Just because there isn't an indication of the copyright doesn't mean there is one; afaik, you're really only supposed to include text that has been specifically stated as being okay to copy or whatever. There's also a guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#School songs, school hymns and fight songs. On there, it says "It is recommended that school songs without appropriate references where the copyright status is unclear should be deleted." Since you said there is no indication, per the guideline it would be better to err on the side of caution and not include them. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up. It's starting to get annoying. I'm not the only one who has a problem seeing his book as notable, am I? Anakinjmt (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man, it's too bad this couldn't be handled civily. I really don't know what is problem is or why he feels the need to attack me. Guess this eliminated my potential to be an admin. And I was SO hoping for it [/sarcasm] Anakinjmt (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen Nightmares

If my addition is not in the correct place, please let me know.

Otherwise, since it is properly annotated with multiple references, and I feel it adds something valuable to the information about the show, why remove it? It has nothing to do with the discussion of "follow-up", and all to do with the actual episode itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxq32 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You used a blog as a reference, and blogs are not reliable sources. And where in the second source does it say "In fact, the chef of the restaurant was originally going to be on another Gordon Ramsay show"? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan's Hamptons.com is written in conjunction with Dan's Papers, a print magazine. The article was written by the very person in the show, the so-called 'critic' that caused much controversy at the end of the show. As for my second link, I did in fact goof and link to the wrong one. http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/canned_heat_iHsni5ybqjz9C4hX5RBeTL, the one that is linked to the final credit, states all the facts and more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxq32 (talk • contribs) 16:39, November 4, 2009

I'm taking this discussion to the show's talk page, where it allows for fuller discussion. Drmargi (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

APBT

Ok, so what's your problem again?? You always just delete other's work. There is no Copy right material. If you continue I will report you for vandalism.k84m97 (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the text you added to the article was taken from other places. Like here, here~~, and here~~. Also, you can't just come in and completely replace all of the text in an article without discussing it - it's just way too much. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THE FIRST TWO WHICH YOU MENTIONED WASN'T POSTED BY ME BECAUSE I DIDNT REPLACED THE WHOLE MATERIAL, THE THIRD IS FROM THE CANADIAN GOVERNEMENT'S WEBSITE SO UNDER THE US, CANADA ANS EU LAWS THERE ARE NO COPYRIGHTS. THE PICTURES ARE FROM 1896 AND 1903 SO UNDER THE US LAWS THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT. ALSO I DISCOUSED THIS WITH TWO MODERATORS BEFORE. REVERT IT OR I WILL REPORT YOU AND WE WILL SEE WHO IS RIGHT. I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO WANT TO REPORT YOU FOR VANDALISM.k84m97 (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC) THE STANDARD WHICH I ADDED IS FROM THE UKC SITE WHICH IS THE OFFICIAL BREED STANDARD.k84m97 (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're right - the third link is acceptable. But at the bottom of the first link, it says "Copyright © National Kennel Club® 2001-2007". It's copyrighted text. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said the firs two links weren't posted by me. The Breed Standard is from the UKS site which is the ORIGINAL standard. The rest also. However I asked for help from two moderators and they will review the text and will decide who committed vandalism.k84m97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

What? The text you added in this post was, at least in part, copied from this source. For example, everything under Forequarters and Hindquarters came from that article. And if you copied the rest of the text from "Colby's Book of the American Pit Bull Terrier", then that's unacceptable too. You basically took the whole article, removed the prose, and put in copied lists and other text. And that is wholly unacceptable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to engage you here anymore. This is a content discussion, so we can talk about it at the APBT page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about?? I take it from the AKC site because this is the Official BREED STANDARD. It's the same everywhere, like the constitution. Can you understand this?? "Forequarters and Hindquarters" came from the standard again which is the same everywhere.UKC APBT STANDARD Some ideas came from Colby's book but as I see you never read it. The health section also came from an official source. It enough ! You just bashing others, this is the reason why I solicited the intervention of two moderators.k84m97 (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RicoCorinth

