User talk:Chooserr/2

AfD

You do realize that you're supposed to actually create an AfD page, right? They don't make themselves, sticking this {{AfD}}, without creating this, and without listing it on the articles for deletion page, will probably just look like vandalism--Aolanonawanabe 05:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• In fact, here--Aolanonawanabe 05:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Lifebracelet.jpg

I answered your question at WP:AN/I as follows:

He is in the right. The question is not whether the bracelet is copyrighted but whether the image that you posted is copyrighted. I could take a picture of an orange. The orange isn't copyrighted, but the picture would be. If you don't provide source information for the image, we have to assume that it is copyrighted. FreplySpang (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Another comment: The image is copyrighted, as you yourself state; "The copyright was for 2001". However, copyright in images and text does not expire after one year, or even four; a 2001 copyright notice effectively means that the image is copyrighted for the best part of the coming century. Shimgray | talk | 14:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've tagged it for deletion because we cannot use copyrighted images. FreplySpang (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Like Shimgray said - if the source says "Copyright 2001" it means the copyright starts in 2001 and lasts for many years afterward. FreplySpang (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Condom

I have reverted this edit of yours to Condom because you should not remove entire subsections from articles. If you believe that the section should go, please start a discussion at Talk:Condom. Thanks.--Sean|Black 07:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm only following wikipedia policy... Bull. Or to use a phrase more regionally suited, complete bollocks. Citing of policy is a transparent excuse, as a quick examination of your edit history, user page, and citations on various admin pages show. NPOV is policy, not an obstacle for you to get around. --Calton | Talk 00:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to side step any policy and I made the section about health as neutral as possible. Best laugh I've had all day. Besides, what makes you think I was saying anything about your scary-scary health section? --Calton | Talk 01:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Condomfactsforum.jpg

The lack of a copyright notice on an image does not mean the image is not copyrighted. All works are copyrighted unless they are explicitly released into the public domain. As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest you please consider not uploading images that you personally do not own, or else learn a bit more about copyright and what uses are permissible before you upload images that you don't personally own. It simply creates more work for those of us who have to clean up and delete improperly sourced and licensed images. Regards, Nandesuka 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

STFU

Please revert vandalism, rather than marking vandalized articles for speedy deletion. Uncle G 03:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Babel userboxes

Your Babel section gave me some inspiration to expand mine, yes, but I'm afraid it's gotten a bit out of hand ;) Aecis ^praatpaal 13:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Heteropride

Oh yeah, a site whose name gets 238 Google hits. Very reliable, very noteworthy.

From About.com Q. Why is there no straight pride?"" From Kathy Belge, Your Guide to Lesbian Life.

A. Straight is the norm. The majority of the population is straight, or heterosexual. People who are straight are not put down or the brunt of jokes. They are not discriminated against for being straight. They do not have laws in place to make their relationships illegal. Most straight people never give being heterosexual a second thought. That is why there are no straight pride parades.

Tell me, is English your second language? You seem to have trouble with usage.

--Calton | Talk 01:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

...that's why I clearly stated... Guy, you could have clearly stated "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" for all the sense you made. I'm referring to, among other things, your tin ear for how language and phrases are used by subcultures to describe themselves and their relationship to the dominant culture. There is no "white community" (except in the minds of compound-dwelling yahoos in the wilds of Idaho), no "masculine community", no "right-handers community", no "secular community". It's why Mundane is related.

I could also throw in your peculiar, Humpty-Dumpty-esque use of the word "protecting". Watch out! Elton John is coming to destroy your marriage! --Calton | Talk 02:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The Movement

What does this one think of the movement? --Kin Khan 02:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

template:chooserrwelcome

Have you considered using {{subst:Chooserrwelcome}} instead of {{Chooserrwelcome}}, in order to reduce the load on the servers?--Aolanonawanabe 02:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please move this template into your user space. The template namespace (that is, templates whose names start with "Template:") is intended for templates that are useful to many people. This template is really only useful to you. If you move it to User:Chooserr/welcome, you can use it just like any other template, by typing {{User:Chooserr/welcome}} or {{subst:User:Chooser/welcome}}. (Aolanon's suggestion to "subst" it is a good idea.) FreplySpang (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think this trollish nonsense is what FreplySpang had in mind--Aolanonawanabe 05:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Funnily enough, it's not. Both of you, calm down. Chooserr, stop making personal attacks against Aolanonawanabe. Aolanonawanabe, try not to provoke Chooserr. FreplySpang (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Civility and No personal attacks are two of the key principles of Wikipedia participation. You have been editing controversial articles, so you are likely to get into heated discussions. If you can't participate without insults and abuse then please wait until you are calmer before you edit. Other people's bad behavior does not justify yours. FreplySpang (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Explicit Images (Re: Might You Help Again?)

