User talk:Milk-maid

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -Platypus Man | Talk 14:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

September 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Pederasty, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 12:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Child modeling (erotic). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 12:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are in error, "erotic child modelling" is simply an euphemism for child porn.


 * I have not added any such "commentary" either so please do not lie. --Milk-maid 12:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine then, just stop redirecting those good articles. If you have a problem with them, bring it up on the talk pages. -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 12:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not "good" articles by any definition, the whole assumption they are based on is false.


 * With "Pederasty", the word means exactly the same as pedophilia (with the vague "usually boys" used to differentiate it), and the article does nothing more than to provide a historical justification for pedophilia in the modern day and is heavily biased.
 * There is no reason to have 2 different articles, the issue is exactly the same, and any material actually deemed worthwhile should be placed in a subsection of pedophilia named "History of pedophilia" or alike. --Milk-maid 12:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Both articles are very well referenced, and such provide a distinction from the articles you are redirecting them to. If you have a issue bring it up on the talk page of those articles. Until a consensus is made, all three articles remain.
 * Also I have not abused the minor tag, reverting is a appropriate use of the minor tag. Read it up on WP:MINOR. -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 12:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again you are wrong, read Help:Minor edit.


 * "Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances."


 * "Until a consensus is made all three articles remain" - You mean YOUR "consensus", I don't see anyone else agreeing with you... --Milk-maid 12:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Bring it up on the talk page of the articles, not here. -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 12:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. - Jeeny Talk 12:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ........... --Milk-maid 12:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I echo what Jeeny and DeadEyeArrow have already said. Continue editing in this fashion is not likely to achieve anything but a block for you. I have all three articles on my watchlist, as do many others, and you will be reverted until such time as you discuss this on the talk pages and achieve community consensus. Cheers. Jeffpw 13:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your sincerely held opinions I should comment that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it is an encyclopedia. This encyclopedia contains articles on subjects that many different people (for many different reasons) find objectionable, but the criteria for inclusion only considers if the content is verifiable and properly sourced. The other principle behind editing Wikipedia is that of consensus, the considered result of the input of two or more editors. While editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD in editing it is noted that any revision of a bold edit is an invitation to discuss the contribution (per Bold - Revert - Discuss). Your input on the talkpages of the various articles will be most welcome. LessHeard vanU 21:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Final warning
I, along with other admins, are watching too.

These articles are well-referenced and editors have reached consensus on their content and form. Because consensus has already been reached, it is up to you to prove you have consensus to change the content – not the other way around. Unilateral moves and undiscussed edits, especially to make a point about pornography, will achieve nothing, and you will be reverted. Arguing about who made a minor edit and who didn't is a red herring and does nothing to support your position.

You have been warned, so consider this your final warning: If you revert any of these articles again within the next 24 hours, or if you make similar edits to other articles, you will be blocked for disruption. Pleas use the articles' talk pages to discuss your concerns and work with others to improve the encyclopedia instead of making tendentious edits. - Krakatoa  Katie  14:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:HP_sauce.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HP_sauce.jpg. I noticed 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 even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 00:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HP sauce.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HP sauce.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Justin Timberlake
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:34, 07 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, you could actually try reading the other article. Reverted kneejerk edit and vandal accusation... --Milk-maid 04:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. Your continued joking is disruptive and considered vandalism. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue.  Anthony Rupert 03:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have pointed out several times it is not a "joke", try actually reading the article Living With Michael Jackson which mentions Timberlake specifically - and try not to be such a reactionary muppet who obviously reverts without actually researching first --Milk-maid 15:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you know that's a fact? Maybe someone vandalize the page and added it there. Or even yet, has Justin verified it? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Living With Michael Jackson article is in violation of WP:BLP and WP:V without citing that information with a reliable source. Also, wikipedia articles aren't to be used as sources in other wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not a primary source of information. If you continue to re-insert this information, you will be blocked for violating Wikipedia's core policies on biographies of living people and verifiability. Thank you.  Bmg 916 Speak 19:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is NOT in violation of anything, the source is the television programme (Living With Michael Jackson yep) in which Timberlake is clearly mentioned... If you cannot be bothered to do some research don't attack the people who have done please. If it gets you uptight that "I am referencing another Wikipedia article" fine, I have now added it instead with a proper cite. --Milk-maid 02:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not attack you, and yes it was in violation of WP:BLP. IMDB is not verifiable as it doesn't mention anything about the Timberlake accusation. Also, someone saying it's in the video isn't verifiable either. If you can show the exact clip from somewhere that isn't infringing on the copyright of the video, then it can be verified and included. Bmg 916 Speak 19:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that is not true, I have seen plenty of references to books and no copies of the text that is being cited. The same would logically apply to documentaries or films, it's ridiculous to ask people to link-cite material that is copyrighted on the internet... --Milk-maid 09:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Well, the exact clip thing was probably a bit much to ask, yes, but I did find a partial transcript of the documentary and used it to source the claim about the Culkin children over at the Living with Michael Jackson article. Bmg 916 Speak 19:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

blocked
You've been blocked for a period of 31 hours since you have been editing disruptively ignoring the many notes and warnings above for more than a month now. Please try to communicate and discuss your edits w/ other editors when you are back. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  05:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not ignore them, I replied to him in edit summaries (he did not even bring up a talk page section like he claimed, he lied)


 * He spammed my talk page to try make things appear worse than they actually were.


 * Good job on falling for it... --Milk-maid 09:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HP sauce.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:HP sauce.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)