User talk:Gobonobo/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Christopher Chubb

Hi, You recently placed a {{prod}} tag on Christopher Chubb. Based on my research, I agree with you that the article is a hoax. Christopher Chubb is a fictional character only. However, instead of deletion (or perhaps after deletion so the history is purged), may I suggest redirecting the link to either Ern Malley or Peter Carey (I am not sure at the moment as to which is more appropriate). Cheers, Black Falcon 06:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I commit to redirecting the link to Peter Carey (where is would be most appropriately redirected, IMHO) or creating a stub for Christopher Chubb once the article is deleted. Thanks, Black Falcon, for following up. Gobonobo 06:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I have marked this article for sppedy deletion under CSD A7. There is no reference to Christopher Chubb on the Peter Carey page so I think a redirect is inappropriate here. With no links from within wikipedia and very little information yielded by a google search, I believe deletion is the best option here. Thanks... Cubathy (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I declined the speedy because he's a literary character not a real person. however the article is only one line so I'm going to turn it into a redirect to the book in which the character appears. ϢereSpielChequers 12:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Arizona Copper Mine Strike

Hi. Thanks for all of your work on the Arizona Copper Mine Strike article. It's looking much better. The one thing that is really lacking is citations. I don't have any of the original sources, so I can't really handle that. I just made the stub based on the little info I could find online and my memory of Barbara Kingsolver's book. It would also be nice to have a discussion of why this was a turning point in labor history. Keep up the good work! Mycota 05:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"Lox" on Locks article

...Actually that was a serious edit. I'd seen things like that on other pages, such as Socks and if a person heard "Lox" in a conversation but didn't know what Lox was, they would probably use the L-o-c-k-s spelling, no? 71.0.240.217 05:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, homophones such as "lox" seem to indeed deserve a spot under the See Also heading. I was assuming that your edit was of a humorous nature. I've reverted my edit and I hope that you accept my apology. Gobonobo 06:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks. 71.0.240.217 06:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wardrobe malfunction

Put them in the Upskirt article, THEN delete them from the Wardrobe article. Wahkeenah 04:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're uncertain. Maybe your agenda was simply to hatchet them from the one article and let someone else do the rest of the work? Wahkeenah 04:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see my response on your talk page. I must give some thought on how best to incorporate those tidbits into upskirt. Gobonobo T C 04:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
And only once you have done so, should you chop it from the other article. Wahkeenah 18:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I see the famous Loren/Mansfield photo is still in the article. That's not a wardrobe malfunction, it's a Downblouse. Until you get sorted out what belongs in what article, you should leave all of them alone. Wahkeenah 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that it is a downblouse. It simply looks like her dress doesn't fit her correctly. This image would perhaps best be characterized as a nipple slip. That being the case, I still don't feel comfortable with taking that image off of the wardrobe malfunction article, but I empower you to do so. You do make a good point though. There are several other items on that article that ought to be deleted or moved to another page. I don't think we should leave any of them alone. Let's drop our little back-and-forth and put those incidents in their proper articles. Gobonobo T C 23:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
OR, consolidate them into a single article about voyeurism and exhibitionism, which is the central theme to ALL of it. Wahkeenah 23:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The ultimate irony is that Janet Jackson, this article's inspiration, didn't have a malfunction, she did it on purpose. Wahkeenah 23:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is quite ironic. I liked your suggestion about consolidating. I noticed that a similar thing came up on Talk:Upskirt and they noted that Pornography#Sub-genres has a Voyeur pornography type that's simply linking to Voyeurism now, but could have its own article. Gobonobo T C 23:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The only argument might ultimately be whether the article is too long, or too much of a "list", which some wikipedics obsess over. Wahkeenah 00:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mooseknuckle

I thought it wasnt a good enough reason because the article to which it redirects does mention the 'male equivalent'. I agree that perhaps an actual article of its own is required, but until then it needn't be deleted; in any case, it should go to WP:RFD. Thanks for getting back to me.

Hornplease 08:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing PROD from Youthfire

Hi. I saw your note at User talk:jtmcgee about removing the prod tag from the article Youthfire. As I understand it, anyone can remove a prod tag, even the creator of the article in question. By the way, I've now nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youthfire, if you care to contribute to the discussion. Joyous! | Talk 03:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

cameltoe in ct

if cameltoe is nosense why is it has an wikipedia page?... teenagers use ct when they want to refer ct

I have found no reference to cameltoe being referred to as C.T. which is why I deleted the link from that article. Gobonobo T C 03:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Jabbi McChops

I was just playing around with links and stuff at that page. Jabbi McChops is a nickname for a friend. I didn't mean to cause you much trouble.

No trouble at all. See my response on your talk page. Gobonobo T C 02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sydney Simona

Hi, You recently deleted my contribution regarding Sydney Simona. You stated that you gave reasons for this in the prod, but I did not find any in what you wrote. Please could you explain further your reasons for deleting the article? I have compared what I did with many other adult model articles and cannot find anything I was missing out. ymfan2007

See my response on your talk page. Gobonobo T C 16:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Credit Unions

Greetings, Gobonobo!

