User talk:AnonEMouse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Hello, AnonEMouse/Archive 1, 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:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Krashlandon 02:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU

I dont think same as you,but I have to tell you that I do respect that you spoke to me after I got blocked.That only proves that you are a honest man,because for many other people would,for example,go and make fun of me being block and even say something happy about it.BUt you showed that you are honest and I have a feeling that you are good man to.

Off course,I would be happier if I saw that you became Fascista like every Patriota-thinking Italiano should,but anyway,I think that you really wanted to put Alessandras picture with no bad intentions.Although other people that got into our disscuison had differente intentions,for excample calling her putanella and thing like that.

But still,you are right that no voters will shape their political will because of that picture,after seeing how good Alessandra was looking(and still is)they may even get to like her better hahahahahah!

Anyway,you proved to be an decent man(although it would be better if you was Fascista to)so thank you for that.AS for picture,as I see that those comunistas are majority,then what can I do,they will see how little does that meant when Alessandra become the Major of Roma.Dzoni 13:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:MEP image (EP)

You edited this recently, "emphasizing the non-free status", and seem to be one of the resident experts on image copyright in general, so I hope it's all right to ask you this. Where on the copyright license does it say that modification is not permitted? It seems to say

"Copyright notice © European Communities, 1995-2005
Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, 
save where otherwise stated.
Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction or 
use of textual and multimedia information (sound, images, software, etc.), 
such permission shall cancel the above-mentioned general permission 
and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use. "

I don't read anything about modification on there, and frankly, that seems close to a free use license. AnonEMouse 18:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There are three things needed for a license to be considered "free":

1. It needs to permit distribution
2. It needs to permit modification and incorporation into larger works (the creation of derivative works)
3. It needs to permit distibution of derivative works

This license permits #1, but does not permit #2 (which is what permits using the image in a Wikipedia article), and does not permit #3 (which is what permits us to distribute Wikipedia, and what permits people to re-use Wikipedia content). --Carnildo 20:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still don't see where it forbids modification, it just doesn't mention it. If we had to choose, since it specifically says "reproduction", not just "distribution", I would think it would allow modification, since most reproductions do inevitably modify the product and incorporate it in another context. Does such a license need to explicitly allow modification? AnonEMouse 21:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The basic copyright statement (ie, "Copyright 2004 Joe Bloggs") forbids everything except a few specific uses: giving away the one copy you have, and certain limited forms of copying as permitted under fair use or fair dealing. Any license is a modification on that to permit specific additional things, such as copying for educational purposes, or incorporation into larger works. Since the license does not say anything about modification or derivative works, those are forbidden. --Carnildo 21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. However, I've been looking at the Creative Commons license 2.5, which, I thought we were encouraged to use, and, frankly, it doesn't say "modification" either. It says "derivative works", but not "modification". So is modification not required after all, or is the Creative Commons license not allowed here any more? -- AnonEMouse 15:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Make a derivative work" is a legal term meaning "modify" or "create a work using parts of this work". --Carnildo 17:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article The Stewardesses, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 07:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OOPS, thanks for pointing out the mistake. I've fixed it now. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Donna Rachele Mussolini Chloe Jones Deidre Holland Amber Lynn Chris O'Neil Dyanna Lauren Felecia Virginia Ruzici Stacy Moran Barbara Jordan (tennis player) Ashley Blue Judy Star Buck Adams Azlea Antistia List of landmark African-American legislation Barbara Dare Mike Stewart Garveyism Tessa Allen

Cleanup African American culture Paul Landers Ashley Benson Merge Benedict P. Morelli Black Jews Alley catting Add Sources List of U.S. state birds Avy Scott Dream Team (basketball) Wikify Metamorphosis Odyssey Pornography in the United States Donna Stratton Expand Melissa Milano Francophobia Mars 2011

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Alice Barnham

		The Barnstar of Rescue
		For an excellent job on saving Alice Barnham from a sorry fate.

Splendid job! ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is what you asked for

Serbian translations say that this is great and famous song:

http://www.tirova.com/glasba/kondor_pada.htm http://www.ptt.yu/korisnici/m/a/makso/new_page_2.htm http://members.fortunecity.com/jupi2/elcondor.htm http://www.vicevi.net/index.php/haag.com/index.php?st=komentar&IDvic=34537

Do you see now how serious are Samuels violations of Wikipedia policiesDzoni 17:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The last link I gave you was a forum where all Serbs said it a famous and great song<i cna translate in both Italiano and English if you like.

