User talk:Nhprman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orwellian

"Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum." - George Orwell's description of Newspeak in 1984 and the goal of Wikipedia's Iconoclastic, Reductionist and Deletionist Jihadists. I will leave them to it.

[edit] Comment invited

As an occasional past editor at Template:United States presidential election, 2008,
your comment is invited at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Revisited: Proposal on minimum standards for listing on template
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. I've been watching this page and have contributed to the discussion. - Nhprman 19:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Thslogo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Thslogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As usual, the previous fair use template, noting that this was a low-resolution image used for purely illustrative purposes, was completely sufficient under all existing law regarding fair use. That is, until the Deletionists created this fearsome monster called "non-free" and decided to denude Wikipedia of all images. Again, knock yourselves out, you sad, pathetic little dictators. LOL - Nhprman 04:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Holyfamilyacadlogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Holyfamilyacadlogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have added fair use rationale required under WP:RAT. User:BetacommandBot's edits throughout WP has provoked universal condemnation and the bot has been blocked several times by admins who are shocked by its hundreds of thousands of random, often incorrect edits. - Nhprman 04:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:JSRHSseal.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:JSRHSseal.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added fair use rationale required under WP:RAT. User:BetacommandBot's edits throughout WP has provoked universal condemnation and the bot has been blocked several times by admins who are shocked by its hundreds of thousands of random, often incorrect edits. - Nhprman 04:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template discussion

As an occasional editor to the discussion at Template:United States presidential election, 2008 your input would be appreciated at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Proposal: A return to the old standards. Thank you.--STX 04:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I feel less lonely

Is there a fellowship of contributors tired of zealous delitionists ? At least, since I read your comments about BetacommandBot, I feel less lonely. Baronnet (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

PS : may I use (and maybe adapt) the Orwellian box ? Baronnet (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is wonderful to hear from another, too! Thank you for your kind words. ;-) Yes, by all means adapt the box. I adapted it from elsewhere, myself. - Nhprman 02:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Taylor Bowles

• Under the now-current standards at Template:United States presidential election, 2008, with approximate agreement on zero dollar reported FEC activity threshold, it appears this person qualifies for listing on the template (though I won't be adding him). -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orwell box

You need not call delitionists other names. That's descriptive enough. Jihadist is inflamatory. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I only used it because "Crusader" is somehow not quite politically correct, though works just as well. Seriously, when someone makes it a point to delete EVERY IMAGE from Wikipedia, and sets up a Bot to do the job, "philosophically inclined towards deleting stuff" (i.e. "Deletionist") doesn't seem to state the case strong enough. But point taken. Rhetorical barbs only go so far, esp. here, where those who oppose expanding knowledge are so numerous, and 'efficient' at stifling the debate. What's the point in fighting it so hard? seems to be my mood, for the most part. - Nhprman 04:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate the frustration, and admit I have not met up with the sort you apparently have. Cheers, Yellowdesk (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lucky you. Then again, I'm sure you must have heard of Betacommandbot. He/it is a great example of that sort. - Nhprman 14:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)