User talk:Pacian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Cookie 2 Donna 3 Commons:Image:BlackManinVestonCellPhone.jpg 4 Bree Sharp 5 Sources for Samantha (movie) 6 Sprockets has moved to Sprockets (television) 7 Image Tagging for Image:AlannaUbach.jpg 8 Album infobox problem on Goddess in progress 9 Fall Out Boy 10 Peter Wentz 11 Pete Wentz/Fall Out Boy 12 Tori Amos as Maniac Mansion's Razor Inspiration 13 Alexis Arquette and transgendered persons 14 Invite to join/help organize Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies 15 Image:Kimfields.jpg 16 Image:Chewbacca.jpg - any more info? 17 Elizabeth Hess 18 Elizabeth Hess 19 Image Tagging Image:Y Kant Tori Read Promo Picture.jpg 20 "Bear" Community 21 RFC 22 Roseanne Barr 23 Neil Forrester 24 Maggie Ausburn 25 Uploading of deleted images 26 Cyndi Lauper 27 Image tagging for Image:OPPERA.jpg 28 About one of your contributions... 29 AfD Nomination: Monet Dupree

[edit] Cookie

For you recent boldness at Ashlee Simpson, I give you this cookie.

[edit] Donna

Hi, just wondered who's the exquisite woman on this picture: co:Image:TwoWomeninGlassesandBandanas.jpg? (left) --Lumijaguaari 05:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commons:Image:BlackManinVestonCellPhone.jpg

Just noticed that the above picture is missing a license. I coud just go ahead and assume it's GFDL-self, but I've been taught that assuming things is wrong. -- Ranveig 13:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Pacian 03:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Also Image:Monetdupreetina.jpg used on the Drag queen article. It looks like you took this, and it's a great picture. It has a no source tag. Krugs 02:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Pacian 23:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bree Sharp

Why does that content not belong on that page? Can you point to an establish policy (that's policy, not a suggestion or guideline, or project outline; policy) that states that album information cannot go on the artist's page? I will reinstate the information. We are here to create information, not destroy. Nelson Ricardo 01:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You state on my user talk page "You WILL abide by the third party decision on the matter." You do not know what I will or will not do. If someone provides an "opinion" (notice that it is not a "decision"), I will weigh who the party is. I will not be likely to go along with some random person giving their opinion. I will give greater weight to a member of the Wikipedia community who has been voted into a position of responsibility. I really do think that you are making a big deal out of a small issue. A standard is not a policy. Wikipedia is very flexible. Nelson Ricardo 03:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement on one point you made. Please do see to it that our little tiff here is handled by the right persons. Thank you and honestly do have a nice day despite all this. Nelson Ricardo 11:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Pacian, please calm down. I agree that an article about a singer is probably not the right place for track listings. However, you might be the one with bad etiquette. If you agree that some information is fit for inclusion to Wikipedia, its wholesale removal for the sake of style seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Though the information remains accessible in the page history, it is a very marginal kind of accessibility, and after a few edits will be out of sight (and out of mind) for even the editors. Creating the album pages yourself or at least moving the content to the article's talk page would have been more prudent (and recommended) course of action. Be bold, but be wary of becoming ruthless.

To answer Nelson Ricardo's questions about the third opinion procedure, the third opinion page should contain a very brief summary of the dispute, something like two lines. The discussion leading to the dispute usually takes place at the relevant article's talk page, where the person giving the third opinion also adds his comment. The third opinion procedure was suggested in February 2005, so it's a rather recent invention.

