User talk:Sugarcubez/Archive 1

Princess Frog Perceived
I certainly agree with your reasoning, but the problem is that to say that "such-and-such is stereotypical..." needs to be so clear cut and defined that there is no question about the stereotypicalness of the topic at hand. Some people clearly don't think that Maddy is a lowerclass black name, considering the number of white middleclass girls with that name today. Placing "perceived" back into the sentence communicates that some people do not have that perception (for example, it's possible that the original scriptwriters didn't say to themselves "what's a stereotypical lowerclass black name? jemina?  no.... how about maddy?" -- you know, completely innocently.   we don't know for sure that's their thought process, but it is possible.) SpikeJones 12:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood

Disney Princesses
My reason is that Disney does not define "princess." "Disney Princesses" is a marketing category, and the purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote Disney's marketing strategy. In the actual movie, Mulan is not a princess. The "fictional princesses" section of the Princess article lists fictional characters who are princesses, not real people who may have been the subject of fictional works (like Pocahontas) or fictional characters who are not princesses but have been described as princesses for some reason (like Mulan). PubliusFL 23:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sleater-Kinney
Please see WP:FUC before reverting the image again. I agree that the old image may have been nicer, but it was a fair use image that failed the fair use criteria, since free photographs of the band exist (there are 80+ on Flickr, for example). I don't have any objection to using a different free image, if you can find one that you like better (maybe this one?), but the image that was being used before my edit has to go one way or the other. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 05:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A quote from criterion #1 on the page I cited: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. ... Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. As examples, pictures of people who are still alive and buildings are almost always replaceable because anybody could just take a camera to them and take a picture." Since all three members of the band are still alive, and could be reasonably photographed together, the non-free promotional image is replaceable, and must therefore be removed. Hope that helps clarify things for you. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Migraine
No, actually it is you that should please thoroughly read the talk page, as well as the article itself (in its entirety). I've responded to you there. Postoak 00:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have, I really hope you look at the links I gave you on the talk--Sugarcubez 00:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have and I'm not convinced. Sorry. Postoak 02:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I am sorry that is your problem and since *you* are 'not convinced' you have no right reverting--Sugarcubez 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Respectfully speaking, everyone has the right to revert...even you have done this! You know, let's get some other opinions from other editors about this. Migraine is(was) only referenced as a disease on the first line of the article, so that concerns me when it is called a disease in only one place. It isn't consistent and can be confusing to the readers. Checking the history of the article, it appears that it has changed from "condition" to "disease" to "disorder" to who knows what. Let's work together on this...perhaps we should add an additional paragraph describing where research has concluded that this *is* a disease. Or update all references from disorder to disease if that is the case. Thanks and take care, Postoak 01:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually no if someone wants to change something big in the article like you wanted you should talk about it first I believe, especially when removing or changing something referenced--Sugarcubez 23:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkWiseman (talk • contribs)
 * Hi peoples I am not bothered about the disease, disorder, condition choice, I am not interested in that sort of semantic. I chose disorder because that was what it was described as further down the article.The changes I made were from the description of migraine in the British Guidelines and give a good description of migraine. I deleted the bit about how to decide what is a vascular headache as it was widely inaccurate and could be dangerous.


 * Migraine itself is a disease, and the reason it was called a disorder later in the article is because it is part of the neurological disorders, just like AIDS and Alzheimer's, but are they called disorders? No...--Sugarcubez 23:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Even read [Alzheimer's]] and similar it states what the condtion is, but latter in the article states it as a disorder.--Sugarcubez 23:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies
My apologies on my response. I am very aware you spoke civilly to Nemeses. I knew you were the rational one, and you did the right thing to bring a third non-partial person to this discussion. The reason I acknowledged Nemeses's work on this article however, was that Nemeses has been working tirelessly on this article for the past 6 months. I am sorry, I haven't been able to see all your contributions, for I only saw them recently. But I did say in the beginning that I know everyone has this article's interest best at heart. I plead with you to be the bigger person here. Also in the beginning I merely said "everyone to talk civilly" to not single Nemeses out because if I did single her out, it would aggravate her even more and cause all of us to be reported. But know that YOU ARE APPRECIATED for what you have done with this article, and I hope you continue to make contributions. Thank you very much. Small5th 06:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks

Orlando Bloom
I noticed that you referenced a blog when adding content to the Orlando Bloom article. I would suggest you read over the Verifiability and Reliable Sources policies. Blogs are usually not reliable sources, which is why what you keep adding is removed. Anyway I hope this explains things and helps you with your editing. --ImmortalGoddezz 02:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed