User talk:UnicornTapestry/Archive 2008

Fair use rationale

Fair use rationale for Image:JohnLeeHooker TheHealer1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:JohnLeeHooker TheHealer1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

I'm trying to upload a snapshot of the album cover, but I could use some help. Thanks.

Image:JohnLeeHooker_TheHealer1.jpg

The Healer (album)

You have the fair use template, but you must write a fair use rationale. See the fair use policy to learn how to do this. There's a convenient template you can fill in ({{Non-free use rationale}}) to make this process easier. NF24^{(welcome, 2008!)} 12:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eurythmics UltimateCollection.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Eurythmics UltimateCollection.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Eurythmics UltimateCollection.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Eurythmics UltimateCollection.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Procol Harum

Just a quick note to advise you that changing "English" to "British", although correct in this case, is not a "grammatical correction", as your edit note suggests. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

boskops

No offense, brother, but "JSTOR 232" is meaningless. JSTOR contains about a gazillion academic articles and JSTOR 232 ain't one of 'em. I really meant no harm, but I thought that your comment did not build on the efforts we were making... But, perhaps, if you want to add a properly cited article, maybe you could add something to the Boskops article itself? Smilo Don (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Hi, I've removed those two additional links. The scientific american link is from 2002 and not about the movie but about creationist claims in general (indeed, the response by SciAm to the movie is right above that)- the other link is from a website devoted to murder mysteries and thus seems to be pretty far outside their area of expertise. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm not 'religious' about the deletions, I thought they were valuable:

* The Scientific American article's 2nd and 3rd pages (if I remember right), refuted assertions made in the movie.

* The Criminal Brief (a web site largely about writing), contained links and analysis I hadn't seen elsewhere.

If you felt either wasn't appropriate, I respect that.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to restore Criminal Brief then- it might make sense to bring up on the talk page and see what others think. As to my userpage message, I don't think I've noticed that before and I don't know how long it was like that- "send" should just be removed. Thanks for catching that. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Scientific American Expelled page includes a link to the older article as "further reading", so that's already covered. Best to discuss the Criminal Brief on the talk page – is it notable for expert opinion, or otherwise meet WP:RS? . . dave souza, talk 14:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Borged?

You said that R. Fiend had been "borged", and I was wondering what you meant by that? Instead of answering my question, you instead chose to delete the comment... If you were worried about it being a personal attack, I don't see how he could take a message on your talk page as a personal attack, so maybe you can explain here... skeptical scientist (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it's a Star Trek reference; I just don't know who is supposed to have assimilated him or what exactly you meant by it in context. skeptical scientist (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:Expelled

Your statement "I've tried to circumspectly express a concern that the Expelled movie is so deceitful, it hurts the cause of people who believe in creationism." Please remember that the talk page is for discussion on the article, and not the movie itself. So, as I said on the talk page, please try to argue for inclusion of the catagory without bashing the film. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 15:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, this would've been a more private way to communicate. But that's OK. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 15:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In case you've missed it I've commented under the "Polemical" category suggestion at Expelled. I think that this is the only way to reach any compromise with the rest even though it doesn't fully show the level of "badness" in the film. TheresaWilson (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You said

“ I read your user page, and your statement "This User Believes that Evolution is a false theory, and that Creation is right" may be an impediment here. That's okay and that's not at issue. No matter if you're a Young Earth creationist or not, I would hope and trust you believe in honesty. If you follow the many citations given, you'll find this film undermines such beliefs, not supports it. ”

This is an impediment. RC does not even acknowledge the NCSE as a neutral source. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Affirmative Action President

An article that you have been involved in editing, Affirmative Action President, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affirmative Action President. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ecoleetage (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

re:Latin

I am actually taking my first semester of Latin this fall. Whether I stick with Latin depends on whether Latin 2 will fit my schedule in Spring 09. If Latin falls through for me, then I will switch to a South Asian studies minor focusing on Sanskrit. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories for discussion: propaganda films

Due to my concerns about the use of the category generally, which was sparked by the inclusion of Expelled, I started a discussion on it here under categories for discussion. Since I know you feel strongly about the inclusion of Expelled in this category, I wanted to give you a heads up, and encourage you to participate in the debate. skeptical scientist (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Another debate has arose. Your return has been requested. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Same article, Expelled's article. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Right here. skeptical scientist (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Masturbation

Thanks, I dropped my delete vote in. Kst447 (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008 user warning

Regarding your comments on Talk:Masturbation: 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 will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. __meco (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your temperate rebuke. I wasn't really attacking, but I was challenging. I had a vision of 11-year-olds giggling with their laptops under the covers.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverting

Please don't keep reverting. It's unhelpful and is against Wikipedia policies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe you confused as you have repeatedly reverted edits.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What religious beliefs are you attributing to me? External links don't exist to bring articles into NPOV. If one of them contains a significant point of view that can be reliably sourced then we should include that in the article. As for adding additional "official" sites, there is a dispute over the extent of Rawat's involvement in various organizations. I don't understand why you're so strident on this issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Spoonerism

Please go back and add more information about the sources you added in this edit. As it currently stands, all you wrote for the source is "Kermit Schaefer recordings," which is not enough to be useful to any reader—no one can tell what source you're referring to and no one can track it down to verify, unless you give more information. If you don't add the necessary information, your additions will have to be deleted. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right. One of my references is caught up in a blanket blacklist of squidoo. I have requested a whitelist for the reference which you may notice in the source is comment out at the moment.