Please try to avoid unnecessary escalation, and prefer to work this out together. If you wish to receive more comments, your best bet is to place a request for comments, or conduct a consensus poll. Explicitly asking an administrator to get involved probably wouldn't help much, since all the additional power the administrators are entrusted with is executive, and the authority they command is that of an experienced editor i.e. not a result of getting elected. Also, to maintain impartiality, many administators choose to ignore such requests. Hope this helps. Aapo Laitinen 21:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC) (a random person)

[edit] Sources for Samantha (movie)

Hello, good work on Samantha (movie), and thanks for the contribution. However, you forgot to add any references to the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. What websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Samantha (movie)? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP 05:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sprockets has moved to Sprockets (television)

I noticed that your user page has links to the article. You might want to move the link. Cheers Megapixie 07:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:AlannaUbach.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AlannaUbach.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 04:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Album infobox problem on Goddess in progress

I played around and discovered that by removing the date information from the previous, this and next albums; the infobox displays correctly.

TheRingess 08:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fall Out Boy

I removed many additions on the page at that time. It would be ludicrous for me to explain each and everyone of them, so I made the blanket statement of "removed excess info." The reason I removed your particular addition was because it really has nothing to do with Fall Out Boy as a band. The excerpt is more appropriate on the page Pete Wentz. Instead of boo hooing to me like a 4 year old about how I was "discourteous" and had "bad ettiquete," I would have appreciated it more if you would have simply asked why I removed your addition. If you want to continue a discussion with me, please refrain from snarky insults. Spuddy 17 04:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is Bromosh. I know nothing about how to use this forum, and don't care to. The only reason I have associated myself with this site has been to remove unnecessary info about Pete Wentz. As I'm sure you're aware, the page has been under constant change since the debut of the pictures that you seem most keen on keeping tabs on in Wentz's article. Have your way with the article. If you think keeping your sentence on there about the pictures is that important, and important for every one who views the page wanting to know more about Wentz to read, fine.

[edit] Peter Wentz

G'day Pacian,

please don't threaten newbies. Bromosh was removing what seems like a dubious comment from an article that has been heavily vandalised; instead of stomping and ranting and raving and making threats (which you cannot back up, and which no admin will help you on), why don't you instead talk to Bromosh, and explain that your edits are perfectly legit and shouldn't be reverted? And please don't shout, either; you'll make yourself hoarse. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks for being so gracious. It looks like you were right about Bromosh's intentions (after all, he broadcast them loudly enough above), and I was wrong. But consider this: the embarrassment I feel at assuming good faith and being wrong is nothing compared to what happens when we assume bad faith and get that wrong ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, I am not a "sir." And second of all, you being angry at me is no reason for me to be put on an alleged "vandalism watch". I have in no way vandalised any page on Wikipedia, ever. There is no need to give a detailed reason as to why I removed your addition. The information I gave as to why I removed it was adequete enough, you simply just did not like that I removed it. When I removed your addition the second time I stated that a scandal involving a particular band member has nothing to do with the actual band, and that the excerpt is more appropriate on the band member's article, which is your much more detailed reason for removing it. That is NOT vandalism. As for adding the info to the Pete page... I personally could not care if the info is there or not, so no, I was not going to add it. I was going to leave that up to you, the author of the excerpt to add it, since you think it is such a monumental event in Pete's life. I also have a life outside of Wikipedia, so I may have had something else to do at the time, so I suggest you not jump to conclusions about people over the Internet.

If you want to debate whether or not the excerpt should be in the article or not with me, you may do so on the Fall Out Boy discussion page. I will not answer or acknowledge anymore of your additions to my discussion page since you are being incredibly rude, condescending, and you have threatened me with the statement "do not push it, sir", as well as telling me you do this or that to the Fall Out Boy page. If you choose to continue to attempt to discuss the matter with me on my user page, I will report you for harrassment. Thank you. Spuddy 17 07:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Wentz/Fall Out Boy

