User talk:Hyacinth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, you've reached User:Hyacinth, Mikhail Abraham, please edit yourself at the bottom this page. I normally respond quickly on your talk pages, but could be vacationing for a month, you never know.

Note: I currently have reasonable access to computers. If you have a question that doesn't need an immediate answer I actually enjoy answering them, so please ask.

If you do not sign messages I have no way of replying to you on your talk page. Please do not carry on conversations with other users on my talk page. That is why you all have talk pages. Thanks!

My user name is a reference to Hyacinth (mythology) rather than Hyacinth Bucket.

Archives

Do not leave messages in archive as I am not notified automatically. Leave a message on the bottom of this page.

Contents

[edit] Homosexuality section in Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

Very belatedly, thanks for looking through the article on Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky while it was undergoing peer review. Per comments received there, the article in general, and especially the section where Tchaikovsky's homosexuality is mentioned, has been thoroughly overhauled. I would really appreciate if you could look over that section once more just to make sure all bases are covered and get back to me on my talk page with any suggestions. Thanks very much! Jonyungk (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking through the article and making the layout adjustments that you did. However, I'd hoped you would comment on the current content, especially about areas that had been previously contested. You'd had some definite views previously and mention on your user page that you like to solve problems. All this made not hearing anything from you all the more disconcerting. I am very disappointed but still appreciate your having looked through the article one more time. Jonyungk (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Credentials

I'm editing WP:Credentials to be an information page, so that users can know that Wikipedia has no credential policy. It isn't quite clear from the rest of the policy and guidelines. See this discussion. Zenwhat (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Elektra chord

A tag has been placed on Elektra chord requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 04:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hyacinth -- as I'm sure you noticed I declined the speedy. Evan, it's best to give someone writing an article just a bit of a chance to write it before slapping the speedy tag on, especially with an obviously experienced contributor who knows how to reference and cite. Hyacinth, nice work; it's a significant topic in post-tonal theory, as I'm sure you know. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas

Could you give the date and place of publication for the reference you added please? I can't find it on Google Books, and Amazon only has Virgil Thomson, not The Autobiography of Virgil Thomson, though it seems like it's the same book.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying on the talkpage but I'm confused. Is the quote taken from the book you mentioned at first, or from the article from the New York Review of Books? For the article I only get a preview and then they ask me to sign in and pay. I've asked my campus library if I can read it for free through them, but anyway...book or article?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boogie Woogie

I see that you participated in the creation of this article, although quite a while ago. I also note that you are making many edits to music related topics. As a non musician (or wanna be, maybe) I find it confusing that the "bass line" image doesn't seem to be the familiar I IV V of blues. This after the article states that this is the basis for "boogie woogie".

Any thoughts on making things more clear? Steve Pastor (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The second illustration in the article, the one after there is talk about boogie woogie being based on 12 bar blues, does not seem to be showing a typical blues I IV V progression. No? And if I have to ask thins, wouldn't there be a better example? Steve Pastor (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Queer Wikipedians

A discussion is going on that concerns you.

Recently, the category Queer Wikipedians was deleted, and all pages were removed from the category. I see that you have added yourself back into the now-deleted category, thus re-creating it.

This has created quite a stir over at WP:Village pump (policy)#Categorizing_in_a_deleted_category. (the deletion discussions may be found at WP:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Category:LGBT_Wikipedians and WP:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Sexuality_and_gender_identification)

Unless I'm mistaken, no one has spoken to you about the issue, and it seems like your input may be helpful. superlusertc 2008 January 08, 06:59 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review

I'd like to encourage you to view my response at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Categorizing_in_a_deleted_category and then amend your deletion review to include all of the categories that were slaughtered. -- ALLSTARecho 09:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quip

Nice quip about Wikihate on your userpage. Well put together. SWik78 (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 8#Category:Queer Wikipedians

