User talk:AnonEMouse/Archive 12

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

Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13

BDJ evidence

elements cross-posted


I think it would be better if you didn't paste in copies of deleted articles, just linked to the appropriate Special:Undelete page if you feel it's necessary - they were deleted for a reason, and I'd really rather not see an edit war break out on an Arbitration case (yet again).

James F. (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the whole point is that they weren't deleted for any valid reason - there isn't a single derogatory or disputed line in that short text. Without quoting the text, that's just my word for it, with quoting the text, it's obvious. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe they "weren't deleted for any valid reason", maybe they were. Given that this class of BLP is under dispute, the appropriate action to take would be to hold off and use your better judgement. Caution is always better than rash action when tempers are heated and concerns strong. Note that when that which is "obvious" to one is not so for other people, it behoves one to taking a moment to reflect as to why that may be so, such as, for example, it not being the case.
James F. (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of Arbitrators' opening comments, such as mine, is to suggest a profitable avenue for the case to explore. If editors wish to explore other areas in the Evidence and Workshop pages, then I will review them (of course), but the opening request provided me with only sufficient impetus to thinkg that BDJ's behaviour was the main concern.
James F. (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking for help by an administrator


I noticed you're an administrator and was therefore wondering, if you could help. I'm not sure how much you look at the year articles here on Wikipedia, but I'm sure you know of the convention that articles whose titles are just digits should be about that particular year (like 2007 for instance). However, somebody has moved 985 to 985 (year in medieval history) and 970s to 970s (Decad). I was wondering of you could help move them back, or if not, you could direct me to somebody who can. Thanks in advance /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It didn't have a major effect as redirect were automatically set up, but moved back, and Moving user notified. Thanks and good luck. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg

As so ordered by DRV, Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg is again nominated for deletion. Please see the debate at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 4#Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg. Regards, howcheng {chat} 21:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Japanese AV Good Article?

Hi, AnonEMouse. Since I've successfully nominated an article for deletion, I think my next Wiki-step is to try to get a Good Article. I've been improving as many of these Japanese erotic cinema articles as I can for a while now, and still have a lot of work to do on most of them. Several are shaping up fairly well, but it looks to me like Hitomi Kobayashi‎ is the one closest to potentially achieving Good Article status. I still need to flesh out information on her earlier career before nominating the article. In the meantime, when you get the chance, could you take a look at the article and give any pointers? (I've been looking for a check-list sort of guideline, but haven't had much luck.) Thanks again. Dekkappai 22:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Put it on Wikipedia:Peer review, that's what that's for. (See below note, conveniently enough.) That way you will (possibly) get comments from more than just me. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikilink first mention of Japanese to Japan or Japanese people, whichever you mean
    • Wikilink or explain "image video"
    • 'image video' - Use "" - See Wp:mos#Quotation_marks
    • You might catch some heat for "Scanned by the editor from promotional materials" on the image - can you clarify what promotional materials these were? Magazine articles or video covers generally aren't ...
    • surprisingly modest for a pornographic actress - that's a bit POV, I'm afraid. Who is being surprised? Surely not the encyclopedia. Cite or rephrase.
    • Is there an article that talks about simulated sex in AV in general? If so, it could use a link.

... more to come ...

Thanks, Anon. "Scanned by the editor from promotional materials"-- Right. I did that a while ago, and keep meaning to fix it. It's from a catalog put out by the company advertising their videos and novels. I'll get the title and publication info when I can. Kosher, I assume? I'll get to work on the rest later. Dekkappai 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Howdy! For obvious reasons, I'm kind of steppign up the process a bit on Benchley. Did you have any more significant input to add that you wanted to note? Your notes really have been invaluable. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I did promise to get back to that, didn't I? Sorry, sort of got distracted with your impending lynching and all...:-) I added more to Wikipedia:Peer review/Robert Benchley: even though it isn't listed on WP:PR, it isn't templated as closed.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, someone archived it (I thought those stayed for a month, has it really been that long?), but looks good. i'll get to 'em in the next few days, thanks a bunch. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA ...

Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for all the notes. Please note urls are not always necessary for an old news article, nor does my source (Joseph McBride's Spielberg bio) does not always go into full detail. Alientraveller 17:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you catch the "work with me" part? You seem to be arguing, rather than genuinely trying to address my concerns. For example "if he is cited, he is reliable" - huh? I can cite my uncle Al,[1] does that make him a Wikipedia:reliable source? Enough of one for a Wikipedia:Featured article, which are supposed to be the best we can offer? In this case Chris Hewitt seems to be a reviewer for - what the heck is that? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Alphonse J. "The Cheezinator" Mouse. Personal statement, June 8, 2007. Retrieved June 8, 2007.

Felicia Fox

Hey, dumb question: how do I go about getting an article undeleted? I went to add info to the article for Felicia Fox and I find it was deleted. Article looks like it was speedied but she's notable under WP:PORNBIO as she won an XRCO award (Orgasmic Oralist 2003). TIA Tabercil 14:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, normally you ask a friendly admin, who looks at the history, and either outright undeletes it for you, or discusses with the deleting admin. But in this case, you'll be better off starting from scratch - the deleted content was a single sentence. Honest. No assertion of notability there, but you are right, a brief Google search shows she easily meets WP:PORNBIO. Here, just so you don't feel you've wasted your time posting here, I have some suggestions that will give you orders of magnitude more to work with than that deleted sentence would have:

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to add a mention on AdultFYI about Felicia's baby to the article when I found it was not longer around. I'll do the rebuild later on today. Tabercil 17:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, recall a few months ago I offered to nominate you for the ability to see deleted articles, among other things? :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah. I remember that. I still don't think I'm at the point where I know all that I would need to know so I'm not ready to take on an admin's fuller responsibilities, but I am definitely sliding that way. Especially since I've had a couple of sharp exchanges with others - especially over the issue of WP:FU. In time I'll stand up and go for the admin post - just not yet. Maybe come the fall... Tabercil 17:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's alive! Care to critique the reborn Felicia Fox article <G>? Tabercil 23:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well done! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for posting the article about me -- I'd like to go in and ad a few things, as well as revising a few dates that are slightly wrong. How do I do that? Love ya, Felicia Fox

Answered your question on my RfA

Hi, just letting you know that I answered your question on my Request for Administrator's status. Thanks! SirFozzie 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yasmine Bleeth Picture

Thanks for obtaining the nice picture of Yasmine Bleeth. It's gratifying to see something other than her mug shot on her web page. I've given up trying to keep the mug shot from being posted, but it's very sad that that picture may have kept her from successfully continuing with her career. Thanks again.Bcsurvivor 16:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome - but I wouldn't overstate the importance of any one picture on her life, considering she has had so many. Does she actually say something like that anywhere? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind message and best wishes, Anon. I admire you all as editors too, so it means a lot. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


How right you are, I won't be touching anything controversial for a while after that monstrous distraction! Thank you so much for your support, the kind comments from other editors really helped me through. DrKiernan 13:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Greetings. There is a debate at Wikipedia:Fair use review#12 June 2007 about an image of Peter Nordin. Your input there would be appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:TWBGB2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:TWBGB2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ban Request

AnonEMouse, please allow me to explain my unusual request. I am requesting a ban or block on Freedomlinux for the period of 23 June 2007 through 3 July 2007. Yes, I wish for a ban to be applied to me for that time period in order to help me to maintain a Wikibreak. I find it difficult to stay away from Wikipedia and absolutely must Wikibreak for the sake of my mental health. Please respond on my talk if this is possible and you agree to do it. Thanks Freedomlinux 00:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not need condescending English lessons.

I already worked very hard to make my English as good as it is now. Thank you though. Italiavivi 01:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No condescension was intended. Your English is certainly better than my Italian. :-) You're welcome. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks with the copyedit there, AnonEMouse. (And by the way-- No swipes at you or any of the other editors were meant with that sarcastic effort. Just blowing off a little steam at the situation as a whole with a little humor...) Dekkappai 00:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not done yet, give me a minute... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
There. BTW, since it is in your user space, feel free to strike it if you feel it is not suitable, not in the general spirit of the page, or merely insufficiently funny. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Anon. I like it. I can see an "Ew! Presidents?! Delete!" argument snowballing at Dekkappedia AfD discussions already... Dekkappai 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Greco Report

Just because I cited them, doesn't mean they were the only ones outraged over Oliver Stone's Alexander film. High profile lawsuits were filed from Greece. Why is it that only pressure from the Liberal "Gay Mafia"/"homosexual agenda" is heard? What about listening to the Greeks themselves, even if it is Conservative (ooh, balance/NPOV is a bad thing for Wikipedia?). Don't judge the Greeks so harshly and their critics so lovingly. The way one gets to know a people, is by letting them speak for themselves. Would you rather have people speak for you, against what you know about yourself? How content could you be, also, if you came to America, only to be ridiculed by media stereotypes componded by eccentric scholars pushing anti-Greek revisionist propaganda? This perception of Greeks did not exist before the Turks "miscegenated" the Greek people by rape and slavery, thus making it acceptable for Nordic racists to comment on Greek history without concern for their own opinions, up in their clouds somewhere safe from Greek complaints. Haven't you heard the racist charge (Arthur Kemp) that modern Greeks are not descended from the Hellenes? Why put up with social stigmatic establishment protocols?

Arthur Kemp includes hateful revisionism about Greece:

Dienekes Pontikos corrects the lies:

I would not want to see Greece swallowed up in Kemp's charges, nor the charges of the "Homosexual Greece movement" which began in the Enlightmentment-Romantic eras originally to propagandize Europe as better than the Ottoman Empire, of which Greece was then a part. 03:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What, in any statement I have ever made, makes you think I'm judging "the Greeks" in any way?
Here, let me start over.
Hi! I'm an uninvolved admin. Uninvolved. I'm pretty sure I never made a single edit to the article in question, and I'm not even sure what the issue in question is, or what the sides are. But I will say with reasonable certainty that if whatever argument you're making is backed by claims of conspiracies, hidden agendas, miscegenations, and whatnot, it's likely to be less convincing just because of that. More heat means less light.
Want to try it again from the top, without the loaded words? Just the facts about the article in question and the edit in question. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 04:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't take this personally, but I will present the issue for you as a theme, rather than the minutiae of the articles. My statements are framed to move your empathy to the fore. That is what I hope to achieve, which is why I have contacted several notable Admins to the defense of NPOV for the sake of an entire people. But, Westerners who fought against the Ottoman Empire in WWI did not make the Turks pay for the Armenian Genocide. There is Turkish filibustering, even the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and Westerners ignore or exploit it for their own gain. I could even cite the Fourth Crusade, but concern for "saving face" over Greece just isn't happening. Greece is like any other country and homosexuality was not a "sacred institution" there any more or less than other lands. This is the point made by plaintiffs in the great cause for Greece, but the rogue editors and admin I mentioned are the defendents. Westerners have as many misconceptions over Greece as they do of Iraq or Iran. The Spanish word Gringo#Etymology is just one example of Greek feelings being sidelined, while Westerners claim to inherit the worth of Greece. The basic idea is like White Supremacists claiming that they are the true Hebrews/Israelites and that the Jews or Israelis are frauds. When will Greece be respected? Certainly not here, because the case has already fallen on deaf ears. I will not reiterate what is already out in these talk pages, except that the admin removed my complaints about POV edits which are a conflict of interest with the Greek people. Greece is not a homosexual country, even if homosexual Greeks exist. Can't you fight prejudice, or what? 04:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess my request for "just the facts" didn't convey what I wanted it to convey. Whatever you think you're framing in your statements, let me tell you what I'm reading:
  • "Ma'am, I hear there's a dispute, and it's grown into disturbance. What's all this about?"
  • "Respected Greek scholars ... Turk rapists and slavers ... Nordic bigots ... homosexual conspiracy ... racist charge..."
  • "Sorry ma'am, I'm just a simple mouse, I'm here about the big loud argument that you seem to have gotten into with an administrator. You wanted an uninvolved admin?"
  • "Ottoman Empire in WWI ... Armenian Genocide ... Fourth Crusade... great cause... not a homosexual country..."
  • Now do you understand my problem? This isn't a crusade, this isn't a genocide. This is an encyclopedia. We write articles here. That's all we do. If you want an uninvolved admin's help, I can do that, but please confine yourself to the article, that's all we do here. Now, what's the dispute? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 04:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT.2C_WP:HOAX.2C_WP:PN.2C_WP:BIAS Basically, User:Haiduc and a varied assortment of like-minded editors haved edited in such ways as to propagandize a homosexual-centric version of Greece, the Greeks and their history. There are way too many homosexual-laced versions of Greek articles because of those like Haiduc, who openly proclaim their mission to homosexualize history according to their interpretation and vision. They cite modern (Enlightenment-Present) revisionist views of Greece (Greece was under Ottoman control at the time these beliefs were invented) that did not exist previously and are convinced that all other opinions of Greece (and homosexuality, for that matter) are controversial, fringe beliefs--even those of the Greeks themselves. How (fucking) condescending is that? 04:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah. That's more clear, thanks. Let me go look at the articles in question. --AnonEMouse(squeak) 04:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

