User talk:Rypcord/Archive 2

Archives

Unspecified source for Image:SaraJay.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SaraJay.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Teri Weigel. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Tabercil 21:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SaraJay.jpg

The picture in question must have a source provided and a license provided. Furthermore, as the person uploading the picture, the onus is on YOU to provide that information. Failure to provide either will result in the picture being deleted! Tabercil 19:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minka (porn star) image caption

[1] What makes you think the picture is not WCW Nitro ? It's at least a wrestling pic, certainly not MWF, "a pseudonym of Mark Flake born in Memphis, Tennessee TN in 1960 ... best known as an avant-garde musician." Based on that, I'm going to revert. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not add unreferenced or inadequately referenced controversial biographical information concerning living persons to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Court Bauer. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 20:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colin de Grandhomme

Hi. Speedy deletion tags do not have to be debated or discussed. They should not be removed by the author of the article, but if the deficiency is rectified or if an admin declines to delete (as happened with this article), the tag can be removed. Please do not retag this article. If you think it should be deleted, nominate it for AfD. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks 05:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I have been told by admins it needs to be debated, and so I am sticking to that. DO NOT remove it. The Rypcord. 05:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do not remove the tag. Like I have said, I have been told by an admin that you should not remove the tags. I wish that you would respect that. The Rypcord. 05:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoever told you that is incorrect or there has been a misunderstanding. Per Wikipedia's official policy on speedy deletion, "Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page." -- But|seriously|folks 05:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:453px-OOlov.jpg

Did you actually take this picture or is it improperly tagged? Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks 05:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you delete this picture? The Rypcord. 01:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You are precariously close to being blocked for violating WP:3RR. Do not reapply the speedy deletion tag to Colin de Grandhomme. -- But|seriously|folks 06:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How am I "precariously" close when you are the one defying an admin? The Rypcord. 06:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the policy I cited before you say something you will later regret. -- But|seriously|folks 06:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- What am I saying?? The fact that an admin said it? I have an added dispution on the discussion page. The Rypcord. 06:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What could be clearer than the official policy that states: "Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page."? -- But|seriously|folks 06:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine, I understand that. But how am I saying anything that "I will later regret"? The Rypcord. 06:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, identifying an admin's removal of a speedy deletion tag as vandalism is probably not your best edit. -- But|seriously|folks 06:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you left me a note. You never answered my question above about Image:453px-OOlov.jpg. Please do. -- But|seriously|folks 02:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Garcia Twins

It's being discussed at Articles for deletion/The Garcia Twins. The case has to be resolved before the notice can be removed. It usually takes five days. - Deep Shadow 18:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Hi, you can't link to your ebay sales page from your user page, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. It's considered spam. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks 16:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you should sign your posts

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!--Hu12 17:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do. See here: The Rypcord. 02:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC) (it leaves the "The Rypcord" sig... thing is; I didn't make it a link, so it doesn't link back to anything, and until that guy joke-added barnstars to my page, I never even had a page.). The Rypcord. 02:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you removed our conversation from your talk page. Whats up with that? The Rypcord. 02:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Achiving, common practice twice a month or so for me. If you want your user page deleted (as it was before), let me know. --Hu12 03:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Robyn Fielder Drake

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Robyn Fielder Drake, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Robyn Fielder Drake seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Robyn Fielder Drake, 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. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 03:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 13:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (5th nomination)

Rypcord, with all due respect, I would refrain from following the "example" Epbr123 has set on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (5th nomination) page. I do not foresee this bad-faith nomination being acted upon... and it would be best if Epbr123, to put it bluntly and clearly, dig himself his own hole without help, which he clearly doesn't need from any contributor here. A potential RFC is in the process of being created and filed against Epbr123, which will address the clear and present issues that surround his methods. Sadly, by what you have done on that AfD, you may be giving Epbr123 the ammunition he needs to make any RFC against him more difficult to address.

I speak to you as a fellow contributor when I wholeheartedly recommend that you avoid commenting this farce of an AfD, which I myself am trying to do right now. I would recommend taking a break for a few days, until this whole thing blows over, then we can direct our attention at addressing the larger issues at hand.

If you feel the need to talk, you can reply here (since I now have your page on my watchlist), on my own talk page, or even via e-mail by using the "email this user" function to the left sidebar. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 02:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epbr123

By the way, at the risk of "canvassing", I have started an request for comment on Epbr123 due to his irrational behaviors and disruption of Wikipedia. I believe it would be beneficial for you to comment on it. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this RfC/U - you cannot endorse both the basis of the dispute and the outside view. You have endorsed both. I assume, since there is as of yet no outside view to endorse, that this was an error. You should remove whichever one you did not intend. Here is your edit that I might guess was in error, for your reference. --Cheeser1 06:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brownstone and Larrys Creek

Hi, thanks for your good faith edit adding a Brownstone section to Larrys Creek, but I do not know of any references that back up your assertions, so I have removed it. Larrys Creek is not a navigable stream (they didn't even float timber down it) and the West Branch Susquehanna River is non-navigable too (hence the canal along it). If you have a specific and verifiable reference that backs up what you wrote, please provide it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition Man (film) edit

You said this was based on a novel, but didn't provide any proof of this. Can you confirm that this is the case? Chris Cunningham 00:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let me go get the novel. The Rypcord. 02:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ET

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial‎. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't original research. The majority of it came from the SW Wookiepedia. As well as anyone who saw TPM can attest to the cameo. The Rypcord. 18:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was unsourced, in violation of Wikipedia policy. Ward3001 (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does every little sentence just about need sourced then? Thats ludicrous. Watch the movie, use your eyes. Are we not allowed to even expect humans to even have the basic intelligence to digest things they can see as fact? Or must we be as blunt and about face as possible and hit them over the head with their information? The Rypcord. 18:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies". If you cannot abide by Wikipedia's core policies (especially after they are explained to you), you don't need to be editing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not IMDb. It is not "Triviapedia". And the responsibility to source the information is on you, the editor. It is not the responsibility of the reader to check the sources. Ward3001 (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point for this case, which granted was a bit of fluff trivia. But in general this is the policy upheld for all information, from the most obvious down to the most trivia(l). I just find it rather more of an insult on an intelligence of a reader than an outright saying that they need to be the one verifying this. The entire debate coming from an encyclopedia editable by anyone that has been under such a dispute of its known actual information over the years is quite humorous. The Rypcord. 20:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you find Wikipedia's policies and procedures humorous, then no one is forcing you to edit. Ward3001 (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is anyone forcing you to make rude comments on my talk page, yet here we are. The Rypcord. 01:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ET Pt2

Please do not mark additions of entire paragraphs and sections as minor, such as your recent edits to E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Ward3001 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]