User talk:Tony Sandel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Why did you remove Bjork's song Birthday from the pedophilia in songs page?

i'm sick of people blundering about these pages undoing other peoples work!

on what basis did you assume the authority to question that addition?

Lil'anima 23:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, --Alf melmac 14:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cupidbutterfly.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cupidbutterfly.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 04:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a bot has been talking to you! I left a welcome message on your talk page, the copyright notes are from OrphanBot, an automatic script that notifies of potential copyright issues.
In this instance if you particularly wish to keep that image you might try emailing the site and seeing if it's is already in the public domain or licenced under GFDL. If not, I would allow deletion and find a local wikipedian, it's in the louvre? so Category:Wikipedians in France might turn up someone who could take a photo and upload it. --Alf melmac 11:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I noticed a couple of articles that you have been working on, and only wanted to question your choice of terms for the relationship between the boys in the "Sorcerer's Apprentice." Why would you use the term "molest" for a love affair between two minors? Haiduc 12:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

He should probably read the definitions of pedophilia and pederasty, before he starts his next edit-rounds.... Fulcher 16:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sandel

Hi Tony Sandel. I'm following your career with some interest. I can't really tell, but it seems possible that you are an editor with interests and knowledge around subjects related to pedophilia and pederasty, yet are not on either a pro-anything or anti-anything crusade. Is this true? If so, it would be rare, and welcome.

Also, do you need any help making a user page, or are you happy with not having one? Herostratus 22:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi you're right - how do I contact you and join PAW>

Tony

Well, you know how to contact me by clicking on my name to get to my userpage, then clicking on "discussion" at the top to get to my talk page, then either starting a new discussion by clicking on the "+" at the top, or editing (continuing) an existing discussion by going down to the title and clicking on the "edit" tag at the right. And to sign your name by tuping four tildes (~~~~ at the end of your message.

To join PAW, just click here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch. Then, after reading through the materials on the page, if you decide you can get on board with that, you join just by... doing some of those things. "Members" are really just people who work on the project goals a lot. But you can add your name to the participants list by clicking on on the "participants" link in the menu near the top of the page (it's #9), then clicking the "edit" tag at the left of the section header, then adding your name to the bulleted list (by typing "*~~~~". This is entirely optional. On the project talk page you can ask any questions etc.

Obiously "joining", such as it is, doesn't require any commitment of doing any particular work (I myself spend most of my time working on unrelated stuff, usually.) But you do have to commit to being very scholarly and unbaised. The project members are trying to weed out bias in these articles, and most of the bias at this time seems to come what might be termed "pedophilia advocates" or whatever term you want to use, and we're mostly oriented toward correcting that right now. But of course we do see attempts to add non-scholarly anti-pedophile bias also, and try to correct that too. Not all members focus on the same things or have exactly the same philosophy.

Basically, I would strongly suggest that if you are going to edit articles related to pedophilia that you get a different username, if your name really is Tony Sandel. There are people out there who feel strongly about this subject, and members have been harrassed in real life. Cheers, Herostratus 19:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debate

Article talk pages are the usual place to discuss edits. There's an active discussion/debate going on at Talk:Pedophilia_and_child_sexual_abuse_in_fiction. Cheers, -Will Beback 18:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nickname

If you click on on "my preferences" at the top of the page, whatever you enter in the Nickname field will appear as your name. So you won't have to edit your signature to add it. For example, my Nickname is "Herostratus", so my signature automatically writes [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] when I sign. Your nickname doesn't have to match your user name, although they're usually related. (N.B. This does not hide your identity (username) per the last comment above, it's just a convenience.) Herostratus 19:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Pedophile vs Pederast

Hi Tony. I moved your draft on this to the bottom of Section One of the talk page here as part of a general cleanup and restructuring. Don't do anything yet; I'll get back to you in a day or so, OK? Herostratus 10:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony. Sorry to take so long getting back to you. I responded to your post on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Terminology talk page, here is a copy:

