Jump to content

User talk:AnonEMouse/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

Hi!

Were you using this handle on a BBS in the 1980's? Also, where can I find public pics for inclusion in a Bio? Alatari (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. No, sorry, it's new for me as of about Jan 2006 or whenever I started editing here.
  2. Good question! :-) Wikipedia:Image#Obtaining_images is for images that already exist. Very old images (death of author + 100 years), mostly photos of paintings, are probably public domain already, under Template:PD-art. For more recent people, I personally have had some good luck looking in the official sites of the US Library of Congress, US Presidential libraries, the official US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard sites for a few more (all pictures taken by a member of the US Federal Government in the performance of their duties are public domain), the Creative Commons (we can use Attribution and Share-Alike) search of Flickr. When that fails, ask. User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content explains how to do that better than I could - the important part is you have to ask them to make the image available for everyone to use, not just us, the Wikipedia. Tell them that we're the #8 web site in the whole world, so a lot of people could be seeing their photo, which we will attribute (give credit) for them as they like, that helps a bit. Success rate for asking Flickr users who took a picture of someone at a convention or book signing or trade show is about 60%, for asking the people themselves or their publicist is maybe 20%, so steel yourself for a fair bit of rejection ... and make up for it by sending a lot of requests. :-) You might also hit it very lucky and find a hobbyist or even professional who has a lot of photos who is willing to freely license the lot of them, Tabercil did that, and it has been a real boon to WP:P*. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
So uploading this Rosie Perez image to Wikipedia for use in her article won't meet with objection? Alatari (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
You'll need to get permission from the image owner. The Flickr user, Scott Pasfield, seems to be a professional photographer, so he probably understands about image rights. If he says he is the image owner, you will need to get his permission. The easiest way for him to give it is to change the tags on the image in Flickr to Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) or Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA). A more complicated way is for him to email you the image, and the statement "I own the rights to the attached image, and release it under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license", and you to forward that email to permissions (at) wikimedia.org. If he does that, we can use the image. We can't use it without a permission like that. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If he doesn't agree, you can probably find another Flickr user willing to give a license. There seem to be 245 flickr images of Rosie Perez, surely one image owner will be willing to agree. Look for an image that looks like the Flickr user took it themselves, didn't just scan it from a magazine or copy from someone else on the Web. My success rate in getting images released is about 60%, so don't be upset at a few failures, but keep trying. I normally write something like this:

Hi, I'm a volunteer editor for Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia project. We have an article about Quanell X that doesn't have a free photo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanell_X
I noticed your Flickr photo of him: http://www.flickr.com/photos/defendamericafirst/2083568423/

If you could change the license on that photo to Creative Commons Attribution or Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike, we could use that image (probably cropped a bit to focus on him) for our article. You would be credited as the photographer. The Wikipedia is currently the #8 web site in the world, so that means a lot of people would be able to see the photo.

If you agree, please change the license to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, and respond to this email with how you want to be credited - Flickr account name, full name, website link?

Thank you,
An Anon E Mouse Wikipedia editor,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AnonEMouse

You'll notice that one worked. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Amber Rain

An editor has nominated Amber Rain, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Rain (3rd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories.

Can categories be created quickly and easily or does it require a lot of red tape and fuss ?  : Albion moonlight (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

They can be created quickly and easily. The worst that can happen is the category will be deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion - you can take a look at that and Wikipedia:Categories for guidelines. If you're trying to add a category to a page about a person, you want Wikipedia:Categorization of people. One fairly common issue that usually causes a category to be removed is called "performer by performance", for example "Singers who have covered Danny Boy", or something like that. A category should usually be something relatively important and uncontroversial about the subject, and something that won't change trivially. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That may prove helpful at the Peter Yarrow article if that former state senator shows up again. He was being viewed as being disruptive and was in danger of getting permanently blocked so I stepped in and took his side. He wanted to add the category sex offenders and the others went ballistic. I think is all very silly but I hate to see someone get in trouble for something so trivial. Anyway thanks again. : Albion moonlight (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey what's up man! I saw you're admin here, and there is a problem. I think it is sneaky vandalism or smth like that. This man -> @OSLI73 keeps deleting an info in Alija Izetbegović article [1]. And he won't stop! His whole Wiki career is based on edit wars with other users, and it seems noone really cares?! Why bother with Wikipedia anymore...Yeah, just to say when he deletes smth he writes a lie in edit summary like here: He said he removed reference to Levy poem, but there were no info about Levy poem, there was info about Levy movie...Thats all for now. Thanks! --Grandy Grandy (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Discuss it with him, on the talk page of that article. That's what it's for. It looks like he proposed removing that section in Talk:Alija_Izetbegović#War_crimes_investigation, and no one has responded there yet. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I just responded, we'll see what's going to happen, I think this won't help. Thanks anyway, but I am sure you'll realise the sneaky vandalism I am talking about...--Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to say he also sneaky deleted other sourced information in Serb propaganda article [2] the whole paragraphs about Serb generals convicted of war crimes...His contribution is just reverts and deletions...Grandy Grandy (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Byzantium under the Angeloi

