User talk:Shousokutsuu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] License tagging for Image:Theravenswood.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Theravenswood.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Theravenswood.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Theravenswood.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 11:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Please familiarize yourself with WP:EL. Wikipedia articles are not a directory of links to 'relevant' websites. Femto 15:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Femto 13:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png 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! --SineBot (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In regards to the deletion discussions and your comments

Please note that I was not, and am currently still not, offended by your comments, nor is their a need to apologize. Wikipedia doesn't pay nearly enough for me to get stressed out about it. I will say, I agree that the comments that were made by individuals about "screaming vegetables" and "sorry, veggies" are borderline inappropriate, and should not have been there. I can totally see how those types of comments could back you into a corner , so to speak, when you were in good faith trying to defend your article(s). I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay and contribute, regardless of the outcome of the debates (and I won't be changing my position on either of them, sorry). Wikipedia is a fun place to read, write, discuss, etc. etc. and there are many many articles that still need to be written that deserve a place here and many many articles that are here that really shouldn't be. It all comes down to citing sources, and proving notability. Best of luck to you, and happy editing. If you want specific help on anything, like citing sources, etc., let me know on my talk page and I'd be glad to point you in the right direction! Keeper | 76 20:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If your subject is a special case of animal rights, (correct me if I'm wrong), it might be more appropriate to add a section to that article. Might that be an idea? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll say again in regards to your comments on my talk page that I have no specific problem with this topic, or any topic for that matter, as long as it cites reliable sources that establish notability.. I don't know enough about racism against animals to do the research or to make commentary on the subject. I just don't. Personally, I think our society has to solve it's racism against other humans problem first as a priority (which I guess means that I don't see the two with equal weight or importance). But that doesn't mean that an Animal rights article shouldn't be here. If you were to go to this link to what is considered a Reliable Source, and then to this link that shows how to appropriately cite that source before you write an article, and then follow those steps, you're article would have a much better chance of sticking around. Don't make up words as titles though. "Coining" new phrases to document old ideas will never get past the deletionists here (myself included). Document the old ideas, that's fine, just don't name them new words. (It would be like me titling an article Asparagustinarianism and saying that it is a word used to describe people who do not like Asparagus. I would hope that you would delete that article.) Keeper | 76 21:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on the subject of human v. animal rights. They are both important, but I view human rights as markedly more important than animal rights. I just do. Right now I'm wearing leeather shoes, a leather belt, I had eggs for breakfast and very good chili (with beef) for lunch. Do I think animals (including "livestock" and other traditional "food" animals) should be tortured and treated inhumanely? Of course not. A humorous take on the idea, if you'll pardon the joke, is "If God didn't want us to eat cows, He wouldn't have made them taste so good." I'm afraid you won't persuade me otherwise, as I likely would not be able to persuade you otherwise by telling you about the multitude of philosophers and their ilk that don't see them (animals and humans) as even close to equal.
But that's really secondary to the project at hand here isn't it? I'm here to make Wikipedia better, as I suspect you would like to do also. We disagree on something. I mean this in a most sincere way: So what. We can still be collaborators on this project, and I will still help you with Wikipedia specific questions you have about writing, citing, and editing articles. I recommend spending some time getting to know the five pillars of Wikipedia. Understanding how this community, through consensus building and collaboration, works, will give you much better fulfillment in your editing. It's not supposed to be stressful after all.. Cheers, Keeper | 76 22:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
If the article is recreated, regardless of what you title it, it will be deleted again (assuming the current AfD discussions result in delete). Re-creating "new articles" with essentially the same information as were deleted by consensus is generally taboo around here - the "new" article will also be deleted, likely through speedy deletion as a re-creation of an old article that was deleted by consensus. You would likely be warned not to vandalize Wikipedia, or something along those lines, and potentially, if you were persistent with it, would get yourself blocked. My advice, let it go (if it's deleted). Having this article on wikipedia is only that. An article on Wikipedia. It is not the place for original research, opinions, and point of view pushing, but there are many good places outside wikipedia to do exactly that (think BLOG.) This is an encyclopedia of established topics, factual in nature, with reliable resources to substantiate. Nothing more, nothing less. And it's a great place. Don't get yourself blocked over this. Keeper | 76 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I strongly recommend that you do not move an article that is in the AfD process. Strongly recommend. Keeper | 76 22:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
putting the same information under a different title, as I explained above, will result in things you don't want, like blocking and getting accused of vandalism. Rewrite the article in a sandbox. Don't just repost with a new title. It will get removed again, right or wrong, and regardless of what you decide to call it. I'm going away now for 48 hours, best of luck to you, Stig. Keeper | 76 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
      • What Keeper said. Seriously, no good will come from changing the name now, as it will be seen as a way to wiggle out of the AfD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)