User talk:Photouploaded

NOTICE: If you are coming here to reply to a comment I made on your talk page, please don't do it here. Please reply on your talk page, ''in order to keep the discussion in one place. If I commented on your talk page, I already added your talk page to my watchlist so I will be able to respond without unnecessary delay. Thank you.''

Montana Meth Project wording
I understand the methamphetamine is commonly referred to as meth. However this is an encyclopedia, we do not refer to amphetamine as amp, we do not call cigarettes "smokes", we have a duty to be accurate. The plain and simple truth is that there is NO drug called meth. It is a variation of the amphetamine structure by the addition of one methyl group on the nitrogen, thereby giving METHamphetamine. I do not propose we call methamphetamine "n-methyl-1-phenyl-propan-2-amine" even though this is the most technically correct name. However I must insist that we refrain from slang terms for drugs. To make matters worse, aside from the word "meth" being inaccurate, it also carries certain negative connotations that methamphetamine does not. I will wait a bit for you to respond, but we all ready have prior precedence on this issue. Crystal meth and sex is now methamphetamine and sex. Looking forward to your response.

EDIT OF OLD EDIT: Wow! very quick response to my first comment. Sorry I didn't notice that you had changed the wording. Before realizing that you had already changed the wording I went through and changed a few more things, however I am now thinking that your version may be better in some areas. The only thing I'm fairly certain on is the replacement of "one's" with "the subjects", this reads as less conversational to me. Thanks again for removing the word meth (except in quotations of course), give what I changed a read and see what you think. Really the only reason I'm leaving it is in case you prefer one of the changes over the previous version.

Foolishben 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Page move for We Love Katamari
I see that you recently moved both the page and talk page from We Love Katamari to We (heart symbol) Katamari. I will call your attention to the discussion on the talk page from about a year ago where it was decided that while the game was named We (heart symbol) Katamari, WP's accessibility rules were clear that the page should not use special symbols in the main page name and thus was reverted or kept at We Love Katamari with the appropriate redirect from We (heart symbol) Katamari. Unless you have a better reason, this change you did will be reverted. --M ASEM 14:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at I_Heart_Huckabees. The URL reads as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Heart_Huckabees, but the page title is I ♥ Huckabees.  We ♥ Katamari should be treated no differently.  I am not sure how to do this, but it should be implemented there too.  Photouploaded 15:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Intersexuality
Hi! I'd welcome your input to the discussion we've been having regarding the Intersexuality link on LGBT sidebar. Join us? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, please join the consensus discussion and discuss before making any changes. Thanks. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  14:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

More on Paul
Hi, I'm back. Could you do me the kindest favor and dialogue with Gloriamarie on what would be acceptable coverage of Paul's pro-life positions? I tried it as zero FNs from lead and restoring the editorial FN to the positions section. I think though that if you and Gloria can reach consensus it will be much more stable. Thanks! John J. Bulten 15:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help improving the Ron Paul article. I would greatly appreciate your opinion as to the recent edits made by Vidor and Terjen under "1996 campaign controversy". I am unable to characterize them neutrally right now and, if formal WP complaint procedures are applicable, I would rather not be the one to initiate them unless I am sure I have the right forum. For now your immediate comments and helpful edits would be highly valuable. Disclosure: I am sending this message to exactly 5 editors. John J. Bulten 16:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry JJB, the Thanksgiving holiday was a doozy and now I can't find what you were asking for help with. Photouploaded 15:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

let me know if i can help
Welcome back. I am an administrator and I have an interest in ensuring that contributors are not driven away from this website. Please reach me at my talk page or by email if you are feeling harassed again. ··coe l acan 14:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What a kind thing to say, coelacan. I appreciate you reaching out to me and I will keep you in mind.  Thank you again. Photouploaded 15:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

victims of Nazi persecution
is just another way of saying Holocaust victims and mixes up the read a bit. Wiki pages can get quite monotonous if it's the same term throughout: Holocaust victims...Holocaust victims...Holocaust victims instead of Holocaust victims...victims of Nazi persecution...Holocaust victims. Also the politics of that page is so tense atm, making even the smallest of changes could set off another edit war. If you agree maybe you could revert that change. Alatari (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cascadia
I wish you had discussed on the talk page before changing it, like I mentioned in the edit summary. Oh well, have fun. Katr67 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Still no response at article Talk... Photouploaded 15:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For your help with articles in WP:AFRO. futurebird (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC) :)