Thank you for your polite reply. Hyacinth (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay then: How does Category:Wikipedian cellists facilitate collaboration while Category:Queer Wikipedians only feels good? Hyacinth (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Cellist = Wikipedians by skill or profession. Let's sidestep the obvious jokes/puns about skill/profession in relation to sexuality. ("The world's oldest profession" for example.)
Also, when I said "feel-good", I meant in terms of a category that is intended only for grouping for the sake of grouping, with no navigation intended except for social or pseudo-demographic reasons (pseduo-demographic because: a.) self-placement may be of dubious precision b.) not all of a demographic may categorise themselves in tah manner). This is part of why there should be accuracy in naming, and why we tend to follow an convention of naming within parent categories (such as Wikipedians by interest).
I hope this clarifies. - jc37 02:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My difficulty is in verifying the conventions which you cite and placing them in context. Thus my questions which appear to be "other stuff exists" arguments, in which I am attempting to document the practice and policy around this issue. We both agree that the decision to name or delete user categories should not be arbitrarily decided. It is my hope that we accomplish this documentation to assist with the process of naming and deleting categories. Hyacinth (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The current naming "conventions" should be obvious just by looking at Category:Wikipedians by interest. Notice that all the subcategories follow the format of: Category:Wikipedians interested in.... That is the convention. - jc37 11:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
So the convention for naming user categories is the existence of Category:Wikipedians by interest? What about the other user categories? Hyacinth (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If the Category:Queer Wikipedians was not yet deleted what would you propose an alternate but similar category to accomplish the goal of collaboration? Hyacinth (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already done so (several times): Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues. - jc37 11:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How may we verify how categories are actually being used for collaboration? Hyacinth (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The goal is clear potential for collaboration. To reduce bureaucratic overhead, this is typically done in categories by virtue of the category's name. - jc37 11:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How does a categories name clearly indicate the potential for collaboration? Hyacinth (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

By showing more direct interest in a topic rather than indirect. Being "x" doesn't necessarily mean that one is interested in collaborating on "x". That's why such categories as "Female Wikipedians" (and in this case, "Queer Wikipedians") have been deleted. - jc37 21:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to dig so hard for these answers. Hyacinth (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've readily responded to your questions, when in all honesty I did not have to. So I'm not certain what you mean by that. Could you clarify? - jc37 21:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I mean that policies and practices should be clear. Hyacinth (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You'll please pardon my laughter, it's in no way directed towards you, but I must say that if you believe that assertion, Wikipedia is not the site for you : )
To clarify: I'm sure that we all do the best we can to balance not being a bureacracy with having written clarity. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not. But Wikipedia is not about having written "rules". It's about building an encyclopedia. Everything else should be designed to support that single endeavor. - jc37 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the claim that categories based on basic demographic information have been approved by convention correct? Hyacinth (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Though that was the case around 2 years ago, consensus slowly changed on that over the last 2 years. - jc37 21:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Hyacinth. I just want to bring this up, but your conduct at DRV is frowned upon. The admin who closes the discussion will duly note all arguments for and against deletion/recreation; hectoring every single person who does not agree with you only feeds ill feelings and generates more drama than is needed. If you have stated your case thoroughly, you’re fine. David Fuchs (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Listen to yourself. Your 'side' 'lost' the discussion, for lack of a better word, so you're bitter. But even if the outcome isn't what you want, doesn't mean the closer paid no attention to what was said. You have a serious chip on your shoulder, and badgering everyone who disagrees with you helps the wiki not a bit. David Fuchs (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It's very obvious if you had voted in that discussion what your stance would have been. I am saying that replying to every single objection on an AfD or DRV is considered bad form, and does not further your cause. David Fuchs (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree with that assertion. It is, afterall, a deletion review, aka a deletion discussion and that's what he's doing, even if it is with almost everyone. Nothing wrong with that. -- ALLSTARecho 00:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So what is is that I'm missing here? Perhaps this discussion would better take place at Wikipedia talk:Categorization? Hyacinth (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not noticing the question until now. (And noting that the DRV is now closed.)
As for your question: No, I don't think that that talk page is necessarily the "best" place. In my experience the most fruitful (though slow) discussion has happened at WT:UCFD.
I hope this helps. - jc37 20:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:UCFD#Category:Wikipedians by interest

