User talk:Americanbeauty415

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Obsessive

Seriously, what is your problem? What is your obsession with frickin blasians and interacial people. I wouldn't complain usually as I am very quiet about matters, but you make these articles worse. I myself am Ugandan, Chinese, and Indian, you make these blasian articles seem like advertisements. What Im trying to say is stop overpromoting us, you make us look bad. --Anonymous 18:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Census problems

It seems like you're having issues getting to the pdf from the census bureau. I suspect this is a problem with your computer's configuration, or the network connection you are hooked up to. Could you describe your problem in more detail, and perhaps I can help you troubleshoot? --JereKrischel 18:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like perhaps we can find more accurate wording then - your issue is not that ths source is broken, but that the commentary regarding the source is not completely accurate. Let's add in your thoughts, and try to keep the source, and the indication that in 1990, eurasian families represented the greatest proportion, even though this might not be true for the population at large (which may have grown up and no longer be in families)...would that work? --JereKrischel 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's work on characterizing the census quote properly, and add any counter references you have. Just deleting the reference is not really appropriate. Hopefully you've seen the "note" I added to the citation, indicating it represents "families" not total multiracial population. Let's expand on that until you approve, okay? --JereKrischel 18:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "thesis":

Here's the quote:

Census data indicate that the number of children in interracial families grew from less than one half million in 1970 to about two million in 1990. In 1990, for interracial families with one White partner, the other parent was Black for about 20 percent of all children, the other parent was Asian for 45 percent, and the other parent was American Indian and Alaska Native for about 34 percent.

This means that in 1990, out of a total of 100%, 45 percent of these families were white/asian, 34% were white/native, and 20% were white black. The statement, "white and Asian mixes made up the largest proportion" is true. If the statement was "white and Asian mixes made up the majority", that would be false.

Hopefully this clarifies things - the statement being made is regarding proportion, not absolute majority. --JereKrischel 18:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you add the CSU census quotes, rather than changing the literal, word for word quote from the census source cited? We can't just attribute words (even if more accurate) to people that didn't explicitly say them. --JereKrischel 19:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please CITE the document you mentioned on my talk, and add something to the article.

Also, even excluding pacific islanders (approx. 5% of the Asian/Pacific Islander pop in 1990) http://www.census.gov/apsd/wepeople/we-4.pdf, the proportion of white/asian mix would only drop 2.5%, still being the largest proportion. --JereKrischel 19:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blasian edits

Thank you very much for your edits to Blasian. Quite a few folk have been putting completely unsubstatiated racial stereotypes (re: asian men/black women, genetic "averaging", etc) in these mixed-race articles, and your vigilance is appreciated. Mahalo (thank you) for your work! --JereKrischel 20:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC) ]]

[edit] Racial bias?

Although admittedly the line "people with mixed Asian and European origins have become synonymous with exotic glamour in some cultures." is probably not needed in the article dealing with Eurasians, I find it odd that you did not remove the statement "Regardless, both are two beautiful cultures, when blended create a being of exquisite and exotic beauty." in the Blasian article. Edward Sandstig 20:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Denacali.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Denacali.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 23:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Cummings.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cummings.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The simple solution to these copyright problems

If you don't fix the copyrights on the images you uploaded, they will be deleted by one of the copyright robots, probably within a week. If you are the one who took those photos, it's no problem. You can just go back and edit them all to include the {{pd-self}} tag, or one of the other copyright tags that indicates that you are giving up some or all of the rights (such as the right to make money off of the photos) in order to allow Wikipedia to publish them for you. --M@rēino 14:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popups

Popups is a program I use, and I used it to revert your edits. It does not mean you place popups in the add. If you need anything feel free to contact me! Yanksox 12:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Lawton_denyce_06.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lawton_denyce_06.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maria More

You have recently created the article Maria More. This was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not recreate the article: if you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. 02:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You and User:Lilnessaslove have created the same article with the same picture today. Is this a case of two user accounts being used by the same person? If so, please read WP:SOCK. -- Scientizzle 03:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please note

