User talk:Antialias

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Hunter 14:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Image Tagging Image:Bruce King Hallock.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bruce King Hallock.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. 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 qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hunter 14:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Bush finger.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Bush finger.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 67.186.84.200 20:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Aerowing.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Aerowing.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 19:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bruce King Hallock.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Bruce King Hallock.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 19:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bush finger.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Bush finger.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 19:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Picture8_029.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Picture8_029.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Rollover.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Rollover.gif. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "The Sellery"
A page you created, The Sellery, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how it is important or significant, and thus why it should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for companies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. C T J F 8 3 chat 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Orgasm article
Hello, Antialias. I had to revert you on this because it's not just feminist theories that are in that section. And describing them as "popular" is WP:Original research. Further, the section is also about the male function of orgasm, so removing the "Male function" heading was improper. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no information about the male function of orgasm in that section; it is an argument on why the female orgasm is more difficult to achieve. Antialias (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is also about the male role -- the male function in relation to reproductive success. And the function of the male orgasm in relation to reproductive success is not all fact. Some of the beliefs about it are theory. And keep in mind that the Male function section, like the Female function section, can be expanded. I'll make a point of expanding it at a later date. All of that is why it's best not to merge it with the Female function section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And moving the material the way you did, as shown in this revert by me, is inappropriate. Not only are the reasons that women have difficulty reaching orgasm, in general or compared to men's, already covered in the In females section, as well as the Dysfunction and satisfaction section, what you moved higher as a subsection of the Achieving orgasm section are mostly theories. Not facts. And they are theories relating to evolutionary reasons for orgasm, which is why they belong where they are. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The section is primarily about the relative difficulty of reaching female orgasm. You are obviously a smart person and far more well-read in pan-gender sexual studies than I, but to call this section of contention the "male function" of orgasm makes you look like a damn fool. Since as you state, the section is mostly devoid of fact, I would settle for removing the section entirely. Antialias (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already explained what the section is about, and that the relative difficulty of reaching female orgasm is already covered elsewhere. And the reason we don't remove the section altogether is because theories on orgasm are allowed in the Orgasm article. It's not like some other parts of the article don't also propose theories, or rather hypotheses. But this section is specifically about theories in relation to biological/evolutionary reasons for orgasm, mostly with regard to the reproductive process. And it quite clearly doesn't only relate to female orgasm.


 * I am not sure why the section heading bothers you so much that you have deviated from your typical sporadic editing pattern. But since you do not agree with me about what not to do with this section, I am taking this matter to the talk page. You should discuss it there without reverting again, as the point of doing so is to reach WP:Consensus and to avoid WP:Edit warring such as this. As part of the WP:BRD process, you should have taken this matter to the talk page once you were reverted and it was explained to you why you were reverted. But I recognize that you are not as familiar with Wikipedia ways as I am, and that maybe I should have proposed an alternate title or other formatting to you so that we can reach a compromise. I am still willing to compromise with you on this. One compromise I already proposed is that I will expand the Male function section with more information about male orgasm. But it is difficult to add theories about the reproductive purpose of male orgasm without talking about females as well. And vice versa. Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: As a quick-fix compromise, I took away the Male function and Female function subheadings for the time being. Flyer22 (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the word "orgasm" being added to the heading was unneeded because, per Manual of Style, "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." Specification isn't needed in that case because it's clear that the section is about orgasms. Flyer22 (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Bruce King Hallock for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bruce King Hallock is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Bruce King Hallock until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Our World with Black Enterprise


The article Our World with Black Enterprise has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unsourced stub since 2012"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)