Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:25, 6 January 2007

Talk archives

• User talk:CyberAnth/Talk Archive Nov. - Dec. 2006
• User talk: CyberAnth/Talk Archive July - Nov. 2006

Federal funds

No, it does not. For more information, this question as well as a few others are answered on the Fundraising FAQ. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 23:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a barnstar!

		The AfD Rescue Barnstar
		CyberAnth, I award you this barnstar for your awesome expansion of Bonny Hicks during its AfD, prompting a snowball keep. Fabulous job!--Kchase T 05:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, if only I can get you to use "show preview" and edit summaries. ;-)--Kchase T 05:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Turaga Na Rasau equivalent to Queen of the United Kingdom?

Was this comment made at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Keni Naulumatua made in jest?

its so far removed from reality that this is the only way i can make sense of it.

To demonstrate what i'm talking about i'd imagine a survey in the UK asking questions like "Are you aware of the title of Queen of the United Kingdom?" and "Do you know the name of our current Queen?" would get positive responses somewhere above 90%.

A similar survey done in Fiji for "Turaga na Rasau" would probably get significantly lower figures (I'm guessing less the 10%). I myself have lived in Fiji all my life and have never heard of this title. Imagine a person like myself living in the UK for three decades or so and never having heard of Queen Elizabeth II!

I maintain what i said earlier, this is a minor village title at best. --Xorkl000 02:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the analogy is indeed roughly accurate, although I should have been more precise to stipulate Fijian inhabitants of Vanuabalavu. CyberAnth 03:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

then i still need to disagree, QE2 is a sovereign, ie she is not subject to anyone in the Feudal heirarchy. For the last two centuries Vanuabalavu has been a vassal of (at various points) Somosomo, Tubou, Ma'afu and his Tongans. Depending on how you think of it you might be able to add the United Kingdom and the Republic of Fiji to that list. --Xorkl000 01:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A sovereign? Much better thought of as a Figurehead (metaphor). CyberAnth 01:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

well she is that too, that would be her defacto status, however dejure and thinking from a feudal perspective she is a sovereign in the sense that she is subject to no-one. The various title holders in Vanuabalavu do not have this status. --Xorkl000 09:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

So, in trying in some way to convey a Vanuabalavu perspective to Westerners with generally little anthropological clue, I take it you would agree that the rough analogy with the Queen of England is a useful albeit imperfect (as all analogies are) way to try to do so. CyberAnth 09:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

again i'd disagree, one title is incredibly well known, the other is hardly known at all, even amongst people from Vanuabalavu --Xorkl000 11:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of images on Misplaced Pages

I found this at:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/Utilisateur:Alexei756/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Fair_use_des_images

I also put it here:

User:CyberAnth\Fair use of images on Misplaced Pages

CyberAnth 07:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What's with this?

Pasted from original edit.

I found THIS on the French Misplaced Pages, in English, but have not found it on the English version. CyberAnth 07:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What a strange question. That's an essay fr:User:Alexei756 put together more than three years ago. You won't find anything like it on en:; this project's fair use guidelines were largely composed of armchair lawyering on wikien-l at that point. Some of that thinking is distilled in Alexei's essay. There was a question of whether there was an inclusion of unfree material in an article violated the copyright of previous authors to that article (read the actual GFDL to understand why). Alexei's essay seems to be a response to both that concern, and an argument against those who didn't want to include any unfree material at all. That essay eventually turned into the beginning of fr:'s fair use guidelines, which were rather recently discarded in favour of removing everything not a coat of arms, logo, money, stamp, or derivative architectural work (this is a problem in French law). I hope this historical perspective is what you were looking for. Jkelly 08:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What a strange sentence with which to begin a reply to an honest on-topic question. Thanks for the perspective. CyberAnth 08:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fann Wong

Hi, just dropping a note to say that I appreciate your honest feedback on the article Fann Wong! Cheers. Voda voda 13:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ass to mouth