Well, first off I would like to say You Are Welcome. The next thing I would like to ask of you before I can do any further is, where is the birth control article located (or my comment on the pic, rather) so I can see what exactly I posted regarding it. It would be of great importance if you told me this, because I do a many things on Wikipedia regarding censorship, but the so-called 'NPOV' policy also prevents me from reaching my full potential. Please also give me the direct links to these other explicit images so I can comment on them, for I'd rather not look at the images without...well, being 'prepared' in a sense. I shall work from there. Any other things I could do to offer my assistance to you? Thank you. Эйрон Кинни 05:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have rested my case on its talk page, thank you. Эйрон Кинни 05:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Following me around and reverting my edits

That's fine and all, but since most of what I do is revert vandalism, reverting that, might be considered, you know.. the opposite of reverting vandalism--Aolanonawanabe 07:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

please get a life

There is no way that I'm edit warring with you over a cow, please go away--Aolanonawanabe 07:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Lifebracelet.jpg

Hi Chooserr,

There's nothing about the image that says it's not allowed, it's just that it's not GFDL. If you believe that you can use it fairly, even though it's copyrighted (which it is), you should apply a {{Non-free fair use in}} tag to it. The images you complain about have been slapped with similar tags. The main concern with this is that there are many "GFDL" ways to get it (such as by buying it and taking the photo yourself, like I mentioned earlier), so using a copyrighted image like this one is probably unnecessary. If Wikipedia ever gets published in a v1.0 form, all copyrighted images will be removed to prevent possible legal problems. Since this image was taken by a company (and subsequently copyrighted), there can be problems related to this. I know a couple of graphic designers that spend a fair bit of time legally pursuing people or organisations that use their graphics without authorisation, so this is a slippery slope to take on Wikipedia. --Deathphoenix 16:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chooserr, I've been keeping abreast of that image, and everyone else has great points: this image doesn't add significant content to other articles, and indeed, images like this will almost certainly be removed because it's so much easier to make a copyright-free image than to get a copyrighted one off the web. I'd really suggest you take your own picture of this bracelet (I assume you have one). --Deathphoenix 16:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Book covers fair use

You asked, "Why is it I wonder that book covers are free use no matter who takes picture and yet my bracelet isn't?" Well, it's because book covers aren't free to use. To quote Template:Bookcover, "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers to illustrate the book in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Copyrights for more information." FreplySpang (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chooserr

Just read your comment on the Talk:Condom page. I think your addition of the American Cancer Society link is valid.

As an aside, I've noticed that you seem to have a polarizing effect on Wikipedia. As one editor to another, I think it may be prudent to make edits with less religious overtones, and avoid rallying. As a pharmacy student, I have no problem with your edits as long as they are evidence-based, not overstated, and not against scientific consensus.

Best editing, Uthbrian (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

article titles

When you create a new article, please follow the Wikipedia naming conventions by capitalizing only the first word. So, it should be Straight community instead of Straight Community and Parental notification instead of Parental Notification. (I am not endorsing either article here, just using them as examples.) FreplySpang (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Talc, Silicon - Carcinogen?

Hi Chooserr, here's what I've found on talcum powder [1]. Basically, it looks like talc was previously linked to cancer because it had asbestos in it. This was before 1973-- nowadays, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration has required talcum powders to be asbestos-free.

Overall, the report seemed to indicate that the studies on talc and silica are inconclusive in determining their carcinogenicity.

--Uthbrian (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Condoms

Good point. I've added this sentence: "Additionally, the absence of visible lesions or symptoms cannot be used to decide whether caution is needed." Essentially from the American Cancer Society website, but generalized to all diseases with genital ulcers, instead of just HPV. Uthbrian (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to honestly say I'm not inclined to include it as an "External link" because the article's main focus is on "Can Penile Cancer Be Prevented?". --Uthbrian (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chooserr, benzene is definitely a carcinogen. However, I could not find any unbiased evidence that benzene is present on condoms. I'm sure if a study was done and benzene was detected in any toxic doses, the FDA would take action immediately to protect the public. --Uthbrian (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chooserr, I saw your Benzene edits and removed them because I felt they were strongly biased. If you can find me an official link to a information source from the government (NIH, CDC, USDA, FDA) or a credible health agency (such as the American Cancer Society) which states that "benzene was found at toxic levels on condoms" (or something to that regard), I will definitely consider letting it stand. I usually check PubMed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed as a good starting point. However, I couldn't find anything searching with the terms "benzene condom". I am reverting the article for now. --Uthbrian (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It has to be information directly from the FDA, etc. website/domain. Otherwise, anyone can claim that "FDA has said..." and they could be lying about exactly what the FDA stated. --Uthbrian (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You're doing an excellent job learning, Chooserr! I didn't notice any abstracts pertaining to condoms in the 41 items listed under "contraceptive benzene", but you're catching onto good references/sources to use in defending your edits. It is definitely hard to understand some of the material you may find there, but that's what Wikipedia is good for... finding understandable info on difficult-to-understand ideas.

I'd like to offer a note of caution: sometimes you may find one abstract which may be useful, but many others go against it. If you do decided to post up the "lone voice" abstract, I would add a qualifying statement saying that "many others go against this lone study" or something to that effect. Additionally, some studies may be erroneous due to poor study design; however, you have to learn much about statistics and study design to find these errors.

Basically, scientific studies are difficult to perform, and may be limited in their scope of application. You have to be careful not to over-generalize, etc.

I'm glad to introduce you to mainstream science, though! --Uthbrian (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Catholic Wikipedians

I see the category page has you listed under "U". You might want to edit the category link and change it to [[Category:Roman Catholic Wikipedians|Chooserr]] so it sorts properly.

Alternately, you could add the "rc" userbox, as I did, which does this automatically.--SarekOfVulcan 00:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Catholic Alliance

Do you think it would be a good idea to start a Catholic Alliance in wikipedia? We could gather votes to defend pro-life articles and similar items. --Shanedidona 04:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Chooserr/2! Hope it's a wonderful one! (happy New Year, too!)--ViolinGirl^♪ 15:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Braw

You used the word braw on my discussion page. What does it mean? I live in the USA, so I might not know Scottish slang words. --Shanedidona 16:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

CAoW

I think it would be a good idea for you to join the Catholic Alliance of wikipedia, which is a pro-life group. --Shanedidona 21:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)