User talk:Iamandrewrice/Archive 1

License tagging for Image:Claz.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Claz.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarendon House Grammar School
Sorry if I'm taking long to reply (so long that you've figured it out by know). If you need any other help, just give me a call, and I'll try to reply faster :) ♠  TomasBat   22:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Chatham and Clarendon House
I don't really see how it is relevant to use the nicknames Claz and Chaz on an encyclopaedia article. I've not heard them before, and i doubt you can make them meet the policy on WP:V, so I think it's best to leave those off. Any questions, give me a shout. Owain.davies (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack
OK, I appreciate you're new, but personal attacks are not the way to get things done. In the case of the 'Chaz' page, it is definitely vandalism, as you simply deleted other peoples work. As for the nicknames, it might be a current nickname, but having gone to the school myself and having relations as governors, i don't think its relevant. Wikipedia does not deal in things which happen to be true, but those which can be proved, so if you want to have it in, you will need to prove it in a reliable third party source - see WP:V for more information.

I'm sorry to have to do this, but please take time to learn a little more about Wikipedia policy before adding content like transient slang. Owain.davies (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy
OK, the place where you deleted other peoples work was on the page Chaz, which was (and now is again) a disambiguation page, which directs people to other pages, where there may be some different meanings. It was a mistake, so that was fine, and i've put it back.

As for 'proof', as I said, Wikipedia only deals in things which can be proven by reference to a reliable third party source. Look at WP:V and WP:CITE if you don't believe me. It's not good enough for it to be true, you need to have it written in a paper, academic journal or reputable news site, something like that. In this case, i'd settle for it being mentioned by John Matthews in a press release, which i suspect is unlikely.

Further to that, it's not usual to reference short lived slang terms in articles. As you said, Edward Heath went there, but would he recognise the word 'Chaz'? Probably not.

Hope this helps. Owain.davies (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you find verifiable third party evidence, of the type i mentioned above, it should be cited in the text as per WP:CITE, but its a little complex when you start doing it, so if you find something, feel free to let me know and I will tell you if its suitable and how to include it. In line with policies, I have removed them again, and I would suggest you leave them that way, else the system is liable to automatically block you for continued reversion.  Seriously though, you're clearly keen, so i would suggest putting the energy in to putting more information in to the article, and ignoring the current slang name. Owain.davies (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Slang terms
Yes, there is a page about lol, but you'll see it's referenced! If you look you'll see numbers in the text itself, and a list of references from recognised books, academic journals and dictionaries. This is the level of proof you need to be using slang terms.

As for Wallace, well, he always was 'down with the kids'.

Owain.davies (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Level of proof
As i've said several times, the source needs to be independent and third party. Such as a book, journal or newspaper. In some cases it is acceptable for it to be an official document - so it would have to be something issued by the school management (senior teachers, governors, bursar etc.)

Oh, and I had noticed, so congratulations on creating your first article. I will spend some time working on it when i get a moment. Owain.davies (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Chatham House problems and the Three Revert Rule.
I see there is a rather nasty edit war going on between you and User talk:Owain.davies. I believe you are in the wrong - you are ignoring the WP:V policy - which says that information (such as the nickname you have for the school) should be VERIFIABLE. In other words, we need you to provide us with some place we can go to check that this nickname is truly being used and is notable. Preferably this should be a book, magazine or newspaper - but an independent web site would do at a pinch. Personally, I think this nickname is a neologism - and it won't endure more than a year or two. I also went to Chatham House - and in all the years I was there, I never heard it called "Chas".

However: Both you and User:Owain.davies are breaking the 'three revert rule' (WP:3RR). This is a rule designed to prevent the kind of ridiculous revert warring that you two are undertaking. Please read the WP:3RR article and follow the rules. If you do not do so, I WILL get your account blocked from editing Wikipedia.

The way to resolve this dispute is to discuss it on the Chatham House article's 'discussion' page. The article should be returned to the state it was BEFORE you added your disputed "fact" - and you will have to provide a reasoned discussion on the talk page as to why that information should be put there (eg because you have verification for us to check) - and when a consensus as to the correct way to proceed has formed - then we can change the article appropriately.