In defense, alot of what you have posted up there are minor mistakes of spelling - I have read some of the other points, and I don't believe that this GA review was fair. A lot of your own personal opinion seems to have influenced this, like the following points:
  • In fact the quotes seem to be overdone. Yeah, war is hell. But the quotes seem to solely emphasize how mean the crusaders were to Byzantium, slanting the article. How about how mean Frederick was to Iconium? Or any of the other battles? I don't think so many long quotes about basically the same thing are needed. Keep some, but not all. Nowadays Historians are putting the entire blame of Byzantium's fall on the Crusaders - Rumican for example, and other western historians who feel some embarrasment
  • why is momentum important, were the ships being physically pushed back or something? Of course momentum is important!! How can a ship reach a sea wall if it travels so slowly!!!
  • Alexius V Doukas then gave Byzantium the leadership that she had lacked for over 30 years - since he didn't hold the city very well, I doubt this is true. Wrong my friend, quality leadership is not the same as quantity leadership. Even an excellent emperor can't fix something thats broke beyond repair
  • solidifying hie relation - his Ok, but could you not have done this and other minor mistakes? The GA review guidelines state that such simple errors could be fixed by yourself.
  • His efforts to contain the threat of "the barbarians" were twofold in nature - at times he could not care less though -- what? could not care less that 80,000 soldiers were sacking his empire? Surely not. Hard to believe but thats why he was overthrown.

This may seem like the reaction of a sour loser, but you haven't given me the 7 days to fix it. Tourskin (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Responded on article talk page. Please, do fix it, I'm all for giving out the little green plus. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Need your help

Hey Bud, I need to see if we can get your help on an issue. We are trying to get the article about the Grammy awards in shape and myself and another editor are trying to decide if we should keep or get rid of the "records" section of the article. It is true that the section does not have a lot of focus. As you can see here [3] the other editor is in favor of deleting it from the page. I myself feel that the section needs to remain. I feel that if people want to look up the information, they can go to the Grammy website and look up the information and confirm it with what we have included. Hypo feels that it seems more like original research. I feel that we both have merit, but we feel it would be best for us to have a third opinion. Can you ring in on this? I have always appreciated the way you look at these issues with fairness. Junebug52 03:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm taking so long to weigh in, but, first, I don't really know much about the Grammys, and, second, it is a tough call. I like the idea of having information in the Wikipedia (shock!), but there is something to be said for the "original research" issue as well. The best solution would be to cite this information to a source. Surely there is some publication somewhere that keeps this data? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

'Byzantium under the Palaiologoi's'

Regarding the 'Byzantium under the Palaiologoi's' article: when I first found this article, it had almost no wikilinks. I proceeded to mark the article as wikify and then worked on linking it up. I did the most obvious links, but it ended up with some redlinks. I did not think I did a complete job and also thought that some of the redlinks might be turned blue with some searching work through WP, possibly finding misspellings, alternate names etc. So that is why I left the wikify notice on it. Thanks Hmains (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

Hey. @OSLI73 sings the same song and keeps deleting the sentence in AI article. Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We got one!