Listen,I respect you because you was the only one to support me when I got blocked few weeks ago by communistas on talk page for Alessandra.Thats why I want you to know that this is a great unjustice,what have been done to this song,just because it is exposing so called Invisible NATO bombarder.Even if I dont find the article about this song,trust me,this is very veyr famous song in Serbia,and the only reason they deleted it was because it wsa so critical of criminal and illegal nato bomgings.Dzoni 17:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jetha Lila

So I see. My apologies, I will undo my closing. Dsmdgold 15:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Suzen Johnson

We received a pretty heated complaint at OTRS about this article, from an individual extremely close to the subject. I read the article, and it was pretty overwhelmingly brutal to Suzen Johnson. Personally, I believe that all the pertinent information was already there. The remainder is pretty non-notable, and fairly tabloidish. I did revert it, not because of the quality of your contribution, because you clearly put a lot of work into it... ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 22:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

(The rest -- several days worth -- was moved from my and his talk pages to Talk:Suzen_Johnson where it should be more useful. AnonEMouse 13:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

Barnstar

Thank you, I really appreciate it! --dcabrilo 17:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

AMB

Thanks for staying on top of AMB. You're making me work it. Germany has very few Jews, and they're all recently imported, incl. some of my cousins. Any movement among German Jews has got to be a total joke in terms of membership, esp. a marginal or retro-revival one. Besides, I bet they won't delete any articles dealing with Jewish topics on de:WP, b/c Germans are extremely deferential to Jews and are afraid to be seen in a negative light. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I specialize in difficult deletions. It's easy to delete crap that looks stupid, but when an article looks serious, people think the subject must be worthy, and tag it for "importance". I pulled her out of the ridiculously overswamped Category:Wikipedia articles that need their importance to be explained. It's very valuable work. I clear out good articles, and prod bad ones. I strongly suggest you add that to your areas of focus - one of the most value-adding things you can do on WP. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

See this prod for example: Bi-Rotor - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

El kondor pada

The problem is, this follows close on the heels of the keeping of The Game (game), which also is completely unverified. Both violate WP:V, but the vote wins, even though Wikipedia is supposedly not a democracy. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's so notable and important, why are they unable to prove it? User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to the section at the top of my talk page. Everyone know that within 10 days of my birthday I may not be criticized! LOL~ - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:The Stewardesses

Jeff Joseph/Sabucat is now in fact the legal owner of the film, so it is, in fact, the "official" website.The Photoplayer 19:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

AMB 2

"Condensed by mutual agreement." LOL. I think just leave it in. But if you really want to, go ahead. It sounds right, and I am not going to be all contentious about it. Next year, after I pass the bar :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Bayreuth Circle

Re the references - I deliberately removed the German references. Neither I - nor anyone who has contributed - knows what these say. Someone picked up two reference titles from [www.copac.ac.uk] or somewhere, with articles in two obscure German periodicals, not exactly available through your local library. And how many English readers of Wikipedia could read thme, even if they could find them? English articles should show English sources, as a matter of principle - if none are available it's a sign of weakness of the article topic. I still think the article should be deleted, btw. --Smerus 06:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I am now bored with the whole topic. I am of course entitled to edit my own discussion page as I please. --Smerus 08:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Victoria Paris year of birth

Your article on her gives 1965 as her year of birth. IMDB says it is 1960. Now I know that IMDB is often wrong, but is there a reliable source for 1965? Regards --Rosenzweig 13:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Suzen Johnson move

Not a problem at all. More editors should be involved, frankly. I wish I had more time to devote to it. Bastique▼^parler_voir 13:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Frieda Van Themsche

(what Hans van Themsche did is totally unrelated to this person's article) ... highly debatable. A few hundred news articles relate the two. If she were notable due to being a watercolor painter, or archaeologist, or children's book writer, or computer programmer, yes, we could just mention Hans in a one-sentence trivia section. Instead, she is notable as being a politician for an party rather famous for advocating anti-immigrant policies, and her nephew apparently shot people for being immigrants. And even if you still don't agree that's related, a lot of journalists clearly think it's related; I think we need to at least mention that they think so. AnonEMouse 17:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem of having him linked, but putting the accusation in her article looks like a smear effort against her. Stifle (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What can we do for a compromise? Most links to relatives at least mention why the relative is notable on their own, as in not just "Joe Bloggs is the cousin of Fred Bloggs", but "Joe Bloggs is the cousin of award-winning contortionist tuba player Fred Bloggs". Can you write a couple of adjectives in to accurately describe Hans's notability that would be less of a smear effort against Frieda? AnonEMouse 17:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't honestly know. It may be that she should not have her own article, but should be briefly mentioned in Hans's article, as WP:BIO suggests for relatives of notable people. Stifle (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Knowledgeable planarialogist

