User talk:CyberAnth/Deletion Talk

Have a barnstar!
Now, if only I can get you to use "show preview" and edit summaries. ;-)--Kchase T 05:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ass to mouth
Hi, ref your recent comment on the AfD. I have no desire to make this personal, and I want to keep my objectivity intact. I've stated my opinion and will not be adding anything further to the discussion. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one! Malla nox  03:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not making it personal either. I do not think there is anything to disagree with over its AfD Articles for deletion/Ass to mouth. You basis for voting Keep is clearly stated in WP:NEO an an inadequate basis to justify an article's existence about a neologism. That's okay. Live and learn. :-) CyberAnth 03:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I wasn't going to say anything more but your most recent note on the AfD crosses the line. It cannot be held in any way civil to precis your opponent's opinions and dismiss them as irrelevent claptrap. The closing admin can make up their own mind without being beaten over the head. I don't normally comment on the conduct of others unless its overtly insulting. I consider your recent post as an insult to those who gave opinions, right or wrong, though it was cleverly disguised as a recap. Malla  nox  04:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The post is a critical evaluation of votes and no insult is intended. I evaluated only content, not persons. If the content of a vote can be shown as not in keeping with Wikipedia policy, then there is nothing wrong with pointing that out. Feel free to critically evaluate the content of my posts, or for that matter anyone else's. That is one way consensus is reached. CyberAnth 04:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I agree with your evaluation on each comment in the AfD, I'll have to agree with Mallanox that it wasn't the most harmonious thing to do. Admins aren't dumb, and they can make their own decisions on the subject. To spend so much energy pointing out flawed arguments is not the most productive thing to do, although I guess if you were worried that someone who only does a quick glance over of the page might come to a hasty conclusion, then that's something different... Blueaster 05:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that really is my worry. I appreciate your note. CyberAnth 05:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But do you get what I'm saying? Blueaster 05:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do. Thanks for taking the time to help me be more cooth in such matters in the future. CyberAnth 06:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ass to mouth is dead. CyberAnth 19:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * yes it is :) Blueaster 21:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ass to pussy
Ass to pussy is also dead via my AfD nomination, see Articles for deletion/Ass to pussy.

NOTE: on various websites highly critical of Wikipedia, Ass to pussy has been a major "Poster child" for why Wikipedia should be disregarded. The article is now dead and let us hope it remains so.

