User talk:Sweetfreek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV on ethic articles

Thanks for the firm stance at Talk:Asian fetish. Mind taking a look at Talk:Asiaphilia & putting it on your watchlist as appropriate? I've got banana and egg covered. Thanks. Samw 02:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch book

Fascinating. Sweetfreek 21:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you liked this article, you should also like coherence (philosophical gambling strategy). Michael Hardy 23:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diet Coke Vanilla in two-liters

I can personally vouch that this is still being sold. I just bought some this Saturday and am in the process of drinking it right now. Any lack of sales in areas are a direct result of a local retailer choosing not to carry the product (kind of like how I really like Apple Fanta but they don't sell it in Florida). Mike H (Talking is hot) 07:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bush-Rove rat list

I listed your article on Articles for Deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush-Rove rat list, but with no vote. It was previously tagged as a candidate for speedy deletion but I don't think it qualifies. If you can expand the article a little and leave your thoughts at the AfD hopefully we can resolve this. — Phil Welch 20:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I intend to begin some editing work on it as soon as I can get my Internet connection stabilized. Sweetfreek 22:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Please refrain from calling your fellow editors names. Thanks, -Will Beback 00:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lolicon Edit War

Your creation of the page Lolicon Edit War is probably bordering on violating WP:Point; please review that guideline. Peyna 01:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email confirmation

You should confirm your email address here so that people can send emails to you. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Just reminding you, in case you'd forgotten.. if you're not interested, ignore the above. Also wanted you to know that I've found you one of the more interesting users I've seen on Wikipedia, and I respect your stances on what could be considered controversial subjects. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lolicon straw poll

There is a straw poll about how images should be included on this page ongoing until the end of March. kotepho 21:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sf2v goddess statue.jpg

Just wanted to let you know, in the future, do not tag images with "For educational use only" or "For non-commercial use only". While this seems to make sense for Wikipedia, since Wikipedia must be able to be redistributed by anyone, images tagged like this actually get deleted pretty quickly. I've retagged this image for you. You might want to take a look at the licensing tags we accept over at WP:TAG. Thanks! Shell ^babelfish 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg

What in the hell is Image:Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg? Please explain the image & why it was selected for...well you know. --saikano 17:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dicdef transwikified: wikt:Bald wig

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Bald wig, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (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. Part Deux 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Shounen Ai Bigaku 01 cover Manga.jpg

The last entry of this conversion that I made on this asshole's User Talk page was here [1]. It has since been cleared out. Here's the whole exchange, neatly laid out in chronological order:

