User talk:Anetode/archive 6

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


Can you help me? I'm being accused of vandalism on David Berlinski when I clearly wasn't. -- 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I'm done. I'd like to contribute but after realizing that people here are megalomaniac assholes I'm done. If I could block Wikipedia so I couldn't even access it again I would. I've never felt so misunderstood in my entire life. People here have no sense of process or good faith. I'm done.-- 22:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Saying Hi

Thanks again for unblocking me the other week, I've been contributing and enjoying it. I appreciate you being a good guy and compromising with me. -- 00:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Koenigsegg CCXR

Ok, thanks for the reply. Strange, Cfrantz must have changed the data, cos when I saw the page it said as below. Unless I'm going crazy of course! :) / Naylor83 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok... but I'm positive that the acceleration was specified as 2.9 secs and top speed was 408+ kph. Was your post really a copy of the original content? Naylor83 03:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Noticed you deleted the Koenigsegg CCXR page. However, the text on the page was not in copyvio of the page you claimed. The text was straight from the Koenigsegg press release, if I'm not mistaken. Also, it contained some interesting figures which I'd love to see back up, live, if nothing else...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naylor83 (talkcontribs).


at the same time you blocked the sydney repeat vandal i was reporting it at AIV - I will take it down if its still there - thanks for that acti0on SatuSuro 08:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC) aaahhh, now I understand - very helpful - thanks for pointing that out - even old dogs can learn new things every day - thanks for that... puff puff it all happened so quick. SatuSuro 09:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

MMY Article

With all due respect, I only restored my original text twice in a 24 hour period, not three times. And you will notice that I also modified Vijayante's few sentences the first time I did it to address his objections by amplifying the Beatles Anthology comments while doing so. Furthermore, as you know, I contacted Crum135 who had already blocked Vijayante once for misinterpreting BLP for advice on what to do about it, and gave Vijayante one more chance even though he'd already violated 3RR as he suggested. As a result, I think your assessment that I am contributing to the problem is unfair.

A cooling off period will not resolve the fundamental issue here, that balanced, sourced criticism should not be repeatedly deleted by an admitted member and advocate of the group without adequate justification. Just as the 24 hour ban did not change Vijayante's editing pattern, except that as he stated he tried to limit himself to the maximum limit for reversions per day. I am still seeking advice as to how to deal with this.

The issue I was addressing, really, is whether the first version is too apologetic given the well known controversy surrounding the Beatles split with MMY (my position), or whether the second is unsourced libel (vijayante's position).

[The Beatles]] spent the early part of 1968 in Rishikesh, Uttar Pradesh, India, studying transcendental meditation with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. [1] They discussed their memories of this time in The Beatles Anthology.


The Beatles spent the early part of 1968 in Rishikesh, Uttar Pradesh, India, studying transcendental meditation with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. [2] While none of them ever followed Maharishi Mahesh Yogi again after the public split, they discussed their memories of this time in The Beatles Anthology, and at that time, neither George Harrison or Paul McCartney said they believed the sexual allegations were true.

This period in India and their apparent disillusionment with Maharishi was described in a book by Paul Salzmann, The Beatles in India, who was there at that time, and who met with and photographed the Beatles, Mia Farrow, Donovan and Mike Love of the Beachboys while there. He reports that: "To the Beatles, the Maharishi's apparent sexuality [3], was the heavy straw that broke the camel's back. They had earlier been concerned about two things: the Maharishi using them to promote himself, and what seemed to be his focus on money, unexpected by them in a spiritual teacher or holy man." [4].

Mia Farrow described what she interpreted to be a sexual advance during that visit by Maharishi in her book, What Falls Away.

According to the Canadian sociologist Stephen A. Kent, John Lennon and George Harrison became disillusioned with him after "they discovered that their spiritual (and supposedly vegetarian) guide was serving chicken to select women and often making sexual advances toward them."[5]

Deepok Chapra, a friend of the Marharshi, claims that the split with Maharishi occurred because the Beatles began using drugs again while they were at his ashram. [6]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dseer (talkcontribs) 07:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC).--Dseer 07:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Good job - thanks for the heads up. Crum375 17:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A comment from Frank Stevens

"Ok, it looks like we're going to have to sort this one out. Did you take the photographs you uploaded or did you snatch them from some website? Do you have any proof of authorship? If they are your photographs, are you willing to release them under an acceptable free-use license (e.g. {{GFDL}})? If so, please forward an e-mail to m:OTRS to formalize permission. Until then, you might want to cease any participation in edit warring, or you will be blocked for violating WP:3RR. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)"