CyberAnth 08:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for the above claim? Johntex\talk 20:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wanker
I'm not sure why you want to delete this, as it has been kept before, but if you want to start a second nomination you need to use 2nd. ~ trialsanderrors 02:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I fixed it. CyberAnth 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You also need to add the 2nd tag to the article and list it on WP:AFD. ~ trialsanderrors 02:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to Articles for deletion/Bean queen
Please be cautious when editing as to not remove any comments... even if they were placed "too soon, or too late". Removing comments that are blatantly offensive personal attack or  defamatory commments about a living person are ok. Removing other comments not ok. More info can be found at WP:GAFD regarding deletion discussions. Note: I believe you were acting in good faith when you removed the comment, I believe you just didn't know the practice. Happy editing. Navou  talk  05:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay, thanks for pointing this out. I had never seen WP:GAFD and was just going by common sense. The "So...what is the AfD basis???" comments just seemed a prod to get me to post them, and not salient to the AfD. But I'll just leave them if I am interrupted again. CyberAnth 05:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it happens to me. I'm doind task one and task two, and I notice task one has a question, but I'm not done with task two, but task two answers task one.  I have to leave the comment, no harm to do that.  However, I'm still unsure about how the subject is non-notable, I have heard it a few times.  Could you explain how the article violates WP:N on the AFD.  Regards,  Navou   talk  05:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: AfDs
Regarding your recent batch of AfDs, you did a great job pegging some non-notable and pure dictdef terms, and I think you're doing a great job trying to clean up the encyclopedia. But some of the articles seem to be on notable concepts, and/or at least heavily defended ones. I'd writing this for two reasons, first, I hope you don't take offense at my occasionally strident arguing with your position, I do respect the work of any cleanup editor and I self-identify as a semi-deletionist myself. Secondly, I was wondering if you'd be willing to help me work on some of the more notable articles to bring them up to polish rather than simply blowing them away? Thanks, Wintermut3 05:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your gracious note. I'd be more than happy to look over a list of articles needing improvement. Please feel free to post some here. One thing I have been doing lately is also simply going to articles and removing non-sourced material per Verifiability, leaving what is left. CyberAnth 05:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. It seems that your deletion nominations have bothered some people who apparantly haven't found this talk page, and have brought it up at WP:AN/I. You might want to join in on the discussion, and take it easy on the rapid fire nominations in the meantime. Jkelly 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your note, Jkelly. :-) CyberAnth 08:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stick the facts on AfD and stay away from trolling, baiting and sarcasm. I removed your comments here on the grounds that they constituted trolling.  If you feel I have misinterpreted your remarks, please let me know. Johntex\talk 11:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know you have the best of intentions. I support an effort to better source articles.  However, your latest effort at mass AfD, and blanking large sections of articles without prior discussion are disruptive, and not helpful.  Also, although I make no assumption about you motivations beyond the accurate technical reasons that are suggested, I personally, and many other editors find the content you are trying to remove useful and helpful in educating about sexuality.  Removing these articles is detrimental to Wikipedia, IMO.  If your intetion truely is to improve the quality by better sourcing, I suggest a more productive method would be to discuss on the local talk pages of each of those articles what material you feel needs to be sourced, as well as sourcing some of it yourself.  Consider how disruptive and unnaceptable it would be perceived by others if you were to go down through a long list of christian articles, blanking large sections, and recommending numerous of those articles for deletion?  Regards to you, Atom 12:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that some of the articles you nominated for deletion (e.g., Space Docking) are good cases where the article clearly has little or no usage, is clearly a neologism, and lacks any useful sourcing. I voted to delete (and salt) this article.  However, your mass-nominations (and blanking of large amounts of content) has become indiscriminate.  Can I suggest that you focus on removing articles that are closer to Space Docking and less like Bottom (BDSM) or Quim (slang)?  A quick sanity-check via tools like google will help you learn whether a term is in widespread usage or whether it has been newly coined.  Although articles may sometimes be weak as currently written, in many cases they can be improved with less effort than an AfD will consume; you might also consider researching and adding sources. Tarinth 16:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's exactly my point, Tarinth. Some of those are truely bad articles, the holy trifecta of Non-notable, dictdef, and unsourced neologisms. I'm just worried too many AfDs in a row and we'll throw the baby out with the bathwater. Wintermut3 20:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete votes from AFDs
I object to you deleting my keep vote from your nomination of Quim without notifying me on my talk page. That is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Such actions make it very hard to assume good faith. If you change the text of your nomination, please notify anyone who has posted a response. Please take the time to make sure the article you are nominating is the one you intend to nominate. Haste makes waste. Edison 17:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but is this procedure for the sake of procedure or is their some substance to this? Why would anyone ive one rat's ass about their vote in an AfD in Quim when the AfD was completely withdrawn because it was actually an AfD for Quim (slang)? CyberAnth 18:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Apart from the fact that I have a hard time seeing how your increasing incivility fits with your supposed devotion to christianity, you did delete a vote from that AfD. You were the one who made the wrong link and what you should have done, was leave a comment desribing what you mistakingly did, asking the voter to reconsider. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One of our community standards is not to change or remove the discussion contributions of other Wikipedians. It's a matter of civility and respect, and it's usually treated as a hard & fast rule because otherwise it would be open to slippery slope problems.  As the nominator of an AfD, what you could consider doing in such a case is to change or withdraw the nomination, then notify those who commented on the original nom about the change to what they're commenting on.  Another good idea is to strikeout your comment or nomination where you are replacing it with other text, so that any replies can be seen in context to the original verbiage used.  Following process improves understanding and reduces confusion about your actions.  Thanks. --Ssbohio 20:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * During edit conflicts, I was refreshing, not reloading, so this removed the edit that caused the conflict. Purely an innocent error I know noe toavoid. CyberAnth 00:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Heritage Guitars
Hello CyberAnth. I have added two independent sources to the Heritage Guitars article which substantiate the content and establish the company's notability. Given these improvements, would you consider changing your vote from merge to keep? Thank you. Nick Graves 19:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be more than happy to consider doing so. However, the sources you added to the article do not provide enough information to enable me to verify them. There are no book titles. If you need a free little software tool to help you form perfect citations, got to User:Dmoss/Wikicite. Otherwise, post the info here and I will make the citations for you. CyberAnth 19:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find that, while Nick Graves' citations might not be in your preferred style, they are sufficient; they refer to the two books shown under 'references'. Poorly formed citations are not something that should influence a deletion decision, IMO. Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the info better belongs in the article for Gibson guitars. Otherwise, if you can cite a few independent press reports or reviews of the for Heritage guitars, say from a pub like Guitar Mag, I will reconsider. Keep in mind that such highly reviewed and publicized guitars as Carvin are not even in Wikipedia (yet). CyberAnth 09:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You are out of line and you need to slow down