I'm not a knowledgeable planarialogist, I'm a knowledgeable planarialogist's son, and I'm only knowing planarialogy, till the knowledgeable planarialogist comes. Cheers! Vizjim 13:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Annette M. Böckler, redux

I am still convinced, now more than ever, that she's NN, esp. in light of the fact that she definitely wrote her own bio on de:WP. Nevertheless, her article is not a blight, unlike articles for teenage bands or mutant pokemons, and doesn't detract from the perceived reliability of WP. Therefore, I am not at all troubled by the adverse outcome of the AfD. Thank you for standing up for her and maintaining the best standards of civility. You're a terrific editor, and I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. And, I love the (squeak). Good idea. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 22:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User:WhOaMi

I reverted its other edits, and place a warning on its talk page. --Usgnus 17:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH,YOU WERE THE ONLY ONE TO CARE TO DO THE RIGHT THING,BECAUSE THEY BLOCKED ME FOR MY NATIONALISM,NOT FOR BEIN A SOCKPUPPET(ALTHOug they used it to concive they real intentions).Thank you once againDzoni 17:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"I recommend assuming that other people mean well more. " lol:)) you are a very good man,but how do you explain that another 3 Serbs were blocked today,by the same charges.....Hehehe,I think its clear for everybody why Serbs are getting blocked every day now.And I bound that Serbiana and C-c-c-c are not sockpuppet,they were banned only for being Serbs,lets be honest about that.As for this user SerbianMafia,i dont know him,but he doesnt sound like a sockpuppet either.Anyways,Im glad that Im unblocked thanks to you and "its feel to be home baby" lol.

But seriously,take a look at new blocked users,you will see that Boris(serbiana) is amazing user,and I personaly think that he was banned just because he expresed support to me when i was banned and before and propably for saying "Welcome back" yesterday.As for another 2 users,they were probably banned just because they are SerbsDzoni 18:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK redux

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Richard Pacheco, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your efforts on behalf of DYK! (especially an article on a porn star... getting it on the front page is classic!) ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Zennie

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Zennie for my follow-up to your comments about the Zennie issue. I'd like your clarifications there because I feel I may be putting words in your mouth right now. I believe the whole issue is silly but I did want an outside comment as Zennie is absolutely clear that he is not licensing his contributions under the GFDL. In my opinion, he has no choice; by submitting text, he is licensing it thus. --Yamla 14:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Luke Ford photos

Great work on the Tony Tedeschi article! Just want you to know that any images from Luke Ford's website can be uploaded directly to the Wikimedia Commons, as the images are licensed under a Creative Commons license. This allows Wikipedias in other languages to use the images as well. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 22:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Staphanie Admas and Godessy

This is not the place to advertise her books for her, her books in itself are nbot notable, Jimbo Wales himself deleted a entry that listed her books. The article is as it should be, it has taken months for it to get there and user Godessey banned several times.

Wiki is not a place for self promotion, so please do not help banned members self promote themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.17.216 (talk • contribs)

I beg to disagree. As User:Bottesini aptly pointed out on Talk:Stephanie_Adams#user:65.184.17.216, Jimbo Wales did not mean for the article to always be three sentences long, he merely meant for it to be rebuilt with extreme care, especially towards citing verifiable sources. I again refer to his edit comment, please rebuild with very careful attention to verifiable sources ONLY. The books are listed with ISBNs, which provide links to libraries and booksellers, including, but not limited to, Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble. Those are highly verifiable sources. The books may not be notable in themselves, in the sense that they don't deserve individual articles, but listing them in their author's article is certainly appropriate. AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Mouse. The IP threw another tantrum in that article, and I was just about to revert and chide when I stopped myself, thought about it, and attempted a dialogue. This wasn't an immediate success, but I now find myself agreeing with the thrust of what the IP was saying: while the Library of Congress lists megatons of the most dreadful-sounding rubbish, it lists nothing for Adams. This suggests that either it never received it (as the IP claims), or that it did receive it but rated it as of even less merit than -- well, see for yourself the kind of bilge that the LoC does list.

Please reply on the article's talk page, if anywhere. Anyway, please don't revert to a state including the list of books without first digesting what's on that talk page. Thanks. -- Hoary 09:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)