  • Dictionary definitions aside, I'm not convinced that that is this is the actual scholarly understanding of what "pederasty" means, to the extent that there is a scholarly understanding. I know the word is used in both ways (teen-only and pre-teen) in the everyday world, and in fact often includes both sexes in common usage. The actual usage is what matters, and its probably a hard word to pin down, but my inclination without looking into it in more detail is that pederasty usually refers to relations between an adult male and a teen male.
  • Politics:
    • User:Haiduc is an extraordinarily erudite, energetic, cogent, and relentless editor and debater. He's an excellent editor. He's on a mission - and by that I don't mean to accuse him of any POV or bias in his edits - but he's on a mission to ensure that Wikipedia reflects what he sees as the truth of pederasty: (1) it involves men and teen boys (2) it is far more common in societies than is commonly assumed (3) it is an integral part of homosexuality, homsexual history, homosexual culture, and what being a homosexual is (4) it is generally beneficial to society and the parties involved.
    • I do not want to tangle with him (and his supporters). You do not want to tangle with him, believe me. He knows far about this issue than you or I.
    • It's not just Haiduc. The group protecting the NAMBLA article, and others, will be all over us like a cheap suit if we try to define pederasty downward.
    • And for other reasons both political and scholarly, it's greatly preferable IMO to seperate teen sex and sexuality from pre-teen sex and sexuality, provided this is scholarly of course.
  • User:Haiduc provided me with the following cite, and he has many others I'm sure: "{Pederasty is] The erotic relationship between an adult male and a youth, generally one between the ages of twelve and seventeen, in which the older partner is attracted to the younger one who returns his affection" by Vern L. Bullough in [1].

Herostratus 16:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

The trend on Wikipedia is to reduce the use of "fair use" images, including book covers. The two concepts are that fair use only exits if we are commenting on the work of art, and that more than a single fair use image in an article is indefensible. I'm not a lawyer or an expert, so I can't comment on the correctness of this view. However it may affect lists like Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction. I see you've been adding images to that article. My advice to you is to not waste time and effort adding images that are likely to be removed in the future. Cheers, -Will Beback 20:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novels

I noticed that you have been adding quite a few novels to Category:Novels lately, and we over at Wikiproject:Novels would like to thank you for this contribution. However, We have just recently finished clearing out the novel category and putting things into subcategories, and would appreciate it if in the future you categorized the novel pages you create by year (Category:Novels by year) and country that the author lives in (Category:Novels by country). You can do this by simply omitting the novel and book by year categories and adding separate categories such as Category:2004 novels or Category:American novels. Oh and just so you know, you can sign your talkpage comments by typing four tildes (~~ ~~, but without the space.) -- Gizzakk 21:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks ~~Tony Sandel~~

[edit] Your recent addition to Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction

It's messy and in its current state, likely to be reverted. Before your addition, the article was only a list (and hence "list of..." might have been a better title) but your addition (if it stays) takes it into a new direction. I suppose (if you really want to analyse child sexual abuse in literature) you can create a new article on such a thing. Creation of a literature genre. I don't see why not. Skinnyweed 16:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed if you've actually read all that. Skinnyweed 16:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Skinnyweed is correct that the material will be removed if is based on your own research. It goes against our concepts of "No original research" and "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought". What we can do is summarize what others have said about the topic. If there have been academic or popular reivews of the field we can report what they have said. If you like, I can move the material to a user page so you can keep it and perhaps find a different place to post (like a blog or IPCE). -Will Beback 01:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article for deletion

Your article, Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction, has been nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction. You should post your comments as soon as possible. -Will Beback 05:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Strong-at-the-heart.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Strong-at-the-heart.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Skinnyweed 13:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use of book covers

Since you seem to be interested in this sort of thing: despite the existence of "boilerplate" fair use templates (including for book covers, film posters, etc) there's actually no "blanket" cases of fair use. The difference between fair use and a free license (like GFDL, or CC-BY, or even public domain images) is that the image itself, if PD or GFDL or whatever, is always PD or GFDL wherever it is used. Fair use images are "fair" only in their individual uses, which is why each individual use requires a rationale (even with the boilerplate template present - if you read those templates they ask for a rationale to be given).

You've already been given a very good answer about fair use above. Book covers are an interesting case - it's generally agreed here that using the front cover of a book in the article about that book is likely to be fair use. But using a front cover to illustrate not the book, but, say, the person illustrated on the front cover, is unlikely to be. So it's not true that "book covers are okay for Wikipedia" (even though there is a copyright tag for them), it's more like "book covers are a particular type of copyright image, certain uses of which may be covered by fair use doctrine". Including a book cover in a list of books is a marginal case. If it looks like the use is essentially decorative rather than educational or in some way "transformative" (which is one of the keys to the relevant law) then it isn't so likely to pass muster. If you wanted to use a book cover from a particular book in an article about a certain controversial theme in books, and there some analysis to say "this book cover became notorious for the open way it addressed the theme of the book" (to avoid breaching WP:NOR, a reliable source would have to found for this statement), then that is probably an instance where fair use might apply beyond the article on the book itself. TheGrappler 01:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can be hard to tell where "no original" research begins - though I suspect that anything that merely describes what can be clearly be seen on the cover is fine. Happy editing! (By the way - all section headings, even sub-subheadings, ought to begin with a capital letter, according to the Manual of Style, you may want to change a few instances of all-lower case headings in that otherwise rather impressive article!) TheGrappler 12:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi. As a rule of thumb, avoid creating galleries of unfreely licensed images, and avoid using unfree content to decorate lists. If you need to discuss a particular book cover, go ahead and republish it in the article. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information about the handling of unfreely licensed content here. Jkelly 18:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your contributions to the pederasty article

