User talk:Guyanakoolaid

AFD and other contributions

Being new around here, you might want to consider that you aren't too familiar with the policies and guidelines, conventions, etc. to be passing judgment on articles at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. First off, whoever tallies the votes later probably will not take your vote seriously or give it much weight in considering the keep or delete simply because of your novice status. —ExplorerCDT 11:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hi! And thanks for the welcome. I am indeed somewhat new, recently challenging deletion for the first article I wrote (and won), and became much more knowledgable about things, although admittedly not as knowledgable as you. Regardless, I will ignore your rude dismissal and continue to contribute as I see fit, judging articles in the future as I have done til now: strictly according to WP guidelines. If you see where I may have judged an article incorrectly, please let me know. Otherwise, the way I've read things, newbies are normally ENCOURAGED to get involved, even in AfD discussions. How else will they become something other than a newbie?Guyanakoolaid 09:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I see your point and agree, however. You'll need a bit more experience in editing before some AFD counters will count your votes (far more than contributing to only two articles before jumping into the AFD waters). Forgive me if it may have been rude, but your insertion into the AFD in question, smacked of being ignorant of several policies and guidelines and the applications thereof. —ExplorerCDT 16:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clements University

Hi. I see you've weighed in on this AfD. I just noticed that TheronJ has substantially cleaned up the article, and I think St. Clements University is worth another look. Regards, William Pietri 06:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be happy to rereview it, however it wasn't that it needed cleaning up as much as it was just an unaccredited diploma mill, and needed notability, which it completely lacked.66.201.16.35 06:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highly controversial

Hi G., I'm a stickler for simple prose, especially in the lead. I thought it might be best that I just try to convince you directly. In the controlled demolition article you've put "a higly controversial proposition which suggests that"; I want it to say "the controversial proposition that". "Highly controversial" has an air of a great deal of public debate, i.e., that people on either side exchange views often. That doesn't strike me as accurate. An identifiable group of people is pursuing it; it sometimes makes for a sensational headline; but it is essentially ignored by those who disagree with it. Anyway, let me know what your reasons are for that adjective and what you think of my simpler version.--Thomas Basboll 07:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this, too. I think we need to get shorter and pithier still. I think every sentence in this article, which is way too long, needs to be treated on its merits. "The Controlled-Demolition Hypothesis proposes, controversially, ...". It is not highly controversial (see Thomas Basboll, above) but it is controversial. The article headline should not sensationalise it, for it is not sensational. It is simply a hypothesis which is notable, but really has no firm foundation in facts.

Any edits should seek to shorten the article, not expand the phrasing Fiddle Faddle 07:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on shorter, and the total edit is now just the one adjective. I really couldn't see how either side of the debate could argue that the subject is not controversial, even "highly" controversial. The debates on this subject are limited in number, but very heated, as many talk pages and AfDs show. But "controversial" in the intro definately helps frame the argument into (slightly) more NPOV. Guyanakoolaid 07:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The things we need to do, especially when removing POV is to be as even handed as possible. We also need to be clear on the difference between a "Wikipedia controversy" such as an AfD, and a "Real World controversy". Each has different characteristics. A Wikipedia controversy is a storm in a teacup - violent, squally, and limited in scope. The AfD on this article was one such storm. The real world was unaffected and not interested. For the real world it was "yet another darned quack hypothesis" (if it even noticed it). That quack hypothesis is not unheard of here in the UK, but we don;t care about it at all, except to laugh at our US friends and remind them that the word 'gullible' is being removed from US dictionaries.

So we must be vigilant that we neither overplay nor underplay what is controversial. My preference is to avoid anything that brings a comparative to words like 'controversy', since it is a binary thing. It is, or is not a controversy. Fiddle Faddle 07:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The joggers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The joggers.jpg. I notice 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. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
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 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 any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind editors doing their job cleaning up WP, I just wish they were a bit more familiar with the rules. In your self-appointed watchdog role, you have let your zeal blind you from a complete reading of the rules of "fair-use". A promotional image, distributed by the band's promo company, especially when a high-res image is available for download is clearly usable according to WP guidelines. I clearly stated this in the notes of the image. Can you please explain how your overwrought nitpicking definition supercedes a clear WP guideline? I have not monitored the Joggers page I created, but apparently need to. It is apparently far too much trouble to ever contact a page creator through email when major changes are proposed. "Not in the rules", I know. However, I will be reupping the image and vigorously challenging you on any further deletions.Guyanakoolaid 09:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, they're only usable if a free image could not be created of the same subject. Trust me, this isn't something I simply made up but has been long discussed and hashed out. See User:Chowbok/Robth's RFU Explanation for details. Instead of fighting me on this, why not spend your time contacting the band's management to see if they'll release the image under a free license? —Chowbok ☠ 16:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please assume good faith. It is possible for well-meaning editors to disagree in their interpretations of fair use criteria. I would be happy to discuss this with you further, but I must ask that you refrain from speculating about my motives, as that is not terribly productive. I do assure you that I was not trying to bully you or be discourteous in any way. Please let me know if you are ready to chat about this in a like manner. —Chowbok ☠ 07:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll respond to your question about this image on the talk page, but I just wanted to correct a misapprehension you have. I have not deleted a single image. I can't: I'm not an admin. Any image that has been deleted has been deleted by an admin that agreed with my assertion that it was replaceable. As for your comment that it "doesn't get more free than the creator of an image giving super high-res versions away": you do understand that when we talk of "free" here, we mean something different from "free of charge"? Please see Gratis versus Libre for a discussion of this issue. —Chowbok ☠ 16:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmm, looks like the talk page got deleted. The admins aren't supposed to do that, but oh well. So what's your question? That I want "caca" images? No, I don't. There are plenty of good-quality free images already on Wikipedia. You're setting up a false choice. —Chowbok ☠ 01:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oops, was looking at the wrong thing. I'll respond at the talk page shortly. —Chowbok ☠ 01:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chowbok has done exactly the same to me. I have uploaded images which were intended to be released for promotional work in the media of actors - images are very important especially to identify people. I gave a fair use rational within all the guidelines set in the licensing yet he deleted images from many of my articles and couldn't even be bothered to clean up the page after the image was taken. He is ruining wikipedia by his major mission to delete all images. He is obsessed. Can you bneleive somebody would have a kick out of that? ANyway I thought he was going to be blocked. ? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 08:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on my talk page

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —Chowbok ☠ 18:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]