All right. So the articles in question are Homosexuality in ancient Greece, and its subarticles, specifically Pederasty in ancient Greece, and it's subarticle Philosophy of Greek pederasty, correct? There certainly are a lot of long articles here, no argument. But they seem to be reasonably well cited with references to Plato, Plutarch, Xenophon, and such. I'd have trouble arguing that what Plato said wasn't important enough to deserve discussion in an encyclopedia article.

So that means we need to go to the usual way these things are supposed to be resolved around here, by citing sources on each side. Do you know of an equally Wikipedia:reliable source that says that these beliefs are fabrications, mistranslations, etc.? It matters who and what that source is, which is what I was getting at earlier - that link you presented seemed to clearly be to an activist site, rather than an academic one; when writing about ancient history, academic views are usually given more weight than activist views. If there are equally credible/accredited sources on each side of the issue, we will end up writing about both sides of the debate. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 05:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the activism that got a homosexualized version of Greece into academia in the first place? We all know it is not how Europeans viewed the Greeks in pre-Ottoman times. So, the matter is reclaiming "face" from institutional defamation. If that is considered reactionary activism, well why not listen to their side of the debate? That's what NPOV is all about, not just the Liberal or Conservative. Both must be represented for what they are, in their own words and even refuting charges of their opponents. Why do you believe that opponents of the historical revisionist wing, should not be taken seriously? I gave three prime examples (Enlightenment, Turks, Aryanists) of how Greeks are degraded by other groups' propagandas, but you balk at the notion of defense before mass media stereotypes as too steep a slippery slope. I know it would be much easier if this were some racial minority, women or homosexual interests. Boo-hoo, suck it up ethnic minority of paramount importance to European image and legacy. Excuse me, this is not directed at you, but why don't people grow any fucking balls in this PC mad world? Go watch 300 (film) and come back to this. Apathy is what is destroying the West. While barbarians passionately attack civilization, consumerist complacency reigns through indifference. As the Roman Empire went, so goeth America. I do not believe Wikipedia cares at all. This internet project is an avante-garde experiment pretending at seriousness with regard to accredited academia, refusing to give both sides a say because that is exactly how paper encyclopedias have done it and so, Wikipedia is trying to impress other publishers with its own "academic stuffiness". BTW, I am not Greek. I grew up near a disapora (Dukakis family) and am conscious of what they gave us though. 09:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's where we get back to this project not being a crusade or a genocide, just an encyclopedia. We don't change what the world thinks here, we just document it. Sorry if that's not what you thought you were signing up for, but that's what this project is about. Good luck. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's all about a fair editorial approach, which is practically supposed to be our mandate here, as central to the NPOV policy. You obviously don't care to enforce the rules. Good bye. 01:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Katja Kassin