But I repeat - if you continue to behave as badly as you have - you WILL get an edit ban. I've seen it happen a hundred times to people like you.

Let's solve this sensibly - please.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Setting up
I am sorry you think i'm involved in some sort of conspiracy against you, but i genuinely do want to help new users make their contribution. In terms of what you've said about Clarendon House, yes it will certainly need an independent reference that it exists to be inserted at some point, as facts need to be proven.

My only comment to Steve was in relation to the edit warring, which I agree with him, is inappropriate, and in that case it is right that an admin locks the thread until it is resolved. Regards, Owain.davies (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Claz
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Claz, because another editor is suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. Man It&#39;s So Loud In Here (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable
It is not for me to settle a dispute with another editor, i don't know him, and I am in no position to do so. He does however explain the difference between what is potentially verifiable (like the school) and what is not likely to ever be verifiable (like the nickname) on his talk page in reply to your message.

It boils down to the fact that a school is likely to be provable, as there will be lots of references to it, so we can add a reference later. A nickname is not likely to have the sort of citations required, as by definition, it rarely gets written down. Have a look at some of the links Steve has given in his reply. Owain.davies (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You've been blocked for 24 hours for accusing another user of "Slander", per WP:LEGAL. Normally, I would suggest that you may be unblocked if you retract the statement/apologise, however there would appear to be other concerns as well (See User talk:SteveBaker.) - jc37 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC) - Note: I will not oppose someone else instituting a longer block. - jc37 22:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

right!
FIRSTLY, PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY IT IS THAT YOU BLOCKED ME!

AND SECONDLY, YES I DID ACCUSE THE OTHER USER OF SLANDER BECAUSE FROM MY LEGAL VIEW THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS, IF YOU CHOOSE TO GO SEE THE USER'S TALK THAT HE SLANDERED ME ON.

AS HE DID NOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY ON THIS, I AM NOT TAKING SEVERE LEGAL ACTION AS I AM A FIGURE IN POSITION TO DO SO, AND IF YOU CHOOSE TO ARGUE THAT I AM WRONG THEN I WILL HAVE TO INVOLVE YOU IN THE ACCUSATION AS WELL BECAUSE YOU ARE TO ALL INTENSIVE PURPOSES A COMMITER OF THE VIOLATION.

THANK YOU... AND IF I GET A REPLY, IM SURE YOU'LL BE PLEASED BY THE REPLY YOU WON'T GET FROM ME BACK!Iamandrewrice (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As I note below, others are taking care of this now. I'll merely note that the slander "threat" wasn't the only reason for you being blocked, and that I didn't block you indefinitely (as I presume is typically the norm), but for only 24 hours. - jc37 21:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarendon Article
Whilst it would appear that an admin has intervened regarding your conversation with Steve, I have gone and added key citations to the Clarendon article. Go and have a look, and it will show you the sort of thing which needs to accompany facts in the article. I hope you will come back and start adding more of your constructive content, like the creation of the Clarendon article, but within the WP guidelines. Regards, Owain.davies (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin info
Steve has answered your question on admin assistance on my talk page here. Owain.davies (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
Per your legal threat here, you have been indefinitely blocked until you have withdrawn that threat. Our no legal threats policy mandates that no legal threats may be made on Wikipedia for any reason, and the person making the threat will be indefinitely blocked until all outstanding legal threats have been withdrawn. — Kurykh  20:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And therefore if I withdraw my "legal threat"? and anyway, I think you have failed to realise what I mean, as implying that I am going to take this to an authority can hardly be considered something to block me for...

Iamandrewrice (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you withdraw your legal threat, I will unblock you.
 * You said you "do intend to take legal action," which I and another admin interpret as a threat of litigation. Please read WP:NLT. — Kurykh  20:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you are saying that you're going to pursue legal action. That's a legal threat, as I read it.  If I'm mistaken feel free to correct my interpretation.  --Haemo (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

well yes i do think you have misunderstood, partially due to my poor lack of wording. By 'legal threat,' i am implying that I am going to take this case to a wikipedian authoritive representative and ask them to deal with the problem wikipedian editor. Does that count as a legal threat? If it does not then i apologize for my way of phrasing it originally.