Hello Tony, May I ask what your logic was in adding the links to pedophilia topics in the "See also" section of the "Pederasty" article? Thanks, Haiduc 02:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"ps how come my name comes up red and everyone else's blue??" I dunno, are you a communist? Seriously, it just indicates that you have written nothing on your user page. I really have no objection to a link to the pedophilia department in the main pederasty article, but I think three is a bit over the top. Can we settle for one? The other pederasty articles are way too specialized for any such link, in my opinion, since they mainly deal with other places and times. Actually, the one on Pederasty in the modern world would be another candidate, but again, one link is quite enough.
And now that we are here anyway, for a long time I have been looking at your collection of articles titled "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in X". Imagine if I tried to publish here an article titled "Pederasty and friendship in fiction." Or "Heterosexuality and female rape in film" (and then included all the movies that had anything to do with heterosexuality). It is like that, I fear, with the articles conflating pedophilia and sexual abuse. Pedophilic sentiments seem to be quite common in the general population (20 to 30% in some studies, from what I gleaned from the article last night), but I do not think you can assert that child abuse incidence is of the same magnitude. Thus we have a situation where some pedophiles abuse children and, presumably, most do not. So why lump the two together? Let me suggest that even though it would require a great deal more discrimination and research (and possibly debate), splitting up those articles into two versions, one, say, Pedophilia in fiction and another Child sexual abuse in fiction would not only be far more useful for our readers but would also steer clear of any semblance of politicizing (which presently the articles practically proclaim). Best regards, Haiduc 01:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
If the works are really as ambiguous as you say (and I too think that they are) then does it not stand to reason that tagging on the moniker "abuse" whether or not it is justified is misleading and an uncalled for value judgement in what puports to be an impartial article in an impartial encyclopaedia? Haiduc 00:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Beauty

You asked:

Hi there: I watched American Beauty a couple of years ago, but I don't remember any pedophile/child sexual abuse themes. I know one of the teenagers gets it off with one of the Mothers. Can you remind me!! best wishes

I was referring to Kevin Spacey's character, who spends the entire movie pursuing his daughter's friend (played by actress Mena Suvari), and nearly has sex with her at the end of the movie. Regards, Matthew Fadoul 16:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Matthew - I don't think think that's really pedophilia which is really related to much younger children - rather than the attentions of an older guy on a minor (boy or girl) who is fully sexually mature. Can I edit it out? Tony 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Tony
Hi Tony, I would prefer not. My reasons are: (1) the girl character was ~16, which is only a year or so after puberty; (2) I googled the terms <spacey "american beauty" pedophilia> and got almost a thousand hits, all descibing the behavior of Spacey's character as pedophilia; (3) she was a minor, which is considered statutory rape in the USA, and the idea of her being "forbidden fruit" seems to have something to do with her age. I also realize that the term pedophile is sometimes restricted to pre-pubescents; but, as the pedophilia wiki article states, "In the United States and some other countries, the term pedophile is frequently used also to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents." Matthew Fadoul 17:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Based on the wiki article quoted above (along with other reasons), I'm going to keep "American Beauty" on the list. Matthew Fadoul 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ephebophilia

I am unconcerned with the negative connotations of the terms pedophilia and ephebobhilia and so on. I do not consider that encyclopedic. However under the terms of the present wikipedia article and the medical use of the term pedophilia many of the listen films do not apply in the least. Sexual interaction among adult and teens nearing the age of majority is not pedophilia, and so if they are to be in the list, the description must be more accurate. The term ephebophilia has a wiki article, and should be included for encyclopedic reasons, in this page's title. For these reasons I will revert to my changes. Further discussion, I think, should be on the talk page. Tomyumgoong 03:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Culvert

I understand your reasoning regarding The Culvert; however, simply being about pedophilia does not make the book inherently notable, and as far as I can tell from the article itself and a Google search, there is nothing to indicate this book has had any sort of distribution or meets any other criterion for notability. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria. Being self-published, it is highly unlikely this book appears in any library, and simply being available on Amazon is generally not considered enough, as almost anything is (also, its amazon.com Sales Rank is 1,019,124, indicating that, although it is available on amazon, it is not being purchased, at least not in any meaningful quantity). I would suggest, incidentally, that if the community does indeed vote to delete the book, you might consider removing it from pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction. Books judged to be non-notable probably shouldn't be on here, even in lists, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Feel free to post any further comments on my talk page or the article's AfD page, where I see you've already voted. Regards, Elmer Clark 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dream Boy Revert

Have you read Dream Boy? If you had read it and understood it in any sense, you would have noticed every single theme I presented. I contest your reversion on the basis that it removed valuable information about the book. The information removed may not have been detailed, but it had a point and a basis in reality. Even though you have taken it upon yourself to edit the articles involving pedophilia, you should allow said articles to contain information on other themes. Dream boy has an underlying theme of pedophilia. A much larger theme is gentle eroticism between two young men.

