User talk:Pebs96

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

User Page:

Talk Page:


Contents

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Quiver img 016-merged.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Quiver img 016-merged.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. MECU≈talk 20:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user

Hello, I replied to one of your talk page posts have come here to recommend a program called WP:ADOPT. It's a mentorship arrangement where seasoned editors coach newcomers. You look like you have the knowledge to help Wikipedia's coverage of equestrian sports, but you've gotten a rocky start. Since you've already received a level 4 warning the next step would be a user block (as a sysop I do have the power to implement that). I'd much rather see you develop into a productive editor through positive channels. Best wishes, happy New Year, and I hope things work out for you at this website. DurovaCharge! 02:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to "coach" you, if you still need help around here. Contact me at my talk page.--Saoshyant talk / contribs (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 18:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:FreddieLetuli.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Antonio Ribeiro Telles

I've nominated Antonio Ribeiro Telles, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Antonio Ribeiro Telles satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Ribeiro Telles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Antonio Ribeiro Telles during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --A. B. (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Vasco Taborda, Jr.

I've nominated Vasco Taborda, Jr., an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Vasco Taborda, Jr. satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasco Taborda, Jr. and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Vasco Taborda, Jr. during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --A. B. (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Vitor Ribeiro (bullfighter)

I've nominated Vitor Ribeiro (bullfighter), an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Vitor Ribeiro (bullfighter) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vitor Ribeiro (bullfighter) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Vitor Ribeiro (bullfighter) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --A. B. (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of João Moura

I've nominated João Moura, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that João Moura satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/João Moura and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of João Moura during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --A. B. (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edit war

I reverted the blanking and redirect, that seemed excessive. The article needs editing help, not deletion. I will bring this issue to the attention of the admins, but be sure to treat those folks with respect because they can block everyone. You may also want to submit your dispute with Fethers to arbitration. Go to the help page and see how the process works--I haven't had to do it yet. but maybe you might. Good luck. Montanabw 01:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Montanabw for your help. I am hoping that a "fair" admin will be able to help me out and see Fethers as the culprit of the drama that has transpired last year, and the one that is currently brewing. I can't imagine that someone will go out of their way to cause misery. Is it because they are miserable themself and has nothing else better to do. Thanks again.--Webmistress Diva 09:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
See my inquiry at this location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Not_sure_where_to_get_help_on_this_one
Fethers has weighed in there. I have no authority over any of this and don't want to be dragged into it too much.Montanabw 23:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

This is not exactly a Wikipedia topic, but I saw this and did not know if you were aware Google was reporting this:

There are links from that page to Google info for webmasters about how to get off that list.

Good luck with this and feel free to delete my note here after reading it. --A. B. (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello A. B. - Thanks, but yes, I was aware of it. Google had sent me a message regarding the situation. For some reason, the search engines were able to search on my sub-directories on my server, in which I never approved. So, it's quite interesting how that happened. But I have taken cared of it already and made Google aware of their errors. I will not delete this since I do not have anything to hide. Even if I did delete it, it would still be seen in the history section, thereby making it look suspicious. So rather than going through that headache and someone having a field day with it, I will leave it be. In any case, if you actually typed in the url http://www.magkon.biz on your address bar, it will take you to the site, but when you click on the page, it will direct you to http://www.magkonenterprises.biz I mostly use "magkon.biz" because it is shorter, but I use the longer URL because it gives my complete company name. It's also for back-up purposes too. Oh-oh, the geeky side is coming out, so I best stop the convo here. Thanks again for bringing it to my attention. ~ --Webmistress Diva 08:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice note. --A. B. (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opened a DRV for you

[[1]] fethers 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re : Procedural DRV request

