User talk:Simonxag

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Simonxag, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. If you are looking for help, please do any of the following:

There are a lot of standards and policies here, but as long as you are editing in good faith, you are encouraged to be bold in updating pages. Here are a few links you might find useful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. Also, it would be a huge help if you could explain each of your edits with an edit summary. Again, welcome!

[edit] Vandalism to Nun - warning test1

Thank you for experimenting with the page Nun on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Kf4bdy talk contribs 00:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


Sorry about that, I reverted a correction rather than a vandals insertion and so restored the vandalism - oops - --Simon Speed 01:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vampire

Hi, I'm having a dispute with a newly registered user, Nihilum at vampire. He insists on inserting this in the article. I consider it to be either OR, or an addition without a reliable source (a XIXth century archaeologist supposedly referenced by notorious believer in vampires Montague Summers). Would you care to join the discussion?

--194.145.161.227 17:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I'll try and follow what's going on. Every new editor (like me) seems to want to chip in to the vampire page and everybody's got a strong point of view. I think the page is turning into a bit of a battleground. --Simon Speed 21:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A battleground? Actually, I think it's quite a peaceful page, in comparison with other articles. :) I believe vampire hasn't seen a serious edit war since 2005. Non-registered users adding fancruft-like nonsense are a nuisance, but they are easily dealt with. Now, there are entire areas of knowledge that I have abandoned because there is some real battling there and I'm sick of it - for example ex-Yugoslav topics.
From your edits to vampire, I have the impression that we have similar ideas about what the article should look like: the division between folklore and fiction, the exclusion of claims that vampires are real, maybe the distinction between (East European) vampires and other vampire-like legendary creatures, which Magore has argued for. All of this is rather important, because there is always going to be pressure in the opposite direction, especially from passers-by. Vampires are cool, and they have too many enthusiastic fans who are keen to include their own personal vampire legends in the article. --194.145.161.227 09:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] revert

ok, thanks. hadn't spotted that.

[edit] Reply

I'm aware of that, but it was a pornographic image with an offensive caption. Not exactly what I'd call an attempt to improve the encyclopaedia. Thank you, however, for your advice. --Will2710|Talk! 23:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Origins of Allhallows Eve

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Origins of Allhallows Eve, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Colette in Rêve d'Égypte.jpg

Please don't move non-US images that are tagged {{PD-US}} to Commons. Commons rules are different; the "public domain in the US" claim only applies to US works there. —Celithemis 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Same for Image:La Belle Otero - 1905 Postcard.jpg and Image:La Belle Otero - Folies Bergere.jpg. Please don't do this. —Celithemis 00:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia operates under United States law, under which -- simplifying a bit -- images published anywhere in the world before 1923 are public domain. So an image like Image:La Belle Otero - 1905 Postcard.jpg, which is probably from France, can be tagged {{PD-US}} with no problem.
Wikimedia Commons hosts only images that are public domain in their home countries, so their version of the PD-US tag applies only to works that were first published in the U.S. —Celithemis 01:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
URAA is more complicated than that writeup suggests. The backstory is that historically, works published outside the United States had to register with the United States copyright office and display a copyright notice in order to gain copyright protection in the U.S. Since the requirements for registration were pretty onerous, most publishers didn't bother, and a lot of non-US works fell into the public domain.
URAA took some of these works that had lost their U.S. copyrights and essentially said, "from now on, pretend these were properly registered, that they carried a copyright notice, and that the copyright was renewed if it needed to be renewed. If that would make them in copyright, they're still in copyright." However, if a work was published prior to 1923 with registration, notice, and renewal, that copyright would already be expired anyway. So in that case, URAA does nothing, even if the work was still in copyright in its home country.
Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Public domain should really be clarified, but it does say "for images published in the United States before 1923 or in some other cases", linking to Template talk:PD-US, which has a good list of ways that something can become public domain in the U.S. You might also find this chart helpful, or if you really want to get into it, there's a Nolo Press book on how to identify public domain works that is supposed to be pretty good. —Celithemis 02:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Sister Roma.jpg

In response to your comment regarding the image of Sister Roma, I received permission to use the image unrestricted on wikipedia by both the photographer and Sister Roma... they are my co-workers and sit right behind me. How do I indicate this permission?? Sorry I am new to wikipedia and have not been able to find instructions on this. M.brandonclark 19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you've uploaded a new version of this image, for which you've got permission. That's good, but what exactly is the nature of the permission? All images must have a copyright tag giving their copyright status and the license they're being used under. Sorry to be a pain but ..... --Simon Speed 17:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page move vandalism at reptile