Well I must admit I am very turned off after being a member of Wikipedia again for only a month. I did several edits for the Phish page back in 2005 but never set up an account. Now that the college I teach at has a 24 hour computer lab, I have been online much more and noticed that both the Jon Fishman and Page McConnell pages were missing pictures. The thing that bothers me is that I read all of the rules and familiarized myself with the proper steps to upload photos before creating an account. I even used my real name and offered an email address to anyone who questioned their legitimacy. I was the text editor and photographer for the Phish Phactory back in 1999 and 2000 before Chris, my partner in the site, decided to shut it down back in 2003. My photos were on his site for years. Again, I read all of the rules and followed them exactly, or at least tried to.

What upset me was the meanness and accusatory tone that these Wikipedia users immediately threw my way. I don't know who or what this Sega thing is, but I wish it would just go away because some user erased my work and accused me of being this person. Now on my talk page there is some banner saying I am a part of the Sega ring or whatever it is. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia convicted new users before ever giving them a chance to explain themselves. I even offered my own personal email, to which no one responded. I can't make it any clearer.....these are my pictures, I scanned them onto the Phish Phactory back in 2000 and I still have the zip discs, from which they were uploaded onto Wikipedia. In addition, I also scanned a cover of my Marc Daubert CD "Parlor Tricks," which you can only buy from Marc himself, yet that was erased as well.

The other night, I was banned for basically standing by my that I have donated to Wikipedia to make it a better place. I was accused of WP:3RR, yet the users who have basically attacked me are doing the exact same thing! I've pretty much given up, as I am so disgusted by the cliquish and immature and, most of all, extremely unprofessional behavior of these various users that I am disappointed and basically uninspired to share my knowledge and work with Wikipedia. I could be a very positive contributor to this site, but the execution-without-trial behavior of these members has stifled what could be a very positive relationship. I am going to remove these unfounded accusations of me being someone else, and I am still going to offer my photographs to Wikipedia and re-upload them, because I feel it makes these pages better. Instead of banning a positive contributor, perhaps you should look into the elitist behavior of the users who try and erase everything I do because they think I am someone else. It's very sad that after the Essjay controversy and other bad news about Wikipedia that its members aren't motivated to be more fair and welcoming to new users.

- Frank Sims Stevens, Durham, NC, 3-13-07


For reverting the vandalism to my Talk page. Happy editing, Fvasconcellos 23:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks a lot....however, as I told MusicMaker on his page, two of my students are telling me that my "user check" or whatever is going to turn out negative because we all post from a university. Either way, I hope to continue to help with the Phish pages, which is all I really care about editing. Thanks again. FrankStevens2007 23:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Phish photograph copyright melee

My reasoning could be completely erroneous, so I'm going to bounce the thoughts I'm having off of you before I share it with the participants of this argument.
Regardless of who took the picture, it depicts a copyrightable act. Phish, as seen in the last paragraph here, still retains copyright on their performances: "All Phish performances and recordings are the exclusive property of Phish. All rights reserved." They DID NOT allow "video devices" -- that's the language, and, I would assume that includes still photography -- into their concerts. Therefore, it doesn't matter who took the picture, it can't be released into the public domain because Phish still has the copyright on the performance.
Now, I would assume that a legally-taken photo of a concert would be able to be licensed much the same way as a screenshot, but, unless the photographer had permission to take photos, it doesn't really matter. So Frank, in addition to having to prove that he took the picture, would have to prove that he had permission to take the picture. And still, it can't be public domain.
If my reasoning is correct, it would affect several photographs currently on Phish (Image:Alpine.jpg in particular) and some of its daughter articles, and, most likely, a couple of other pictures currently on WP. If I'm wrong -- and I sincerely hope I am -- then, you know, nevermind.... Back into the fray....
Thanks for your help in this matter.
—  MusicMaker5376 06:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Gotta say that I'm not sure if I agree 100% with your reasoning.
There is quite a difference between taking a picture of Julia Roberts doing her laundry and taking a picture of her onstage during Three Days of Rain.
Thanks for your help, but I'm probably going to take it up at WP:MCQ. I think we need a fair use/performance tag.
—  MusicMaker5376 18:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Warnings for

Thank you for the info. But unfortunately the claim that these are valid edits makes no sense. It's quite extreme to say Academy Awards and the mention of them is 'advertising'. And this user refuses to engage in discussion about the topic on actors pages or on the proper Academy Award page. They would rather simply edit from an anon IP as a troll, ignore warnings from me and others and generally not add positively to the Wiki.