I find it insulting that you would accuse me of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point after you advised me to do so: "If you have concerns about a Wikipedian category, please feel free to nominate it for discussion." (Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_8#Category:Queer_Wikipedians) Hyacinth (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, that does in fact look like a pointy nomination. On the surface, anyway, it appears that you are saying "I can't have mine so nobody else can, either." --Kbdank71 14:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
There were several problems with the nomination. And it was rather clearly a WP:POINT nom. However, I'm doing/I've done what I can to avoid biting someone who quite obviously either is quite unexperienced in categorisation (not just Wikipedian categorisation), or is feigning so (intentionally being obtuse) to push a personal POV. (I'd like to presume the former, while accepting that the latter is a possibility.) - jc37 21:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You now insult my level of experience. Hyacinth (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Your actions up to this point, as well as all of your questions, indicate a lack of experience. An observation, not an insult. - jc37 03:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you prefer that we not communicate on user talk pages? Hyacinth (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're truly looking for helpful information, I have no problem being helpful in this way. Consider that you're the one setting the tone here, I'm merely attempting to respond to what I'm seeing. - jc37 03:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to think that the other participants in discussion are the one's setting the tone but it must be admitted that all participants do. You assisted with setting a positive tone in the discussion through many of your statements. For example, your first "proposal" to me that "Cat:Queer Wikipedians" be renamed was actually a dismisal of the possibility, which is, I assume, why I missed it. Perhaps rather than question my motives in violation of WP:Assume good faith and question my experience in contradiction to your ability to verify it, you should focus on your tone and the tone you set in debates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyacinth (talk • contribs) 00:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
If you read over WP:AGF, you may find that what it says is:
  • This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.
In my opinion, you made your POV rather clear in the Village Pump "discussion". Which also meant that you were being a bit less than truthful about your motives during the DRV. That said, I did what I could to be honest, yet attempt to keep the discussion positive. There were enough people who were "going negative", in their POV pushing (using such words as "slaughter", for example).
You may also wish to read over the essay Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic (which is also linked at WP:AGF). You may find it helpful for the future.
In any case, there have been times in the past where, in hindsight, I wondered if perhaps I should have more carefully considered my "tone". I don't believe that this is one of those cases. If anything, it may be possible that I was too positive and polite in the face of probable deceit. But then, I'm a big fan of WP:AGF, and tend to err on the side of caution. C'est la vie. - jc37 01:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you continue to oppose the nomination of Category:Wikipedians by interest for deletion? Hyacinth (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't oppose the nomination. I closed it due to obvious WP:POINT issues. At the moment, I don't see how that has changed.
If I might offer a suggestion, instead of feeling sour grapes, or presuming that you are being prosecuted unfairly, or that a double standard is in place, or whatever else it is that you may be feeling, instead, presume good faith of your fellow Wikipedians, and join in on the existing discussions at WP:UCFD. Though not everyone agrees in every instance, and there is no guarantee that one's opinion will be similar to what consensus is determined to be, everyone's opinion is welcome, and I think it could be a valuable learning experience, if you're truly interested in Wikipedian categories.
If you're not interested in Wikipedian categories in general, and are just upset about the "loss" of your preferred wording of a category name, then I'm sorry, but then I don't think that there would be anything further to discuss, except a suggestion to just "let it go", and move on.
Whatever the case, I hope you have a good day : ) - jc37 00:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I thank you for the link! Though I imagine we will continue to talk in the future: Have a good day as well. Hyacinth (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gertrude Stein Edits

Hyacinth,

Thanks for helping me out with that messy talk page. I went back in to undo my edit, and was pleased to see the little box in the corner with the old chat.

I'm still learning the software, and I've gotten a little annoyed with old Gertrude, so I've lost some of my enthusiasm for writing her biography. Good thing, huh?

Thanks much!

Pinckney2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinckney2007 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WPARMENIA

Thanks, but IMO it isn't really an ethnic fight to insist that the composer's heritage be stated as it is in "Grove" and other similar music encyclopedias; simply one to represent the composer and his output accurately. I'm coming from the point of view of a musicologist working in the field of contemporary music (specifically, that having a "world music" outlook). Badagnani (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As a member of WP:Armenia I'm patiently waiting to see the outcome of this. Also note that Tom removed the ethnicity from other articles as well. I don't think mass-revert would have been helpfully, but I'm looking forward to adding those back, sourced of course. VartanM (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bruno Maderna

Hello! Do you really thank that Maderna is of low importance? Right, the article is far from being good. But Maderna is a quite important figure, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Catgut (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nesting

Hi, Hyacinth! Just wanted to drop you an FYI - the "nested" parameter of WikiProject banners only works if they are within a {{WPBS}}. For instance, this edit to Meredith Monk sorta made the talk page look funny :) Thanks~ -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swish (slang)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Swish (slang), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swish

Hi, Hyacinth! You might want to review the history of Swish (slang). You'll note that I didn't add that comment - User:Rotovia prodded the article with that comment. I removed it, but I was thinking about Fruit (slang), which recently went through Afd. When I realized my mistake, I decided to put back the prod, figuring editors of the article who knew something about it would be able to handle it through normal processes. Looks like you and Benjiboi are already on it :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Modern music

An editor has nominated Modern music, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern music and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:European history by time period

A tag has been placed on Template:European history by time period requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Proposal: User categories