 * Thank you for the welcoming note! Photouploaded 15:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Male pregnancy edit wars
I have blocked both IPs for 24 hours and semi-protected the article for the same length of time. In the future, this sort of long-term problem is better off being reported to WP:AN/I. Daniel Case 15:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Daniel Case. I will remember the appropriate venue to report this kind of problem.  Photouploaded 15:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted the article as well, and will keep an eye out for recurrence.   Acroterion  (talk)  15:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your assistance, Acroterion. Photouploaded 15:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes thank you.--88.82.47.233 (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Need your help
Hey, Photouploaded. I have worked with you before on the Adult-child sex article, as we share the same sentiment about that, and you and I often edit the Sexual intercourse article.

Well, now I need your help with that article (the Sexual intercourse one), or rather in concerns to an editor, as seen on that article's talk page. An editor is injecting all kinds of POV into it, when it was fine and more accurate before, insulting me and my edits...basically stating that I am some biggot. My comments in the edit summary and on that talk page demonstrate why I feel strongly against this editor's changes to it, and it has nothing to do with bias, most certainly not. This editor also made all of these changes without consensus, of course. Any assistance from you on this matter will be much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hormone replacement therapy (male-to-female)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hormone replacement therapy (male-to-female), and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hormone replacement therapy (female-to-male)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hormone replacement therapy (female-to-male), and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No copyvio
Looking through this history of both the t-vox article "Hormone replacement therapy (trans)" and the wikipedia article "Hormone replacement therapy (trans)", it is clear that the wikipedia article came first. I have restored the text. Neitherday (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right! Good job, Neitherday. Photouploaded (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning
Just letting you know that you (and the user with whom you were warring) both violated WP:3RR on two separate articles, Pregnancy options counseling and Crisis pregnancy center. Keep in mind that 3RR just means that you undid the work of another editor multiple times, and this doesn't mean you have to have made the same revert (it could be 3 separate reverts, and partial reverts count as well). But what isn't important is the technicalities, but that you have been engaged in edit warring with practically no talk page discussion. What you need to do is to stop making controversial edits to the article, and go to the talk page and state specifically the issues you have and make proposals to fix those issues, so that other users can comment and collaborate so you can both come to an agreement. Wikipedia is a community and we work together. Fighting over edits on a live article is disruptive and unprofessional. Please be the bigger of the two and stop the fighting and go to the talk page. If the disruption continues, the article could become locked from editing, or worse, you could be temporarily blocked from editing altogether. -Andrew c [talk] 16:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not use my name and "status" as an admin to try to give more credence to a version of an article. I am just an editor like anyone else, and during content disputes, my opinion is simply that, one opinion among many. No more, no less. Next, you have been doing a lot of reverting on Pregnancy options counseling, yet you haven't said one word on the talk page. How do you think Monnica Williams will know why her edits are problematic if you don't tell her. I'm sure you two can work together, if you both agree to stop the in article fighting, and try to reach a version on the talk page which you both can agree with. -Andrew c [talk] 21:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought if an admin had looked at it and thought it was OK, that that was better than some new random unsourced additions. I have seen people revert back to a version before either person got to it before.... Photouploaded (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * During a content dispute, reverting to a longstanding "consensus" version instead of choosing to take sides is a good step. I understand now what you were doing Photouploaded, and it makes sense. I just got defensive when I saw my name attached to it. I think reverting to the old version because it has been longstanding is much more valid than reverting to a version because I had edited it. Thanks for clearing that up.-Andrew c [talk] 17:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Transgender
Based upon your recent edits to Transgender, I'm guessing that you may not be familiar with Wikipedia's Manual of Style, in particular the section on images. The reason why pixel sizes should not be specified on images is that it overrides user preferences. Since some users (me included) have their preference set at 300px, edits such as your recent ones actually force the images in the article to be smaller than they were when there was no pixel size specified.

I note that you also removed the upright option from at least one image. This is also specified in the MoS in order to better scale images that are taller than they are wide.

Please don't reformat images that conform to the MoS to not conform to MoS unless there is a specific page formatting or rendering problem to necessitate it.