First of all, I am not a "sir." And second of all, you being angry at me is no reason for me to be put on an alleged "vandalism watch". I have in no way vandalised any page on Wikipedia, ever. There is no need to give a detailed reason as to why I removed your addition. The information I gave as to why I removed it was adequete enough, you simply just did not like that I removed it. When I removed your addition the second time I stated that a scandal involving a particular band member has nothing to do with the actual band, and that the excerpt is more appropriate on the band member's article, which is your much more detailed reason for removing it. That is NOT vandalism. As for adding the info to the Pete page... I personally could not care if the info is there or not, so no, I was not going to add it. I was going to leave that up to you, the author of the excerpt to add it, since you think it is such a monumental event in Pete's life. I also have a life outside of Wikipedia, so I may have had something else to do at the time, so I suggest you not jump to conclusions about people over the Internet. If you want to debate whether or not the excerpt should be in the article or not with me, you may do so on the Fall Out Boy discussion page. I will not answer or acknowledge anymore of your additions to my discussion page since you are being incredibly rude, condescending, and you have threatened me with the statement "do not push it, sir", as well as telling me you do this or that to the Fall Out Boy page. If you choose to continue to attempt to discuss the matter with me on my user page, I will report you for harrassment. Thank you. Spuddy 17 07:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tori Amos as Maniac Mansion's Razor Inspiration

Hello, the edit you did in the Maniac Mansion page was interesting (and Razor looks like the Y Kant Tori Read cover), but a source for that information would be very helpful. I investigated briefly, but didn't find anything. Do you remember the source for that information?. Thanks IvanDíaz 14:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexis Arquette and transgendered persons

I mean no offense here, but I think you may have misunderstood the ACLU page. According to http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/nondiscriminationmap.pdf, only eight states and D.C. ban "discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression."

I'm all for transgendered people—for that matter, anyone—being addressed as they wish, but this is not currently guaranteed in the U.S. tregoweth 18:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invite to join/help organize Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies

Hello. (Sorry for the form letter) In my various travels in Wikipedia, I have run across your name as someone who takes an active interest in LGBT articles. This is an invitation to check out a new project: Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies. The initial goal is to create an within Wikipedia a unicversity-level academic-quality reference encyclopedia for LGBT and Queer Studies-related topics. The goal is two fold: 1. bring as many as possible up to Featured Article quality, and 2. prove that LGBT-related topics are as academically relevant to WP as other anthropology subsets. - Davodd 22:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No thank you. Pacian 02:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kimfields.jpg

This was a screen shot of Kim Fields portraying Tootsie on Facts of Life. You overwrote it with another image. When you did that, you needed to specify a new license, and a source. Now, it is a problem. I don't wish to tag as "no license" as the original image has a license and source (the TV show). I don't want to cause the original upload to be deleted, because of a problem with a new one. So, would you please provide a source and a license tag? Or, if you can't, then you could revert to the old image. Also, a fairuse rationale would also seem appropriate.--Rob 10:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Chewbacca.jpg - any more info?

I came across Image:Chewbacca.jpg, which you uploaded, because it was used on the de: Wikipedia article on Chewbacca. I assume you took this photo yourself. Do you have any more details about it, such as: the date it was taken (or even just the year), any information about the man in the costume, or the boy pictured, the camera used, or just any other details. Mainly just asking out of curiosity. An example of an image with such information is: Image:Cincinnati-fifth-third-bank.jpg. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. I knew such information was often not given for uploads, which is why I mentioned I was just asking out of curiosity. In any case, it's interesting. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Hess

In response to your statements on the discussion page, I've been working on redirecting all of the names of past national spelling bee champions to the list of winners in Scripps National Spelling Bee. When I first started the Elizabeth Hess article, there was nothing there, so I assumed that Hess the actress was not significant historically. Therefore, I inserted a redirection to the spelling bee article. If you'd like to write the article about the actress, I can add a disambiguation notice at the top of the article. — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 20:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Hess

Mindless reflex, I suppose. I ask for references whenever I see a bald assertion. With an actress, I should have just checked IMDB. You're quite right. Sorry. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Y Kant Tori Read Promo Picture.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Y Kant Tori Read Promo Picture.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 02:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Bear" Community