Iamandrewrice (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest I am sure that making a formal complaint on wikipedia is not something that is 'blockable'...

Annabelle x Iamandrewrice (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, sorry, I don't understand. Are you going forward with legal action, or not, with respect to this case?  A "formal complaint" on Wikipedia is very different from "legal action", as you explained earlier.  Could you clarify? --Haemo (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, i explained it wrong then... i'm not sure what 'legal action' is... is that like a court or something? cos i dont mean that! i mean that I wish to talk to an authority on wikipedia. x Iamandrewrice (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, legal action means a court, with judges and lawyers and stuff. Wikipedia doesn't really have "authorities", since it's a consensus-based organization.  However, I'm going to unblock you because you're not making a legal threat.  --Haemo (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I should point out Iamandrewrice's post to my talk psge (I quote):
 * "FIRSTLY, I WASNT ADRESSING YOU BIELLE, AND SECONDLY, AS YOU HAVE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT YOU HAVE DONE I AM NOW DEFINITELY GOING TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION, AND I CAN VERY MUCH ASSURE YOU THAT YOU SHOULD FIND YOURSELF SOME LEGAL ADVICE. Iamandrewrice (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)"
 * This seemed like a pretty clear legal threat to me (not that I gave it any credibility). However, I do not advocate a block for this user who is young and a relative newcomer to Wikipedia.  Some help from a more experienced Wikipedian would be beneficial.  I have tried (and failed) to offer advice - but failing that, I highly recommend the Adopt-A-User service. SteveBaker (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your case on the AN/I and I wanted to drop by and see if I could help clear up some of the confusion:


 * 1) While yes, it was probably rather rude of SteveBaker not to assume good faith, unlike school (I assume you're a student, forgive me if that's wrong) we don't punish people here for misbehaving. In fact, we try not to punish people at all - if they're disruptive, they're banned to prevent further disruption, not as punishment.
 * 2) "Legal" implies through a judicial system, such as calling the police or filing a lawsuit. You're not allowed to threaten to do that on wikipedia; furthermore, if you do try such things it'd probably be a waste of time (my dad's a lawyer, trust me).
 * 3) Honestly, you got off on the wrong foot a little. It's ok, it happens. I suggest you calm down and focus on editing wikipedia. If Stevebaker is the kind of person who routinely insults people, it'll be brought to the attention of the community through an RfC, or Request for Comment. If it was just a one-time mistake, it won't be repeated. Either way, right now the best thing for you to do is look forward instead of behind.

If you have any questions about editing feel free to ask on my talk page, I'd be happy to answer your questions. I suggest reading the policies on WP:verifiability and WP:notability so that you don't run into the same issues again. Welcome to Wikipedia! Kuronue | Talk 04:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: GHD
Sorry about that, I must have hit the wrong button when deleting it. I've restored it for more people to take a look. east. 718 at 15:02, November 24, 2007


