User talk:Evan7257

Speedy Deletion tags

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from articles as it is considered vandalism. You may place {{hangon}} on the page and make your case on the article's talk page if you oppose an article's speedy deletion. Thanks. Kuzaar 04:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_{formatted the section so the index instead of a warning would be at the top --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Jordan mintz.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jordan mintz.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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Alsup

If this person is really a playboy model and really attended SJS, please provide a source. WhisperToMe 07:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see from your posting on Whisper's talk page that the model in Playboy is named "Stella". What is our source that Stella is the same person as Whitney Alsup? -Will Beback · † · 21:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Whisper has verified it then I'm ok with it. Thanks for the reply. -Will Beback · † · 22:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on both of you. This girl has not used her real name in this photo shoot for a reason. She does not want to be saddled with being linked to her shots in Playboy while potential employers want to hire her or whatever the future brings her. Although she indeed admitted it in the Thresher article, and persuasively defended her decision, it is entirely classless to out her so flippantly here in total disregard for her clear intention otherwise. Of those who have responded to this accusation, they have essentially condensed their poorly thought-out argument to: (1) "she was asking for it/she reaps what she sows", (2) the use of derogatory term referencing the unfounded promiscuity of this upstanding student, and (3) "the truth shall set you free"/it's true so why should we censor it. (1) No she didn't, this is not like a sex offender who cries foul that his past indiscretions are publicly available for all to see on the Megan's Law registry. this is a woman who wants to do something in an anonymous fashion to feel good about herself and to shatter some pretty nasty stereotypes of the female population at Rice. to that end, she succeeded. those who are eager and willing to link her true identity to this playboy shoot are simply some smart-alecks wanting to take a cheap shot on someone because they can. Way to go! Just dogs licking their balls... (2) Beyond the ad-hom (ad-fem to the gender-neutral folks) nature of this attack, it is intellectually bankrupt and this pseudo-reprisal is punishment disproportionate to the crime. (3) This is maybe a legitimate argument, but I think this situation lacks the general policy reasons why disclosure and "bringing the truth to light" are valuable. This isn't illegal, nor does it reflect poorly on her in my opinion. The prejudicial value of this disclosure may have on her life is far greater than any truth value that comes from posting this fact on the internet for all to see. Either way, show some class guys. Keep it to yourself. Karma's a bitch.

Interesting perspective. http://the.ricethresher.org/opinion/2007/04/13/playboy_sex_objectification 70.21.238.169 04:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I am Whitney Alsup)

In response to the above comment, which in a way devalues the entire reason I took my clothes off in the first place - I hope that people who see me naked in the magazine and look for further information find out who I am and what I believe. It was never my intention to hide my identity... all women who pose for playboy college pictorials choose a stage name to go in the magazine, and the one I chose was Stella Hayward. I would have proudly stood by that photo had my legal name been posted under it as well, but unfortunately because of crazy myspace and facebook stalkers, publishing student names puts them at a significant risk for unwanted and potentially violent attention. I felt like I expressed my belief that posing for playboy only amounts to a damaging decision for women because we as a society choose to punish women for doing so, but perhaps the point and my opinion deserve more clarification. So please, while I thank anyone who stands up to those who want to "talk about" or "out" me out of respect for my individual integrity, provoking these kinds of discussions was the motivating factor behind posing in the first place. During my decision making process, I was not so deluded as to think that I would remain anonymous to members of the Rice, St. John's, or greater Houston community; if anything, the more people who know my real name, the better - my real name connects readers with a more complete picture of me as a person. My real name gives you access to the wealth of posts I've written across the internet - some of which I made when I was younger, but none of which I would turn my back on now. The big picture, the big point here is that posing naked shouldn't make a difference in how a woman or man is treated in our society. We are all naked under our clothes and we all possess innate human desires that make us want to take them off sometimes, whether for sexual, artistic, or political reasons. My decision was politically motivated and I hope that everyone who finds this (likely if you're googling Whitney Alsup as this is the second hit currently) does read my thresher article to gain a more complete understanding of a small piece of the quest for global change. But in the end, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks of or says about my decision because every derogatory comment only adds credence to the truth that we as individuals contribute to the denigration and oppression of women consciously and subconsciously in a flailing last attempt to keep them from gaining rights and social privileges equal to those of men.

- Whitney Alsup (one last time for posterity) Bubblexwz 16:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

I'm glad to see Hanszen and the Rice Thresher are well-represented on Wikipedia. My nickname during PC training was "Wikipedia." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ieverhart (talk • contribs) 13:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Jokes on Hanszen College page

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Hanszen College, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ekao1111 16:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that you might disagree about the definition of vandalism, but jokes are specifically included in the Wikipedia definition. If you really want to put something funny in Wikipedia, this is the place: WP:BJAODN Ekao1111 16:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JASON

Do you know how to ban the IP address who keeps vandalizing the JASON article? I'm fairly new here. thanks

Thanks

Thanks for the compliment on the Cult of Personality article. As it stood before, it was borderline propaganda. I didn't want to get into the argument, but felt that a small change would at least make the argument more clear. Theriddles 05:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Blanton.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Blanton.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.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Backpage.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Backpage.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.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pingandleebron.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Pingandleebron.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rice University

I just made some major changes to the Rice University article to remove extraneous fluff about traditions and add more important content about academics, research, and organization. Please check in and review it! Madcoverboy (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Evan7257. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Evan7257. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unattributed quote, Houston Endowment

Evan7257: It appears that your page creation of Houston Endowment Inc. contains a very large paragraph which is an unattributed quote from the Handbook of Texas Online. This paragraph is a clear violation of Wikipedia copyright policy WP:COPYVIO. Though the article is correctly cited, we cannot copy and paste non-free content, and it is critical that Wikipedia editors faithfully convey material from reliable sources, but express these ideas in our own words. I will edit the problem paragraph to bring it into compliance. I will post a template message below to provide you with a review of Wikipedia policies. Sincerely, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Evan7257, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]