 * CyberAnth, your accusations about me are as misguided as your attempts to delete content from Wikipedia. Very misguided indeed.
 * I stand behind my comment above that the article had multiple sources at the time you nominated it. If you didn't like those sources, you should have worked on them or discussed them rather than nominating for deletion everything that doesn't fit your tastes.
 * When I said you were "making making wild accusations", I was correct in so saying.  You act as though I didn't explain what consitituted wild accusations.  I provided a link.  I hid nothing.  You were making a wild accusation that my "edits may have been in bad faith...apparent disregard or ignorance of plain WP policies".  Yes, those are wild accusations you made.  Yes, you are being incivil.
 * Also, you are misrepresenting my comment by adding in your own formatting. If you are going to quote me, please either quote me with my emphasis or acknowledge that the empahsis is yours.  You are violating WP:POINT by exhibiting such extreme behavior.  I'm not the only one who has said so.
 * I stand behind my comment above that the article had multiple sources at the time you nominated it. That is a simple fact, which you do not dispute.  If you don't dispute the fact, then don't complain about me stating it as fact on AfD.  If you didn't like those sources, you should have worked on them or discussed them rather than nominating for deletion everything that doesn't fit your tastes.
 * Furthermore, you continue today to be unrepententant and argumentative with other editors. Edison asked you very reasonably to either not delete his AfD comment or to at least have the courtesy to notify him on his talk page.
 * You need to settle down and play more nicely with others. Your disruption of wikipedia in violation of WP:POINT and your repeated violations of WP:Civil are more than grounds for blocking. Johntex\talk 20:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You have not credibility to cite your self-styled "interpretations" of policies to me or anyone:

Let's take a look at your vote at Articles_for_deletion/Juicy_girl.

There, my nom was for "Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO."

Here is your "vote": 


 * Speedy keep - nomination is dreadfully in error. There are multiple links from the article to supporting information. Johntex\talk 08:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is my reply to you, which you called "wild accusations":

Comment - I am amazed at how people vote "Keep" in such apparent blatant disregard or ignorance of WP policies. The above "Speedy keep" vote by Johntex is particularly troubling. His vote may be in bad faith and worthy of an incident report because it evidences such apparent disregard or ignorance of plain WP policies. Admins should know much better and are held to a higher standard.

He says, "There are multiple links from the article to supporting information" and is apparently content to let it go at that. But let's look at the links one by one:


 * Bar Girl Love (also see its root URL at ) - violates Verifiability because the site is clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The site is a "community portal", primarily an Internet Forum. The article is an anonymously written "reader submission" (see here) and cannot be used per WP:Reliable_sources.


