User:Cursive/Sandbox/Evidence/Archived Old Talk

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango  123  16:21, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Sex Symbols
Please stop unilaterally removing people from the Sex Symbols category. Please note that we are trying to represent a neutral point of view on wikipedia, and that doing this without getting consensus on the talk page is therefore simply pushing your own point of view, which is unwanted. How can you argue that Christina Aguilera is not generally considered sex symbol? In any case it is moot because you have simply removed her and many others from this category. Cursive 01:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please also see what wikipedia is not, and in particular WP:NOT which states that it's not just your opinion that matters. Cursive 01:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * OK that's fine, but please say something like that in the edit summary so we know why you are removing the categories. Cursive 02:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Also for those people you are adding to sex symbols, please WP:CITE your sources as to where they have been referred to as sex symbols (e.g. FHM 100 lists etc), particularly if they are not widely known and accepted as such . Cursive 02:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * But it is not what you or I think that is important, this is meant to be an encylopedia so we need to WP:CITE sources so that the information is verifiable. Just because you or I think someone is attractive doesn't make them someone that is worthy of being labelled as a sex symbol. A sex symbol is a famous person, male or female, who is found sexually attractive by the general audience, not just by you or I. The best way to assert this is to provide external sources showing where people have been referred to as sex symbols. Cursive 02:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * PLEASE don't insert sentences like "Her parents' birth nationalities resulted in Kristin's unusual, but beautiful, Eurasian appearance." You are pushing your own point of view here. I urge you to read neutral point of view.  Cursive 03:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool, much better - people will realise she's beautiful from her picture anyway! Cursive 03:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no need to take them all down - in fact you have given many nice links (mostly to the The WB) site on a lot of articles. Kristin and Nora are probably fine to leave as sex symbols (there won't be too many that argue with that, particularly not me) but what I'm talking about is the more obscure ones like Michael Kearney etc. I was just a little surprised to find that a college professor (child prodigy or not) is being generally regarded as a sex symbol! Cursive 03:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Remember NPOV
It seems as thought you and Cursive have already worked out what I was going to mention, but I still figured it was worth addressing just so all parties can be satisfied. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and goes no further - I just wanted to make sure it was clear that this is not a place for any of your own opinions (you wrote that you were excited about sharing your opinions on your userpage, so I just wanted to mention that to keep you out of disputes). Because Wikipedia is only an encyclopedia, please do not make POV comments like "his parents' ancestry resulted in his beautiful Eurasian appearance". In the case of Doug Robb, the mention of his parents' ancestry suggests this, and I'm removing the racial categories because there is some controversy around such categorization. If you would like more information, I encourage you to check out the following links:
 * Categorization of people, particularly the following sections:
 * Religion, race, and ethnicity
 * Problematic categorization
 * Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality
 * Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Other than this, you're doing a great job editing, and I encourage to continue contributing. Keep up the good work! Raijinryu 19:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear you're getting into things more! If you'd like some more help and information, try some of the following links:
 * 1) How to edit a page
 * 2) Help:Starting a new page
 * 3) Cite sources
 * 4) Neutral point of view
 * 5) Manual of Style (from there, I also strongly encourage you to check out supplementary manuals, especially Biographies, Dates and Numbers, Disambiguation, and Links)
 * 6) Categorization
 * 7) Guide to writing better articles
 * 8) Naming conventions, and for assistance with anything else you're curious about:
 * 9) Topical index

These pages should give you the basis of pretty much everything you need to do some serious editing. But always remember the joy of wiki-editing &mdash; perfection is not required. Contribute what you know or are interested in researching, check your facts and your fiction, and remember NPOV, and you'll be fine. Speaking of NPOV, this doesn't always mean writing just raw facts. It means (like they say on the NPOV page) that you approach all angles without bias and with equally sympathetic tone. In other words, don't write opinions, but do write about opinions. Another personal tip of mine is to keep two Wikipedia windows open at all times while you're editing. This allows you to cross-reference help pages or even other websites while editing in another window. Also, you can distinguish long talk page conversations by adding a new bullet point ( * in source code ) to each new post.

As for the Doug Robb thing, I'll leave the categories in for now. I understand your frustration, but there is controversy around categorizing people by race - please read this link before we talk further.