Big day for the Japanese porn project, Anon-- Tetsuji Takechi-- We've got a GA to our credit! Thank you for prodding me to go through with the process, for all your help and advice with my work here. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Your next steps are either nominating another one or two for GA, or this one for FA. From recent experience, the FA review will naturally be tougher - expect about five people rather than one - but the GA will take a month and a half, rather than a week and a half, so may be more frustrating in that respect. :-) --19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Anon. I read through the Takechi article after its passing, and cringed at the awkward wording... I'll keep working away at it, and eventually try it for FA, but not for a while. I think I'll try for more GAs in the meantime. I've found a good, long analysis of Wife to Be Sacrificed by a professor of Film. The article's already in fairly good shape. Think I should try for that one next? And, by the way, Happy New Year! Dekkappai (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. I personally worry about the prominence given to a specific sixth of a second of film... squeamish? me?--AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh? Personally, I'm cackling like a mad scientist and rubbing my hands with glee at just the thought of that appearing on the main page some day... ;) Dekkappai (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Byzantium under the Angeloi 2

Hey, sorry I completely forgot about the articles on GA review. You can quick fail them now if you wih - I won't have the time right now to do it in three days, I just started my university so I'll be much slower. Sorry for pressing the issue. I also won't be able to edit Byzantium under the Palaiologoi, so quick fail that too if you need to.

Respectfully,

Tourskin (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Quanell X

Thanks for finding a free image of Quanell X from Flickr! It is like a late Christmas present. How did you know to look for one?? Deatonjr (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I read the article talk page and saw the request. Why was I looking at the article talk page? I was probably clicking around following interesting links from people's user pages, or contributions, or articles. I'm not sure myself, really. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to question

Re:this - while we've gotten about one response per day to the photo submission service, today was the first time someone actually followed the directions and specified a license. See The Essentials (band) for the picture. Raul654 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We got our second successful use of the service today - Eli Gold Raul654 (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
And now our third... Raul654 (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's #4 - Pat Condell, and #5, Jacques Calonne. The latter was possible thanks to the efforts of user:Wegge (I needed a Danish speaker to help me with this one) Raul654 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
#6 - Tom Miller (travel writer), and #7 - Dave Mejias Raul654 (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Alessandra Mussolini Playboy IT Cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Alessandra Mussolini Playboy IT Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Belling the mouse

What? You too good to take a star from "The Japanese porn guy"? [4] I'm deeply offended. Dekkappai (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ack! I missed one. So sorry. Hemlock! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hemlock? Forced viewing of a certain 1/6 of a second of film, on a continuous loop, ala the Ludovico technique might be more appropriate, given the source. Apology accepted. ;) Dekkappai (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, AnonEMouse. I've just added several AVN (magazine) reviews/profiles, but for some reason the links aren't working. Since it's (I think) a print source as well, the reference is still valid. But is there a trick to linking to the online source? Dekkappai (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your recent edit history, the link you added to Yuki Asuka, for example, worked for me. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
OK-- must just be this computer. Thanks. Dekkappai (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That said, I'm not sure that every review of every film a star has appeared in is a good use of external links. Just from sheer numbers, I know Japanese stars appear in fewer films than American stars, but still, ten films, each reviewed in two magazines, that's twenty external links, and the content isn't usually very focused on the single actor our article is supposed to be about. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, on these particular subjects (Suzi Suzuki excepted), these are Japanese films being reviewed in an English-language source-- pretty rare, and, I would think, some indication of international notability. Also the films are not likely to get their own articles, and most (not all) of the reviews do carry on quite a bit about the actress in question, since she's the star attraction. About Suzuki though, I've long thought she does not belong in Category Japanese porn stars. She's an actress of Japanese (I think) descent who appears in U.S. porn. These ethnic/nationality issues get sticky though, and removing her from the category might set off some kind of a squabbling storm... Dekkappai (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Ahhh! You caught me out. I was engaged in a difference with an editor over notabilities of the Mark Twain offspring, Clara Clemens and Susy Clemens. In my view, Clara is notable due to having been an opera singer mentioned in many reliable sources, including NYT from 1908 (online now). However, and I may actually be wrong to see it this way, Susy gets an article for being the offspring of a very notable person, or for managing his estate, or for writing his biography, or for having a biography written about her (shortest book.....?), or for being taken from this Earth at the age of 23-24 years old.

