User talk:Strangerer/Archive 2

Orphaned fair use image (Image:EerieIndiana.jpg)
Howdy! Thanks for letting me know. User:QuasyBoy replaced my image with "Added more relevant image" which is basically "The complete season" rather than the DVD box that I own myself. BFD. I have stopped adding images since there is usually some objection by someone or some silly change like this one. I forsee a Wikipedia completely devoid of images. That would be a shame. But I have no intention of monitoring the images I have added to see if they are orphaned or not. If you wish to delete them, please do. Schmiteye 03:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Help needed on article for adolescence, plus an announcement
Due to the large volume of opposition and little support for the section on adolescent sexuality in the main article on adolescence. Which has gone unchanged for months, i've removed the section and placed a link to the article adolescent sexuality at the top of the article.

The signature part of my explanation is below.

the main article on adolescent sexuality has been updated and thus the current section should be updated. The section itself seems irrelevant to the article on adolescents worldwide as a whole and I say it should be removed and a link at the top of the article saying 'for the article on adolescent sexuality see adolescent sexuality. There is strong opposition to the current and the exact same data has been literally copy & pasted into numerous other spin-off articles.

I'm removing this section. And I hope i'll get support when doing it.

Seeing as Illuminato will likely try and revert my change I ask for your support in stopping yet another potential edit war over a triviality and to counter revert if need be. Thank you.

P.S. due to the massive amount of spin-off article that were once created by Illuminato. With adolescent sexual behavior being the newest. I'm seeking to turn these into redirects to the main article as they were simply created to try and make ineffective compromises. These spin-offs include. adolescent sexuality in Britain adolescent sexuality in the united states adolescent sexuality in India and possibly other articles or as irrelevant sections in other articles that I haven't noticed yet. I think these spin-offs need to be made into redirects. And perhaps we should coordinate efforts to fix this mass of spin-offs of the same topic on a subset of a wikiproject page like wikiproject sexuality. Get more people involved. This overpour can't be good for wikipedia. Facewise or server bandwidth wise... Nateland 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

what I think should be done on the adolescent sexuality article.
The article adolescent sexual behaviors was created by Illuminato as soon as he apparently realized he couldn't revert my implementation of the agreed rewrite to adolescent sexuality article by dissapearing during the entire discussion and then coming back to complain.

Adolescent sexual behavior is (in my mind) just another one of Illuminato's weak attempts to try and force his POV on the rest of us. He's created unneeded spin-off articles in the past to try and ward off controversy over his edits. adolescent sexuality in the united states is probably one you're well familiar with. And while he claims adolescent sexual behavior is the main article it's not. The study of adolescent sexual behavior is well within the scope of adolescent sexuality itself and I think he's just trying to circumvent the majority opinion that his contributions to the subject are simply blatant POV.

That's just my opinion, but I've been in the debate the longest it would seem. (Since January 4th, back when I hadn't even registered yet. And when his POV materials were in an article called adolescent psychology. But they got kicked out of that article ages ago. And havn't turned up again since). I've had many problems with Illuminato in the past and currently in the present. So have others as they've entered the debate. I think just banning him would be better then even letting him continue to make edits. His contribution list shows little other contributions except that to revert edits made to his spin-off articles on adolescent sexuality or the main articles themselves. Blaugh!

P.S. Sorry if I make your head spin. My posts tend to be long so that I can cover all the bases and fight fire with water. Parle Vous au Bientot! (That's speak to you soon in French :-)  Nateland 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:AmericanVoter.jpg
Hey, I'm curious as to why the fair use rationale attached to this image isn't enough. cheers, Murderbike 18:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool! No problem, I haven't done very much image stuff, so I figured I did something wrong without realizing it. Thanks for the help! Murderbike 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:SPMA3.png
Hi, you recently marked SPMA3.png as This is contracicted by the copyright that appears below the image and the link to a source, if it was U.S. Government generated, it could not have the copyright sign appear below it. The copyright appears to be some sort of open source project, but there isn't notes about what the status of these exact images is. Or did I miss something? The user that added that image added many images that were not U.S. Government generated but appear on that webpage because of a license that allows them to appear there. But the license is incompatible with the wikipedia to the best of my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), but it looks like many are non-profit only. Pdbailey 02:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we agree then that it is not compatible with the GPL, now what? Pdbailey 03:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A way to stop the debate over adolescent sexuality. (Sorta)
See Talk:adolescent sexuality for information on the proposal. It would create a branch off article containing solely views on the subject and hopefully get rid of the POV currently in the articles which are supposed to say what adolescent sexuality is. Not is it good or bad. In my opinion I say let the POV wars take place in an article ABOUT POV. not elsewhere. Tell us what you think at the above link. Nateland 02:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Strangrer,

Im a bit of a newbie at putting pages together and wasnt aware the logo was anywhere as I removed it off the page, Its a modified logo (fit to Size) which im awaiting permission to use from nextgen (which is why I removed it from the page), at the same time as the article ive put together is a "first draft" although its taken me several weeks to get the info together, also once I work out how to use the infobox tables.

Thanks again for the welcome ---Darren

Story of Women
You placed a clarify tag on the sentence: "Isabelle Huppert plays an abortionist" and your comment was: "(abortionist? supported abortion rights or performed abortions?)".

