User talk:Gemini6Ice

Blame Someone Else Day
Actually, I'm glad you asked about that. I stumbled onto the page and noticed that it was an orphan, and linked it in the only place I could think of. I was really sort of hoping someone would challenge it, because I've never heard of this "holiday," either. Google had a lot of links, but I still don't have any idea about the encyclopediocity (good word, eh?) of the article. Joyous 22:25, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * How exactly do you make your reply appear on both of our talk pages? Did you just post it twice? (I just learned the tilde-tilde-tilde-tilde name-and-time-stamp trick, so I'm a little wet around the edges on Talk page editing.) I propose VfDing the orphan article and setting up a "rumored holidays" section on Holidays. I personally don't feel I've been... editful enough on Wikipedia to go around VfDing things myself yet. You must have noticed my love of neologisms, but I think I'd vote for encyclopedeity. ^_^ Gemini6Ice 04:04, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was that low-tech: just copy and paste. Joyous June 28, 2005 11:54 (UTC)

Personals sites
I honestly don't have much of an opinion about manhunt.net and gay.com. (BTW, external links just get single brackets on each end. Check out the markup on this edit to see exactly what I mean) I struggle with the concept of which external links are actually useful, and which fall under the heading of "advertising." The gray area is very large sometimes. If I were you, I'd ask that question Village pump (miscellaneous). The anon user who asked the question on my talk page stepped WAY over the gray and into the black. He wrote an article on an online personals service that screamed ADVERTISEMENT, then linked it over and over and over into many articles, some of which only had a very tenuous connection to it. Joyous June 30, 2005 03:38 (UTC)
 * Well, I went ahead and actually created an article for Manhunt, so the issue I was worried about isn't one anymore. And since I'm not affiliated with them in any way (wait, well, I'm acquaintances with someone who used to work for them), it's not advertising. I tried to make the article as informative as possible. There was also a link to the article before it existed on manhunt the disambiguation page. Gemini6Ice 2 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)

Wikipedian Behavior
Although I disagree with yours and LittleRedRidingHood's positions on the Feces article, I am horrified by the arrogance of the admins who are using blocking to stifle debate, clearly in violation of policy. Since Mikkalai has today made his contempt official, I have started an RFC on his blocking of LittleRedRidingHood. Can one or both of you please sign your name under 'users certifying the basis for this dispute?' If not, the RFC will be deleted. Floopy 7 July 2005 01:58 (UTC)

You were right about the personal attack so i removed it. I was out of line. Floopy 7 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)


 * I can't find the comment where he made his contempt "official." Could you point me to it? I agree that his behavior is autocratic at best. If someone is blocked, e deserves an explanation as to why. Also, thank you for retracting the insults against the other user on the talk page. ^_^ I'm amused that we three users who are at odds over the article are all feeling oppressed by the same individual. I agree with the lock on the article though. Wikipedia as a group needs to arrive at some sort of consensus. And then if we disagree with it, we must just accept it and move it. We have users who feel passionately about the subject. If everyone just changes the article willy-nilly, we'll just have stalemate with two users reverting the article back and forth. And that doesn't resolve anything. I noticed a while back that Mikkalai was stalking my edits, so I began to correct any grammatical errors I noticed in his edits. He seemed to leave me alone after that. Gemini6Ice 7 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, here is the current stalemate I have with mikka: Talk:-cide. He removed homocide from the list of neologisms, so I reverted it, and then he rereverted it. Gemini6Ice 7 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)


 * Three people asked him to explain his behavior on the talk page, and here, his response is: "sorry, no feeding trolls." I considered that his formal refusal. Floopy 7 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)


 * Well, I've heard homocide used before. He also removed zionophobia from a list of phobias, when others on the list are more absurd. Floopy 7 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)

Wild Goose
What is "wild goose" vandalism? The kind where the shit just happened to hit me? Joyous (talk) 17:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's where instead of just outright vandalizing your page as a prank, the person will leave something that essentially amounts to vandalism (by the purposelessness of it), but also makes you waste energy trying to follow the vandalism to something. Another example would be leaving a link to a non-existent article and asking your opinion on it. Gemini6Ice 22:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think my definition is more poetic. Joyous  (talk) 23:02, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, oops. I totally misread your comment and missed the entire joke. I read, "What is 'wild goose' vandalism? The kind of shit that just happened to me?" Yeah, your definition is awesome then. :) Gemini6Ice 03:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Homocide AFD
Welcome to the evils of the AFD system. Once enough people have voted redirect, that's how it goes. If you want to be ballsy, you could just recreate the article, and I wouldn't have a problem looking the other way. Just remember to vote for pure wiki deletion if it ever comes up. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Keep in mind, I just close AFDs according to the votes in them, not what I personally think about the issue. I think you have a case. Good luck. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Homocide was never deleted, so VfU is an improper forum. Use WP:RFC instead. android 79  23:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocking
Here on Wikipedia, I always blocked just by going to the recent changes page. Karmafist 14:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I asked around and the problem was the "user:" part. Just get rid of that. Karmafist 21:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Gluemeat.Edouardo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Gluemeat.Edouardo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sandstein 06:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Gluemeat.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Gluemeat.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sandstein 06:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Gluemeat.Blue.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Gluemeat.Blue.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sandstein 06:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Law professor
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Law professor, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Law professor
An editor has nominated Law professor, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of International Dadaism Month for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International Dadaism Month 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/International Dadaism Month 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 notice from the top of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)