User talk:ANNAfoxlover/Archive Jun 2007

Guess Who?

I'm not sure if I've told you yet, but as one of the people who wanted me to get an account (IP 24...), I will tell you who I registered as: AnonGuy. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 20:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Good for you! I can just tell you'll be a great Wikipedian! ;-) A•N•N•A hi! 16:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My comments on an autograph page

Um, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but my whole comment was teasing. Don't you see that I said I would never sign an autograph page, and then I went ahead and signed it? See paradox or self-reference. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Re longest autograph book

The longest autograph book is really for trying to collect signatures. It is there to collect a large amount of signatures. Bernstein2291 01:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I will change the description but i will not move the page. Bernstein2291 01:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I will move the page, remove it from the Department of Fun, and change all links to it. Bernstein2291 19:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You put it on the Department of Fun? That is completely unreasonable. Why would people signing your signature page be fun? Never mind, because you are fixing it. Thanks a bunch! ;-) ANNAfoxlover 23:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The longest autograph page

I find your objections to the "longest autograph page" quite ironic. You tell him/her that the whole point is to collect signatures from friendly Wikipedians, not to have the most signatures ever. Yet your own autograph page states this:

I'm ANNAfoxlover, and I want to collect signatures of every Wikipedian, especially Kamope, HighInBC, RMS Oceanic, and, the signature I REALLY want...JIMBO WALES!!!.

So, what's so different? Your whole goal is to get a signature of every Wikipedian which would make it the longest, wouldn't it? Also, you have goals to get particular users to sign it, which is missing the point according to yourself. Metros 01:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know I still had that on my autograph page. I haven't updated or looked at the page recently. ANNAfoxlover 01:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much for the great barnstar, If you would happen to have any question I'll be more than happy to answer, again thank you my friend, Take Care:)Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 12:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming Pixar

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Upcoming Pixar, by Kwsn, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Upcoming Pixar fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

appears to be a non-official blog, falls under A7

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Upcoming Pixar, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Upcoming Pixar itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

MfD.

I've properly closed the debate so that it has a reason for keep. You're not actually supposed to strike out all the messages; the top and bottom templates plus a reason for keep is all that's needed. :) Acalamari 23:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks! ;-) ANNAfoxlover 00:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome; I've also responded to the question you left on my talk page. Acalamari 01:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

un-BARNSTAR

I just stumbled over your posts on RockMFR's user page and followed the story and have now decided to post here.

Here's what happened as I understand it, please correct me if I got anything wrong:

Without any prior exchange, e.g. politely asking Bernstein2291 for a rename (which he finally did completely voluntary), you put his userspace subpage up for deletion. The result was a quick keep, in other words: a quick failure of your intended action to use process instead of kind words with the only possible intention to beat another user over the head.

You commented in the MfD debate: "And make sure it doesn't try to be the longest" [autograph book]. Now, correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't it the aim of each and every autograph page to collect as many as possible? Seriously: There is no difference in having an autograph page titled "autograph page" and one that says "longest autograph page".

On MfD, RockMFR commented "This has nothing to do with your goal of trying to collect the signature of every Wikipedian, does it? :)", to which you replied here.

In that post,

• you wrongly accuse RockMFR of having "said" that you want the largest autograph collection. He didn't, he was half-jokingly and in good faith asking a question.
• you also speak derogatory about two admins in very good standing: "since many administrators (without a sense of humor, I might add) refused to sign, such as HighInBC and Acalamari". This is not only uncivil, but also hints at insufficient self-reflection.
• You actually continue to tell RockMFR: "Do not say that I am trying to get the longest autograph page, because that is not what Wikipedia is about." Again: He did not say that. He was asking a question. And as a matter of fact, you do have an autograph page of your own.
• You conclude your rant with "Do not say that again to me or other people," to which I left a reply before I decided to dig deeper.

To Bernstein2291's addition to the description on his own autograph page, you reacted by calling him a liar instead of appopriately apologising to him, and you actually went so far as to use an edit summary that reads "it's a lie" and you embarassingly went on to to tell him "there is a very little chance that your autograph page will become the longest", with which you contradict your whole near-absent prior "reasoning" and expose your own conflict of interest.

What's more, on your userpage you write "I am working on becoming an administrator, but while I am learning (thanks, Deskana!), I am working on getting a barnstar. I hope I get one someday."