An abortionist is a person who preforms abortions. If you go here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abortionist  you will see this. There is no doubt about the meaning of the word. Therefore, I am removing the clarify tag. Fanra 17:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Television series episodes
Please look at WP:EPISODES

Hi, I thought that you had posted a question asking for advice regarding an article about a TV Episode. --Kevin Murray 01:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Motto of the Day
Hi Strangerer. I am HB4026, and I noticed that you did not understand the 'Mint becomes Berry' one. What it means is: If a vandal becomes good, what do good Wikipedians become? Thanks Harrison-HB4026 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

do not speedy-delete Presa de decissions.png
This needs to be handled carefully. It is used in several templates and many user pages. If you delete it, please create a substitute and replace all occurrences with the substitute. d a v i d w r 09f9 04:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is an empty description page that was mistakenly created for a Commons-hosted image. The actual image won't be deleted. --Strangerer (Talk) 05:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cross of Sacrifice.jpg
It alrady has a tag on it GFDL you seem to be making work for people who have better things to do. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC) you wrote on my page "If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright." So I need do nothing. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It says GFDL, but it doesn't state the source of the image. Who released it as GDFL? --Strangerer (Talk) 10:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I tagged it because it wasn't clear who had created the image or where it had come from. Someone else could have created it and released it under GDFL; then if you upload it and just use GDFL with no other information, it's not really clear who the author is. Apparently you are the creator? The page doesn't give any information about it. I'll go ahead and replace it with GFDL-self-no-disclaimers for you. --Strangerer (Talk) 10:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tagging spree
Hello, how come you have tagged so many images for deletion today, with the reason given as being "This is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image". This isn't the case, I see no corruption, the images look fine to me.--Jackaranga 11:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Visual arts images
Thank you for your wonderful explanation on the Visual arts project talk page! I'm hoping your helpful tone fosters a cooperative atmosphere for the two projects. --sparkit TALK 12:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.png
Why should this image be moved to Commons, when it has absolutely no use except in an English-language context? AnonMoos 13:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion request, BC Leg images
I notice the sd request for these images. It says "This is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image." I have no problem with them being deleted from Wikipedia I suppose as they will, I assume, stay on commons, but I am wondering about the CS12 basis for deletion. The images are not missing, they are not corrupt and they are not empty as far as I can tell. On the other hand, I don't think they are referred to in any article, but that does not seem to support the SD ground you added. I am curious about the basis for deletion as it does not seem to be amongst those listed at WP:CSD. -- KenWalker | Talk 14:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The images are not missing or corrupt. The pages listed for deletion were empty image description pages for Commons-hosted images.  For example, look at this image Image:Bc lege at night.jpg that was just deleted very kindly by Chick Bowen: Deletion log.  It still links, there is still an image there, and there is still a description, but now there is no description page on Wikipedia for it and the image tab at the top is red instead of blue.  All the information is there; it's just hosted on the Commons instead of Wikipedia's space. :) If you want to add more information to the tags that are on the article, the Commons is the place to do it. --Strangerer (Talk) 15:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks re: Image:Bumper.jpg
Oops! I see I did the wrong thing adding a description to the Wikipedia version, rather than the Commons version. Thanks for fixing this for me! (Sdsds - Talk) 04:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tags
I honestly don't know how to put on those so-called on the images I put on pages. I just know how to put images just to make the page look good. Like most the images I put, the one of Dennis Orcollo and Lee Van Corteza come from a photo gallery from www.worldpoolchampionship.com (2004 edition). This means those pics are rather old and it's unlikely that they still have any copyright.

echostream
yes I would. They even have a couple of songs on the FX show "Dirt."

Image:BurgerTime Peter Pepper.png
What's the problem with this image? The image seems to be fine, and the image description has been inputed into the commons section of wiki.

Re: Template:PD-WWII-in-Color
From the template itself: Hope this helps. ^ demon [omg plz] 04:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[[Image:Athame.JPG]]
I don't understand why you have placed a speedy tag on this image - as far as I can see the image is alive and well, and appears on the article pages where it should. What is the problem please? Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk to me)  13:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I tagged it for speedy deletion not because it was a missing or corrupt image but because it was an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. As you can see from the edit history, the page was empty when I tagged it. It should be deleted.  The image won't go away when the description page is deleted because the image is on the Commons, not Wikipedia, and the software lets the image show through. --Strangerer (Talk) 13:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Help
Can you help me by telling me how to copyright my image I dont know how to do it.

image tags
I fill out the form when i upload the image, I think. Then some stupid bot comes along and threatens to delete it. Why doesn't WP just put up a checklist on the upload form so that we don't have to guess at what we need to do to make sure the pic isn't deleted?139.48.81.98 20:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Gibson Blueshawk.jpg

 * Hi, i took the Gibson Blueshawk.jpg for the german edition of wikipedia und uploaded it to the english wikipedia too. i took the Gibson Blueshawk.jpg with my digital camera - the Gibson Blueshawk.jpg is free - please handle the rest for me. thank you. -- Popmuseum 06:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. -- Popmuseum 04:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fire.jpg
Hi Strangerer. I have put the template on this page, and I have offered my explanantion for why I think it should stay on the talkpage. Please look at it. Thanks and have a great day.--CJ King 17:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there something I can do that will satisfy the requirements?--CJ King 17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What does that mean?--CJ King 17:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I tagged it for speedy deletion not because it was a missing or corrupt image but because it was an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. As you can see from the edit history, the page was empty when I tagged it. It should be deleted.  The image won't go away when the description page is deleted because the image is on the Commons, not Wikipedia, and the software lets the image show through. --Strangerer (Talk) 17:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, you can delete it.--CJ King 17:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Gigafrag image
You know, you can just go ahead and delete it if you want. It was for an article that ended up getting deleted due to lack of notoriety anyway. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
 * Slicedoranges 04:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:20 cedi.jpg
I created Image:20 cedi.jpg by mistake. Thanks for noticing. I added a csd-g7 tag. Please feel free to delete it. --Eastmain 01:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)