If you want to change your own user settings to make thumbnails larger, you can do so by going to your preferences, select the Files tab, select the thumbnail size that you want, then save changes. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Chrysalis
Would you mind returning that link to the discussion? It is wonderfully informative, and certainly helped me in deciding we should include Intersexuality in our project. Thanks, Jeffpw (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your handle
Suggests you may know something about getting GNU licensed photos for article inclusion. Can you advise me on the procedure for I am looking to add a photo to the Rosie Perez bio. Alatari (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Abortion page
It looks like things are heating up on the abortion page. Let's talk things out on the discussion page. Edits have been happening too quickly at the moment, and some editors need time to think things though. Let's have a constructive talk on the discussion page. Regards, --IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Osteoporosis
I don't understand at all your insistence on removing content from osteoporosis. What you have done essentially removes the explanation why malnutrition would cause osteoporosis. I agree that a source is needed for this explanation (because protein or energy could be equally important), but I wonder what your actual reason is for removing this particular piece of information. Wikipedia is chock-a-block with uncited content, and we are gradually adding sources to this. Rather then removing this content, it would be much more helpful if you could do a PubMed or Google search and find a source!

I have not restored the content, because I'm waiting for your explanation, but your response would be appreciated. JFW | T@lk  20:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia should not be "chock-a-block" with uncited material. It's that simple.  There is a lot of debate on the Talk page as to which aspect of malnutrition leads to osteoporosis.  I'm not comfortable championing one reason or another.  The editor who added that is burdened with the responsibility of proving the claim, not me.  Photouploaded (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Genital modification
Just wanted to say nice work on your edits to genital modification and mutilation. Way to be bold and fix things! Given your work over there and on abortion, I wonder if you'd be interested in the issues with the reproductive rights page? Phyesalis (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Paul_Revolution#Ron_Paul_Revolution

If you have time I would like to hear your comments on this page. Thank you.--Duchamps comb (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your erasure on Bisexual erasure
I saw you removed my hard work. This is an incident where someone who was bisexual was denied being bisexual and derired and called a faker. Is this not what the article is about? Its first line is "Bisexual erasure is the tendency to ignore, remove, falsify, or reexplain evidence of bisexuality in the historical record, academic materials, the news media, and other primary sources." ????? William Ortiz (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see what this has to do with me personally, so please bring this up at the appropriate article Talk page for discussion. Photouploaded (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You reverted me so you would know more about your revert. Way too often talk pages of articles are just dead and so I thought it best to ask you in your talk page. William Ortiz (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to talk about changes to a specific article, the article Talk page is the place to do it. Photouploaded (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Account
I already have one. Unless the article is soft-protected, however, I do not see the need to log in to be a Wiki Gnome. 76.99.254.73 (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In re: Bisexual erasure
While assuming nothing but good faith on your part, due to the history of as well as lively and vigorous discussion about this article, I have restored it and substituted instead two merger discussion boxes, one on Bisexual erasure and one on Biphobia.

I look forward to discussing and working on these and other subjects with you in the future. Respectfully CyntWorkStuff (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

GM&M
I just wanted to discuss your reasonable issues over at Genital modification and mutilation. I know you spent a lot of time on the article. Your valuable contributions are evident. However, I think the general consensus was perceived to be for a list or a category. I don't think Jakew was onboard with the expansion to a new article. I think Homologeo has a point (I'm inferring) that text on these issues will attract a lot of unwarranted attention for POV issues, real and perceived.