 * |Servicemans description of a bar girl - an Internet Forum per WP:Reliable_sources "should not be used as sources" and fails [Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources] because posts on Forums are clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"!


 * "Asia's sex trade is 'slavery'" - a BBC article that nowhere mentions the term "Juicy girl". Using it in the article is thus Synthesis. However, the article would be a great source in Trafficking in human beings.


 * South Korea Pages by ClarkRB - A bulletin board post that clearly falls under WP:Reliable_sources that "should not be used as sources" and blatantly fails Verifiability because the site is clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

Carefully go over the links above. Carefully look at the policies.

Now let's look again at your vote:


 * Speedy keep - nomination is dreadfully in error. There are multiple links from the article to supporting information. Johntex\talk 08:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So here we have you voting "Keep" for a page - in clear, blatant violation of one of Wikipedia's foundational values, WP:V. The nomination was in error because of the links, so keep? Who is dreadfully in error here?

The links do not even meet "What should be externally linked to."

The best thing to do is deal with the argument above I gave proving your blatant policy-violations. Did you do that or are you afraid to?

You can call what I am doing POINT, but you have no credibility to cite policy to anyone based upon your non-adherence to it yourself. What YOU are doings is POINT - of the worst variety possible. YOU are out of line and need to give up your "adminship".

CyberAnth 22:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Who is dreadfully in error here?"
 * To answer your question:
 * The answer is, CyberAnth. Johntex\talk 00:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting rationale you give for why your above vote was in accordance with WP policies. CyberAnth 01:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is interesting, isn't it? It also happens to have been sensible and correct.
 * You seem to want me to repeat myself, so I will do so out of courtesy to you. I said "Speedy keep - nomination is dreadfully in error. There are multiple links from the article to supporting information."  That was true then, and it is true now.  You apparently didn't like the links, but never-the-less, the links were there and my statement was correct.
 * You had not questioned the usability or accuracy of any of the links on the Talk page. As I said before, "If you feel those external links are inappropriate, a better course of action would have been any of these (a) add better ones (b) discuss them on the talk page (c) prune the links you think are inappropriate."
 * Let me know if I need to repeat myself again for you. Johntex\talk 01:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's use logic format to see if we can get you to actually answer the question.


 * 1) You voted "Keep" because of the existence of the links.
 * 2) The links are unallowable per WP policy.
 * 3) You voted "Keep" based upon the existence of unallowable links per WP policy.

Do you contest this?

CyberAnth 01:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I contest your interpretation. It went like this: Once again, I stand by my actions as being wholy corect and in the best interests of the project and community. Johntex\talk 01:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I voted keep based primarily on the existence of multiple external links, none of which had to that point been challenged either in your nomination nor on the aricle's talk page.
 * 2) After-wards, you claimed the links to be unallowable per WP policy. Regardless of the merits to your argument or the lack thereof, you had not made the argument at the time.
 * 3) Since
 * 4) People cannot reasonably be expected to consider arguments that have not yet been made, and
 * 5) It is the responsibility of the AfD nominator to make a case for deletion
 * 6) It was evident to me that you had not made a case for deletion. That is the definition of when "Speedy keep" should be applied - when no case has been made for deletion.
 * 7) Furthermore, it was also evident to me that your argument jumped the gun, since deletion policy strongly suggests that you try to improve articles prior to nominating them for deletion

Please stop this spamming of AfD of articles

 * Dear CyberAnth,
 * I was really p*ssed off to read you try to get deleted the article "wanker" again.
 * It took me some time to find out why you do this. The pretended reasons definitively do not match. It's an excellent article, and probably the author has done much research work. Quotations could be improved, and this only is NO reason to delete an article.
 * The Wiktionary article is definitely no replacement. It fails to explain the word thoroughly - but that is what all these non-native english users need.
 * Even if you might be be hurt in your pietistic christian feelings, please tolerate that wikipedia should be not censored down to a fundamentalist christian encyclopedia. People like you destroy this great project quite moronically. Just go into yourself and ask yourself if you do your god a favor being that bigot trying to keep out others of knowledge just because it hurts your feelings.
 * Don't you notice that your AfD efforts and your many other wikipedia rule violations waste MUCH time and effort of others?
 * So please stop that vandalizing. If something hurts your feelings, just tolerate and read something else. There is enough of it.
 * Just read the bible and leave Wikipedia alone. Thank you.

St blac 21:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will let the moronic nature of your comments prove their own point. 23:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberAnth (talk • contribs)


 * I'm afraid that, even giving the benefit of the doubt, to describe another editor's opinion or action as "moronic" is uncivil. A good rule of thumb is the Golden Rule.  Just ask yourself: Am I doing unto others as I would have done unto me? when making comments.  I find it helps me, in my own imperfect way.  Also, please remember to sign your comments to avoid confusion. --Ssbohio 01:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to be bold and definitely not uncivil. Being no native english speaker, I do not know a better word than "moronic" for what I feel Anth's behavior. So I apologize.
 * I know that wanking is discouraged by the bible, even it's quite natural. Even animals do this. It should IMHO be NO reason to try to censor entries just because they describe things being discouraged by the bible and not being told about in pietistic societies. I looked at Anth's various requests for deletion of articles, and my impression is that he seems to have problems with explicit expressions in Wikipedia.
 * Having been a charismatic christian for some time a very long time ago, I can somewhat understand your feelings, Anth. It's hard sometimes to accept reality, but being honest, we must admit that wanking is a natural way to relieve from sexual pressure. I am sure that there are very few people never wanked in their life. So it's a very natural thing like eating, drinking and copulating. So I don't think that it's a good idea to try to remove such articles, just because they are describing slang words and no academic latin words like masturbation.
 * Just to be complete, I have to say that I also do wank sometimes. So you are free to call me a wanker, I won't consider that uncivil or even an insult :)
 * Think about it, Anth... if this bigotry would be Wikipedia standard, I'd be forced to use my thick paper-based Websters or Oxfords instead of Wikipedia, just because the limited scope of "religiously correct" words - rendering Wikipedia useless as a full dictionary. Is that really desirable?
 * @ssbohio: I am still a newbie in contributing to Wikipedia. I still don't know how to sign other than with four tildes. Please excuse me for that. Thanks!

St blac 21:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Believer's baptism
As you just edited Believer's baptism, you must have noticed it is very poorly sourced. The only reference is a general reference to one book, with is authored by Fred Malone, who himself is a baptist and therefore not a reliable, neutral source. Would you consider putting the article up for AfD, or alternatively tag it with Template:Unreferenced. Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is troubling. I am giving the AfDs a break for a while. CyberAnth 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I expected, I'll tag the article for referencing though. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not AfD'ing one article which has the same perceived problems as other articles you AfD'd raises concerns, since one difference between the articles is the subject matter. It could be a coincidence of timing, of course, but the totality of the circumstances suggests something else entirely.  --Ssbohio 01:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Either explanation could be correct, but lets assume good faith on this point for a while. Let's interpret CyberAnth's lack of action on that article as CyberAnth taking time to reflect on what course of action is best for the project.  I hope and chose to believe that CyberAnth is taking some time away from AfD in order to ponder options that might be more productive for improving these articles. Given that many people thought the earlier AfD's were in error, I see no benefit to goading CyberAnth into nominating more articles just to even out the injury. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that. Johntex\talk 01:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course Reinoutr's intent was a teenaged jab. Still, the AfDs were completely per policy, and his suggestion correct. It is just that most editors are not used to doing things by policy but preference. I am seriously thinking of going through the Christian articles next, rather than companies, bands, or internet sites as I was planning, just to demolish this inane thing that it is all about sex. CyberAnth 02:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ofcourse I was not really asking you to put the article up for AfD, as you (luckily) understood perfectly. The reason I asked the question if would consider putting it up for AfD was to give you a glance in the mirror. I hope you understand that your focus on sex-related slang, combined with your proclaimed christianity might have given other editors the impression that there was more behind the nomination. (although that idea might not be true). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No mirror is going on. Irrespective of your motives, I think the article needs to be AfDed shortly, based upon its lone self-published source. You can consider me an equal opportunity Afder, LOL. CyberAnth 09:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There sure were no hard feelings involved in the suggestion, I hope you can believe that. We'll see how things turn out in the future, although I would probably cast a keep vote on this article :). Regards and good editing in the future. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