It was never my intention to let it get to simply posting warning upon warning, but how exactly do warnings work? Don't they alert admins somewhere on somepage something is up? If so, then why was it allowed to get to that state? If they don't work that way, are they simply a form of social shaming?

I'm genuinely interested because I want to be productive, but users like are clearly being trolls and clearly should be blocked. How would I go about doing this in a way that's effective without festering for this long? --BaseballDetective 05:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just an edit to add the following:
"Anon, it's very very clear that Oscar awards satisfy WP:N requirements and are not a violation of WP:SPAM."
--BaseballDetective 05:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
As Alf would say, "No problem." You're smart, lucid, know how to type and can express yourself. Which is why I'll never get pissed at Wikipedians like you even if you get the facts slightly off. Best! --BaseballDetective 06:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you help me out, this guy put all these vandalism claims on my page and when I try to get rid of them people accuse me of even more vandalism, even though I haven't done any vandalism at all. Ever. thanks for anything you can do



--PeterMarkSmith 05:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that image is funny as hell. MarkBuckles (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Surpass-A

Should the various tattoo images uploaded for this article be speedied as well? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use in Wilford Brimley

Thanks for fixing that fair use problem. The article originally had that photo of him in a standard thumbnail. When I made an infobox for the page I just moved the photo in without thinking. I guess it shoudn't have been there in the first place since the extent of the critical commentary is "He is known to Star Wars fans as Noa Briqualon in George Lucas' 1985 made for TV movie, entitled Ewoks: The Battle for Endor". —dgiestc 02:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Update on Disruptive Editing of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Article

MMY Update: After being banned for 48 hours for disruptive editing by you, Vijayante has resumed disruptive editing and an edit war, and refuses to talk first. He has inserted the same disputed text three times, and the same refuted logic on why he does not have to discuss. To prevent edit warring from disrupting the article further, please consider stronger action.

(cur) (last) 03:30, 18 March 2007 Abecedare (Talk | contribs) (revert disruptive deletions. See talk page message) (cur) (last) 03:00, 18 March 2007 Vijayante (Talk | contribs) (→The Beatles - llibellous runours should be removed immediately according to the Wikipedia policy.) (cur) (last) 02:20, 18 March 2007 Sfacets (Talk | contribs) (don't start this again. Content is decided by concensus. Stop vandalising.) (cur) (last) 02:13, 18 March 2007 Vijayante (Talk | contribs) (→The Beatles - removing libellous rumours though does not require a consensus but should be done immediately) (cur) (last) 01:36, 18 March 2007 Nima Baghaei (Talk | contribs) (→The Transcendental Meditation Movement) (cur) (last) 01:36, 18 March 2007 Nima Baghaei (Talk | contribs) (→The Beatles) (cur) (last) 01:34, 18 March 2007 Nima Baghaei (Talk | contribs) (→The Transcendental Meditation Movement) (cur) (last) 01:32, 18 March 2007 Nima Baghaei (Talk | contribs) (→The Transcendental Meditation Movement) (cur) (last) 01:32, 18 March 2007 Nima Baghaei (Talk | contribs) (→The Transcendental Meditation Movement) (cur) (last) 00:05, 18 March 2007 Sfacets (Talk | contribs) (Wait for consensus) (cur) (last) 23:31, 17 March 2007 Vijayante (Talk | contribs) (→The Beatles - see most recent entry on discussion page Dseer) (cur) (last) 20:09, 17 March 2007 Nima Baghaei (Talk | contribs) (→Early life)

--Dseer 04:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Ah, I guess I wasn't clear on why I made the page. I was/am unsure on whether or not Wikipedia should have small pages for words, such as, moreover, that simply provide a link to Wiktionary so when a user who may not be familiar with the Wikimedia projects searches for a word such as that they will not simply come to a blank "no queries found" page. However, I could not find any documentation on this matter in the help files and no one the IRC channels would be kind enough to respond to my queries. If this matter has already been discussed and resolved, I would be gracious if you would inform me of the policy on it or point me to a page or user who could. Thank you for your time! -Hoekenheef 01:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the information! It is very appreciated! -Hoekenheef 01:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Can you please send me the article as I had written it? FRS Plus (antioxidant health drink). Just post it in my talk page and I'll deal with it from there. Americanuck 07:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete "Galina Serin" redirect?

