User talk:Esprit15d/Archive 10

Archived discussions

• From August 12, 2005 — December 31, 2005
• From January 1, 2006 — June 30, 2006
• From July 1, 2006 — December 31, 2006
• From January 1, 2007 — June 30, 2007
• From July 1, 2007 — December 31, 2007
• From January 1, 2008 — June 30, 2008
• From July 1, 2008 — December 31, 2008
• From January 1, 2009 — June 30, 2009
• From July 1, 2009 — December 31, 2009

February 2010

Please stop spamming articles with what appears to be a recent Entertainment Weekly article. For most of the articles you've added it to, this "distinction" is of undue weight and completely without notability. This mass addition is inappropriate and I ask that you please stop. Thank you. DKqwerty (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the first rule of leaving feedback with a fellow editor is assume good faith. I have not "spammed" a single article...ever in my almost five years at Wikipedia. I have no desire to and I my contributions here are not motivated by my affiliation with any organization. Two, Entertainment Weekly regularly provides reviews of an entertainment nature, and their year-end lists are highly-regarded in the entertainment industry, along with those of other entertainment resources, such as Rolling Stone, the AFI, and Time magazine, just to name a few. If you do a simple search of "entertainment weekly", you will find that EW reviews are listed on thousands of articles here at Wikipedia. If you have read through the articles, also, you will find that many of the persons/movies/albums, etc... include a number of reviews, distinctions and "best-of" lists from a variety of sources. You will not be able to present me a single Wikipedia policy I have violated. Thus, your harsh words and commands were unfair and unwarranted.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT: as I specified, for many or most of the articles, the review is simply not germane or important enough for inclusion. If half of the articles you spammed the EW article into included every "Best of" list they ranked within, the articles would be mostly reviews. Instead of determining which of the articles the EW piece was pertinent to, you simply added it to every single item mentioned within the piece; this is spamming, even if not to promote EW. You've simply assumed that this "distinction" is ubiquitously applicable to each article. DKqwerty (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially you have said I violated two policies, each of which I will address:

• WP:SPAM: Using the link you provided, spam is defined as: "advertisements masquerading as articles and external link spamming." How many advertisements did I add? How many external links did I add? The answer to both is zero.
• WP:WEIGHT: Using the link you provided, the policy reads, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." EW is not only a reliable source for entertainment critics, but is used thousands of times here at Wikipedia and is one of the top 50 magazines of any topic in the nation. Almost all the articles have several reviews of varying opinions, and for the ones that don't, adding one sentence from a major entertainment magazine actually improves the critical representation in the article.

To be honest, I have no desire to argue, and I like a low wiki-stress level. But, when I leave inquiries as to the decisions of other contributors, I always try to use Wikipedia policy accurately, use language that assumes good faith and respect the editorial work of others as long as it doesn't violate that policy. I expect to be treated the same way. That has made my years as a Wikipedian and administrator much more enjoyable and contributes to the goal of the project.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 03:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can debate this to the end of time, which I have no interest in doing. Yes, the spam policy applies to advertising, but the principle is similar: you've added content with no due consideration for its relative importance within each individual article. Perhaps "canvassing" would be a better term, but that too has a different meaning within Wikipedia. And the simple fact is that you could not have determined the relative weight, importance, or redundancy of such a inutile distinction; your only concern was adding each item within the EW article to its respective article, nothing more. And that's not how Wikipedia works. DKqwerty (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine and Literature

I'm rather confused by the series of edits you made to the Erotic lactation article back in 2008 starting with this one, attributing information on lactation fetishism to the book Augustine and Literature. The words "lactating," "lactation," et al. appear nowhere in the book, which appears to be on a completely unrelated subject. Where exactly in the book did this information come from? Fran Rogers (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to pretend to remember the details of edits I made two years ago, particularly to that article, which I only vaguely remember at best. But I would suggest looking on page 133 of whatever book was in that reference I cited, and then proceed as you wish. Happy editing!--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page 133 doesn't mention "adult nursing relationships," or nursing or lactation at all; nor does anywhere in the book. This is why I'm concerned, that it appears you falsely attributed information in this article to a source that says nothing on the subject... is this correct? Fran Rogers (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me if I "falsely attributed information in this article to a source that says nothing on the subject"? Maybe. If you have any experience at all with references, you surely know its a very tedious business, and an occasional copy-and-paste error is likely. Wouldn't be my first mistake and certainly won't be my last. Are you accusing me of something more than that? If so, I suggest you seriously take a peek at my history of copy editing and adding reliable references to hundreds (if not thousands) of articles here at Wikipedia and then proceed with caution, particularly since I've already amiably encouraged you to fix the matter as you see fit.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertions made me return to the article. I listed the correct name in the body, but made the error of listing the wrong name in the citation. However, a simple check of the ISBN number I provided reveals that the information I cited was taken from the book "Body parts: critical explorations in corporeality", the paperback version of which came out 2006. Ecplore here (on page 133) here to answer any further inquiries you have.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, I see. I was skeptical of a simple copy/paste error because of the direct mention of Augustine and Literature in the text, but I can clearly see now you probably pasted in the wrong reference and got the two mixed up, especially given the ISBN of the book you intended to cite being in there. I'm deeply sorry for the accusatory tone there; the amount of POV pushing that goes on in these fetish articles can make it hard to remember to assume good faith. You're doing good work; sorry about that. Fran Rogers (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These things happen. Glad it got resolved :) --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian Trail

Your should really thank User: Thirteen squared - he/she/it is the one who put down the tag and prompted me. I, also, have been annoyed by that wording for ages and somehow never got to it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hey Esprit, Thanks for the Barnstar. It is a very kind gesture on your part. I am very happy to be working along side an editor like you, who values kindness and civility and is intent on making Wiki the best it can be. Well done, my friend!-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto what Keithbob said. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

consensus

I set up a consensus section in the talk page for Battle Studies (album) to resolve a dispute. As u have edited this artice in the part, would u mind commenting? Dan56 (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Encyclopedia Brown - Boy Detective.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Encyclopedia Brown - Boy Detective.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Esrever ^(klaT) 03:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Killers - Under the Gun.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Killers - Under the Gun.ogg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Killers - Mr. Brightside -Jacques Lu Cont's Thin White Duke Remix-.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Killers - Mr. Brightside -Jacques Lu Cont's Thin White Duke Remix-.ogg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rolling Stone - The New Guitar Gods.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rolling Stone - The New Guitar Gods.jpg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rolling Stone 1054.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rolling Stone 1054.jpg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rascal Flatts - Fast Cars and Freedom.ogg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rascal Flatts - Fast Cars and Freedom.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 06:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit Backlog Elimination Drive

Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 00:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of List of songs about recovering or former alcoholics

A tag has been placed on List of songs about recovering or former alcoholics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. AlmightyTim (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Klaus Halen - Me and Bobby McGee.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Klaus Halen - Me and Bobby McGee.ogg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Creative Loafing home page.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Creative Loafing home page.png. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Canada in Haiti - Waging War on the Poor Majority.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Canada in Haiti - Waging War on the Poor Majority.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:With a Little Help From My Friends - Joe Cocker.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:With a Little Help From My Friends - Joe Cocker.jpg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:My book of bible stories.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:My book of bible stories.jpg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]