Now, I understand your frustration in the article's deletion seeing that you have plenty of edits made into it. However, it has to be reliably sourced, in which the article has none at all. Can you cite where you have got these information from? - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 11:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • My frustration is with fethers, this person has completely went out of his way to have my articles and images removed. In the beginning of my existence here, several admins and editors thought of me as being an "advertiser", and I proved to them that I am not.... and they have left me alone.... AND NEVER has any of them gone this far to have my article removed. I worked long and hard in trying to get that article to be "wiki" status. I know that it still needs a lot of work and citing, and I had noted in there that I would do that soon. But Fethers has a bug up somewhere and is extremely impatient... and quite honestly, I have no idea what is driving this person this insane to have my article removed that badly. Several conclusions come to mind though.... (1) this person knows me and is trying to get their way... (2) or an anti-bullfighting (3) or has nothing better to do than to be a miserable person. Whatever their motivation is, it is wreaking with annoyance and a bad taste of negativity.
  • I'm not sure what kind of a reliable source you are looking for, because quite honestly, I had placed this link as a source and it was deleted because someone thought it to advertising. But here it is.. 3rd party source on Bullfighting in California
  • All I know is this, the bloodless bullfighting article was created by me initially because when I was making edits on the bullfighting article, I realized that the style is unique to itself and should not be confused nor should it co-mingle within the same realm of bullfighting. For the simple facts of what happens in the beginning and especially at the end.... the bull does not get killed.
  • Initially, an editor/admin once told me that I should I can write an article about "Ranch Cardoso", but I opted not to anymore.
  • I am fighting the fight to keep this article alive and to give it the chance and opportunity like other articles. And if I do win this fight, I am requesting user fethers to be kept as far away from it as possible. For starters, he has no clue what the subject entails and he has done more harm than good. And for the simple fact that he has voted to delete it.
  • Thanks in advance and let me know if you need additional data to get this article revived again. --Webmistress Diva 01:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you done slandering me yet? I don't know who you are, I don't care about bullfighting, and aside from my interactions with you, I'm not miserable. In fact, every time someone's tried to explain something to you you take it as some sort of horrendous slight towards your honor and the honor of bullfighting. I really don't give a damn what's going on, but I still haven't done anything that wasn't in line with policy, whether you believe it or not. You still haven't read anything that many people have suggested to you. You claim copyright on everything you write, going so far as to put it on your website and copy it here, which is a blatant violation of the GFDL. You improperly license photos, then when they're removed you raise a stink about it. The simple answer is that you've been trying to make this more than it is: you've written an article that's 100% unsourced, and you seem to have some sort of paranoia that someone's out to get you. If I were "out to get you," would Freddie Letuli and Tevita Aholelei still be there? They're sourced and referenced. Bloodless bullfighting wasn't. You say you don't "get paid to sit on wikipedia all day" and neither do I. I just bothered to actually read about what I was doing before I jumped in and did it. I wish you'd calm down, cut out the personal attacks, and start contributing constructively. fethers 16:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Slandering?? I think you are the one who fails to see it as something else other than being "negative". This is very draining and I have no time for negativity in my life. Since inception, I have not received true welcoming on here. If anything, I get slapped with unheard of violations for the mere fact that I am writing about "facts" on a particular person, place, thing, etc. It's quite amazing, but just because I am the owner of the bloodless bullfighting website does not mean that I am a spammer. I am simply writing what is considered "accurate" and "reliable" information. But because you are hung up on "policy", you are obsessed with the "delete" button. By the way, you are not "100%" in compliance with these policies that you keep linking to. And just for the record, do not confuse "obsessed with what a "true" constructive contribution is. And definitely DO NOT confuse my "outspoken/highly opinionated" attitude as a "personal attacks", because it is far from it. And just a reminder, I am not the one who told somebody to Stuff it. And you seriously need to stop with the assumptions of people's reaction. By you deleting my images with "NO" courteous warning or message and by me becoming defensive to it seems "justified" and not to be confused with being "combative" as you have mentioned.
  • I am exhausted from all this and to make myself feel better, I googled the words "Wikipedia sucks" and here are several links that point to it.... which definitely proves that I am not alone when I say "Wikipedia sucks". But before I list it, let me explain and list why I say that... it's very simple...
  • because Wikipedia lacks the integrity of a "true" encyclopedia
  • Wikipedia does not like people who think and have a mind
  • allows so-called editors such as yourself to exist in this environment
  • they have admins who "disallow" true facts from reliable sources such as myself from writing the "TRUTH" about anything and everything.
  • and no matter what I write and research to defend my articles, the "cliques" or "friends" within Wikipedia that you know have already formulated an opinion without even bothering to read what I wrote. Like the whole image thing... which I cannot wiki-link to because you had the article deleted.
  • Oh... and just because it is the policy today does not mean that the same policy will exist tomorrow.
  • Also, there is a difference between a "policy" and a "guideline", which you have made numerous links to "guidelines", but you claimed it to be the "policy".
  • It just goes that no matter how correct I am, they will side with the person who does not have a clue to what they are talking about.
Here are the links: (And THIS IS BY FAR NO DISRESPECT TO WIKI-ADMINS WHO ARE TRULY DOING THEIR JOB AND WHO CAN ACTUALLY THINK OUTSIDE THE "BOX")
  • Google search on "Wikipedia sucks"
  • Wikipedia Sucks Blog #1
  • Wikipedia Sucks Blog #2
  • And just for kicks, here is the news about Microsoft vs Wikipedia and how Microsoft found no other way to make the proper correction than to pay someone to do it. That was not an "unethical" behavior, but Microsoft realizes that it is a "time-consuming" effort to participate in the "Wikipedia" world and to deal with wiki-editors (such as yourself) and admins who feel compelled to delete everything in sight. So, to Microsoft's defense, I salute them to pay someone to get the job done and shame on Wikipedia on thinking otherwise. Because truly, we really don't know who is getting paid here or not.
  • --Webmistress Diva 08:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