Hi, ref your recent comment on the AfD. I have no desire to make this personal, and I want to keep my objectivity intact. I've stated my opinion and will not be adding anything further to the discussion. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one! Mallanox 03:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not making it personal either. I do not think there is anything to disagree with over its AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ass to mouth. You basis for voting Keep is clearly stated in WP:NEO an an inadequate basis to justify an article's existence about a neologism. That's okay. Live and learn. :-) CyberAnth 03:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't going to say anything more but your most recent note on the AfD crosses the line. It cannot be held in any way civil to precis your opponent's opinions and dismiss them as irrelevent claptrap. The closing admin can make up their own mind without being beaten over the head. I don't normally comment on the conduct of others unless its overtly insulting. I consider your recent post as an insult to those who gave opinions, right or wrong, though it was cleverly disguised as a recap. Mallanox 04:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The post is a critical evaluation of votes and no insult is intended. I evaluated only content, not persons. If the content of a vote can be shown as not in keeping with Misplaced Pages policy, then there is nothing wrong with pointing that out. Feel free to critically evaluate the content of my posts, or for that matter anyone else's. That is one way consensus is reached. CyberAnth 04:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with your evaluation on each comment in the AfD, I'll have to agree with Mallanox that it wasn't the most harmonious thing to do. Admins aren't dumb, and they can make their own decisions on the subject. To spend so much energy pointing out flawed arguments is not the most productive thing to do, although I guess if you were worried that someone who only does a quick glance over of the page might come to a hasty conclusion, then that's something different... Blueaster 05:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that really is my worry. I appreciate your note. CyberAnth 05:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But do you get what I'm saying? Blueaster 05:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Thanks for taking the time to help me be more cooth in such matters in the future. CyberAnth 06:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ass to mouth is dead. CyberAnth 19:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

yes it is :) Blueaster 21:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ass to pussy

Ass to pussy is also dead via my AfD nomination, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ass to pussy.

NOTE: on various websites highly critical of Misplaced Pages, Ass to pussy has been a major "Poster child" for why Misplaced Pages should be disregarded. The article is now dead and let us hope it remains so.

CyberAnth 08:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wanker

I'm not sure why you want to delete this, as it has been kept before, but if you want to start a second nomination you need to use {{subst:afdx|2nd}}. ~ trialsanderrors 02:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. CyberAnth 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You also need to add the {{subst:afdx|2nd}} tag to the article and list it on WP:AFD. ~ trialsanderrors 02:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Australian Cleavage

Thank you. I'll be interested to see if it stays fixed. :) --AliceJMarkham 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Bonny Hicks categories

Hi, just to let you know, I marked the categories of the Bonny Hicks page you've created in your user-space out as <nowiki> as this page was cropping up in the various categories alongside the original. Cheers, Anilocra 14:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, gosh, sorry about that. I just did not think about that that might happen. Thanks for fixing that! CyberAnth 19:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Endangered languages

Hi,

Thanks for your comments re: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Endangered languages. Hope to see you around. --Ling.Nut 00:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Wanker

Your recent edit to Wanker (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Misplaced Pages articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

Is your sandbox article destined for Religious views on birth control? — Twas Now 12:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian views on contraception. :-) CyberAnth 19:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 04:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bean queen

Please be cautious when editing as to not remove any comments... even if they were placed "too soon, or too late". Removing comments that are blatantly offensive personal attack or defamatory commments about a living person are ok. Removing other comments not ok. More info can be found at WP:GAFD regarding deletion discussions. Note: I believe you were acting in good faith when you removed the comment, I believe you just didn't know the practice. Happy editing. Navou 05:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks for pointing this out. I had never seen WP:GAFD and was just going by common sense. The "So...what is the AfD basis???" comments just seemed a prod to get me to post them, and not salient to the AfD. But I'll just leave them if I am interrupted again. CyberAnth 05:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it happens to me. I'm doind task one and task two, and I notice task one has a question, but I'm not done with task two, but task two answers task one. I have to leave the comment, no harm to do that. However, I'm still unsure about how the subject is non-notable, I have heard it a few times. Could you explain how the article violates WP:N on the AFD. Regards, Navou 05:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: AfDs