I have removed the image from the Shotacon article, with an explanation on the talk page, and tagged the image itself as orphaned fair use, of not specifying the source and of no rationale being provided. If you have an issue with this, as I suspect you may have judging from earlier comments, please bring it up with me on my talk page. J Milburn 22:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Three words: "don't embarrass yourself." No, seriously, don't... because you clearly have no clue about where this is headed. Firstly, the image only fails to meet the requirements of wikipedia because of technicality. I don't have the patience at the moment to dig through the endless edits of the past six months to make my case, but I do seem to recall someone explaining that the image was "typical" of the genre--as such the identity of the manga from which the cover was from was mostly of citational concern--a minor edit to the page would have restored that explanation. Secondly, I had a quick look at your contrib-list, and find it rather odd that you have made hundreds and hundreds of various little edits at such an awesome frequency, and yet you seem to have taken a rather curious interest in this one lowly topic to the extent that you even tracked down an old discussion entry that I had forgotten about... moreover, that all of this seems to have been done less than three weeks after becoming an admin. Normally, I would be tempted to attribute such a set of "activities" as being part of some vindictive or morally-extremist objective (which I've seen many like before), but I'm not in the mood for passing judgement against you or anyone else at the present time. I will reverse your edits and then I will make the appropriate changes where I am able, but you should understand that I won't easily bend to bureaucratic gimicks intended to influence the content of wikipedia according to either personal tastes or morals. I chose this image precisely because it was both an accurate and unoffensive depiction that illustrates the article's subject matter, and on that alone it has stood mostly unmolested for quite some time. And one more thing: it has been my understanding throughout the past two years of my own editing, that removing major elements and other potentially disruptive edits should be discussed first, not declared and then done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sweetfreek (talk • contribs) 09:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Are you suggesting that I have some kind of exterior motive to removing the image? That is a rather serious allegation. I was simply surfing Wikipedia, came across the article, and saw a fair use image which was being used in a way that goes agaisnt our policy. As such, I removed it. This was not a matter of discussion, this was a matter of implementing policy. Your defence appears to be 'I can't be bothered finding why this is allowed because of the rules, but I am going to restore it, and you must stop removing it. The art form could be shown by a free image, as is done at Lolicon with Image:Final Solution-chan.jpg. The matter of me 'not knowing where this is heading' is second to the fact that this breaches our fair use policy, whether or not it is 'on a technicality', which it isn't. I will look into the matter further later. J Milburn 15:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your edit summary on my talk page. The reason you have to continually explain yourself to other people is because what you are doing is agaisnt our policy. Also, rereading your comment, I got the impression you thought I was trying to censor the article. Absolutely not, I am very opposed to censorship on Wikipedia. I just hate fair use images when free ones could be made. J Milburn 15:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Before you dig your hole any deeper, I would advise you that (among other issues) it is unwise to claim "policy" alone as justification when your sole contention has been argued from "there is no dispute". Indeed there has been no significant dispute since your the first to bring up this subject for that image... yet you discuss it as though it has already been decided, and by whom I query? Now, if you wish to start a vote and get some additional opinions and facts to go on, be my guest as you would have my full blessing, but if you continue your present course of action on this matter you will only prove that I have been right all along. Sweetfreek 01:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If twenty people agree to have a two megabyte article entirely copied out of copyrighted book, then I can still remove it, as this is a matter of policy. The fact that no one else has contended it is a poor argument- many people do not understand the fair use policy, and many people can not be bothered to go through this whole routine, or are not bold enough to comment. You ask who has agreed on the matter? The community, through consensus, as well as our foundation principles, says that our policy is agreed upon, and so I am just acting through that. You continually talk about me digging myself deeper and getting into things I don't want to be in- if I may ask, where do you think I am heading? J Milburn 09:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

At the time when I first uploaed the image, I had only a fractional understanding of the fair use policy, that much I admit freely. However, since then I have become much more aquainted with the details of that policy, and I am 99% certain that my usage is both necessary and proper for the article. I have already made my case on the article's discussion page (which I would advise you to read). I am more than prepared to explain it and re-explain it, and even re-argue it if need be, but now we are at the point where further contentions and contraversies are only a waste of our time. Wikipedia is not a messageboard for opinions and debates, so I advise that we leave the matter and consider it as good as settled. Sweetfreek 20:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider it settled? Because we have both talked, not agreed, and nothing has been done? Not quite. I have responded on the article talk page also- I can not see how you do not see what I am saying. You yourself said (unless I am very much mistaken) that a free image COULD be created or found- yet you still think that it is acceptable to use this one? J Milburn 22:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, this dickhead was asking me to either "create" an image (which is just one step away from entrapment) or to render the quality of the article so low that it would invite total deletion. Despite my attempt at rational conversation both here and on the Shotacon talk page, some other admin who has virtually never posted banned me for a few days... which suggests to me that J Milburn has champions who will come when called, and avenge his wounded ego by crushing any opposition whenever his ass needs to be bailed out of a sticky situation. At any rate, I lost this battle because I assumed I could be rational with someone who got to where he is by giving other people the bottom of his boot.

[edit] MySpace

I just tried creating a link to the prison planet article you referenced from a MySpace page. The link worked fine. It was neither censored during creation or filtered by the msplinks domain. Can you provide an example of how to demonstrate this filtering? Citizensmith 23:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. There was absolutely no accusation made against you - I was just curious as I couldn't replicate the reported behaviour. Reading the comments at prison planet itself it would also appear that there is no blanket-ban on prisonplanet.com domain and that the "source" quoted for the filtering is not a MySpace employee as stated. Citizensmith 12:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

This is not appropriate, for any reason, under any circumstances. You have been blocked for 24 hours. Hopefully, you will be able to contribute in a civil manner when the block expires. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Jedi Survivors of Order 66

I have nominated Category:Jedi Survivors of Order 66 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Pascal.Tesson 02:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Jetsonslogo640x480.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Jetsonslogo640x480.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. 1 != 2 07:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stone of J'Kaa

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Stone of J'Kaa, 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 should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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 agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Stone of J'Kaa. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Red and white ravens.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Red and white ravens.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) 09:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD of Sean Bell

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Here is the diff.