This is no way a commentary on the quality of your work. If you have any questions, please feel free to respond here or on my talk page (I'm avoiding the article talk for the moment). Phyesalis (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing to me. Frankly, the article as it stood before I got to it was in horrid shape.  The list version was meant to strip it down to bare bones, to see what items we had to work with.  I can see the case for a list style article but so far no one has really made a case against the expanded version.  Photouploaded (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're more than welcome. You were bold, put in a lot of good work, and seemed to get little in return. But both Jakew and I thought you did a great job on the list. It was a huge improvement. However, I think the point about GM&M being a synthetic category (one that would be hard to source as a whole) is a good one.
 * One idea might be to go over WP rationale on WP:lists and see if there is anything in there to argue from. Phyesalis (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Adult-child sex
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Adult-child sex, 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) 23:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Archiving
Your recent archiving edit of the Talk Page associated with the article formerly entitled "Adult-child sex" seems to have resulted in two previously-formed archive pages being blanked. Could you possibly see if this problem can be corrected? Likewise, it may be preferable not to archive this particular Talk Page at this time, due to the heated discussion in progress. ~ Homologeo (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not finished. Also, the page is so large that people on dialup connections cannot participate; so it really must be cut down to size.  Photouploaded (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Point well taken. Please continue =) ~ Homologeo (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the incorrect links were not a result of my archiving; they were a result of the page move. Check the links; they are still subpages of Talk:Adult-child sex.  Photouploaded (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy and weight gain
I have been trying very hard to offer valid contribution to the pregnancy page in the past few days, since I first saw the page, despite alot of hostility from people who probably know very little on the matter. If you check I think you'll agree that, 'at least', I seem to know what I'm talking about (that's what the kinder element have been writing about me). Simply removing things I have rectified or added because you don't agree is not very amusing, to say the least. Could you possibly have the courtesy to just limit yourself to some sort of "citation needed" (or thingy to that effect) to something you don't like the look of and give people a chance? I refer to your removal of the phrase relating to optimal weight gain in gravidas with normal BMI. 10 - 12 kg is the norm, you'll find, and by removing this information and leaving a sentence that basically says "you need to eat more" is very dangerous. Are you ready to take resposibility for your actions? Thank you. --Drrem (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Dairy products and red meat can also (???) be used"
Hold on a sec!!!

I object to the insinuation. What I re-wrote derives from a simple fact of life. I think that you will find that dairy product/red meat consumers far outnumber the soybean consumers amongst us (excluding remote parts of the world that don't have access to the internet, including affluent society - reality of life). Why invert this? Minorities are minorites and should NOT dictate policy. Minorities tag along and are rightly accepted as such. Minorities should respect the majority just as the reverse is true and should not play on the "politically correct factor". THAT is why dairy product and red meat consumption should be mentioned before soy milk consumption. We must get our priorities right and not exagerate with political correctness.

I'll give you an example. What you're conveying is like saying: "going to work on foot or by bike is adequate. You can also go to work by car". I believe MOST people get to their workplace with the latter method. As a result saying "going to work by car ia adequate. You can also go to work on foot or by bike" is fairer and more representative of society.

N'est-ce pas?

Otherwise I'll just have to equate your revert to "eager beaverness" or to "vegetarian brain syndrome".

Sorry, I genuinely forgot to sign: does that make me a coward?

--Drrem (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

--Drrem (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:NPA. Photouploaded (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Was not trying to offend you. I'm just trying to make a point. If you so wish I'll take back the bit about "Otherwise I'll just have to equate your revert to "eager beaverness" or to "vegetarian brain syndrome".". How about answering the rest? --Drrem (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Dietary habits are very much a product of a person's beliefs and sometimes of their culture. Humans are remarkably adaptable and are able to subsist on a wide variety of foods, from a heavily meat-based diet as in the case of the Inuit, who subsist primarily on raw fish and seal meat, all the way to the raw vegan diet, which is comprised of raw vegetables, fruits and nuts. The vegetarian article lists the numerous cultures in which vegetarianism is commonplace, and the religions which involve a vegetarian diet as part of the religious tradition.  In these cultures, eating red meat is not normal or acceptable.  This has nothing to do with "dictating policy".  There is no "policy", there are simply different behaviors.  I think that Wikipedia has a tendency to favor the American viewpoint and consider that "normal" above other cultures.
 * To return back to the topic at hand: what exactly do you find problematic about the current version of the paragraph? How do you think it should read?  Thanks, Photouploaded (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Deaf
Some of us patrol the short pages; see Special:Shortpages to look for vandalism, etc. We add a long comment to those found to be OK so they won't show up on the list again and be checked again and again. So I've reverted your revert. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A call to Gayass Wikipedians
I've started a discussion of the recent uproar here. I'm inviting all the other gayasses to join in and see if we can't work toward some unified position to present at the discussion - maybe a move to "Queer" or "LGBT"? Thank you for the great userbox! --Phyesalis (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Expand-article/doc
A tag has been placed on Template:Expand-article/doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul
Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)