You may be interested in participating in the discussion at User talk:Hyacinth/User categories#Proposal. Hyacinth (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the notice. I've commented there. - jc37 11:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] c:qws

am sympathetic to the re-creation but aren't you supposed to take it to deletion review first? --BozMo talk 16:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the category. A guideline not getting consensus does not overrule deletion review decisions, it will have to be allowed to be recreated at DRV before it can be created again (which I doubt will happen anytime soon, considering there have been 3 deletion reviews all resulting in endorse). You are free to take it there again, however, and I will support recreating the category if consensus is to allow recreation at DRV. Until then, however, the deletion review consensus should be respected. Hope you understand, VegaDark (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have yet to see any support for the assertion that consensus is to delete. Hyacinth (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep. But if you are arguing that policy should triumph over sentiment (which seems a good argument) then I think you have to respect the process. --BozMo talk 21:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
btw assume you know meta:Queer_Wikimedians exists? Not to argue the principle but perhaps to offer an alternative...--BozMo talk 19:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 20th century composers graphical timeline template

Hi Hyacinth. Do you see any reason for wanting to save this? Antandrus (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Iron Man riff.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Iron Man riff.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Berg's Lyric Suite Mov. I tone row-P.PNG

A tag has been placed on Image:Berg's Lyric Suite Mov. I tone row-P.PNG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Berg's Lyric Suite Mov. III tone row.PNG

A tag has been placed on Image:Berg's Lyric Suite Mov. III tone row.PNG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Judith Butler

Great work on the new "Critical response" section! Thank you very much.--Agnaramasi (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hypergraphics merge

In June of '07, you suggested that the Hypergraphics and Metagraphy articles be merged. Your suggestion was met with approval by two other editors, yet, nothing has happened. I assume you simply forgot about the matter. Are you still interested in this topic? Do you still intend to move forward with said merge? Please respond on this matter, as I think the merge is necessary. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot claim any special knowledge of, or familiarity with, Lettriste theory. I am much more knowledgeable of Situationist theory and practice, and only know the Lettristes because of their association with Debord, et al. This is an area that interests me---why else would it be on my watchlist, yes?---but the complexities of it (one might say, the intentional, and even unnecessary, complexities of it) elude me. I am willing to offer any assistance that I can, you need only ask. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category move requests

I have removed your {{move}} request templates from both Category talk:Music in Sardinia and Category talk:Music of Italian subdivisions as category moves are not handled by WP:RM. To move a category, please complete the process as explained at WP:CFR. Thanks. JPG-GR (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Title page MUS159.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Title page MUS159.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poem and song

You deleted poem and song, with comment only "see lyric". That page is just a disambiguation page. Would you care to explain which category at WP:CSD this deletion came under? Charles Matthews (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Was passing by and I've commented here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duchenne smile

Wow. First, may I say, please archive your talk page. I hope you don't let your fingernails grow that long =)

So I came here from Duchenne smile (long story how I got there) and noted it has no references or anything, and that you were the person who started the page. I think the responsibility is really on the person who creates a page to provide references really. It was a long, long time ago now, but can you please try to rectify the situation? Thanks. Richard001 (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it clear? I'm asking you to provide references. How do I know you didn't just make this stuff up? Wikipedia is built around the idea of references. If we don't cite sources, we have virtually no credibility (and we do have very little credibility, primarily because we don't provide references in most of our articles!)
For this particular article, it's so extremely short that it might be better just to merge it into the similarly short smile, unless it has particular potential for development. Richard001 (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry about that, I obviously didn't look closely enough at the page history. I still certainly think that all articles should be referenced, and in this case I think I would prefer your redirect left as it was. Richard001 (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, I'm sorry I got the wrong person; you should have just told me you only created a redirect from the beginning. But you need to stop all this bullshit about references. It's not for other people to go cleaning up after those who create poor articles with no references, they should do this themselves. It's the same with images not being uploaded to Commons; I don't just follow people around cleaning up after them over and over, I tell them what they are doing wrong in the hope that they will do it right. Your assertion that I could have fixed the problem in a few minutes (and I did do a quick web search for a reference, not that it was in any way my responsibility to do so) overlooks the whole point of why I tell people this stuff.
And stop with the sillyness about the reference being no better (or marginally better, or whatever the hell you are trying to say) than nothing. You could also say that even if I verified it I still wouldn't know it was true because it could have been a hoax, or a mistake etc. And even if it wasn't, you could resort to some relativistic postmodernistic twaffle. All we can do is cite references here; we can't verify them for everyone as well. People have to do that themselves if they want to be 100% sure, and we both know it, or at least I hope we do. Richard001 (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that I could make up a similar article to the former 'Duchenne smile' that sounded believable to most readers without specialist knowledge in that area or an encyclopedic knowledge of everything, yet that was completely fictitious. I think it's very hard to make a case that an article with no references can be okay, and your attempts to have certainly not convinced me in the least. Thus I will continue to chase people up who don't cite sources, while looking a bit closer at page histories. Richard001 (talk) 01:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)