 * Hello again! As for why it was tagged as speedy (because it's likely to be tagged such again), a basic overview can be found here and here . More complete guidelines for speedy deletion can be found at WP:SPEEDY. Specifically, when writing about a subject, you need to provide some reason why it's notable - the article didn't contain any. If it is a well-known and notable brand, perhaps you can find some information in a newspaper about it that you can cite? Also, we have to be neutral in an encyclopedia - it's not our job to say if a product is good or bad, but if someone else claims it's good we can write that. Don't feel bad if it is deleted - it's not against you personally, everyone's just trying to make the encyclopedia better and sometimes you have to delete things. Kuronue | Talk 16:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the thing, though. Not everything that exists belongs in wikipedia. For example, I exist, but I'm not important enough to be in wikipedia. Something has to be notable for it to be in wikipedia - for example, if the product won some sort of award, or if someone in a newspaper wrote about it. Kuronue | Talk 16:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it is notable. See if you can find sources that meet the notability criteria - a newspaper or magazine article, a book, something like that. It can be online but it has to be from a major media outlet, not someone's blog. Also, and easier, the article needs to be expanded - try going to the website and looking for the history of the product, for starters, or what exactly is in it. Is it a gel, a spray, or what? Kuronue | Talk 17:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, hair irons! I thought it was a product of some kind. I'm in the USA, so no, I haven't heard of them. Their website doesn't seem to be helpful as to factual information. A quick search of google news turns up this article, why don't you start by incorperating that info into the wikipedia article? Kuronue | Talk 20:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is very frustrating. There are few things on Wikipedia that wind me up more than protracted arguments over one-line stubs.  GHD is notable, they are so widely known that even I, a bloke who gets my hair cut maybe four times a year and whose wife doesn't even possess a hair dryer, have heard of them.  Instead of arguing about how notable the company is, I suggest you find some sources, expand the article, and tell the world why the hell they should care.  Because in the end Wikipedia is not a directory, it's an encyclopaedia.  Please please make an effort to build this up into at least one or two full paragraphs.  the company history can be sourced from its website, and there's bound to be some editorial coverage in Cosmo or someplace.  Try to steer clear of advertorial and press releases, and just... make the article bigger.  At which point it will be so obvious that nobody will tag it. And then we can all get on with whatever it was we were doing before. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on GHD Styler, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JohnCD (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't remove speedy-deletion tags
You are entitled to challenge the speedy deletion; if you want to do that, put on the page immediately under the  tag, and put your reasons on the article's talk page. The administrators will read what you say before they decide. But you must not remove the speedy deletion tag. JohnCD (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Ghdstraightenernewmini.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Ghdstraightenernewmini.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

GHD Styler
I didn't delete it - I couldn't, that takes an admin. Someone else must have put the tag back on. I still thought it looked like an advertisement, or at best an entry in a product catalogue, not like an encyclopedia article. Read WP:NOT - in fact the whole, rather long, list of What Wikipedia is not is worth reading, if you want to write articles that don't get deleted; so are the introduction, tutorial, and guide to creating your first article. JohnCD (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Image Copyright tags
I'm afraid I don't know about these, I've never tried to upload an image. The reason for them is that most images are copyright, so you can only put one in Wikipedia if you can explain why it isn't copyright, or why the person who owns the copyright allows you to use it. Try reading WP:COPYRIGHT and any links you find there; if that doesn't help, put on your talk page some time when you are going to be at the computer for a time, and someone will come to give you advice. JohnCD (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam in Good Hair Day
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Good Hair Day, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Good Hair Day is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Good Hair Day, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Cease and desist
I told you once politely not to chit chat on my talk page; that I am working on building an encyclopedia. You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is a social networking site. It is not. You later replied with more social blather, which I deleted with a stern edit summary. You then, in violation of policy, reinstated that crap on my talk page again. DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN! If you further post on my talk page about anything non-related to improving this encyclopedia, I will immediately ask an administrator to block you. I will not warn you again. Jeffpw (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Hair Day
Sorry for having assumed bad faith about the copyright status of the images you uploaded. As for the article itself my criticism still stands. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Hair Day II
The notability needs to be proven. We'll take this to AFD. Duke of Whitstable (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I could easily prove a shop in Letchworth Garden City exists by adding links, but in no way does that make that shop notable! Duke of Whitstable (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, for a start, try and cite these parts of the article:


 * "Their best known product is the "ghd styler" hair iron." (Find a reliable source stating it is their best-known product)


 * "The 'GHD Styler' is considered the normal size" (Normal in what way? What is a normal size?)


 * "The smaller the size you choose, the more ideal the product is for shorter hair lengths." (Use of the word "you" should be avoided, and provide a cite for that claim)


 * "GHD hair irons use ceramic technology on their heating plates, giving them their golden appearance" (What is ceramic technology, why would it give a golden appearance, does the "their" refer to the plates or the irons?)


 * "The ceramic technology allows for softer damaging impacts on the hair caused by the severe heat." (Sounds like an advertising claim, softer relative to what and at what level does heat become severe?)