Perhaps I'll create an Assorted Arrow community for people that are of varying body types and straight. No I better not; it would 1. be absurd, and 2. be a vanity article because the issue is homosexuality alone, not homosexuality for people that think they look like creatures from the Ursidae family. Wait, maybe if I get a custom flag and domain name it will be considered completely legitimate! Haizum 04:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A category on Google's portal and 16,200 hits for "'bear community' gay" doesn't hurt to establish the term's legitimacy. --kizzle 04:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

kizzle, do you have my user contributions bookmarked or something? What's the deal? Haizum 05:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No, just saw the discussion on your talk page and thought I'd chime in. --kizzle 05:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Pacian, you had the audacity to confront me on my talk page about a topic that I gave up on weeks if not months ago, then after I then reiterate my stance with a little sarcasm you try to open an RFC on me? Any veteran Wikipedian will suggest you grow some thicker skin. It's also a bit melodramatic to repeatedly cite my "ideology" when logic takes the place of political affiliation in my world. How did you come to that conclusion? Simply because I challenged the veracity of a gay-related article, all of a sudden I'm a neocon-bible-thumper? I'm afraid that makes you more POV (and violating WP:AGF) than it makes me "fiercely conservative." Oh, so you were going by my user boxes? Right? Oh, well I'm afraid it clearly says "this user is politically moderate." Since there isn't any evidence for the statement "Haizum has some fiercely conservative beliefs," I must conclude that it was conceived from your own POV, and is therefore a personal attack. Reading further, I don't appreciate your suggestion that I be banned, which may be a violation of policy in itelf. Oh, and if it wasn't clear the first time...I don't want to talk about the "Bear" community, unless of course we are talking about real bears. Haizum 05:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Your refusal to discuss the Bear community does not invalidate the legitimacy of the term. --kizzle 05:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you intend to pursue your unacceptable insinuation that the Bear community article is a vanity page, your very statement that it is one is indicitive of a complete disrespect for others. That community has a 25+ year history that is rooted in things far deeper than physical appearance. Your continuing need to belittle that community - coming here and mocking their flag, the very symbol of their existance - further indicates that you have a great lack of respect for things you do not understand. You then continue to attack others in flagrant violation of WP:CIVIL. As suggested, I have taken it to the proper individuals to be considered. You don't need to continue to poison my talk page with your thoughts on the matter, as it is now in the hands of others. Pacian 06:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

What you want to do, if there has been renewed inappropriate comportment from User:Haizum is either seek administrator involvement or start a new RFC (name the new /Haizum2 or something alike), not resurrect an old one. Circeus 05:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You may post to WP:AN/I with your concern (remember to have pertinent diffs, not histories), A quick glance at his talk page, the above comment and Talk:Bear community shows WP:NPA, WP:CIVILand WP:AGF breaches as well as contemptuous comments aimed at the communty as a whole. I will give him 48 hours for now. Circeus 05:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If he resumes incivility and bad faith comments, you'll definitely want to bring this up to the WP:AN/I, though. Circeus 05:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked Haizum for the time being. See his talk page for more info. He's commented that he'll try to tone down some of the sarcasm and try and play nice. If you feel I have erred, don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 06:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. However, I feel you have gone about this the wrong way. Haizum may have been a bit rough, but on the other hand, so have you. In this edit, some time after the original discussion at bear community, you call him ignorant ("commenting on a topic about which you clearly know nothing"; "That is, quite literally, a statement of ignorance."), and fail miserably at assuming good faith ("In point of fact you obviously didn't even read the article"; "Besides talking about things you don't understand as if you do, you lash out at other Wikipedians because you think they're stupid, or because you disagree with them."; "but you can't simply visit articles about topics you dislike or don't understand and make an assertion that they are vanity entries or that they should be merged."). As far as I can tell, this was the first real interaction between you and Haizum. You went from asking him, rather impolitely, for a polite response, to asking for admin assistance and an RfC in about no time. We do not block as punishment for bad deeds. See the blocking policy for more info on that. The diffs provided as reasons for blocking are weak. kizzle, someone who disagrees with Haizum very often makes good points as well. If you have any further questions, again, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 07:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roseanne Barr

