User talk:Pazuzu567

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 9 October 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.

Welcome!

Hello, Pazuzu567, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Contents

[edit] Paris Hilton

Hi, Pazuzu,

Thank you for your comments regarding Paris Hilton. You are obviously treating the discussion in an intelligent way. I have gotten involved with this dispute, as I believe that some articles about people tend to dwell on the negative aspects of the person. I don't think it is right that the viewpoint of one or two journalists etc should damage the reputation of anyone. The topic of racism is a special one, as it is very hard to prove or disprove. To mention just 'allegations' can mean that people think it is really true. As far as Paris is concerned, I think that she is just a young women, who like most of us can be a bit of a "smart ass" at times, and uses some words that she doesn't really mean (I know I do!). I really do not think that the words "racism" and "Paris Hilton" go together. Wallie 07:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Good for you! You are trying to correct this article. I will definitely back you up 1000 percent. Make no mistake. There are some people contributing to this article who are out to GET Paris Hilton. It is just not on. Wallie 14:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice one! You are doing a great job. Wallie 19:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not out to get Paris Hilton. I just want the article to present facts and allegations in a neutral way. But thank you for your concern Wallie, if only it were more well placed. Эйрон Кинни (t) 11:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simple Life

What the heck are you talking about, all I deleted was indeed news and you don't need to put news for your information, from the Wikipedia rules

News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples..

You don't need to put that Paris confirmed that season 2 is happening and the extra infos like what the studio said about the show. And it's better to put just Interns instead of season 3- interns, it's clear that it's season three no need to put it.--2hot4u2handle 15:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image problems

Regarding the following images:

  • Image:Logo mellops.gif
  • Image:2005-02-10-003.jpg
  • Image:Parisalbum.JPG
  • Image:18hilton.jpg
  • Image:Paris carl.jpg
  • Image:Pariswax.JPG

You marked all of these images as {{GFDL-self}}. This license is clearly incorrect. You are not, for example, Warner Bros or Jaume Collet-Serra, so you did not create the movie, House of Wax, where the screenshot is from. Just taking a screenshot or scanning a picture does not confer creation claims to you. I have marked these images as no source, no license. Please go back and add the source, choose an appropriate license, and provide a detailed fair-use rationale if required. These images are otherwise scheduled for deletion in seven days. --Yamla 18:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This also applies to Image:Vierurale.jpg, Image:Rjfl82.jpg, and Image:Kimberly Stewart.jpg. --Yamla 18:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for editing Image:Vierurale.jpg. However, you have still forgotten the mandatory detailed fair-use justification. --Yamla 18:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You can probably tell I'm somewhat new. What info exactly would you recomend? Pazuzu567 18:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem, copyright and fair use is a pain to get right. Let me know find an image which was well done. I'll get back to you in a moment. --Yamla 19:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, a perfect example is Image:The hours-nicole kidman.jpg. Note that the source of the image is listed, a licensing tag is included, and a detailed rationale of fair-use is provided. Now, this particular example lists five points in its rationale. You generally don't need to go into quite that level of detail. Note that WP:IDP describes what sort of things Wikipedia looks for in a fair-use rationale. Thanks! --Yamla 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for pointing out the example. It's currently 5am here, so I'll work on the images more tomorrow. Essentially I have 7 days to make sure these images have all been sourced with copyright info, etc. before they're deletd, correct?Pazuzu567 19:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. And if you feel you are running out of time, please give me a shout. The reason "we" give seven days is because if the uploader does not correct the info within seven days, it's unlikely they ever will. But if you say you are going to correct it and just need an extra day or two, that's good enough for me. Thanks, Pazuzu! --Yamla 19:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
No problems. I appreciate the help Yamla. :) Pazuzu567 19:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here's a present

The Original Barnstar
for removing rubbish Wallie 22:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pazuzu567. I was amazed that you managed to get rid of all that junk about Paris Hilton in one go. Well done! The article looks so much better now. Wallie 22:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks heaps Wallie. :) It just had to be done, it was long overdue. Celebrity-Benji 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I would watch out for Kasreyn. He is not exactly a friend of Paris Hilton's, in fact was very instrumental in trying to keep that rubbish about her going. I am unsure as to whether he helped to put some of it up there in the first place. He is also now starting make some rather unusual comments on the Holocaust talk page. Wallie 21:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Wallie, conspiracy theories don't apply on Wikipedia. If editors want neutrality, you can't automatically assume that they are out to get someone. Fans are allowed on Wikipedia, they just aren't allowed to let their pov slip into articles, and vice-versa with non-fans. I am going to ask politely, will you stop saying people are out "to get Paris Hilton"? Thank you. Aaрон Кинни (t) 12:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My apologies.