(<---)If I may be so bold as to suggest a plan for your future ... let me welcome your suggestion that you take on "the Christian articles next" but at a slower pace. Then move on to other articles about beliefs you know and care a lot about - establishing a standard and pattern of thoughtfullness and civility for yourself that others can ackowledge as appropriate ... then use that same pattern on other areas of neglect within Wikipedia. Articles about beliefs, political ideologies, and organizations that exist to influence politics are especially troublesome. Articles about fictional things are especially poorly referenced but their ability to cause real world harm is far less. WAS 4.250 05:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For whatever it is worth to you (if anything), I never thought (nor claimed) that you were targeting sex, per say. I have a suspicion that you were targetting sexual slang.  My theory is you went for sexual slang because you thought those articles might prove unreferencable and therefore something of a weak spot.  That's my theory.  I may be wrong or right about that but it doesn't really have an affect on our actual difference of opinion about the best way to proceed. Johntex\talk 02:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I feel bad for coninually referring to you as "he/she", because it doesn't seem very elegant. However, I guessed wrong once and was visciously attacked for it, so I don't want to make that mistake again.  If you prefer to clue me in on "he" vs "she" please let me know.  Thanks, Johntex\talk 02:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "He or she" or "user" is good. CyberAnth 09:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for considering giving your AfDs a break. At the beginning it's better to just contribute and not to censor. St blac 22:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