In case anyone gives a damn, this is what got chopped:

Are you insane?! Do you have any idea at all what the meaning of this event is?! I took a quick a look at your personal discussion page and I'm certain that not only are you not an American (and therefore unfamiliar with our cultural and political woes no matter what you may think you hear from your local news agencies), but that you also seem to have a history of really lousy decision making skills. I can understand a possible renaming to account for the event as an "event" rather than a "person", but KEEPING THIS ARTICLE IS PARAMOUNT. I suspect that this event is hardly over, because if history is any guide there are repercussions due any week now. Personally, I expect that somewhere soon there will be a similar event involving a white victim (to make it look equal)... refer to this table for your learning:

Racial Reactions to Police and Crime in the United States of America
THIS TABLE IS GUARANTEED TO PISS SOMEONE OFF BITE ME!	White Criminal	Black Criminal	Mexican Criminal	Jewish Criminal	Criminals of Other Ethnicities	Police "Crackdown" (race irrelavent)
White Victim	Media coverage will depend on the social status of the victim.	All local media will focus on it (inspiring the "respectable neighborhoods" to "get tough on crime"), but it won't make national interest unless the Fox News executives sent a memo downward that morning demanding attention to "anti-white liberalism".	You can bet your ass that Bill O'Reilly will be swimming in it for a week, with only Geraldo Rivera to occasionaly remind him (when allowed) that he just might be used flawed logic to a racist end.	Pretty rare to begin with since most of those sort are just the usual gangsters, mostly Russian. Today, most Jewish criminals are only important because of their political activities. Beltway Hofyuden such as Henry Kissinger and Bill Kristol are only where they are because of rich WASPs who pay them for their collaboration.	The anti-immigrant movements take every opportunity they can to highlight these to endorse anti-immigrant legislation even when the criminal happens to be American Citizen already.	It only makes news if it "looks bad". Even so, various people with "established and secure" reputations will have a public orgasm over the abuses in order to ensure that noone will start restricting police activities.
Black Victim	Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton will probably bitch about it, and civil rights advocates will prepare their cases, but noone else will care unless it "looks bad".	Noone will care, except the victim's relatives. (noone really cares about them either)	Black gangs get pissed and try to retaliate. Noone else gives a damn.		Noone cares, but the victim's family usually won't have trouble getting revenge via the police unless they're lower on the totem pole themselves.	(see Sean Bell and Rodney King)
Mexican Victim	Bill O'Reilly will cheer and call the criminals "heros".	Mexican gangs get pissed and retaliate. Noone else gives a damn.	This is called "daily life" by everyone.		This doesn't seem to have come up yet.	Incidently, the "War on Drugs" originated as a way for the California Elite to justify this. Bet ya'll thought it was made for darkies, didn't 'cha!
Jewish Victim	The funny thing about Jews is that they can see what's wrong with the world, and easily remember the shit that's happened to them (more so than most peoples), but they simply will not move out of the way of the oncoming storm. To them, it's always someplace else until it finally get there. (see First they came...)	This doesn't seem to have come up yet.		Internal affairs, noone else cares.	This doesn't seem to have come up yet.	(see leftmost block on this row)
Victims of Other Ethnicities	Noone cares except for civil rights and civil liberties activitist. Story usually gets ignored or buried.
Anti-Police Protest (no violence necessary)	The protestors get called "hippies", "commies", "anti-American", etc.	The protestors get called "whiny", "liberal", "anti-white", etc.	The protestors get called "ungratedful", "uncivilized", "invadors", etc.	As a rule, these are embarrassing, but the media usually just shake their fist and then bury the story.		Occasionally, ex-police take advantage of their position to spill the beans. The brave individuals are the reason we all know the inner machinations of police abuses of power.

Sweetfreek (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So...I'm trying to assume good faith, but do you have a reason why you felt that would be constructive? Protonk (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)