Please do not do a copy-and-paste move as you did to Roseanne Barr your test worked, and has been reverted. --Caldorwards4 02:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Forrester

I'm very sorry for upsetting you. I think you've taken my edit in the wrong vein - the reason I didn't want this to be deleted is that I did want the work of the editors to be preserved. But in its current form the article requires cleanup for at least one reason. The cleanup queue is long enough as it is; my mental decision was "do I want to add to the cleanup queue the task of cleaning up material which is basically a duplicate of material elsewhere?" On the other hand, did I want to delete the article? No, because there didn't seem any point removing the edit history from WP. If the article was deleted, the correct path would be to redirect the article anyway afterwards. I came to the conclusion that "let's just redirect for now, since the material is basically duplicate, and if anybody wants to come back and do a cleanup/expand job on this article, they'll have the edit history available to help them". The fact that he is only notable for appearing on the show, and that there appears to be a dearth of further sources to draw information from beyond what is known already, suggested that is unlikely but maybe plausible.

My prime concern is that this a WP:LIVING person biography and there are strict guidelines as a consequence. Having duplicate biographical information for a living person is dangerous, especially if they are notable for one thing only. Since in that case it's a TV show, an article describing that TV appearance (their sole notable characteristic) is probably sufficient. If a distinct article is required, it must abide by the rules of WP:LIVING. I thought these sections quite pertinent:

Non-public figures

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used (see above).

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

Using the subject as a source

In some cases the subject may become involved in an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography. When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:

   * It is relevant to the person's notability;
   * It is not contentious;
   * It is not unduly self-serving;
   * It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
   * There is no reasonable doubt that it was written by the subject.

A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is not used as a source.

Hopefully you can now see why I felt my decision was not just justified but probably necessary. His notability is purely through the TV series. The stuff in that article not relevant to his notability and drawn from himself as main source must be removed. Once you've done that, you'll end up with a smaller entry than the subsection of the main article which it was spun off from! Hence my redirect.

I apologize for the following particulars:

• I didn't flag up a warning on the talk page or contact the article creator/editors. That wasn't acceptable editing behavior.
• I didn't raise my prime concern (i.e. that the article breached WP:LIVING) in my edit comment.

I wholeheartedly apologize for these slips. Nevertheless, there were reasons behind my mistake - in particular that the article as it stands requires attention immediately (and since I didn't have time to fix it myself, redirecting it seemed safest). The most serious breach has been the creation of a living person biography which isn't actually in Category:Living people so can't be as rigorously monitored as it should be. I'll fix that for you now. Kept or not, it does require urgent cleanup, with the standards of WP:LIVING.

I hope this helps clear things up. I believe you acted in good faith when creating and editing the article. I also hope you will assume good faith for my own editorial decisions. Sincerely, TheGrappler 11:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi there Pacian, this is Neil Forrester

I must admit I've been finding the whole exchange about me quite fascinating. On the one hand it's rather strange to promote such fervent reaction as to my 'worth' or otherwise in the world of wikipedia, and I was quite disappointed to find my entry so cruelly excised. However, I was pleasantly surprised to see it resurrected.

Since the bone of contention appears to be whether I warrant an entry, I'll do my best to justify myself! (I can't help but be amazed that one's life is so readily validated or otherwise by the powers of the google cache!)

None-the-less, I like being in wikipedia, and would love to stay. For the record, here are some more facts which may help to support my status:

• I was a founder, and 'alpha geek' for beenz.com (which I see is still awaiting an entry in wikipedia) which was a global 'internet currency' system for which I helped burn $80m of VC funding before the dot-com bubble burst an interview from back then
• I am a named patent author for a number of technologies, including the methods used by beenz, and more recently for a large scale data mining technology, called Star-map
• For some dubious reason, despite being an avowed non-blogger, I found myself in "The Best of Blogs" book, published a little while back

