User talk:Ghosts&empties

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Archives

[edit] Salma Hayek

I must have clicked on the wrong version of the article for the revert of the vandalism that was put in. I'll try not to have it happen again. Dismas|^(talk) 00:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portmanteau

Because it makes us feel smarter than we are? D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 01:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Making a face

Thanks! I'm the one on the right, for the record... — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 11:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emma Lazarus winning a contest

On December 28th, 2005, you edited the Statue of Liberty article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Statue_of_Liberty&diff=33048180&oldid=32854887

Among other things, you added the phrase "the winner of a contest underwritten by the New York World to the sentence:

The poem "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus, the winner of a contest underwritten by the New York World, was engraved on a bronze plaque in 1903, 20 years after it was written.

I've been looking for a source for these item about the contest, and haven't been able to find one. Most of the readily available material indicates that it was written as part of a fundraising effort in 1883, but the details of its having won a contest or that the contest was underwritten by the New York World are not mentioned. Could you indicate what your source for this fact is? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You said to consult the references in the Emma Lazarus article.

But... of those references, http://www.phy6.org/outreach/Jewish/Lazarus.htm| gives a 404 Not Found; one http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/l#a1155 is a collection of her poems; and the third, http://www.jwa.org/exhibits/wov/lazarus/ says nothing about a contest, either on the cited page, or here. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pamela Smart

Actually, I missed that statement, and have since removed "one of the first of its kind prior to the O. J. Simpson trial." —tregoweth (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vichyssoise

You are sub-minutiae detritu

[edit] Anna Ohura

"T157cm B100(I) W58 H88" I have no clue what the T is. However, B 100 means she has a 39 inch bustline, and if the I works the same as western measurements, means that her cup size is 9 cm more than that (a D cup is 4 inches over the line under the bust), which is equivalent to, well, a D cup. So a Japanese 100I = an American 38D, give or take. But the 157 is definitely not her circumference at the breasts. I have no clue what the T is. --Golbez 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reshad Feild

I have deleted the following comments from the article because 1) I think they refer rather to The Springfields than to Reshad Feild, and 2) because I know from Reshad Feild himself that the story behind the name "The Springfields" was a different one.

"Like the Ramones, all members of the group took the same last name – Springfield – which may have been an expansion on his surname. The group's vocalist took the name Dusty Springfield, giving Feild a putative, if indirect, namecheck on one of the most respected vocalists in modern music."--Alois Alexander 11:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

Respond to User talk:Gmaxwell#No gallery of thumbnails

[edit] Fair use image of Ms. A. Barbeau

You said: "I added this image originally. The fair use rational is that it's the promotional photo and cover for her autobiography. It's also a well known photo that identifies her better than the other photo from imdb. Sufficient?"

Well, I removed the image because it was missing the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale. If it is the cover of her autobiography, it would presumably not be a promotional photo. it can be at most one or the other. However, assuming it is the cover of her autobiography, it would be reasonable to use it in an article about her provided that the hand-written detailed fair-use rationale makes note of the fact that it is being used to illustrate the publication of the book, not to identify Ms. Barbeau (book covers cannot be used to depict a person). --Yamla 18:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not reinsert copyrighted images without providing the mandatory detailed fair-use rationale for their use. Additionally, please do not remove {{unverifiedimage}} tags from images missing source information. --Yamla 21:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll give you several hours. Sometimes my fingers get twitchy, particularly on a Friday. --Yamla 21:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You said: "If it was fair use in the middle of the page, why isn't it fair use at the top of the page? The book for which is image is the cover is discussed and quated extensively throughout the article. The MoS layout that a sole image should appear top left."

In the middle of the page, an argument can be made that it is depicting the book which is fair-use. At the top, it is depicting the person, which is not fair-use for a book cover. --Yamla 17:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm sure you are getting quite frustrated over this whole matter. I want to let you know that I really appreciate you remaining civil and especially that you are clearly working very hard to get this whole fair-use thing correct. I am perhaps holding you to an exceptionally high standard wrt fair-use images. It is certainly the case that most fair-use images are not subjected to this level of pedantic scrutiny. Once we get this correct, I'll award you a barnstar if I haven't already. --Yamla 17:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth

Hello. Please do not remove relavent images from articles, as you did to Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth's Image:Arkham.jpg. The critia for removal was proven to be illogical, as the image does "show something", namely, the Bat-like creature which the Arkham family saw. Furthermore, as a direct result of your removal, the image was deleted, disabling better Wikipedians from correcting your mistake. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. It's clear now, but with a lot of daylight it looked like a black box. Ghosts&empties 01:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: There once was a man from Nantucket

Your grammar correction ("If my ear were a cunt, I could fuck it.") is much appreciated. Good grammar is the hallmark of decorum. Ghosts&empties 14:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually not so sure now... when I reflect on it and analyse and think carefully, the word "were" is still correct, but not for reasons of past tense. As it is quoting what he said at the time, he was saying that if it were the case that his ear was a cunt, he could then fuck it. Gee, all this naughty language :-) Timeshift 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to say the corrected version blows my mind. Ear were, ear were, ear wear (damn!) ;)--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something's gotta give

I have responded to your comments on my talk page. I would normally copy-and-paste my response here but it is rather long. You are not obligated to respond, of course, but I thank you for your input and appreciate what you have to say. --Yamla 03:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You liked some Honest scenes, didn't you

There is a certain theme to the changes ;) KittenKlub 02:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You may want to know

Someone may be faking your signatures: [1] Might be copied from some archive, I don't know - just thought I would let you know just in case.--Konstable 06:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You may want to know that Konstable wants to take revenge, because he was not allowed to cover for his buddy, and seems to stalk me. It was a message left on the userpage moved to the talkpage. Thank you for stalking me. KittenKlub 10:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miriam G

Anybody complaioning about pics would have a lot of work = I uploaded more than a hundred :-) Stellatomailing 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Longer than subject warrented" failings

Two people have brought up disputes over your failing of some articles for the reason "Longer than subject warrented". Are these articles off-topic in your opinion, or much too detailed? "Longer than subject warrented" seems entirely subjective, and "is the proper length of the subject" isn't a GA criteria; staying on topic is. Homestarmy 06:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is a subjective judgement. Length is a criteria in determining good article status: "A good article may be any length, as long as it properly addresses all major aspects of the topic." The proper length for a given topicis based on what the length and level of detail the reader wants in the editor's judgement. Some of the articles being nominated are obsessively long, which doesn't lead to a good encyclopedia. One well-written, well-organized article I failed, with a note of encouragement, was [Eleanor Rigby]], which is an important song , but to be the proper length for the typical reader of an encyclopedia needs to be shorter. Editing for length (even if it means deleting less important content) is an important part of good writing, especially for an encyclopedia. Reducing length is not that difficult and does not require much specialized knowledge. Ghosts&empties 07:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So basically, you felt that the subjects went into too many details, and therefore went off-topic? It's just i've never seen someone put it as "Longer than subject warrented", and you caused two disputes to pop up heh. Homestarmy 16:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in your conversation but instead of only giving the sentence "Longer than subject warrented", it would be a more helpful review if the writer of the entry would be told what are the sections he can cut or dump in subarticles or re-write in order to eliminate material that seem off-topic. Lincher 04:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CupcakesFrosted_wb.jpg

Why did you remove the license and source from this image, and add deletion templates to it? If you have some reason to believe that User:Elf is lying about having taken the photograph, please nominate the article at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Thanks. Jkelly 02:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: William Shatner

Thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capone in Chicago

The reason you gave for the deletion is obtuse, and the lone bit of folklore was properly identified. Most Americans associate Al Capone with ruthless, based upon both the St. Valentine's Day Massacre and the murder of two of his associates at a formal dinner party.

Some of us put time into our contribution, as we are trying to improve Wikipedia. If you delete, at least give a longer explanation, or just refrain in the future.

I see what you mean about how the baseball bat bit is meaningful for character development, but I deleted it for two reasons:

1) there are at least 3 versions of who was doing the beating - or it may be completely myth 2) it didn't really change the arc of Capone's career

If you want to treat this incident in an encyclopedic way, you need to consider and reference several sources. As is, the explanation differs from other accounts of the same incident in Wikipedia (See John Scalise).

I hate to be the guy that nags "More references!", "Explain other theories!", but when it comes to Capone, there's often more myth than fact, as Geraldo learned the hard way. Ghosts&empties 17:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magazine Covers and Stuff

You said: "As you know better than anyone, an image of a magazine cover is fair use for an article about that magazine. So why did you delete the cover images for Stuff (magazine) and Blender (magazine) despite our previous dialogue? If there's a minor problem with the image tag, fix that if you like, but don't obliterate the images that obviously are not a copyright violation. I cannnot figure out how to retrieve the cover images you deleted for Stuff (magazine) and Details (magazine) so I'd appreciate your help."