 * "GHD however now offers several hair repairment treatments as well as a variety of other such cremes." (Needs citation, and explanation of what it actually means)

Personally, I think the only part of the article worth keeping - assuming for a moment it is even salvagable - is the first sentence, ie: Good Hair Day (also known as ghd) is an English hair styling[1] company." Duke of Whitstable (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Image tag
I have replied to your question at Media copyright questions --teb728 (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Image help
It looks like you just need to force-resize them when you put them into the article: see for information. But also be sure you're not uploading copyrighted images: has the policy on images. Kuronue | Talk 18:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your message
I am glad somebody managed to find some references, hopefully now there is a chance that the article will be turned into something approaching the standards required of an encyclopedia. I will not withdraw the nomination at this time, as it would be unfair to prevent users giving their views. However, for your future reference I would suggest you do not leave messages on user's talk pages that could be interpreted as uncivil - acting in such a way towards other editors may have resulted in action that could have prevented you from editing for a time. However, I am sure your adopter can take you through the processes in due course. Duke of Whitstable (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, all sorted now Whitstable (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations
Given your apparent pending adoption by an experienced user, I am willing to overlook your | accusations against me. However, may I recommend that, along with the advice you will be given by your adopter (assuming you accept the offer) you take a close look at Wikipedia guidelines? May I also suggest you consider altering your username, your user page or both as there appears to be a discrepancy between the two, given that your username suggests you are Andrew Rice, whereas your user page gives a different indication. Duke of Whitstable (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
Yes, he bothers me. And im not treating Wikipedia like myspace as he says. I just talk from time to time to my friends. HIYO (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I did it!
Insert non-formatted text here

I did it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeseth1992 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

adopt
Go and see what that stupid Jeff person left me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeseth1992 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Claz.jpg
Can you confirm that you did not take this photo (despite the tag you used) and that you merely stole it from the school website? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You put a tag on it which reads "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain.". You are not the copyright holder. You are not in a position to release it into the public domain.


 * You say "i said that the school made it available to anyone". Exactly what is your evidence for this? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Was she the copyright holder? I think that as the image is merely of a bunch of people, and there is considerable ambiguity about whether or not wikipedia has a licence for it, it would be better if we let it get deleted. You have a connection with the school? You have a camera? Point the camera at the school, press the button, and add the results to the article. Meanwhile please be very careful when adding licence tags to images ... the self part of PD-self should have been clue enough for you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My view: yes it should be deleted; it is of uncertain licence. That is more important than your opinion that the page will look worse without it. My further view: a photo of a gang of girls standing on a staircase is not a very good image illustrative of a school. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Adoption Request
Thank you for requesting adoption with User:Marbles. Adoption can offer a whole host of benefits to an adoptee, including personal hints, advice, progress checks and much more. For your information, I live in the United Kingdom, and therefore my timezone is UTC or BST. I am available on Wikipedia most days, and can offer advice on a range of topics including copyrighting images, policies, edit disputes, basic formatting, NPOV and referencing, alongside other ideas. To contact me, you can leave a message on my talk page or e-mail me. If you wish to finalise an adoption status, please add   on your user page. If you already have the userbox   on your page, please replace that with the one above. I can then add you to my list of adoptees. Please don't hesitate to contact me. Many thanks, /Marbles (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Advice
Hi there; I would like to give you some advice, which you may take on board or ignore at your discretion.

We have, I think, never interacted, although as you have been on wikipedia for a very short time this is not surprising. You have been adopted by Jeff, who is an experienced editor and who can help you enormously if you let him. This implies a recognition on your part of what you know and do not know, and what you are and are not competent to do.

Your comments about adopting other users does, I regret to say, indicate a significant lack of understanding on your part of the extent of the wikipedia project; an adopter is expected to be competent to answer questions about all aspects of the encyclopedia, and while Jeff certainly is, I feel that at this time you are not.