For your recent behaviour as laid out above, please consider this an un-BARNSTAR. You now have to get one to have none again. Best regards, —AldeBaer 16:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction: Acalamari isn't an admin, but you still insulted him as having no humor and seeing as he was very nice to you, it makes your whole behaviour even worse. —AldeBaer 16:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me my errors. By the way, there is no such thing as an un-BARNSTAR, and if there was, then many people everywhere would be giving other people un-BARNSTARs, which would make many Wikipedians look very bad. I have not looked at my userpage or autograph page recently, and I now notice that I have said some things that I do not mean, so I will have to fix some of those things up. Thank you again for showing me my mistakes. In fact, I am not sure if Acalamari was the one who did not want to sign my page. I think it was Alphachimp. Thank you again! ;-) ANNAfoxlover 18:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. You see, there is a first time for everything. I haven't before met a user "working for a barnstar". —AldeBaer 19:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the thought process of working for a barnstar suggests that its some kind of medal that makes you stand out above other users, or makes you better than them. I wonder whether you feel the same about adminship, Anna? --Deskana (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it seems that you are trying to tell me what my personality is, which you can not do. First of all, I have not updated my userpage in a while, and I rarely look at it. I'll ngo through it now and see what I want to get rid of and/or add. Would you have any suggestions? And by the way, I think adminship is just a tool to edit Wikipedia better. Getting a barnstar is just an award, and it makes me feel proud of myself as a Wikipedian, although that does not mean that I look down on other users. ANNAfoxlover 16:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Anna, I didn't say that - as you put it - your "edits are failures". The MfD you initiated was. And I said that because it was closed as a keep, contrary to what you wanted. And I didn't say it was closed as "speedy keep", but that it was closed quickly, running only for less than 24 hours before being closed as "Keep". If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. —AldeBaer 16:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that you said that. I said that you said that some of my edits were quick failures. ANNAfoxlover 16:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little bit confused now. Here is the diff of your posting to my talk page. It reads:

You told me on my talk page that one of my edits was a quick failure. Why did you say that? The result was keep, not speedy keep. Don't start saying that my edits are failures.

That's what you wrote. However, if we're gonna split hairs, then yes, with my initial posting above, I'm basically expressing my opinion that some of your recent edits were suboptimal. But the important point is the reasoning behind my opinion: If it is somehow flawed or incomplete, by all means, please point it out to me. —AldeBaer 16:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's yet another issue, and this is even more serious: Please do not edit other user's comments as you did here. —AldeBaer 17:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:FlagBox

Template:FlagBox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope.

No ANNAfoxlover, I will not fill out the information at that RfA. I did not ask for that nomination, and to be honest, if I ran at this moment, the RfA will fail. You see, I am the nominator of two active RfA's, one of which is highly controversial. It would be a terrible idea for me to run. Thank you, but I'm going to see if that RfA can be speedy deleted. Also, someone's offered to nominate me anyway, and they weren't going to do it for some time anyway. Acalamari 21:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

For your information, the RfA has been deleted. Don't take this personally ANNAfoxlover; I didn't want a nomination now. Also, as I mentioned above, someone else has already offered to nominate me. Again, thank you, but I had to not accept due to the offer, and my current situation as a nominator of two active RfA's at the moment. I also suggest that, if you want to nominate someone, ask them first. I am sorry I've had to tell you this. Acalamari 22:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

But I thought I did ask you. Maybe I said it wrong? Sorry about that if I offended you. ANNAfoxlover 22:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No, ANNAfoxlover, I am not offended. I was just saying why it wasn't possible for me to accept the nomination. :) Acalamari 23:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Woof?

You left a note on my talkpage talking about my 'WOOF WOOF WOOF' section on my user page. I'm confused, can you explain what exactly I contradicted? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mammamiamania (talk • contribs)

I dunno what that nonsense was either so I've reverted and removed it as pure nonsense. Anna, remember that talk pages are supposed to be for productive conversations, not whatever nonsense that was supposed to be. Metros 22:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Signature shop

Sorry for a (very very) late response. I seldom check my signature shop nowadays. Please check my response. Thank you. Sean gorter z 10:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't revert that

It has been merged for two months at this point. A person randomly bringing it back doesn't nullify the previous discussion. Anyone that does want to bring it back should bring it up somewhere. TTN 21:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:OctaneGain.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 07:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bob and Darrell.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bob and Darrell.png. 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 07:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PPtruck1.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PPtruck1.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. BigrTex 20:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:LMQinblue.JPG

I have tagged Image:LMQinblue.JPG as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. BigrTex 20:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Chick_Hicks.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chick_Hicks.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)