Thanks for the message about credit unions. I just posted a message to the credit union talk page... there was recently a huge hack from an unregistered user. Can you help fix that? It's too much for a relative newbie like me. Thanks! --Mmpartee 12:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the help! much appreciated. it appeared that there was some good editing done, but I thought the huge hack was way out of bounds. your revert was the right cure! --Mmpartee 15:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. I look forward to making credit union into a good article. Gobonobo T C 15:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Auguste toubeau.png

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Auguste toubeau.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Peopleslogo.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Peopleslogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Great start, here's a little something for your efforts

The Exceptional Newcomer Award
Welcome to the project. Thanks for your contributions in June. Feel free to join one of the sub-groups listed on the WPOR main page. Happy editing. Aboutmovies 00:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am interested in editing the cooperative page. Currently I work as an intern on cooperatives at an international level. If you are interested on working together, contact me as soon as possible.

Claudia

Hi Gobonobo!

I've been writing a few articles on cooperative microfinance for wiki lately. Last night, following the lead of an article on the Statement of the Co-operative Identity I posted a brief article on the International Credit Union Operating Principles (which is basically a statement on the credit union identity). It was deleted almost immediately as a copyright violation.

If it was a copyright violation, why is the statement on coop identity (which is also a full-text reproduction) not also a copyright violation? Why is the full text of the CU operating principles posted all over the internet by almost every credit union on the planet (and in places like the [International Cooperative Information Centre] where I reference it on the wiki posting? Conversely, if as I suspect, an international agreement such as this is in the public domain and can't be 'owned' by anyone, how do I reverse this decision?

The International Credit Union Operating Principles embody the gene pool for viable cooperative microfinance institutions and represent over a century of 'hard knocks' learning how to do it. I could summarize them -- and will if I have to. But the language has been so carefully thought out the results would certainly fall short of the brief text (just as it would if someone tried to rephrase the Statement on the Cooperative Identity). It would be a bit like rephrasing the Millennium Development Goals -- or removing their text from wiki because the United Nations has the 'copyright'.

I posted 'hang on' and submitted a defense of my position, but can't find it anywhere this morning -- just a remark from an editor named tangotango that I'd posted a 'blatant copy'. Since he asserts on his talk page that he never 'speedy deletes' articles unless they "are obviously nonsense or disparage the subject" there's not much point in requesting a review from him. I think 5 hours -- in the middle of the night -- is a pretty 'speedy delete', don't you?

I guess what I'm saying is that as a newcomer to wiki I don't know all the rules. If this is a problem, please tell me why? ThanksBrett epic 16:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WPOR Collaboration of the Week

Greetings WPOR member, we are starting a weekly collaboration project where we will announce two articles that are currently stubs that we hope to work together to improve. No pressure to help, but if you would like to, just stop by one of the articles and see if you can find information to expand the article with, copy edit what is there, help with formatting, or add some images. This week’s articles are: Alis volat propriis and Fusitriton oregonensis. Aboutmovies 22:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WPOR Collaboration of the Week

Greetings WikiProject Oregon employees. Well a big thanks to all those who helped improve Alis volat propriis and Fusitriton oregonensis last week. This week’s Stub improvement are: Government of Oregon which should be easy, and Miss Oregon. Again, no pressure to help with the collaboration, choose one, both, or neither. Also, feel free to opt out of the notifications at the new page dedicated to collaborative efforts at WPOR (newsletter is in R&D). Aboutmovies 18:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WPOR Collaboration of the Week #3

Hello again WikiProject Oregon team members, its time for the next Collaboration of the Week. First a shout out to Sprkee for putting together some templates for this project. Now, in honor of Labor Day weekend and the outdoor nature of the activities that often accompany the three-day weekend, this week’s item is to de-redlink as many parks from the List of Oregon State Parks. Some may even by going to one of these places, a great opportunity to take a picture or two for an article. As always, participation is not required, though it is appreciated. And if you are caught, we will disavow any knowledge of your existence. Since we don’t want to waste any effort through duplication, please make a note on the talk page of which park article you are going to start. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Good day! Aboutmovies 19:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

September WPOR Collaboration of the Week

First off, great job to all WikiProject Oregon folks for last week’s List of Oregon State Parks work. We pounded out six new state park articles: Sarah Helmick, Bald Peak, Bob Straub, Sumpter Valley Gold Dredge, Tumalo, and Peter Skene Ogden. Plus numerous other edits to improve the existing articles. As a reward, we are introducing the COTW award {{WPOR COTW award}}, and this time it goes to User:Woodstein52 for starting three of the articles.

On to this week. We are back to the usual two Top importance Stubs: Sunstone and Oregon, My Oregon. Both are stub pluses, so it shouldn’t take much to upgrade them both. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Good day! Aboutmovies 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

edit count

hello, i noticed that your edit count didn't work (it 404ed) so i replaced it with the edit count template that i use on my user page... hope you don't mind. tschuess, Naufana : talk 00:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WPOR Collaboration: 09172007

All righty WPOR ladies and gentleman, great job last week with our state song and gemstone. I have bumped them up to Start class. I haven’t looked at the contributions, so the COTW award will be later. This week’s articles are Darlene Hooley, by special request, and another Top stub, our very own state rock, the Thunderegg. Yes, apparently we have a state rock and state gemstone. No word on whether there is a state stone too. Hooley basically needs some sources to make it to the next level. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. In the words of Beaver Joe, whoop! Aboutmovies 18:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Coooperative principles

Please see my comment on Talk:Rochdale Principles and my note in User talk:Hroðulf#Cooperative principles. I would welcome your opinion on this. --Zlerman (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fred_Hampton.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Fred_Hampton.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 '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 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Thisglad (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Thetake.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane(pipe)

Can you make a diagram for this article? Also I wonder if the title should be Hurricane(bong).Tokerdesigner (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too savvy with the diagram-making. That title does sound better. That or Hurricane (water pipe) would be a more apt description. Gobonobo T C 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5