There have been comments made about your username, which is daft but probably not against guidelines, given that Andrew Rice is not a notable character. But changing to a somewhat less provocative username might be a smart move, if you intend to be a serious wikipedia contributor. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Echoing Anthony, I have some concerns about your user name. If you are indeed using the name of a school friend or acquaintance, your edits could be associated with him. Give some thought to perhaps changing it. I am a bit skeptical that Andrew Rice is your "favorite celebrity", given that he is a minor politician from a different country than yours. If you do decide to change your name here, an administrator can assist you, and make sure that all of your edits will be transferred to your new name. Give it some thought.


 * My bringing the issue to those in charge of user names is not a sign that I do not like you. Indeed, it was out of concern for you that I did it. I simply want to help you become a good editor here, and don't want this account to be an obstacle for you.


 * As to your MySpace account, I don;t feel it necessary for us to expand our relationship further than Wikipedia. There is more than enough here to keep us occupied, and it is probably better if we focus on improving your editing experience. I do hope you understand.


 * Let me know if you have read the WP:NPA policy, and please give me a summary of that when you are ready. With that behind us, we can start working on editing proper. Jeffpw (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Changing your username
This page can assist you in doing it. It will actually take a bureaucrat here to effect the change, and the page suggests you might simply want to register a new name. I would actually recommend the latter, as you can do that yourself without help. All our talk about adoption can be transferred to your new page if you choose that option. I have changed the link toyour sandbox. You combined the procedure for renaming an internal link with that of an external link. Here you can see what I did. Jeffpw (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing civility issue
I have mentioned it more than once, and will only say it this once more: Stop contacting User:SteveBaker. That discussion is over and he has no interest in pursuing it with you. To continue in this vein is considered harassment, and will lead to your being blocked from editing. Got it? Jeffpw (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Adoption
I note that you already have two adopters. In what ways do you feel you need another one? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire
I thoroughly enjoy being your adopter. It's not only useful and helps the project, but I have the pleasure of watching you grow and evolve here. It is not only a pleasure, it is an honor to be placed in a position of such trust.

To join the LGBT Project, you just go to this page and add your name to the list of active members. Then you'll get our monthly newsletter (usually written by me, now), as well as a welcome mailer showing you all you can do as a member. I'd add your name for you, but I would like to see you learn how to do stuff like this on your own. Don't worry--I watch your contributions, so if you have trouble doing it, I can jump in and help you out. Jeffpw (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good job on joining the project. You'll be getting the welcoming mailer shortly from SatyrTN. I know you'll find lots to do in the project if you have a look around.


 * My edit summary was just a bit of silliness. I was correcting a typo, from "mane" to "name".


 * And please reread what I wrote above. I did not say I didn't want to be friends. I said we have a mentoring relationship, and it would not be appropriate to expand it off wiki, given the structure of this relationship and our age difference. No more was implied.


 * I am going to move that article to your sandbox, and you can work on it there, expanding the text and adding refs. I'll be watching your edits, and will show you how to properly reference if you have trouble. Now that we are moving onto editing, there are some other policies (and ues, I know, we have policied for everything here). Very important polices (in fact the core policies for editing articles) are verifiability and remaining neutral in your writing. Reliable sources are paramount, too. As we work on the article, you can ask me questions about these policies as they apply to what we do, and I can explain why it is important. Once you get the hang of that, you're well on your way to being a great editor here! Jeffpw (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Userbox and sandbox
Very well done! you really catch on quick here. I like to make them, too, and have dozens on my user page. Feel free to take some if you want.

