User talk:EnglishGarden

I don't know where to post messages to other editors, so I will do so here I guess:

The overall definition of Mail Order Bride on Wikipedia does not match the common parlance.

Look at the Dickerson case in Maryland this week: The media and commentators are calling a 19 year old Latvian woman a Mail Order Bride although Dickerson DID NOT meet her via an agency or website. They met on the beach.

UPDATE: August 11th, Anna Dickerson admits husband never abused her

So the proper definition would be: "Women from developing countries who marry an American man whom she came into contact while she was in her home country.". Because that is the reality of the terminology. The other definition is fine as well. I am not going to argue this now, however, which is why I made no change.

Mentioning an age difference is relevant only by presenting the numbers and letting the reader decide. Many non-Americans would see a 20 year difference and not think anything of it. In fact, there are plenty of American college coeds who date men in their forties. Whether an American man in his forties dates a Latvian or an American woman, the motivation to date younger women is usually about them looking nice and not about "controlling" them. It is common sense that appearance is motivation number 1, 2 and 3. Let's be real. The average man who marries a foreign woman is 41 and she is 26.

About Encounters: the other side of the story needs to be said but my edits should suffice.

About listing murders: There were 3000 murders of American brides in the same time period. Listing the 3 murders here is acceptable because they are relevant to the special interest groups making their case. But it would be insane not to place that in perspective.

Let's not pretend in writing Wiki text that Congress reads or considers laws that are tacked onto the back of 1000 page documents. Certainly nobody in Congress understood that the clause regarding foreign women "approving" of specific men's backgrounds...would result in an immediate restraining order. Actually: Tom Tancredo voted against IMBRA.

It is way off to pretend that politicians vote for a law for the same reasons as the lobbyists and other proponents declare. Some laws are passed in a quid pro quo for other favors from other lawmakers. IMBRA seems to have been part of a deal, but that is not a value judgment I care to make on this site. Suffice it to say they voted for IMBRA and not add such value judgments. ;-)

Tahirih

Please note that Tahirih Justice Center is a Featured Article, meaning it's regarded as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. You have to be careful and sensitive when making massive changes to articles like these because they will often get reverted very quickly. Thank you.UberCryxic 17:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NPOV for how to properly phrase statements on Wikipedia. Thank you.UberCryxic 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posting personal information

A serious message - PLEASE READ

Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Such posting can cause offence or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches. If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. If you do not ensure that personal information you posted is removed from this site you may be blocked from editing this site. REMEMBER: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Kirill Lokshin 17:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harassing the same user by posting veiled threats to their user-page is not likely to garner you any friends either. You have "reported" the problem; keeping your head down would be a good move right now else you will lose any possible claim to the moral high ground. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 19:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil: OK. I thought I was just answering him because he posted something to my page.

I am glad that I somehow reported the problem. I will keep my head down now.EnglishGarden 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "keeping your head down" involves continuing the argument in the same fashion as before? Not only did you continue being uncivil to UberCryxic, you uploaded no less than three entirely unnecessary images with which to illustrate your argument, images whose licensing status is unclear your claim notwithstanding. Stop messing about and take part in the RFC properly. —Phil | Talk 22:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil: What planet is this crowd on? I am not being uncivil to Erald Kolosi whose parents are on the Tahirih Fundraising Committee. A New York Times reporter is observing this.

However, if you think it would help, I will stop arguing. But note that I really just boiled the matter down to one small link needed when IMBRA is first described. He won't even allow that. And for good reason. Any hint of controversy would seriously hurt Tahirih's image. This webmaster cannot allow that. You guys really should have booted him when the proof first came out that the star editor of the Tahirih article was the son of a fundraiser.

I have never known any organization that wouldn't have immediately booted him from such a conflict of interest. The Internet is really a bad place to have to operate mainly because of the personal voice disconnect and the slow reaction times.

Look at how the pro-IMBRA people were called by Ubercrycxic for help. Anyway. Point taken. I will stop arguing.EnglishGarden 23:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...

Please be aware that you cannot change the content of a user's message. It does not matter if you disagree with it. You should not change it. If you do disagree with it, then state so, otherwise refrain from your current activities. Thank you.UberCryxic 12:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, about your comments to SuperDude115, I have no problem if you solicit help from other users, but you should probably do so on their talk page. Normally that's where Wikipedia editors write to other editors, not on their userpage.UberCryxic 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the comment in question to SuperDude115's talk page, where it belongs. He doesn't seem to have edited in some time, no-one else had moved it and it was just sitting there. Fourohfour 23:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal remarks

Let me be very clear here: if you make any further comments about UberCryxic's parents—regardless of whether your particular allegations have any merit—you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Do not do this again. Kirill Lokshin 17:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is entirely the wrong answer: Kirill should have removed the POV from the article in question and/or investigated the allegations. Criticizing me for recognizing the obvious and complaining...is entirely inappropriate.EnglishGarden 22:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Brideindustry.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Brideindustry.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]