I just read through the Third Party discussion page, and can relate very much to your experience with RicoCorinth - see posting history on CAI- Community Association Institute. Very frustrating to have such a skewed article, and an unreasoning editor. --Sillysabre (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MedCabal

I would like to mediate this CASE on the MedCabal. However, before I can open the case, I must recieve confirmation that all listed parties agree to the mediation process going forward. Thank You Reubzz (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already told the other party in the case that it would be better for the project's community to discuss the matter before action is taken. If consensus can be reached, there is no need for mediation. However, should a problem persist, I will be ready to take on the case. Cheers Reubzz (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re your post. Are you talking about the avenue of going to the talk page and trying to reach an agreement or using a mediation process? Reubzz (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've responded again over there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes :) Reubzz (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long attention span

Figured I'd respond to this here. :) I'm impressed that you're still working on this one! That's some serious commitment. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. I'm not active on the page; it's just on my watchlist, and it's mostly to keep an eye out for vandalism. It's been a damn long time since that conflict first came up, though.. I'd like to think I've improved a bit since then. But hey, glad to see that you're still active on here, and as an admin no less. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you active as well. :) It was more fun before I was an admin; whoever described us as "janitors" was brilliant! I don't even have time to write articles anymore. :/ But, oh well. I remain optimistic. Sooner or later the cleanup work will get easier, right? :D (I don't remember your needing to improve when that conflict first came up!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab

From the looks of it there and on the reliable sources board, there appears to be a consensus to not include the book. Acting under such a mindset, the case will not proceed any further. No reason to violate wp:snow Reubzz (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steam (content delivery)

deleting peoples content without saying so and not giving any reason is hostile too.--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then discuss it with the editor who first removed it. I'm pretty Smurfy removed it as a way of enacting what he spoke about on the talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nothing on the specifically talk page relates to his removal of my section and he didn't say to look there either.--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's not your section. And you might want to read the new section down at the bottom. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, how is linking to another wiki page and quoting from an EULA original research? - DoveNJ

Removal of my edits...

I am VERY offended by all the removals by you on some of my edits. If they were copyright violations, so be it. But you ALSO went into the Hickman Page and adjusted it. I WENT to that school and I know more about it than you do. Leave that page ALONE! I take great pride in all my work on that page and know it is historically accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizzoufan1 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have very strict rules about copyright, and you violated them. A lot. Also, I'm not really sure what article you're referring to. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:58, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Re: Saw VI talkpage mix up

Yeah... I didn't know if it was still relevant, since it occurred over a year ago. Also, what I don't get is someone came by and rated the page a "B-Class" via the Wikipedia Films, but left the others as "Start-Class". What's that about? --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 02:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giving it a rating for one project doesn't necessarily mean that the same rating holds for other projects. I think. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silverstone 3O

Hi,

Noted that you had removed the Silverstone 3O request. While I've posted a clarification request on that site, I've made clear - there at least - that I haven't taken it yet. I didn't use the {{subst:third opinion|your_username}} template for that very reason, and I was trying to strike a middle ground by annotating the request on the 3O page. On the other hand, I suppose that by intervening in it at all, I've kind of "reserved" it. If you think that it should be removed under those circumstances, I won't disagree (or maybe we need a third opinion <grin>), and will put it back into the available-dispute list if I don't take it.

Best regards —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, heh, okay. Seems that not signing didn't really stop them from contacting you about it, but whatever. It does seem that someone else left a comment there as well, so a third opinion has technically been given. I'll leave my thoughts on there, and of course you're welcome to do so as well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass, too many cooks... Thanks, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I AM SORRY

HEY

I AM SORRY FOR MY EDIT ON THE PAGE SANDWICH

IT WAS RATHER RUDE OF ME AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WAS THINKNG

DO YUOU FORGIVE ME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.167.74 (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen Nightmares

I clearly see that you're following an agenda. #1 The content was reworded, so there is no longer a violation. #2 The reference provided is from a reliable source. CenterofGravity (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't reworded. Adding three words in front of one sentence doesn't change the fact that the rest of it was copyvio. You should read WP:PLAGIARISM. And as for #2, I didn't make a comment about the source. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]