(Except for one specific article on squidoo, it's not clear to me by they blacklisted all its articles, but I simply asked for a whiltelist of the one web page I need.)

regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw the commented-out source when you first added it, but unfortunately it probably can't be included, as it's from a non-reliable website with no author information (and therefore no one accountable for the information). I have left further comments at Talk:Spoonerism#Whitelist and at the whitelist request.

Regardless of the outcome of the squidoo thing, there still needs to be better documentation of what the "Kermit Schaefer recordings" source is. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The author is noted as Rick Wales, who writes articles on humor.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You deleted a sourced item

I have just come across your change to wetnurse (diff here).

Thank you for adding the example you did, about infant formula, but the one word "Similac" was all the edit summary. It does not explain why you changed the sentence from:

The act of nursing a baby other than one's own often provokes strong negative reactions in countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, being compared to wife swapping and potentially viewed as child abuse

removing the sourced reference to wife swapping. I am concerned both that you removed the sourced text without discussion, and that you made no refence to this deletion in the edit summary. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brainy,

Thanks for your message. As I recall, my intent was to remove the wife swapping reference. In the blogazine that's referenced, in the same paragraph where the writer chats about Angelina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow in a breezy way, she speculates if they'd be considered the equivalent of wife-swappers. The humourous second-guessing of a writer didn't qualify as encyclopedic and she also misquoted La Leche (although the pull-quote isn't unreasonable).

I hadn't meant to lose the references– I strongly support even obscure references– but I probably hadn't a place to put it.

Brainy, what if you include the ezine in the External links section? That way people can have access to the writer's article and Wikipedia won't leave the impression that people actually think wet nursing is comparable to wife-swapping.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift response, and for the ping; I'll keep your page watchlisted till this is resolved. If your intent was to remove the wifeswap reference (which, I agree on re-reading, is a bit of a throw-away line), then your original edit summary should have focussed on that, or better yet the two edits, one of addition and one of subtraction, should have been entirely separate. (BTW I take it your last few words are a Freudian slip of the keyboard -- I think I know what you mean!)

However. The sociologist Rhonda Shaw has researched cross-nursing, and says in a Time magazine article that there's a perceived overlap of "adult meanings of eroticism with breast feeding ... Sometimes people associate a woman breast-feeding another woman's baby with pedophilia." I don't have access to her research proper, but it's all listed on her homepage I've linked. Do you have access and would you be in a position to add a quote or two? Then I would accept moving the ezine as you suggest. What I want to keep is that there are multiple bad things that people think about cross-feeding. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, Brainy, reading between the lines! I'm working on a news story and I'd better double check breast-feeding doesn't end up in it!

I don't have access to her paper, but it would be worth mentioning on the talk page, particularly her conclusions. Also, I support Baumgardner's ezine article in the External links section.

Wet nursing has been a common practice for millennia, up until two advents: (a) the development of infant formulae and (b) HIV. Wet nurses could still be found in the mid-1950s and there was a resurgence during the hippie era.

It's a delicate balance– Americans are simultaneously squeemish about body functions and but obsessed with sex. Yet writers also have to balance the article with very real questions about HIV. My sole concern is not to overbalance either way.

How about this: Let's one of us (a) remove the wife-swapping reference and (b) move or remove Baumgardner's link- I leave the call to you.

How do you feel about it?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dates in Caylee Anthony homicide

Hi there --

To be honest, I just found the international format to be sort of stifling and out-of-place in an article that is about and probably read by mostly American audiences. According to WP:DATE, "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation" -- and I would argue that this article does, since everything about it takes place in the U.S., including most of the media coverage. WP:DATE also says that "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic" -- so if you feel very strongly that it should go back, I wouldn't object. Kane5187 (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Caylee Anthony

You raise an excellent point about confirmation of murder.

Dr. G has announced on our local televised news that the death appears to be homicide, but has not determined a specific cause. I'll keep an eye out for mention in print. If it's any use to you, I'll be glad to dig up links for our local television stations' web sites. Our local newspaper is OrlandoSentinel.com

regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks. Yes, I thought that it was more appropriate in the information box to label that Caylee Anthony was "deceased" as opposed to "murdered" at this point in time. I already check the Orlando Sentinel web site regularly to see what's going on with this case, also. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC))