User talk:Angielaj/Archive 1

Archive 1

Scrap paper

Tank you for your efforts in keeping garbage off wikipedia. However before nominating an article for any deletion, you ALWAYS have to look into page history, because the current version may be the result of vandalism or some toddler's good faith but stupid edit. `'юзырь:mikka 16:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete my entry? - superkick

Article revert

The reason I added those citations (not spam) in List of Linux distributions is because the Jesux article has been nominated for deletion; we need something else to go by in case the article is deleted. 76.183.213.20 20:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

regulus

I read it. My initial judgement is it is a complex edit, but to led it ride and think about it tomorrow as a whole piece. Sandpiper 02:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

footystar tom

I know you put a warning on his talk page, but the damage he did to Shrek was only a third of his antics today. He also hit Harry Potter and Manchester United. Ccrashh 14:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

J.K. Rowling

I'm not sure how you decided that User:Libertycookies was closest to the consensus but he is the only one a) supporting those opinions b) attempting to add that section. Multiple editors and admins have all agreed that the content should be removed until such time as original, first-hand references (i.e. direct quotes from Jo) can be found and cited for his claims. Thanks AulaTPN 23:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Long Running Debate

you have a very odd page here. Anyway, Folken and I have been arguing the merits of including information, mainly about horcruxes for months, and have exchanged thousands of words of debate. Others have commented from time to time, on both sides of the debate. If you are really interested, I suggest you dig out the archives for all the pages we jointly edit and have a very long read. It is my considered view that during that time more considered editors have favoured inclusion of the material than exclusion. Most HP editors have ducked out in view of the forthcoming book launch. My position is to maintain what I see as the established consensus (not withstanding Folkens rather wild claims). Sandpiper 08:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

No worries. It actually happens all the time. Some admins are strict in following the order of warnings while others aren't. But believe it or not, there are some vandals who complain that they weren't given "enough" warnings before the final one. Go figure. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 05:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User Talk Revert

Thanks for the revert, the emo redirect vandal has been quite busy. Dust Filter 23:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal

I'm not vandalizing anything anymore, unless this counts as vandalizing? 76.107.165.229 21:17, 3 July 2007 (CST)

Rebecca Gayheart

I am a photographer and I captured this image, it is Rebecca Gayheart and I posted it because there is no image available.

Deletion on Divorce Page

I linked to an article I wrote about "Children and Breakups" which is a chapter in an upcoming book about breakups. It was a free link to a valuable and relevant article to help divorcing parents deal with their children. I am qualified to write it (was a practicing family therapist for over 10 years) and it is going to be part of a book that will be published in the fall. As a therapist the biggest issues divorcing people had was in dealing with their children. This article gave lots of good advice and help. It wasn't spam or vandalism.

Replaceable fair use Image:William_Sledd.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:William_Sledd.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 19:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hentai

It is editors like yourself that give the Wikipedia a name for research. Do not add nonsense into articles. 220.253.22.120 (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not add the content. I do not believe in deleting content with a consensus. AngielaJ 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I'm sorry. However, that information is original research and is incorrect (misleading) Please do not add slanderous and misleading content to articles about parts of my culture if you do not understand the subject. 220.253.22.120 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Again I did not add any of this content. Please do not remove content with out a consensus from other editors. Go to the talk page and discuss with before you remove. Please do not break the 3RR rule and discuss it on the talk page like everyone else. AngielaJ 19:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable references to provide such information (and it is a mass topic on talk page) That information is misleading, and most of those "things" are highly rare to see in Japan, especially with common manga with nudity or sex. You removed templates with are needed for the article (there appears to be no reference at all, little alone a reliable one or a reliable Japanese reference on the subject) and seem to want to re-add that information which is both nonsense, and wrong. 220.253.22.120 (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

AGAIN. I did not add or remove anything. I reverted the article back to the way it was before you deleted most of it's content. What about that do you not understand??? Write a draft on the talk page if you want to replace it with reliable citable references. You can not just remove large chunks of articles out because you are personally offended. It borders on ownership of the article which is against wiki policy Wikipedia:Ownership of articles AngielaJ 19:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1