Excuse my cynicism, but I thought Wikipedia was more exacting than that. Yes, she has plenty of gossipy content on the internet, probably more in print, but I honestly don't see what else she ever did, in comparison to her sister. So I mentioned that her notability might be established beyond doubt before an assessment was made, and that didn't seem to suit. So I just felt like assessing the notable one and ignoring the "non-notable" one (WP:POINT perhaps, but I was beyond caring).

Then I removed both articles from my watchlist and left the building.

I think some editors love to see a complete collection - fictitious examples may be: Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Tiddles Clinton the Cat and Budgie Clinton. If you catch my drift. Collection of encyclopedia entries, or part-authored biographical features?

Sorry about this dissertation, but some people...

Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

AnonEMouse, if I wanted to change my user name, how would I go about it? I can't seem to find innfo that would help me to accomplish this. I keep being mistaken for a woman because of the name and thought I would change it to something a little more masculine LOL. Junebug52 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind my friend, I found it. If it would have been a snake, it would have bit me! Junebug52 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

I know you are active in WP:XXX (although primarily the straight variety), which I kept in mind when I framed my response to you on the AFD. Honestly, would you consider his porn career to rise to the level of notability if he had not been outed in such a spectacular fashion? About half of his filmography consists of original material over a roughly three-year period (1992-1995); everything after that point appears to be recycled material. I don't think any of his work won any awards, and as I noted, none of the films have Wikipedia articles. The reason I am asking this relates back to my proposal to create a new article based on the outing, rather than a lame, misleading "biography". Horologium (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You do have a point; our criteria for porn star notability is for awards, or unique contribution, or major media notice, and I haven't seen that, independent of the outing. Want to write an article in your user space that looks like what your proposed rewrite would look like? I objected because I thought it would be hard to do justice to what the media has written about him in an article titled merely "Sanchez incident" but maybe you can do it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Gahhh. The arbitration case has me so upset at him right now... I'll see if I can throw something together that works. I just *know* that there will be attempts to add in the escorting allegations, so I will see what I can do to add it in a way that makes it clear that he has totally disavowed them; it's hard to find reliable sources for the denial. I also strongly believe that many of the allegedly reliable sources being used in the current train wreck are inappropriate (from lefty partisan sources such as Media Matters for America, In newsweekly, and the John Edwards campaign site to righty partisans such as Michelle Malkin/Hot Air, Right Wing News and World Net Daily, plus a fistful of YouTube videos and a couple of posts from various discussion fora). John Hoellwarth's three articles in the Marine Corps Times, the factual stuff from The Advocate and Columbia Daily Spectator, and one or two of Sanchez's op-eds might be usable, but the rest is going to get jettisoned. Horologium (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian translation

Hello! On 31 Oct. 2007, you left a note on my user page (gsandi), asking me to translate something into Hungarian.

I am sorry, I have simply not noticed your request until today, I am not a very accomplished Wikipedia editor, I don't notice everything. If you haven't had any luck in translating the request by someone else, let me know and I'll do it, but I don't want to do double work.

All the best

Gsandi (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thank you! (And NYB is far too modest; it's largely thanks to his reminders about backlogs that I started seriously working on improving efficiency! ;-) Kirill 02:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Puma Swede

I have redesigned her wikipedia portfolio Puma Suede is it possible for me to move her name to stage name as I as I tried to use her stage name but do not know if it is notify the editors to prevent another deletion.Dwanyewest (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see it got deleted the very next day, the 18th, as a recreation of deleted content (Puma Swede, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puma Swede). Tough call. She is very close to the border of Wikipedia:Notability (people), as she has gotten a fair bit of coverage, but only from marginally Wikipedia:reliable sources. Adult Video News, the "industry trade paper" only writes about her movies and her getting hired, that's not really in depth coverage of the kind that proves notability in itself. There are a couple of Swedish sources that I can't read very well - can you?

So here's what we can do if you are interested in getting it undeleted.

