User talk:Blankfaze
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 5 Simple Rules of Blankfaze's Talk Page:
- Click Edit this page and add whatever you have to say to the bottom.
- I ask (for the sake of organisation) that you separate it from the last person's comments by a ==level 2 heading==.
- Vandalism, trolling, and/or idiocy are reverted on sight.
- No horizontal rules (----) allowed! Ever!
- Don't be a Cooch McGooch, sign your posts (~~~~)!
[edit] Proposed Georgia Move
As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ... My interest in this
I have for some time thought that there are many admins that should be held accountable for there actions. But it seems that because they are admins they get away with it anyways.
So now onto my interest in it. I am interested in reviving it. But first I need to know 1. why you made it. 2. What was the main reason it failed 3. who supported it the most 4. Who opposed it the most.
Any help would be appreciated, thank you. ILovePlankton 02:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- So I guess you don't want to help me? ILovePlankton 02:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ginsberg
Why do you think that Allen Ginsberg is not of interest to someone doing research on pederasty? Regards, Haiduc 15:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, mainly because he was not a pederast, and has very little more than a passing relation to the topic. Blankfaze 20:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I would counter that by pointing out that he was active in defending the rights of pederasts through his membership in NAMBLA, which he claimed to have joined as a token of support even if not as an expression of interest (though he did collect the NAMBLA journals). He did however delight in older teens, and was not very particular about asking the age of any youth who expressed an interest in sleeping with him, as a lot of his poems attest. The pederastic theme actually runs through a lot of his poetry - have you read his "Old love story"? Haiduc 00:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have, I don't think I would call it a pederastic theme. If you call it that I don't think you understand his poetry. Calling it that would be like calling Song of Myself "a poem with a nature theme". Bottom line, this is an encyclopaedia, and you cannot add labels like that unless you are prepared to add substantial supporting verbiage to the article text, and back it up with documented evidence. Anything else is defamation. Blankfaze 00:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Defamation?! He certainly would not have seen it that way, it is ironic that you should wish to defend him. He was quite proud of his boy loves, wrote a number of poems about them, and was always on the lookout for beautiful young men. He was not an idiot, you know. As a matter of fact, I remember visiting him in the late eighties on some business at his 12th Street flat, together with two boys, one eighteen and the other seventeen, and when the eighteen year old admired his digs, his answer was, "Sleep in my bed and you can stay as long as you want." Haiduc 02:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have, I don't think I would call it a pederastic theme. If you call it that I don't think you understand his poetry. Calling it that would be like calling Song of Myself "a poem with a nature theme". Bottom line, this is an encyclopaedia, and you cannot add labels like that unless you are prepared to add substantial supporting verbiage to the article text, and back it up with documented evidence. Anything else is defamation. Blankfaze 00:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would counter that by pointing out that he was active in defending the rights of pederasts through his membership in NAMBLA, which he claimed to have joined as a token of support even if not as an expression of interest (though he did collect the NAMBLA journals). He did however delight in older teens, and was not very particular about asking the age of any youth who expressed an interest in sleeping with him, as a lot of his poems attest. The pederastic theme actually runs through a lot of his poetry - have you read his "Old love story"? Haiduc 00:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:DeanRuskSoS.jpg listed for deletion
[edit] Your opinion, please
Hi! We welcome your opinion, or participation on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines where we are attempting to develop useful guidelines to help solve a variety of problems. Atom 15:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mount St. Helens
Mount St. Helens is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 03:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Category for articles created
HI! Considering my contributions, i wonder if it is ok to create a category for adding the talk pages of articles i have created, much in the same way as Category:Medieval warfare task force articles, possibly naming it "Category:Articles created by User:Striver"? --Striver 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:CairineWilson.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:CairineWilson.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Edward 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Blankfazekeepsitreal.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Blankfazekeepsitreal.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify 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 file 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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 04:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:CoxCommunicationsLogo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:CoxCommunicationsLogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:FDMillet55.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:FDMillet55.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. |EPO| 10:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notability of Splean
A tag has been placed on Splean, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. RJASE1 Talk 15:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notability of Aleksandr Vasilev
A tag has been placed on Aleksandr Vasilev, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. RJASE1 Talk 15:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
