User talk:Jwguy

License tagging for Image:Kr-coldsteel.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kr-coldsteel.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Kobra's Realm

I appreciate your reply to the deletion of Kobra's Realm, and I want to assure you that due to the length of the article and the fact that a {{hangon}} tag had been applied I seriously considered the reasons suggested for keeping the article. I did not find them convincing however, nor did I find evidence in the history or deleted history of the article that there was any assertion of importance for this website. I even did a google search here, finding only 42 unique google hits, none from reliable sources. Its prior vote for deletion also spoke against its inclusion. That being said, I will assume good faith and unprotect the article. If you wish, I can undelete the article (please request this on my talk page) and move it to your userspace under the assumption that you will not return the article to the mainspace until you have reviewed WP:WEB, WP:CSD and WP:SPAM, and are able to provide verifiable references that assert its importance. Hope this reply helps. Best, IronGargoyle 00:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, article undeleted and moved here: User:Jwguy/Kobra's Realm. IronGargoyle 00:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Yes, Thank you. ^^ Jwguy 01:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endo and Vore

Hey I wanted to drop you a line and explain some things before I reverted your recent changes to the Endosomatophilia and Vorarephilia artilcles. I'm assuming that you are familiar with both subject personally as you've made some pretty sweeping assertions about them without citing any sources. While Endo might or might not be different from V\ore both of them seem to be related. The problem is that Endo supports no attribution and Vore has very little itself. Without any attribution to reliable sources wikipedia cannot maintain an article on it as we can't verify its content. The only reason why I have not taken the article to articles for deletion is that it served as a somewhat useful redirect. If you refuse to allow the article to be redirected it no longer serves a purpose and fails the policy for inclusion and I will advocate its deletion.

As for Vore, you cannot be making the assertions and unattributed additions without backing them up. Simply saying that the "vore community" has a consensus on it is not acceptable. There are no reliable sources to back that claim, only fan sites and message boards which do not qualify as reliabe according to policy. Please do not add any unattributed material, I will remove it as is within my right, you must provide evidence for any additions you wish to make. I hope this clears up the issue. Feel free to reply to me if you wish either here or on my talk page, I will monitor both. Thanks. NeoFreak 12:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat familiar with both, that is correct. My basis for opposing the redirection is not from my experience with the two, however, but on their meanings. The meaning of Endosomatophilia is explained quite clearly in that it is, indeed, a literal translation. Vorarephilia is not related to Endosomatophilia, and vice versa; while it is common to see them in the same area, they have no relations in definition or necessary practice, therefore, redirecting the page to Vorarephilia is incorrect, and Vandalism to a degree. You have been, in the case of 'Endo,' been arguing over citing a source for a meaning of a term. Would you like me to post a Greek-English Translator Site to prove that it is a literal Greek translation? For a simple argument, there is an already present solution, and even more extraneous ones.

I don't mind regulation, so long as it is done correctly. From what I've seen, these pages also have had no problems until you appeared and began deleting them. Whether this is some attempt to gain support for adminship, or otherwise, it should be noted that handling this as you have could be considered Vandalism; if you truly think the page is unnecessary, it is better to propose it be deleted than redirect it to false information.

Regardless of your choice, I wish you well and that you have a good day. I did not make the pages, and I do not intend to recreate them, should they be deleted. I have edited them on these points alone:

1. Endosomatophilia should represent its actual meaning, and be deleted and/or re-edited from there out. A definition/literal-translation easily sources the first paragraph, and posting the entire Greek alphabet to prove it would be trivial. However, the applicable action would be that you either find sources, mark it with a notability/source tag, and then proceed to nominate it for deletion. Linking it to incorrect information is Vandalism, and against policy.

2. Vorarephilia's definition can be attested to, which you yourself have admitted, albeit on a minimal scale. Vorarephilia does have many different forms and types, however, and by logic, the only actual source needed to keep the sections, is by referencing a list from elsewhere. I did notice that the Page did have numerous instances of unnecessary clutter, however, which is why I placed the Clean-up tag on the article before I had to leave. I do think that it may be more productive to, on the 'Vore' page, simply delete the multiple section on the types of 'Vore' and substitute a list with minimal description. On this note, I will work towards this, as I can recognize the particular necessity of cleaning the page up, and removing much of the content with the sections, both because of being unsourced, as you say, and being extraneous.

Do what is right by you, and I shall do what is right by me. If an article is against policy, please proceed correctly and do not vandalize. Jwguy 22:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want Endo redirected than I agree with your assment that it should be deleted. I will do so. As for the Vore article, again, per our policy on verifiability esp the burden of evidence you must be able to attribute anything you add to reliable sources. I will be reverting back to the arrtibuted and policy compliant version of the article. Please do not add anymore unverified material. NeoFreak 15:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose the decision with "Endo," indeed, I suggested it. I will, however, work with the Vorarephilia page, and, while not actually revert it, include the categories/types. They are types of 'Vore,' and therefore, they are allowed since 'Vorarephilia' has been sourced, albeit, I agree, not as long and drawn out, and arguably open for mistake as the last way was.

Also, despite claims to the contrary, it was verified, just not to standards XD.

I would like to apologize, as I realise I may come off as Confrontational; I don't try to be, but it really does seem like you are using poor judgment and deleting numerous articles for the sake of being recognized for Adminship. In any case, refrain from vandalism, and have a good day ^^.