I see you have had a number of articles deleted. This is something that happens to some new editors, and can be very frustrating. I have looked at them and seen a number of recurrent problems which you should address to avoid future disappointment:

  • Articles should include evidence of notability, using the Wikipedia definition of notability, which is that they have been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. A lot of the problems experienced are due to the fact that the articles have no supporting material outside of the subjects' own publications, especially their websites.
  • You should avoid linking any website in which you have any kind of stake.
  • You should write in a somewhat more formal tone, rather less like a press release or web page. See our manual of style.

I hope this helps, Guy (Help!) 16:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Hello (JzG)Guy! Yes, extremely frustrating and annoying to the point of discouragement. So I am thinking this, if Wikipedia is an open-source type "free" for all to edit an article, then why aren't the "so-called" experienced and more knowledgeable editors and admin actually "assist" in fixing the problem, instead of slapping several violations in one sitting, to which we have no clue as to what any of them really mean. And I have sat down and read some, but most take you in circles and have plenty of loopholes and may or can apply to certain situations. It's basically on a "we like you" or "don't like you" thing. For example, the "getting paid" to edit on Wikipedia policy. In short, Wikipedia is against it, UNLESS of course, the patron is willing to donate, then they will consider it, as per this [[2]].
  • I understand everything that you say, but that truly is not the case... but I can see why you or others may think so. A simple analogy would be this.... Let's tak a kindergarten, it's their first day learning their alphabets, how to write, read, and the rules of the classroom. The next day, they do an assignment, but they did not do it quite to the teacher's standards and broke a rule. Does the teacher (a) send the kid to the office because he/she thinks the kid is a dumb_ss, and/or (b) throw away their work because the teacher thought it was crappy or (c)patiently discuss with the student what the situation is and go over step by step and offer a solution rather an insult.
I would think that you and everyone else prefers option "c". But that was not the case with me or on Wikipedia. It's like do, die, or get out. In my case, I have been verbally attacked, mentally abused, and talked behind my back to others and is used as an example of what would be considered as a lousy writer. And all that from a small amount of work/effort put into an article. How can one judge a person's writing skills or knowledge based on an article that was obviously not completed yet. I do not understand what's up with the added pressure put on an editor to make the article look good now... or else...., and the constant debate and reverting that goes on....... these are the reasons why I have been turned off to diligently edit on Wikipedia. Why?, when you have people like Fethers who will stop at nothing until your respectable article gets deleted. Honestly, who the heck do these people think they are???? They are so busy slapping people with violations and out to delete things, when a "true" editor will "actually" contribute into making the article "encyclopedic".
  • But thank you again for stopping by to inform me of what I already know. All I need is the time to do it.... which I unfortunately do not have the luxury... nor do I want to contribute wholeheartedly right now when majority of my articles got the boot. It really is pathetic and sad that people have to resort to having a "power trip"..... I am nodding my head to disbelief.
  • In any case, this all happened for a reason.... and I can't do any more than to look at it positively. And now I know how one can be treated on Wikipedia gives me more of a reason to applaud my article being deleted.
  • Just in case, I want to make sure that you were not thinking I was lashing out at you. I was merely voicing my opinions and venting (again). Take care & God bless ~ --Webmistress Diva 09:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy notification

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive220#User:Pebs96. 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PDW logo.jpg

Hello Pebs96, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:PDW logo.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Pebs96. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:PDW_logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:PDW_logo.jpg. 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. MER-C 10:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)