There's been a slow revert war occurring between User:Valrith and User:Spinachmaster over the Katja Kassin article and I've just left a strongly worded suggestion that they hash out their differences in the article's talk page. Could you keep an eye on the article for a day or two, just to make sure they stop reverting and start discussing? Tabercil 06:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Saw what you said. Looks great, but one problem: I think it was Valrith who reverted Katja and not Spinachmaster. You'd be well advised to double-check that accusation. And speaking of Valrith that reminded me of an earlier problem which had slipped my mind: Sydnee Steele had made some edits to her article which got reverted out by him. I've exchanged some emails with her with some advice on how to get what she wants to stick around (for instance the pic she wanted to use) but nothing more's come out of it from Sydnee... Tabercil 07:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Nope - read the talk page section I wrote, the diff is there. I thought that too at first from the edit summaries, then actually looked at the diffs. It seems Spinachmaster thought he was reverting Valrith, and restoring the article to Katjakassin's version, but he wasn't. :-P Considering the subject matter of the article, there is a very appropriate term for this situation: . Everyone meant well, but no one talked to anyone else, and it just got worse. Thanks for letting me know, that article wasn't on my watchlist, and clearly will be now. Ah, a BLP issue that I'll be enforcing, instead of railing against; what's the world coming to? :-) Anyway, I have to go finish my apology in the name of Wikipedia to User talk:Katjakassin. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 07:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I added my opinion to Katja's talk page. I thought that once Katja made her edit that this war would be over, but Valrith continues to .... in my opinion ... make bad deletions. --Spinachmaster 16:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Now, about Sydnee Steele. That might be a different situation. Katja Kassin is pretty clearly User:Katjakassin, because she says so on her myspace blog. But why do you think that Sydnee Steele is User:SydneeSteele? I admit it seems likely, but there isn't any reason it couldn't just be a fan who decided to copy the image from her web site; Assume good faith and all that but that doesn't mean that everyone who makes a user name after a famous porn star actually is. (One of these days I'll have to ask you where your user name came from.) And, in fact, that image could be a problem, since the Image:SydneeSteeleHome.jpg says GFDL, but says its copyrighted. :-(. Why do you think it's really her? Did she send you email or something? I know one of my most fun moments was when I was able to exchange a few emails with Richard Pacheco after he tried to fix a few errors on the article ai was writing about him; he ended up sending me a chapter of the autobiography he was trying to publish. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 07:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That's exactly how it occured: emails from Sydnee. If you drop me an email, I can forward some of the emails to you. And by the way, it looks like Katja has an email address associated with her Wikipedia account... Tabercil 07:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Gang bang pornography

Hi AnonEMouse. I nominated Gang bang pornography to appear on the Main Page under the Did you know... section. The nomination hook appears here. There is a five day from creation window for DYK nominations, so I wanted to make sure it was in the cue. Please feel free to revise the nomination hook as you see fit. Great job on the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 03:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


(moved from talk archive) I saw you talked to User:DreamGuy about Elonka Dunin here User_talk:AnonEMouse/Archive_9#Elonka_Dunin_mention_on_geography_pages but she still does not appear on the Santa_Monica,_California page, can I add it?Tstrobaugh 17:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you may. We didn't reach any conclusion there, I mainly stopped due to fatigue relative to importance of the issue. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Promotional photos