When I reverted Talk:Paris Hilton, I didn't realize I was removing one of your comments. I only intended to restore some of the anon user's comments, sans personal attacks. Kasreyn 06:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's alright. It wasn't just you, it was others who were removing my comments, and replacing them with theirs, which were not signed, and nothing but attacks. Celebrity-Benji 10:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Simplephoto1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Simplephoto1.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify 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 file 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. feydey 10:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

This is concerning your addition of links to Paris Hilton. Please see WP:EL. Links to MySpace are specifically prohibited. Links to a site in a different language are inappropriate on the English Wikipedia. And ClubParis may be appropriate as a reference but is really just advertising otherwise. For the record, it's obvious that you added these links in good faith. The article as a whole is much better off for your edits. I'm just noting that these particular links aren't a great addition. --Yamla 17:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Just thought it would be good to have all her official sites listed. Oh well. Thanks for the compliments though. :) Celebrity-Benji 19:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] :)

Thanks so much:). I really appreciate it. Your edits to the Paris Hilton articles are good to. Lillygirl 6:39, 23 July 2006.

[edit] Re: News

I don't really feel any of those events are news, as they're not particularly, er, "new". But, to take it point by point,

  • Restraining order: I think this one goes without explanation, but if you require it, I would say that if a judge went so far as to grant a restraining order against Hilton, she must have been behaving in a very unpleasant way towards whoever (in this case, Mr. Quintana) was involved. I would prefer this info to be under some sort of "personal life" section, though.
  • Maxim hot 100: This sort of thing seems to be right up Paris's alley. It indicates one of the reasons she is so popular: a lot of people find her very attractive. This speaks to the whole "famous socialite" claim made at the start of the article. But I'm not very attached to this one; it can go if you really feel it's not noteworthy. Maxim has a significant audience, though.
  • Hilton's comments on celibacy: I was actually slightly impressed by these remarks. In an article that's lacking examples of positive behavior exhibited by Ms. Hilton (being a celebrity she is, after all, a role model for girls), I figured this was notable as it shows she isn't (or at least, claims she isn't) what the tabloids say she is. But if you disagree, I guess it can go.
  • Paragraph on TMZ.com interview: nothing but a thinly disguised way to shoehorn some anonymous and non-notable Paris-bashing into the article. Kill this paragraph.
  • Following paragraphs are in reply to the TMZ.com thing, so the two go or stay as a group. Kill these too; the TMZ.com interview is not particularly notable.

The only one that I'm really concerned about is the restraining order. To me having a legal judgment against you is fairly notable. Maybe not if you're someone who's in and out of court all the time, but as far as I know Hilton's record is otherwise clean, making a restraining order stick out like a sore thumb. Cheers, Kasreyn 06:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simple Life Episodes

Thanks about saying I did a good job, and thanks for adding the extra stuff like screeshots, it looks better like that. I actually got the episode names from the offiical season one DVD. There was a piece of paper in there with the episode names and short descriptions. But you can decide which ones should be kept. MusicLover

[edit] Please enlighten me

You asked :"I noticed you removed the cover-art for Paris Hilton's album from Paris Hilton, and I'm not sure why. The image was in place to illustrate information on the album, it had it's fair-use rationale, it doesn't really violate anything as far as I can see. The infobox seems a little bit empty without it, and I'd like to see it restored, but obviously it was removed for a good reason. What am I missing here?"

There's no problem with it being used on the Paris Hilton article but the fair-use rationale should specifically state which articles it was being used for. I probably removed that particular image in my sleep (or was feeling exceptionally pedantic that day), mind you. --Yamla 14:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Simple Life Commentary

"Please refrain from adding nonsense to pages like you did with The Simple Life, it's considered vandalism. Celebrity-Benji 06:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)"

I'm very sorry the aforementioned nonsense upset you. Unfortunately, I do not watch "The Simple Life", nor do I have any desire to do so, which would make me rather unqualified to make any comment at all. Which I didn't, btw - please read the Wikipedia disclaimer about IP addresses. lachewpacabra

[edit] Comment

U Keep putting those News (Wikipedia is not a news site), rumors even it's sourced (Wikipedia doesn't allowed rumors fyi), blah blah blah things u added in The Simple Life, it's just look cluttered just because it's the show of Paris/Nicole, u r going to put the new shows of them wth it's annoying so you are. The article won't be a GA if you keep doing those edits of yours.--hottie 04:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

English? Celebrity-Benji 08:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/z/User_talk%7EPazuzu567_4d93.html"