Galina Serin, Casey Serin's wife, is not a public figure and is not involved in Serin's website. Searching Google for her name yields only blog entries naming her as Casey's wife. The redirect was created by a user whose only other contributions have been to the AfD discussion for "Casey Serin." Saranary 20:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of PGSM fair-use images

  • You recently deleted a bunch of images related to Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon. Were the uploaders of the images notified? It came as a complete surprise to people at WP:SM. JuJube 04:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • These images are not replaceable, as no similar images exist that could possibly be placed under a free license. Please tell WP:SM how come you think they're replaceable, or I may have to open an RFC. -- Denelson83 05:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Very well. I'm thinking my involvement in this may be a bit of a vested interest. -- Denelson83 05:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you please undelete Image:PrincessSailorMoon.jpg? Like the Sailor Luna and Dark Sailor Mercury pics, which are not deleted, it is accompanied by relevant text. Thanks, Masamage 16:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree. It was being used to identify the character and costume design of Princess Sailor Moon. Her outfit and personality were modified very much from her normal form, adding kind of a lace-and-pearls motif and making her bitter and murderous. It wasn't a picture of the actress per se at all. --Masamage 03:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Day!

Trampton 15:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC).


If I will upload image of Jonathan Davis, a crop of ButtSexCrips and will use following explanation:


Jonathan Davis in studio recording for Korn's 8th studio album Author: Sebastien Paquet URL: ...................

Fair use rationale for Jonathan Davis:

  1. The image is a image from a promotional picture from the Korn website, and intended for wide distribution.
  2. No free or public domain images have been located for this picture.
  3. The image does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute material in any way.
  4. The image is intended to represent Jonathan Davis at the time of the album's recording.
  5. The image's inclusion in the article is important because it illustrates content discussed in the text.
  6. The image is being used for informational purposes only, and its use is not believed to detract sales from the musician shown.

it will be proposed for deletion, won't it?

Broken soul 17:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


thanks for the message, are you referring to the deletion of images on talk pages? I want to remove these images because the talk pages are used to discuss edits only and the reason to restrict input is to keep it short. These images have no use there. What is your reason for keeping them? --Pirate101 01:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is used to discuss new material that is why I want to remove these images. Frankly, I did not include a link to the image because I was not aware of that procedure. I am going to do what you are suggesting. I am aware of the 3RR rule. --Pirate101 07:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for support in my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the support, and am disappointed on being judged by what in most opinions seem to be the wrong things. Until next time, edit on! :) — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi there, I submitted article earlier today (March 23rd) on an organization called 'Rooster society' or just 'Rooster'. The little bit I had the opportunity to throw together was understandably deleted. I can see how it appears ficticious. It is a legitimate organization of college students. As a small organization in a local area, which has only been in existence for a few years, there are no verifyable references. Meetings are often held at parks/strip clubs accompanied by a few cases of beer. We have members at Fordham Univeristy, University of Nevada, Reno, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada State University, Wyoming, and BYU. A number of us are entrepreneurs, and this helps us relay ideas and network. We also help with political events that support respectable candidates. How should I go about creating an article that will not get deleted? Thank You

-Ryan Walters (spokesman)

Original Research?

I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I don't understand why you flagged several citations on Campbell River as original research. "Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source" according to that explanation.

Does that mean by flagging the Campbell River Mirror citations you consider them an unreliable source?

Further down it says: "Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible."

I would think that means newspaper articles are reliable sources.

Please explain your rationale for flagging this article.

Jabbrwokk 16:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce

I don't see any open projects in Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce, even though we have alot that need work, that match your specified fields of expertise. If you look through and spot something that interests you, please feel free to grab it. We have a bunch of things that need work and I don't necessarilty know who to offer them to. Thank you. RJFJR 23:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Campbell River page

"that newspaper article could be interpreted as actively supporting vandalism and misinformation."

I disagree. I think the article was poking fun at the weaknesses of Wikipedia and warning people to think critically about what they read.

I suppose the tag you used, however, is the best way to gently warn readers that all may not be as it seems with the page.

Jabbrwokk 03:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the deal with Qxz?