I'm sorry, I haven't had the chance to go back and verify. I'm not ignoring you. My understanding is the following. Legally, we are probably permitted to use a magazine cover to depict the magazine generally. However, Wikipedia policy, which is more restrictive than the law requires (for example, no copyrighted images in user space, no matter what the rationale) still does not permit this. I haven't had the chance to double-check to see if this has changed recently so I may be out to lunch. I am sorry that you and I are running up against this. --Yamla 03:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you can remember the file names, I'm sure I can pull the files out of the history. It may be easiest to email the resulting files to you. Is your email hooked up to the Wikipedia? I'm quite happy finding some other means of recovering the images, though, if you desire your privacy. --Yamla 03:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, good. If magazine covers are not OK in articles about the magazine, then about 100 articles about magazines have copyvios. As far as restoring the imaages, it seems were in the realm of tort law so you carry out a remedy yourself or pay compensatory damages of 43KB. Thanks Ghosts&empties 03:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa

Hi, Ghosts&empties. My editions to Lisa Fonssagrives were not vandalism, as you though. The article had some very POV statements ("She was both muse and inspiration to the cream of fashion photographers..." and "...but she was so much more"), weasel words ("Many people consider..."), unfree images lacking a sound rationale and extraordinary unsourced claims ("no model has surpassed her number of Vogue magazine covers"). I'm not saying the text marked with {{fact}} is untrue, I just think they should be properly sourced (using the <ref/> tag). Let's work on improving this article. Best regards, --Abu Badali 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Ghosts&empties, I'll try to get to citations on this article soon. I remember doing the research and it shouldn't be too hard, but I'm quite busy, just now and will try to get it done next week. At the time I made my contribution to the article, there wasn't the amount of focus that has been made more recently on individual citations. Doc ♬ talk 18:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop and talk issues out with other editors on article talk pages or their talk pages. You are currently, in my viewpoint, edit warring with another editor. This is unacceptable, we need to talk our differences out and not insult other uses. I know you can settle this out peacefully. Thank you, Yank sox 04:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

With the comments in the edit summaries and my request to the original author regarding Mr. Badali's requests, quite a bit of polite dialogue was occuring. The edits in article show some convergence. Currently there are too many ^{[citation needed]} tags, but I think the original author will fill in the salient references.Ghosts&empties 12:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit of Jennifer Lopez

Thank you for experimenting with the page Jennifer Lopez on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Kylef81 19:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please cite sources

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to the Robert Chesebrough article. Please find and add reliable citations to your edits so that others may verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seven dirty words by the man from Nantucket

I have one word for you, in all due respect: "cocksucker". The difference between "suck it" and "cocksucker" is not much of a stretch, especially compared to the flexibility required to perform such an act. This article is like Scrabble; the point is to score by wikifying as creatively as possible. "Seven dirty words" is definitely a 10-point link. Ghosts&empties 17:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

All right, if you it's really worth that many points, I guess you have a point.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There once was a man from Nantucket

We'll have to agree to disagree on this rubirosian item, it seems, since it's a judgement call. But I think a word that confuses virtually every reader isn't a very good word for an encyclopedia to use when explaining something. - DavidWBrooks 19:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Image:Barbeaus.jpg

Image:Barbeaus.jpg doesn't have its mandatory detailed fair-use rationale. It certainly can be used to illustrate the book itself, though it cannot be used at the top of the page to depict Barbeau. To be clear, it can be used in the article itself if attached to a paragraph dealing with the book, and with a detailed fair-use rationale. --Yamla 18:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Thanks for your comments nice to hear from someone who has a similair mind set as i do on wikipedia. And congrats as being the first person to comment on my efforts of my userpage, Thanks! KingstonJr 16:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adrienne Barbeau

You said: "Why is the image from the cover of her book no longer fair use? The image and its location on the page have been contested several times, but its fair use status was upheld. Have WP policies changed?"

Yes, I'm sorry to say, they have. Recently, it was decided that we may no longer use copyrighted non-free images to depict living people except in extraordinary conditions. We may only use free images. Please see WP:FUC. While I would not blame you for not assuming good faith on my behalf, please understand that I did not instigate this policy change. --Yamla 03:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/h/o/User_talk%7EGhosts%26empties_7637.html"

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.