User talk:Sexyorge

Hi. I noticed you were trying to nominate Ben Going for deletion, but seemed to be having some trouble with the technical aspects of the process. You need to go to "edit this page" on this page, then cut and paste Ben Going at the top of the list of things with squiggly brackets. I think that should work. Using the "Show preview" button next to "Save page" may help you know if what you're doing is working. Good luck. FNMF 00:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You are definitely not looking into it too much. Maybe we could call it "inclusion creep." It all depends how much time you want to invest in Wikpedia. Many self-promotional articles can be deleted without too much fuss. Other cases are more complex. If you examine the Wikipedia policies about deletion (Wikipedia:Deletion policy) and about Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP), it may give you clues as to how these things are thought about, and the processes used to deal with them. FNMF 01:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok great interesting. this is not my first time with wikipedia i am just lazy. but thanks again Sexyorge

Signature

Please sign your messages with ~~~~, your current method makes it difficult to follow conversation threads and to know when you're posting without checking the history. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok Sexyorge 02:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

Well, the word is "consensus." It's defined at Wikipedia:Consensus. The place to object to an AfD result is Deletion Review. However, in the case of Ben Going, I think you are probably trying to nominate it for deletion again. If you will provide me with the reason you think it should be deleted, I will write the nomination for you. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks. Sexyorge

check

why did you touch my profile. i took the image from an article on martin. i know nothing about the image itself, nor uploaded it. regardless Sexyorge 21:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That image, Image:Heidegger2.jpeg was subject to speedy deletion under criteria I6, which is for images with no fair use rationale. It had been tagged for seven days with no fair use rationale forthcoming, and thus I deleted it. I used TWINKLE, which, when deleting images, also removes all instances of the image. Additionally, per the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy, fair use images may only be used in the article namespace. They may not be used in the talk namespace, user namespace, user talk namespace, Wikipedia namespace, etc. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not going to bother. your tone is rather rude, and you know i clearly stated why the image fell under fair use.Sexyorge 03:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you deleted the second one even though it clearly stated fair use and had an explaination and all information was provided as the copyright holder asserted it could be used for wikipedia and non-commerical purposes. frankly, i am not going to upload any more images. it's become clear you are abusing your rights as an administrator Sexyorge 01:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images licensed only for Wikipedia and non-commercial use are incompatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, and, if uploaded after May 19, 2005, are not permitted, and therefore are subject to speedy deletion under criteria I3. If you or someone else can find an image that's in the public domain or that we can license under GFDL or a similar free license, I'll add it to the article myself. Or if you find an image that we can use under fair use and it has a detailed fair use rationale specifying exactly why it's fair use per our guidelines, we can have it. Anything less and it will be subject to deletion. That's the policy, and I've cited what those policies are. Rather than argue with me, why not give the various policies and guidelines related to images a good read and come up with something we can use? SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial use of Image:Heidegger.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Heidegger.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Heidegger.jpg is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Heidegger.jpg 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. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

great thanks android mouse bot Sexyorge 01:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"you" (bias users that think vloggers are celebrities) deleted the second one even though it clearly stated fair use and had an explaination and all information was provided as the copyright holder asserted it could be used for wikipedia and non-commerical purposes. frankly, i am not going to upload any more images. it's become clear you are abusing your rights as an administrator. Sexyorge 01:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Going DRV

I have speedily closed your DRV on Ben Going. Deletion review is not where you discuss problems with other users or with an article; DRV is for contesting deletions or the results of deletion debates. The problems you described are better suited for dispute resolution or simply talking it over with the involved users. --Core desat 09:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ichormosquito

Please provide some more context to this case, checkuser will most likely decline the run otherwise :). C letter needs "dozens" of diffs showing the ongoing, serious pattern of vandalism. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moved to user:heideggger

lost password sorry Heideggger 17:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regardless current arguments

http://www.boh3m3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2162

"Over the next few days, Wikipedia should allow editors to work on Boh3m3's entry. It's been protected in order to prevent further editing for a while now; but I'm fairly confident I can bring it back, at least temporarily. Since I don't know as much about him as some of you do, I'll need your help.
Boh3m3's deleted page
Page undelete discussion
We might need to write an article off of Wikipedia first before handing it to admins for approval. If you want to get started now, keep in mind nearly every bit of info must be sourced. Ideally, any pictures must be taken by YOU or signed off on by their creators.
EDIT: Page is back. We still need a picture of boh3m3 that has been signed off by its creator for noncommercial use: see the licensing information under Smosh's or Barats and Bereta's picture for a better idea of what I'm talking about. Pictures you might have taken of him at "As One" are acceptable."
— ichormosquito post on boh3m3 personal forum

that is my entire argument on why the article is bias, advertising and needs review. Heideggger 17:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already responded to this on your newest talk page, my talk page, and Ben Going's talk page. If anyone is curious as to what I said, he can have a look. Ichormosquito 03:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for abusive sockpuppetry – Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sexyorge. You may return after the block expires to make constructive edits. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]