You haven't been rude or overly confrontational at all. I understand that you have a personal interest in the material and you want to share your knowledge of the subject as best as you can. That is what wikipedia is about after all, learning and educating. I'm glad we could come to an agreement of sorts on Endo. I would have prefered to save the redirect so that it could still be used in the search function but it's not a show stopping issue. As for Vore I have to insist that the rules and policies be abided by. While there is alot more to the entire subject than is currently covered in the article what we have is the most that we can attribute to reliable sources and so are able to verify. The threshold for inclusion of material in wikipedia is not what is true, it is what we can verify and establish as notable. The deeper into detail about specifics of Vore that we get into the more disagreement in the community itself we find. The term Vorarephilia is what is called a neologism. It is not a professional, academic or medical term, it was created by an internet following of the subject material in order to have a name that they could call their own. This is the biggest problem with the subject, it is still very new and not yet recognized. For this reason it is hard to verify the details of the philia and it is also the reason why articles on neologisms are discouraged.

Finally on the issue of my motivation for the strict application of policy in this article. It is not because I'm trying to bone up my record for adminship. I don't want to be an admin and I've never wanted to be an admin. I've actually discouraged people from nominating me for the position in the past. As a matter of fact my very stong views and general demenor are not conductive to a request for adminship. I have alot of issues with how admins are selected, perform and what it is that is then expected of them and until some progress can be made there I will continue to avoid seeking those extra tools. Also, I have never commited any act of vandalism and it is considered very rude to accuse an established editor of that over a content dispute. There are very specific specifications for what vandalism is and I have never and will never conduct myself like that. I understand that you are still new to wikipedia and that you are learning how both policy and the community work. I have no problems with you and your dedication to the subject material indicates to me that with some time to learn about the encyclopeida you'll be an excellent asset to the project. Happy editing! NeoFreak 14:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Vandalism, I was referring to the Redirecting to Incorrect Information, which, regardless of Wikipedia's policies, I would see as Vandalism, especially when done multiple times. I wasn't accusing anyone, 'Established' Editor or no, over Content disputes; I was merely serving a reminder to these actions.

Other than that, Happy Editing to yourself, as well. Jwguy 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The creator does have copyright over an image they created. Copyright is something that exists automatically from the moment something is created. It can not be removed or ignored. It can, however, be freely licenced. For use on user pages, only freely licenced images are appropriate.

This is a list of licences that you should choose from; and this is a page with detail on how to get permission to use an image and how to prove you've got permission. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 15:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was meaning copyright in terms of the legal kind you must register. Regardless, I did not challenge the copyright, or assume the creation for myself. It was not removed/ignored, but from the drop-down box, I could not see a more valid option like: "The copyright holder has given me permission to upload this image." or "The Copyright holder has given this image to public domain."

As such, I simply went with the most evidently similar option. Though it was wrong, I hope you can understand my reasoning, in the very least. I am a representative of the Author's site, on which the image is used, and have been given permission to use the image by the author. The author is User:VoodooKobra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:VoodooKobra, should the link not work.) here, should you need to contact him.

I've, based on the list, have decided that the ((GFDL-user|user)) tag would be appropriate (I have removed the brackets to prevent any tagging.). Would this be acceptable? Jwguy 15:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright doesn't need to be declared or registered. Copyright is something that exists automatically from the moment something is created. It can not be removed or ignored. It can, however, be freely licenced. Only you can choose which licence applies - although it must be a free licence for use on a user page. This is a list of licences that you should choose from; and this is a page with detail on how to prove you've got permission. If you didn't create the image, you 'will need to prove you have permission.

By the way, articles are generally moved into user space temporarily; if you cannot correct the errors that caused the article to be nominated for deletion in the first place, it will be deleted again. Also, articles in user space don't boost your Google PageRank - in fact, articles on Wikipedia can actually detract from your PageRank because Wikipedia has so many more incoming links than your site does. ❛ʀϵɒv϶ʁƨ❜ 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there is a legal form of Copyright, that is registered to provide proof that Copyrightee is the true author, but this was not a point in my question.

For what it's worth, I've decided to simply ask voodooKobra to upload it himself, at his own discretion; Reason being that this is a userspace page, and it is not necessary so much as I would like to clean and crop it a bit.

If you have a problem with a personal article, then please take it up with the Administrator who deemed the move appropriate. It should also be noted that KR is not "my" site. It belongs to the author of that image, and the article was made by a community effort, and withdrawn from the Wikipedian Encyclopedia in acknowledgement of the administrative decision. (In case you were wondering, the past Articles on Kobra's Realm were not community-projects and were made by individual members, although in the defense of the deletion, they were never held back from re-creating/creating until now.)

I have little concern with PageRank on Google, honestly. I didn't consider it, in the least.

All in all, I thank you for your time, despite the almost hostile way you have been replying. Have a good day. Jwguy 21:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kr 01.JPG

Hello, Jwguy. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Kr 01.JPG) was found at the following location: User:Jwguy/Kobra's Realm. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox Live userbox

Hey, just so you know, if you type "|" and then your gamertag after the "User:Scepia/Xbox Live" (like this: {{User:Scepia/Xbox Live|your_gamertag}}) then the userbox will display your gamertag and it will link to a website where users can view your achievements and gamerscore. If your gamertag has a space in it, you'll want to check out [User:Thingg/gamertag error]] to see how you have to write your gamertag to get the userbox to render correctly. Regards. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, Jwguy. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Note:Keep in mind that Squadron members officially state they are not inclusionists. ~~~~