Recreating deleted articles counts as vandalism. Your article, however, is a constructive one, but please read WP:MUSIC, and provide refernces as to why the singer is notable. Thanks. HawkerTyphoon 03:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. HawkerTyphoon 03:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. --Ávril ʃáη 03:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Erin Jennae, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. HawkerTyphoon 03:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism does exist, I'm afraid - removing speedy deletion tags from articles, and re-creating articles deleted, not to mention being a suspected sockpuppet. I'll leave you be now, but please be aware that several users are watching your account (and the others suspected of being operated by you), and also that all of the images you have uploaded are using inappropriate copyright tags. It might be an idea to fix these before they're fdeleted. HawkerTyphoon 03:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism does exist, I'm afraid - removing speedy deletion tags from articles, and re-creating articles deleted, not to mention being a suspected sockpuppet. I'll leave you be now, but please be aware that several users are watching your account (and the others suspected of being operated by you), and also that all of the images you have uploaded are using inappropriate copyright tags. It might be an idea to fix these before they're fdeleted. HawkerTyphoon 04:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding POV material to Erin Jennae. It is Wikipedia policy that all articles have a neutral point of view. Your additions are opinionated and biased. Please address these issues on the talk page before readding the content. -- Scientizzle 05:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. --Ávril ʃáη 05:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 3hrs by disrupting AfD by repeatedly moving tags. Please use the afd page to comment. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 05:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you continue to disrupt with socks, you have a 1 week block.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. In response to your message left on my talk board:

1. There is a 'move' function that allows page moves without the need to create an entirely new article. Please use this function in future - duplicate articles only confuse people!
2. You are a puppetmaster - I'm willing to say that much. You are using more than one Wikipedia account to edit with, and I will bet my entire edit history on it.
3. Judging from your fictional assumptions- My assumptions are not fictional, I'm afraid - and they're not just mine, either. and ability to overlook "inappropriate" articles that existed long before I touched them, - I'm afraid that the articles only recently came to my attention, If you'll look at my contributions you'll see that I routinely target hundreds of artciles a day for vandalism.it's obvious you are not a detective. You're an editor, so I'm going to kindly tell you and the rest of your gorginotts to stay off my ass and do what your job requires you to do. CORRECTLY MONITOR THE BOARDS. Please see WP:Personal Attacks. I've got the same job as you - to make sure that Wikipedia is used sensibly and with thought towards others. You've removed warnings from your talk page, removed speedy deletion templates, and resorted to personal attacks and sockpuppets to get your point across. However legitimate your edits may now be, your behaviour in 'enforcing' them is in violation of Wikipedia policy, and that's why I'm targetting you specifically. HawkerTyphoon 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Jhene.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jhene.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Amber and patrick.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] List of Black/White people

Can you please explain your removal of info from List of Black/White people please? - Glen 07:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Also, in future, especially when doing such major edits, note the following:

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. - Glen 07:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your reply

Okay, then writing that info in your edit summaries is vital as you appeared as a vandal in the admin channel. Also, please note the following as well:

As a courtesy for other editors, kindly observe Wikipedia guidelines and sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added. For further info see: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks. - Glen 07:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

The Amerie photo is licensed as Fair Use Only, which means it can only be used on her page, and only in the absence of an alternative, which I'm afraid it fails on both counts here! Ignore the angelfire comments - they weren't meant for you:P. The second picture of the American Football player is up for speedy deletion, because the tag is deprecated, and because of a dubious copyright status. Sorry! HawkerTyphoon 22:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

I inadvertently reverted the photo when I reverted the other edits that didn't have WP:RS. Although I'm a little curious as to how the subject's racial identity could be verified (but that's not really a question directed towards you.) ColourBurst 23:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really, I don't think there's policy right now that requires verification of the images, but I'm going to go ask (that's why I didn't intend the question towards you.) It's not much of a concern really. ColourBurst 23:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:858300328 m.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:858300328 m.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 08:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you forked from List of Black/White people

It was evident according to the AfD discussion that very few people understood what you were talking about when you forked the "Black/White" list to "Interracial". The article needs context, and the references restored. ColourBurst 17:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Mulatto, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Media anthro 03:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Media anthro is an editor and if you report him having made that statement thatbhe isnt I can guess who the admins would be blocking. Please can you both chill out? SqueakBox 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)