I have left some comments on the discussion page of your sandbox, about your article edits. Please take a look when you have time. And oh, yes, I saw your edits to the Body dismorphic disorder page. I didn't revert them, but when I make edits like that (that not all people don't know about), I always try to add a reference if I can. Just remember: the more references we add, the more reliable we are as a source of reference. But I am glad to see you jumping in and editing!!! Great job!! I also thought it was wonderful to see how you jumped right in on a policy page discussion. Many users are afraid to do that. Always remember: As long as you are an editor in good standing, you have every right to make your opinions heard here. Jeffpw (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You certainly are an editor in good standing. You have created an article, participated in an deletion discussion, and asked to be adopted. That's all it takes. Edit in good faith and don't harm the project, and you are equal to anybody here. As to your userbox, it looks great and I am sure people would like to have it on their page if they had BDD. Go ahead and upload it there. Let me know if you need help doing it. Jeffpw (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have put in a request here to have your userbox transcluded to a template. I have never used anything but code for mine,so was at a loss as to how to do that myself. Let's see what they come up with. Jeffpw (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem about the userbox. you can go check there periodically to see if they have replied. As to Jeeny, if you have been following the discussions on the admin notice board and her talk page, you probably see that she and I have known each other for quite some time, she is having some real problems here at the moment, and there are extenuating circumstances. Should that particular constellation of circumstances occur in your Wiki life,I would probably make you the same offer. Jeffpw (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me put it another way: you play the piano, right? So you took lessons. Would you ask your piano teacher to go out to the mall or chat on the phone with you? That wouldn't be right, since they are a professional doing a job. It's the same with our relationship here on Wikipedia. I do not want the boundaries to get blurred and lose my objectivity in what we are trying to accomplish. And another thing that you may not have considered: As one grows older, one takes more time to jump into friendships. They grow at a different pace than those of people who are younger. We have only just met, and I prefer to keep our contact Wikipedia based. While I am sorry you are disappointed, this is how it will have to be, at least until you are an established editor here and don't need my help. Jeffpw (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you feel that way, and am sorry you feel lectured, as that was never my intention. I thought I was helping you and guiding you in an area you didn't understand. You are certainly free to find another adopter if you wish, though naturally that would disappoint me. However, I remain firm in my position that our friendship will have to remain wiki based at least until we are finished with your adoption lessons and you are confident enough to edit on your own. Jeffpw (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wassup?
See my talk page. SteveBaker (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

what was wrong with the reference
Well firstly the reference did not even work on the last edit you made to that page before I deleted it. But that is besides the point, as going through the history and finding the link to the reference showed that the reference was not valid at all. Mediterraneans are most definately not Latino and that link does not even support that idea, so I don't know exactly where you got that idea from. My guess is your another person wishing they were Latino because it is cool. You shouldn't try to be something your not, one thing which makes Latinos so cool and envied is their great pride and love for their culture and background. I suggest you try this. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LMFAO yeh i new it u jus proved my point! yo a fukn idiot man u need 2 do mo research, lol n u watch in bout 10 yrs time ull look bak on dis n go god i was dum. im not gon evn bothr wit u, yo reply sed it all for me.

TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * TeePee-20.7, you will shortly be receiving a civility warning on your talk page. Do not engage in such petty name calling of another editor again. Jeffpw (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care, you need to be put in your place and since you persist I will try to explain and inform your ignorant mind. I made those comments based on your reply which was absurd and clearly appropriate to your age. You seem to me to be some ill-informed kid who is confused of his or her identity. Firstly your mother is Italian, therefore making her NOT Latina. She is not from Latin America and is NOT Latina. Latinos are commonly referred to as Latins as this is the shortening of the word Latino and quite literally the english translation. And this technically speaking is what your mother is Latin NOT Latina, as she is from Latin Europe. I am not and never was saying you need to 'convert', and as you are not able to comprehend what I am saying to you, you seem to be pulling out weird ideas of what I might be saying. Mediterranean people are NOT, I repeat myself once again so you can be clear on this, are NOT commonly (I suspect you meant to put in the words 'known as' here) Latino, and before you go making a further fool of yourself I suggest you do some further research. I don't care wether you find that anything I said is rascist because you don't even seem to have a grasp on the concept of race! Latinos are NOT a race, get that simple fact into your head. And please don't go using big words you don't know the meaning of like prejudice' it only makes you look more stupid. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Iamandrew: this user has been warned twice now. If it continues, I will grab an administrator's attention on your behalf. Jeffpw (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He has now been blocked from editing for personal attacks. See his talk page for details. Jeffpw (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * of course we were not ganging up on him. You were trying to calmly discuss the situation and got attacked. I then warned him of his incivility. he lashed out, sent multiple homophobic messages trying to get people to group attack us and was blocked for that. End of story. If the blocking admin had felt we had done anything wrong, we would have been warned. Jeffpw (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)