Good luck in future work! Raijinryu 19:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Uploading pictures
Re: ''Can you help me upload pictures? I don't know if I copyright my pictures correctly. Let's say I wanted to copy a picture on imdb.com How would I do that? (Kyla 01:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC))''

I think you need to specify your question a bit. Do you need help uploading pictures correctly on wikipedia regarding the copyright of the pictures? Or do you need help if you want to copy a picture on The Internet Movie Database (imdb.com)?
 * I understand your first two sentences as being about uploading pictures on wikipedia. However, the last sentence mentions how to copy a picture on imdb.com? Zec 12:40, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Re: ''I wanted a picture on imdb.com to put on wikipedia. How would I do that? (Kyla 01:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC))''

I think the first thing you need to do is to register on The Internet Movie Database if you havn't already. I'm quite sure that unless a person is registered on imdb.com one cannot take pictures of the website. Then when you do all this and if it is successful and you can take pictures of the website on your computer the thing you need to do is the following.
 * You will go on the special page as you normally do and go to upload file. Next go to Image copyright tags and find the correct tag for your picture and place it or copy it to the summary (below the Destination filename). However, Note when and if you take a picture of the imdb.com or any other website you must notice what is written about it for example if it is a Promophoto, film-screenshot, Promotional, or whatever it might be.

Normally if you are taking a picture of an actor/actress it's best if the picture is one of the three categories that I have just mentioned. Then most users won't probably question the copyright and source of your picture however if they do you must then provide documentation of the copyright and source of your picture if you don't what your picture to be deleted eventually.
 * Then when you place the correct tag for your picture you do what you normally do and upload your picture and place in the article that you want.

Now, to summarize the most important thing is first do give the image the correct tag and if you can also provide the source if you wish however this depends on what type of picture it is normally if it is e.g. a film-screenshot it's not necessary but if it is a promophoto it can sometimes be good to provide the source. It all depends on the type of image and type of article it is e.g. if it is a popular article of a actor users will probably sometimes question your pictures copyright and source because they probably want to put their own image.
 * The most important thing is to provide correct and precise info (the tags are usually enough) about the image if you do this you probably won't have problems. However, when you achieve a certain experience you'll be very good to decide what info you should provide of your image and if it is necessary to provide source and copyright along with the tag. Zec 12:52, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

If I were you I would probably say something neutral without commenting Kreuk. For example Kristin Kreuk on the cover of Toro magazine is seen by many as a sex symbol. However, if it is generally viewed that Kreuk is seen as a sex symbol largely because of her her unusual, but beautiful, Eurasian appearance and her dimples (as you write) then I consider it to be all right if you add this. But if it is your own opinion and not shared in the general public then I you advice you not to write it. One must always be neutral and not subjective. Zec 20:12, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Please Stop
I have tried to be nice and talk with you about it, but you are still inserting your own POV into articles and removing people from the category Sex Symbols - e.g. Bridget Bardot. This is a ridiculous edit - even the article states that she is considered the embodiment of the 1950's sex kitten, and yet you remove her from the sex symbols category just like that. Cursive 21:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Re: How could Welch be considered a sex symbol? There's no proof! It just says on Wikipedia...(Kyla 21:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)) and by the way I removed her picture and replaced her picture as Tera Patrick on the Sex symbol article....hope you don't mind.
 * No Proof??? Quoting directly from the article: Despite box office disappointments, Welch became one of the leading sex symbols of the 1960s and 1970s. Her most memorable publicity still, where she was clad in a furry animal-skin bikini for One Million Years B.C., became a bestselling poster. Further proof: She's been in Playboy. I'm sorry, but I am coming to the conclusion that you are only on Wikipedia to push your own point of view on who is a sex symbol and who is not. Cursive 21:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * But I don't think you do - I cannot and will not go checking every person you go removing from the sex symbols list - but it is clear that you are using your on POV in this. Another obvious example is Rachel Blanchard.  You remove her from the category when directly above where the category link used to be was clear proof of her being considered a sex symbol - being twice listed on the FHM 100 sexist women list.  My advice to you is that you do not make any further edits to the Sex Symbol category as it does not seem you are able to divorce your own opinion from your edits. Cursive 21:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You'll find that I didn't actually remove them, I just reverted to a version that did not have POV comments in the article. You simply cannot argue that a comment like "her unusual, but beautiful, Eurasian appearance" is demonstrating a Neutral Point of View.  Similarly, whilst it is true that Tera and Kristin may be considered sex symbols, as mentioned in the edit summary of a previous editor on that article Spears and Welch are more established as such. Cursive 21:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocked
Did I get this right? You are sometimes using a computer with fixed IP 167.206.112.86? I've unblocked this IP now, but have a look at If you check these edits, you'll see, someone using this computer without logging in, did nasty edits since 20 months! He isn't very active but it's nevertheless a pain. Pjacobi 16:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/167.206.112.86


 * Somebody should know whether your school computer has a fixed IP address or a dynamic IP. If the address is fixed, there must be someone at your school with a strange sense of humour. --Pjacobi

Categories
There is really no need to reorganize categories so that they are in alphabetical order. Job E  6   23:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Asian Fetish
A fetish is a POV in itself. Also that article has a history of not being NPOV. Also your just stating opinions. Im sure there are people who dont think that eurasians are beautiful. Job E  6   22:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Please remember NPOV. Adding "unusual, but beautiful" to articles is very POV. Thanks. Job  E  6  [[Image:Peru flag large.png|20px]] 19:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)