Hi - thanks for trying to fix the mess left by the page-move vandal at reptile. I have restored the original page and talk page with their histories. A simple copy/paste fix doesn't keep the page history intact. In the future, please seek admin help for problems like this. I think I've got it all straightened out now and the various vandal pages deleted. Also indef. blocked the vandal. Thanks again for your efforts. Cheers, Vsmith 01:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punch cartoons on the Commons

Thanks for notifying me. I agree with your analysis. I've uploaded quite a few punch cartoons; I'll go through those & put them onto en.wiki. There's also Commons:Category:Punch magazine, should you want to get there before me. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI - [Image talk:Dynamics (music) cartoon - Punch - Project Gutenberg eText 17397.png some more discussion] of the issue on the image talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've updated my contribution to the commons IfD debate, and am trying to start a debate at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Re-examining whether EB1911 really is PD. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nun

Hi. I noticed your previous work on the article Nun. We are trying to build consensus as to whether or not the article has NPOV. One editor has placed a neutrality tag on the article and objects to its removal. Would you mind having a look at the article (Nun) and leaving your opinion on the talk page (Talk:Nun#Neutrality_Tag). Thank you! Dgf32 (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sex education edit

Hi Simonxag, you reverted an edit that I agreed with to the external links section of this article. I've opened a discussion on the talk page to discuss the edit It would be great if you could respond. thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 16:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you very much for the award on Slovenian Wikipedia! I am very gladful for it.--Amazone7 (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthrosexual

Since you are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, i would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on the article Anthrosexual, which is currently up for deletion.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Mainly so it's on my watchlist here to keep an eye on it. Also Commons can have certain issues, because of having to be available for all countries. Ty 16:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Model in muzzle gag.jpg

I've now added attribution information for the original creator and uploader of this image, and myself as the creator of this derivative work by mere cropping of the original image, in the latest version of the article summary at Image:Model in muzzle gag.jpg. Regards, Karada (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring at Play party (BDSM)

Hello Simonxag. You and Rividian seem to be involved in an edit war on the above article. If the war doesn't stop immediately, you will both be blocked. I am closing the WP:AN/3RR case as 'Warned both editors.' A word to the wise is sufficient. If you have any further comments, add them to the discussion at the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding references; the article looks a lot better now. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Handjob edit (Updated 5 May)

--Alright, I'll concede to you that I couldn't find 'vroom vroom' out there. However, a quick Google search of 'indian burn' (and) 'handjob' turned up numerous instances both in the context of injury as a result of the maneuver and the context of it being the maneuver itself. It seems to me that it warrants inclusion. Kparker84 (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sex and Sexuality

Yes I am still interested, but I'm back after a long dry spell - so to speak. It will take me a bit to get up to speed. - Nina

[edit] Your request and..

I responded to your request and voted thumbs up on the article you mentioned . I could see nothing wrong with it except perhaps that it requires expansion.

I have a small favor to ask of you. Two people joined Wikipedia about a week ago with the sole purpose of attacking me. I won't bore you with the history of this silly vendetta but this has been going on for years on other forums (Yahoo answers etc) with the same small group of people. If you check their edit history and talk pages you will see this contention is in no doubt whatsoever.

They have gone as far as to claim my very own daughter and (despite full and exaustive references) almost every other thing I have done in my life is false.

They have nominated my bio page for deletion.

If after checking my references and my contention as to the very personal motives of those objecting to it, if satisfied give, you would give it a thumbs up I would appreciated greatly.

THE DELETION PAGE IS: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Hanau

I would like to know more about your interests and contributions and am always here to help in any way I can in making a positive contribution to your edits and Wikipedia in general. Aimulti (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems like blatant canvassing. Toddst1 (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Betty Dodson

If you want to see what Betty looks like for comparison, there is a photo of her here:[1]. I think you're right about the other photo not being her. The Betty in the article has a fuller face plus I've never seen any photos of her where she had anything but the short and spiky hair.LiPollis (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red as safeword

See comment on the talk page of the playparty article. If you want to change the wording (which was not mine) that red is a universal safeword to something like Red is a very widely used safeword, then that would be fine. But to suggest that "Red" is not a safeword that is used very widely in almost all english speaking countries would be to show a lack of BDSM experience. It is something that even beginners to BDSM are aware of. I gave a number of references to support it, and there are many, many more. I appreciate you want to make the article better. Certainly, whomever wrote the article could have said it differently. But, you can't as a general rule, go around removing every bit of information that you haven't heard of. It is true that someone should find references for whatever information that they put in any article, but that is not always done. If a person were to go around removing every reference that they disagreed with that had not citation, they would get kicked off Wikipedia fairly quickly for vandalism.

In this case, the uses of the green/yellow/red safeword system is well know and easily citeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.34.245 (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)