Just curious — why is Qxz's talkpage protected in a form that doesn't explain the protection? Does it have something to do with his/her "talking to him/herself"? Lenoxus " * " 00:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why was the talkpage blanking acceptable, instead of having it locked with all comments and an explanatory note at the top? Lenoxus " * " 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This definitely gives me a different (and truer, I assume) perspective on the purpose of talkpages; thank you very much for responding. Lenoxus " * " 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"Wrong"? But… but… but you're an admin! Heh heh… I've just raised the larger question here. Lenoxus " * " 01:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Toshimitsu Deyama photo

I'm sorry, but I'm a little confused. Would you kindly direct me to the policy or guideline that specifically states that fair use images of living people are generally unacceptable? - Cyrus XIII 02:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I will have to add a specific fair-use rationale when re-inserting the image. Thanks for the heads up. - Cyrus XIII 02:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
So in other words, as long as a notable person is not dead, we will leave the respective article unillustrated, while waiting patiently for someone to provide a free image, no matter how unlikely that might be in certain circumstances? - Cyrus XIII 02:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that could be him, thanks for the link. I'll look further into that tomorrow, as it's getting kinda late here. - Cyrus XIII 02:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Riya Sen images

On March 10 you deleted two images I uploaded for use in the Riya Sen article - Image:Ananthabhadram Riya.jpg and Image:Riya Book.png. I don't mind the second image getting deleted really, as I proposed to User:Angr that it be put to IFD, anways (though I don't agree to you conclusion - "A photograph is a photograph is a photograph" - Wikipedia doesn't seem to agree either). But, the first one was film screen shot, and in context could very well be considered a fair use image. Your reason for deletion was - "no rationale since march 10" - but, I was never notified about this lack of rationale. Isn't it a guideline that the uploader be notified to make amends, if possible, before deletion (or may be when tagging it for no rationale). I could have then, at least, try to provide a rationale, and/or start an article on the film and shift it there. I never knew there was this problem with the image.

This is the very reason I keep insisting on a discussion before deletion, though I know a discussion can be tedious work (well, if WP has come up with new guideline to do away with all screen shots on actor pages then I have nothing to say). I have a request to make - would you care to undelete the image and let me give another chance at providing a appropriate rationale? It may even involve some work on the article itself, including more references for authenticity. Please, answer to my talk page. Aditya Kabir 16:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have started articles on both Ananthabhadram and Dabboo Ratnani, can they be proper pages for a fair use of the images? Please, understand that knowledge and fairness are my issues here, not as much getting the images back to WP. The only reason for getting them back is the painstaking work involved with citing sources, and explaining the rationale. Please, advise. Aditya Kabir 18:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Re: Riya Sen images

I was keeping track of Image:Riya Book.png, NOT Image:Ananthabhadram Riya.jpg. That's the screen shot, and that's the image I was not notified about. And, that deletion DID come as a surprise. I guess we are confusing the two images here. And, as you said, I did take a look into FU image policies every now and then which does quote a case by case approach, not a blanket call (and it is NOT clearly the model's appearance, in this case). Well, I give up. They've been deleted already, and this discussion makes little sense anymore. Sorry to bother you (I really mean it, dear, you have already accepted a tough job without user's pestering you).

I wish image patrolling was not as hectic as it is now, and particular images could have more attention (as in a more discursive process of decision making). May be some other time, when the articles and the rationale are really in place and really conform to the policies in the most unambiguous manner possible, I can have them back (you see, I still believe in both of the images, only I don't have the support ready to justify them unquestionably). One last question - is there any spelled out guideline specifically for movie screen shots anywhere? If there is one I'd like to be led to it. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 12:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, check. I have uploaded Image:Ananthabhadram Riya.jpg again, this time for use on the article on the movie Ananthabhadram. The screenshot is of that movie, and it has detailed rationale this time. Please, tell me if it is alright this time. Aditya Kabir 17:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. This is what I meant by giving me another chance. I have no intention of cluttering WP with unfair images (I have already read through the legal implications). You just have strengthened my belief in the WP community. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • ^ Miles, Barry (1998). Many Years From Now pp.397, Vintage-Random House. ISBN 0-7493-8658-4.
    • ^ Miles, Barry (1998), before a very public split with the teacher. Many Years From Now pp.397, Vintage-Random House. ISBN 0-7493-8658-4.
    • ^ [1]
    • ^ [2]
    • ^ Kent, Stephen A. From slogans to mantras: social protest and religious conversion in the late Vietnam war era, Syracuse University press, 2001, ISBN 0-8156-2948-6 page 19-20
    • ^ [3]