Regarding your recent batch of AfDs, you did a great job pegging some non-notable and pure dictdef terms, and I think you're doing a great job trying to clean up the encyclopedia. But some of the articles seem to be on notable concepts, and/or at least heavily defended ones. I'd writing this for two reasons, first, I hope you don't take offense at my occasionally strident arguing with your position, I do respect the work of any cleanup editor and I self-identify as a semi-deletionist myself. Secondly, I was wondering if you'd be willing to help me work on some of the more notable articles to bring them up to polish rather than simply blowing them away? Thanks, Wintermut3 05:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your gracious note. I'd be more than happy to look over a list of articles needing improvement. Please feel free to post some here. One thing I have been doing lately is also simply going to articles and removing non-sourced material per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence, leaving what is left. CyberAnth 05:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It seems that your deletion nominations have bothered some people who apparantly haven't found this talk page, and have brought it up at WP:AN/I. You might want to join in on the discussion, and take it easy on the rapid fire nominations in the meantime. Jkelly 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, Jkelly. :-) CyberAnth 08:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please stick the facts on AfD and stay away from trolling, baiting and sarcasm. I removed your comments here on the grounds that they constituted trolling. If you feel I have misinterpreted your remarks, please let me know. Johntex\ 11:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you have the best of intentions. I support an effort to better source articles. However, your latest effort at mass AfD, and blanking large sections of articles without prior discussion are disruptive, and not helpful. Also, although I make no assumption about you motivations beyond the accurate technical reasons that are suggested, I personally, and many other editors find the content you are trying to remove useful and helpful in educating about sexuality. Removing these articles is detrimental to Misplaced Pages, IMO. If your intetion truely is to improve the quality by better sourcing, I suggest a more productive method would be to discuss on the local talk pages of each of those articles what material you feel needs to be sourced, as well as sourcing some of it yourself. Consider how disruptive and unnaceptable it would be perceived by others if you were to go down through a long list of christian articles, blanking large sections, and recommending numerous of those articles for deletion? Regards to you, Atom 12:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think that some of the articles you nominated for deletion (e.g., Space Docking) are good cases where the article clearly has little or no usage, is clearly a neologism, and lacks any useful sourcing. I voted to delete (and salt) this article. However, your mass-nominations (and blanking of large amounts of content) has become indiscriminate. Can I suggest that you focus on removing articles that are closer to Space Docking and less like Bottom (BDSM) or Quim (slang)? A quick sanity-check via tools like google will help you learn whether a term is in widespread usage or whether it has been newly coined. Although articles may sometimes be weak as currently written, in many cases they can be improved with less effort than an AfD will consume; you might also consider researching and adding sources. Tarinth 16:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious views on Masturbation

Thank you, your efforts to rewrite the religious views on masturbation article better are appreciated. I note that ther are other related sections in articles that could benefit from this once it is complete. Fornication#Religions, Religion_and_sexuality, Homosexuality and religion and Sexual ethics might benefit. I think perhaps we may have different perspectives on these issues, however, proper sourcing and citing of references in these articles, rather than opinion and OR is what we both seek. Certainly the effort to rewrite, rather than wholesale blanking of the content in these articles would be beneficial. Atom 13:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please slow down

Please slow down on the delete efforts. It is easier to find a fault than to correct it. Talk to your friends about an appropriate speed. We can't make Misplaced Pages perfect this fast. WAS 4.250 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete votes from AFDs

I object to you deleting my keep vote from your nomination of Quim without notifying me on my talk page. That is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Such actions make it very hard to assume good faith. If you change the text of your nomination, please notify anyone who has posted a response. Please take the time to make sure the article you are nominating is the one you intend to nominate. Haste makes waste. Edison 17:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)