I've tried my best to separate my alter-ego 'shardcore' from my name, but I'm resigned to the fact that this knowledge is available to those who are willing to dig deep enough, however it's not something I tend to draw attention to. Indeed, there was briefly a 'shardcore' entry in Wikipedia, but it was killed. I'm toying with the idea of raising my profile again, and am fielding a number of offers, but to be honest, the whole Real World thing kind of put me off the fame-for-fame's-sake thing and I'd rather concentrate on my art career un-burdened by that history... 81.98.157.43 18:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Neil

[edit] Maggie Ausburn

Thanks for your reply. If you look at the article on Maggie Ausburn you'll see the only information given about her comes from before or during the show. The stuff before is clearly relevant to some extent (people would have read about it or heard about it during the show). It doesn't describe her life after the show. That's exactly right - it's a correct interpretation of WP:LIVING. The Forrester article will, ultimately, not be kept up to date (unless he becomes notable for something else), and since the non-duplicate information seems to focus on his post-TV career (for which he is not notable) some axe-wielding is required. Currently the two entries (his biography and his subsection of the show article) are about the same length, which is a silly situation really. Expand his main article by all means, but some of it does need to be cut. The fact that this article wasn't put into Category:Living people indicates that you hadn't read WP:LIVING, which is one of the most important documents about Wikipedia editing. Hopefully now it's been flagged up to you, you'll be able to take the necessary editorial actions. Maggie Ausburn is actually a good model to follow in this regard, the editors have clearly applied WP:LIVING well. An instance where it is worth talking about post-reality show career would be Jade Goody, where, again, WP:LIVING has been applied well: the distinction is that Goody has remained a major media figure, while Forrester apparently has not. The fact his main website has been shut down is at least an indication he regards himself as a private citizen, not a public character, and we shouldn't go round trawling up information about him that is not relevant to his notability. That's what WP:LIVING is all about. My problem with this article is that once you strip out the stuff that absolutely has to come out, the article is basically a shorter duplicate of the section of article it's been spun off from, which would be odd to say the least! So, expand it if you want to (I have no difficulty with the existence of the article per se, so long as WP:LIVING is stringently applied) but you may wish to trim down his entry on the other page to eliminate as much redundancy as possible (redundant information is just a chance for contradictions or POV forks to emerge and two more things to monitor for vandalism or misinformation). Again, no ill will intended, and I hope my apologies are accepted. TheGrappler 16:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uploading of deleted images

I deleted Image:Traceygold.jpg for the second time as it was a screenshot of a television program that was being used not to discuss that television program (see Template:Tv-screenshot) used to replace a freely-licensed image (see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria). I agree that a better image for Tracey Gold needs to be found, but please don't ignore Wikipedia:Image use policy and our Fair use criteria. Jkelly 17:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are well over a thousand articles with unacceptable images. There are almost certainly well over ten thousand articles with unacceptable images. Wikipedia:Fair use is about use of the image, not the source. Television screenshots meet the criteria when they are used in an article about that television program. When used as a convenient image for something that appeared on that television program, they are not. Again, see Wikipedia:Fair use criteria for the policy. Jkelly 19:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyndi Lauper

Howdy, I see you have an interest in maintaining an accurate Cyndi Lauper article, as do I. I'm currently working on fixing up Bananarama's stuff, but when I'm finished with that, I was thinking of moving Cyndi's discography to something similar to this. Any interest in helping out with that and/or the creation of singles articles? P.S. I changed some of your wikilinks... per the Wikipedia Project:Songs, song articles should be titled with "(song)" and not "(single)". Just an FYI. Later! -- eo 02:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:OPPERA.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:OPPERA.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About one of your contributions...

Pacian, I tried to post this once before but something went wrong...or I don't know how to use the site. Anyhow, I have a question about one of your contributions that I would rather discuss in private. If you could email me at Tsarnicholas@hotmail.com I would greatly appreciate it.

-Tsar TsarNicholas 08:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Monet Dupree

I've nominated the article Monet Dupree for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Monet Dupree satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monet Dupree. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Monet Dupree during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)