there's a place for that
Talk:Quiverfull, please, not my talk page. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 02:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mary Pride.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mary Pride.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 04:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I uploaded that when only knowing the fair use tag, but the one I added is the correct one per info shown. CyberAnth 05:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you don't understand. I'm not contesting the actual tag you used. The fact is that this is a living person, so a free image of her could be produced. That means that fair use doesn't apply, because fair use only applies when a free alternative cannot be found. So I'm reverting your change to the image. In fact, you should not have changed the tag I added. You should have added the Replaceable fair use disputed tag, just like my tag told you to. DO NOT revert my tag again. That is vandalism. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 05:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this is another example of over-exuberent deletionism. A policy to eschew legally permitted fair use images has taken hold in some people's minds and it is causing so many of our articles to suffer for the sake of their free-content crusde.  Most of these living people will have died before Wikipedians get around to taking their photo.  Hopefully we'll still be able to find pictures of them after they are dead, but in the meantime, our articles will have suffered for little reason. Johntex\talk 05:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * German encyclopedia gets along fine without fair use. In any case, if CyberAnth wants to argue this one out at the Village Pump, or in an appeal inside the Replaceable fair use disputed tag, that's perfectly fine. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 05:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they don't get along just fine. They suffer by comparison to the English Wikipedia because theey don't allow free use.  At least they have a good excuse for their defficiency.  German law does not recognize fair use.  We have no such excuse for our defficiency. Johntex\talk 06:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * IF it is in fact the case that the image has been released for any purpose, note that in your dispute, but do not revert the tag. You will also have to provide proof that the image was provided explicitly for any purpose, and not just as a promotional photo. The address you provided was no proof at all. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 05:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are going to start following me around and persecuting me, retaliating like a teenager, I am sure you will not mind if I go through all your contribs and point out fair use photos - and book covers, mygod! - and I am sure you will put them up for deletion. Right? Surely, you would not want to appear partisan. CyberAnth 05:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia.  Thank you. Further accusations of retaliation may be considered personal attacks, and your own threats are not appreciated. &mdash; coe l acan  t a lk  &mdash; 05:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So, will you also put up for deletion all fair use photos and book covers from your contribs, too? I will list them all out for you on your userpage, to help save you time. It will help you in your cleanup efforts. We can work together that way. Agreed?  CyberAnth 06:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I assure you that would be WP:STALKing. Back off the threats. All I did was look at your user page, and I followed the links to the pages you were so proud of there. That was your open invitation. You have no such invitation to stalk my contributions. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 06:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Gosh, I thought what you were doing is Stalking. 06:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it too much. WP:STALKing is not policy.  It is a redirect to a guideline, which does not have the force of policy.  If you have legitimate reason to believe someone has made bad contributions, that is reason enough to check their contributions list.  It is there for a reason, after all.  Johntex\talk 06:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's certainly true, but STALK has been cited before in blocks. Considering CyberAnth's earlier behavior of disruption per WP:POINT, it would not be viewed kindly, especially after CyberAnth has explicitly indicated that it would be performed in retaliation. And there is, of course, no reason to believe that I have made bad contributions. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 06:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Images listed for deletion
Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them. Thank you. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 05:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC) &mdash; coe l acan  t a lk  &mdash; 05:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Pride complete guide.jpg
 * Image:Mary pride thewayhome.jpg
 * I want to make sure you do this right. Edits such as this probably won't be seen by the relevant people (although it's certainly fine to leave them there). You'll want to make sure you repeat that at the IFD page, specifically Images_and_media_for_deletion and the entry right below it. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 06:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Prairie Muffins
I've nominated the article Prairie Muffins for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Prairie Muffins satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Prairie Muffins. Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Prairie Muffins during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 06:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Please just do not do the same thing as CyberAnth does with articles regarding sexual slang. I really do not see a reason to remove that entry explaining religious slang. Anyway, I agree with your other comments. St blac 22:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Mary Pride
I've nominated the article Mary Pride for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Mary Pride satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Mary Pride. Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Mary Pride during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 06:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please slow down
Please slow down on the delete efforts. It is easier to find a fault than to correct it. Talk to your friends about an appropriate speed. We can't make Wikipedia perfect this fast. WAS 4.250 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Goff
I notice you've withdrawn the deletion debate on Michael Goff. Instead of blanking the page, it's probably best to add a note on the top and then ask an administrator to declare it closed. (In some circumstances, the nominator of an article for deletion could be 'nobbled' and persuaded to withdraw a nomination after it becomes clear the article should be deleted - not that I think that happens here, but it's the reason why nominations are not automatically withdrawable by the nominator). Sam Blacketer 12:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks much. CyberAnth 12:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Guitarists
Welcome to the WikiProject Guitarists! Take the time to browse around all of the projects work pages and feel free to comment on anything you think might require attention(or repair) Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 20:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * re: Carvin... That shouldn't be too hard. I will dig out my "Encyclopedia of Electric Guitars-Tony Bacon"...Bacon dedicates a page and a half...maybe 2 pages to Carvin.(most manufacturers only get 1 short paragraph in his book) The company's list of endorsers is lengthy including: Elvin Bishop, Jeff Cook, Marshall Crenshaw, Larry Coryell, Ray Gomez, Alex Lifeson, Rick Neilson, Steve Lynch, Craig Chaquico, Jason Becker, Al Di Meola...etc. I am in/out for the next few days but will try to throw a ref or 2 over there. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 20:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See my note on your talk. CyberAnth 20:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this!
coelacan is suggesting I'm using a covert method to gripe with my wikimob article. Is this type of talk acceptable in wikipedia?--Janusvulcan 05:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Surprised? And make sure you check his userpage. All of these sorts of things are best described by reference to John Gabriel's "Internet Fuckwad Theory". It is inherent in the Wikipedia system. I suggest you are unbeknownst being afflicted by the malady as well. Now have a look at Citizendium for how to go a lo-o-o-o-ng, long way to solving all these ills. ;-) CyberAnth 08:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)