  • Get the Swedish articles read and/or translated. Do they show notability by themselves?
  • Watch the videos, and search for others and watch them, and figure out which are legit. (Owned by the people who posted them.) See if anything interesting (encyclopedic, i.e., facts) is said.
  • Write the best article we can from this mass of borderline references, in userspace. (under User:.../Puma Swede or something)

Then, if we think we have something that can at least have some chance of withstanding challenge, put it up in main space and wait for the AfD to argue about it. Are you willing to put in the work to do that? If so, I can start by moving a deleted version to your (or my) userspace to work from. It might get deleted even so, since we wouldn't have any clear cut claim to notability such as an award, or an indepth mainstream source covering her. We would merely have a lot of borderline sources covering her. For that, having a well written article could make the difference between a Keep and a Delete. Are you willing to take the chance? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


Puma Swede Notability

  • Surely the fact she featured in the 2007 AVN Award nomination for Best All-Girl Sex Scene, Video - Girlvana 2, Zero Tolerance with Sammie Rhodes and Jenaveve Jolie makes Puma noteworthy?Dwanyewest (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are the best translations i could find of the Swedish articles [5] [6] Dwanyewest (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

XFANZ / XBIZ?

Hi AnonEMouse :)

So if you remember you helped with the XFANZ Wiki page that was just recently deleted (again) now I checked and AVN has a page and there is also a Wiki Porn project. How can we get XFANZ and XBIZ articles suggested for entry without violating Wiki's terms? Whats funny is there are now other porn articles using both magazines as references on Wiki.

Thanks in Advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeebee25 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Being used as a reference doesn't make a source notable in itself. Being a reference source means you write useful, reliable, information. Notable means other sources write about you. They're not quite the same things. Will look. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
For reference:
I looked. It's marginal, but people commenting in the AFD have a point. There is no mainstream coverage, and even the alternative or pornography press doesn't go into detail about Xfanz the organization or web site, just gives a trivial mention (sponsors this or that event, for more details go to their site). The detailed articles are, well, press releases, by Xfanz or Xbiz. In the earlier discussion, you compared to Adult Video News - well, if you look at that article, AVN has gotten repeated mentions in a number of mainstream sources, several in no less than the New York Times. There just aren't unrelated sources writing about Xfanz as such.
I also looked at Alexa, which says traffic rank of 97,260 Avn.com has a traffic rank of 16,282 [7]. Even Lukeisback.com has a traffic rank of 33,667 [8]. That's not nearly as important as people writing about you, though. Get two reasonable, indepth, articles, more than two paragraphs long, from even alternative sources, Village Voice, or LA Weekly, or Phoenix New Times or even pornographic sources, such as Adult Video News or Hustler or Playboy, written by an actual author, not just a reprinted press release, and I will argue that Xfanz deserves a Wikipedia article. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Karen McDougal non-fair use images

FYI, the 2 non-fair use images currently in the article are subject to deletion due to disputed fair use rationale. May be you can help? Many thanks 65.213.44.2 (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:XFL commercial.jpg. 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. Retropunk (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Karen PMOY98.jpg. 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. Retropunk (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

76.199.65.126 (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Addressed, I think. If not, we'll talk it over with the nominator. On a side note, did I mention how useful a user account is? Get one, while they're going cheap! Be the first on your IP block... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I knew we had to have one of these. Wikipedia:Why create an account? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Took me a while to come with a username that I can stick to.Mineros (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC issue

Hello; I notice that you are an administrator that has had some involvement in the "Requests for comment" page regarding philosophy and religion. A week or so ago I attempted to get a RfC going on the talk page for the Nontrinitarian article, as an editor keeps removing an entry to the list of non-Trinitarian Churches that I believe is a legitimate addition, and certainly meets all the policies I have yet read for such an inclusion. The RfC was initially tied to this section of the talk page. The problem is that the RfC never showed up on the list, a bot removed the RfC tag from the talk page, and the editor once again removed the list (citing "per talk page" this time, though nothing changed on the talk page). Perhaps you can let me know what error I made in attempting to get the Request for Comment listed? I added the tag to the page as indicated in the instructions, and expected that a bot would take care of it from there. Thanks. ◄Zahakiel► 17:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question. The only thing I can think of is that you should give the section title in the section= link, not the whole page plus section. I restored it, with today's date, let's see if it shows up the next time BetacommandBot or RFCBot run. Also let me read up on the issue and see if I can weigh in. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AnonEMouse/Archive_18&oldid=1190126857"