Hi, AnonEMouse. Looks like I've got someone tagging for deletion all the promotional photos I've spent months hunting for. The message I'm getting is, "The fair use image you uploaded is replaceable by a free one." These are all portraits (not DVD covers) of the models in question at sites which sell DVDs/Videos. This meets my understanding of a promotional photo. It's also my understanding that a promotional photo is usuable, hence the "Promophoto" option in Licensing. Am I mistaken, and have I wasted valuable, limited Internet time in seeking to improve these articles? I sometimes wonder about the mentality of editors who get their jollies by deleting the hard work of others... But, as always, advice will be appreciated. Dekkappai 19:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Over the last few months, there has been more of a push to remove "replaceable" fair use photos of living individuals who are not recluses. Even promotional images. This isn't due to legal fair-use grounds, as much as it is due to the goal of Wikipedia being a source of libre free information. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Chowbok was basically about this, and there have been other kerfluffles. As you can read there, in general, these sorts of removals do tend to be upheld. (For example, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Chowbok#Outside_view_by_Jimbo_Wales.) I can suggest a few things to do here:
  • if the star in question has retired, you can argue that the photo is not replaceable since the star is not going to be available for photography (retired porn stars often want to avoid any mention of their previous career, so are often effectively recluses, though there are a few exceptions)
  • if the star in question is still active, you can send her an email, and ask her to release a picture under a free license. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission - I especially like Wikipedia:Example_requests_for_permission#Formal_request_for_high-quality_publicity_image, though it's a bit overly stuffy. Unfortunately, though I have tried that a few times, I have almost never had success. The Jenna Jameson image in User:AnonEMouse/Images I did get was actually from a producer who wrote to me.
  • look on the internet, especially Flickr, for pictures taken by fans at conventions. Ask them if they will release the image under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (which means that they will get credit as the photographer). Mention that this way they will get a lot more publicity, given that we are the #9 web site in the world. I've had moderate success with this last method, about 1/3 successful (the rest of User:AnonEMouse/Images). It's almost always successful if the image is already under Creative Commons Non-Commercial, since those photographers are usually willing to remove the Non-Commercial parts if you explain that Wikipedia can't use NC images.
I wish I could tell you better news. Sorry. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Anon. I see now that this was yet another attack at the Japanese category, through a proxy this time, by HongQiGong. (See here). But then it's his vehement crusade against the category that inspired me to do my work here anyway, so I guess he's a mixed blessing. Looks like it'll be more work on Japanese porn, less on Russian opera for me now. Thanks for the pointers. I'll look into them, but, being that these are Japanese models, the options available to me are going to be quite different. Actually, since many of these actresses are retired, wouldn't a "free" photo taken of them in retirement constitute invasion of privacy? Dekkappai 20:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you're writing "free photos are unlikely to be found". That's not strong enough, because we're now just amazingly popular with millions of editors, some of whom are happy to go out and make free photos. You need to be a bit more specific, because in most professions, just being retired isn't a reason photos can't be made; for example, a retired politician will probably be happy to pose for a snapshot for an encyclopedia. You want to show that the person in question is actively avoiding photos, so not only are new photos unlikely to be found, they are likely impossible to make. See the "recluse" bit there. I don't know what the social situation is for Japanese retired porn stars, but if you can find an article that says they tend to avoid publicity like the plague, that will be strong ammunition. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Anon. Better now? Dekkappai 20:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, if these facial portraits are all removed, I suppose I could instead put up images of the videos being discussed next to the appropriate section of the text. Video covers are generally far more explicit than the images with which I've tried to illustrate these articles, but if that's what the rules demand... Dekkappai 21:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mary Martha Sherwood

If you have time in the next week or two, would you mind reviewing Mary Martha Sherwood? It is up for FAC here. You always provide helpful insight and the article has not attracted a lot of attention yet, so I thought perhaps I could solicit reviews from good editors. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 08:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed. Well done, in fact I'm surprised Giano is opposing it. "The prose is not brilliant"? Kind of vague without specific examples. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I have addressed your comments to the best of my ability. Let me know what you think. I was surprised Giano opposed as well, but he did give a couple of examples of objectionable writing tics (too many "for examples," for example). :) Anyway, now that I have copy edited the article two more times, I hope that the writing is even better. Awadewit | talk 09:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for help with FA

Search engine optimization is running on the main page Monday. Thank you for your help with this article! Jehochman Hablar 21:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Water drop animation enhanced small.gif

Hi AnonEMouse. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance.

Jreferee (Talk) 07:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Admin mop.PNG

Possibly unfree Image:Audrey_Landers.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Audrey_Landers.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 16:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Judy_Landers.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Judy_Landers.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 16:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)