User talk:TigerShark/Talk Archive 17th April 2005

Welcome!

Hello, TigerShark/Talk Archive 17th April 2005, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Etz Haim 16:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fucking Bitch Club

I've noticed your post at WP:VIP and I wanted to let you know that asking for admin attention for things like voting irregularities is best done at the Administrators' noticeboard. Anyway, thanks for keeping an eye out. :) Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Overenthusiasm with {{delete}}

I draw your attention to the following from Wikipedia:patent nonsense:
- The following, while often regrettable, are not patent nonsense. Check the Deletion policy for information on how to handle these things:
  - Really poorly written stuff (See Why Aren't These Pages Copy-edited?)
Please familiarise yourself with the CSD rules. Uncle G 02:48, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
- Uncle G I am aware of these rules. Some leeway should be given with interpretation of rules and I still believe that the article in question is borderline nonsense. My original question to you was why are you seeking to protect this article from a speedy delete. Is it just that you want to blindly follow the rules without any interpretation?
- Many articles that make more sense than this article get deleted by admins, so obviously it is not just me that believes that the rules are open to some interpretation.
- If you look at my history you will see that I am not somebody who just sets every article they think should be deleted to a speedy. I use the VFD process when I believe that it is appropriate.
- One final point, you may want to reconsider phrasing your edit comments to make them less "assertive". I feel that such phrasing can only be counter-productive. TigerShark 10:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

re: Zenichi Shimbashi

Good evening. Would you mind returning to the VfD discussion and citing your source? I couldn't find anything. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 00:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Marmite

Amusing but innapropriate. Bob Palin 15:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Judge Images

Hi! I noticed you starting up articles on the judges from Judge Dredd. However, you might want to make sure you've got [[1]] to use all the images you're uploading for them.--InShaneee 16:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Janybek Khan

Thanks for alerting me to my mistake. It's odd — I Googled, searched Wikipedia, and came up with nothing; once you'd added your comment I Googled, and found lots of references. Spooky. I've moved the article, and added cleanup and wikify templates (and, of course, removed the speedy). Thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bayswater

I noticed you have an interest in this article. Don't have time to fix it myself but User:68.85.127.79 has vandalized it. His changes should be reverted. 24.245.12.39 23:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images and media for deletion

I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 02:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg

I removed this listing from ifd. Copyright problems for images are listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, not on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion --Duk 18:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P.S. User:Christiaan recieved permission to use this image from the copyright holder. If you object to the nature of the licence then you need to do some more homework to make a case. I would start by talking to Christiaan. --Duk 18:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't intend to offend you, point taken. As far as re-listing the image on ifd see Wikipedia_talk:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Renominating. --Duk 18:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment at KateWinslett IFD

Hi TigerShark: I feel uncomfortable about the level of aggression that I perceive in this edit. Did you, perhaps, mean it jocularly? Either way, I think that it is unlikely to smooth our path towards building a better encyclopedia. And, for avoidance of doubt, I have no objections to the presence of the image on Wikipedia; it is its context that seems aggressive. --Theo (Talk) 10:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)