Please review and possibly revise your reversion. If you could at least explain it better than "reverted recent edits: themes not in book" which makes no sense as the themes are very relevant to the book. who-is-me 13:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

naturally I have read Dream Boy. I have my copy hear. Your latest addition reads "Major themes in the book include watching as eroticism, body parts, difference in similarity and gender, and soft sex." I'm afraid I find it difficult to accept this as clear use of English. 'watching as eroticism' does not make sense; 'body parts' carries no meaning. The expression 'soft sex' is not in common usage and you have chosen to link it to kindness. Why? Perhaps you could explain what points you want to get across - I'm sure they may be valid - then we can construct a way to describe what you are trying to say. Tony 22:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Tony

[edit] not ad hominem

Tony, I am sorry if I made you upset over my questioning the title of the article. My comments really were not directed at you as much as at the imbalance which I perceived. Surely there must be some way to balance things so that the presentation is more even-handed. You yourself conceded that there is material there which falls ouside the scope of the terminology. At any rate, I will not insist further. If you have any suggestions, let me know. Haiduc 00:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked and saw that the article is not yet oversize, but splitting it up seems like a good idea nonetheless. Let me know if I can help in any way. And I do hope you carry through your idea about setting the article up as a table - it would be a major improvement. Haiduc 01:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Songs

I saw your note about me adding to the topic of Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in songs, and I would be happy to help contribute to the article. I am not a huge fan of the scenes that I mentioned, but I am a big fan of alternative music in general, and will hopefully be able to contribute to the article a lot. J Milburn 23:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks Tony 22:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Tony

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Frisk.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. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 01:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting to write an article called Frisk, but haven't got around to it yet. I can upload image again when ready. The image is a book cover. Tony 16:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Tony

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Conformist.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 10:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dream-life.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dream-life.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 10:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bilal's-bread.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bilal's-bread.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 08:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Fall-from-grace.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fall-from-grace.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 08:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Thorvaldsen-shepherd-boy.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Thorvaldsen-shepherd-boy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

The same counts for Image:Chaudet-amour.jpg, please comment here, thanks. Garion96 (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Thorvaldsen image has also been posted on Commons:Image:Thorvaldsen-shepherd-boy.jpg , negating its deletion on Wikipedia. Not sure of the correct procedure here. Lee M 20:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in songs

Hello, regarding your reversion of my edit. The article's name is "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in songs", its topic is therefore about the song's content. The article is about the subject matter of artistic works. Adding individuals' activities is very much off topic. Same can be said about Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films with the addition of Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia --Monotonehell 15:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I'm will to participate in a consensus building discussion on the article's talk page. ;) --Monotonehell 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aspasia

Read the previous sections in Aspasia's talk page and my discussion with Pmanderson and Robth, and you'll see this article is correct. It is not proved that Aspasia married Lysicles. So, there is no inconsistency! I don't care what other articles say, since I know that what this particular article is correct and examined by some of the best classicistd in Wikipedia. Now, we don't link in the lead things that are analysed in the main text of the article. This is a basic rule, Tony.--Yannismarou 22:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Lysicles is corrected. You were right; it was my ommission. Now, about Aspasia, the key words are: "according to Debra Nails". She may believe that there was a marriage, but this does not mean that this is what most scholars believe, and that is why the main text avoids to reflect such a thing. The questions of the legal status of her relationships with both Pericles and Lysicles are wide open.--Yannismarou 13:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Author and Country link for Wiki article on novel "Sandel"???

Unless I am very much mistaken, the Author and Country links (to Angus Stewart and Australia, respectively) in the "Sandel" article point to the wrong person, albeit with the same name as the author of Sandel (1967), Snow in Harvest (1969) and Tangier: A Writer's Notebook (1977), all published by Hutchinson (UK). The link points to an Australian horticulturist and author called Angus Stewart who, to the best of my knowledge, is a different person to the UK author Angus Stewart, son of author and academic Michael Innes (pseudonym). Although Michael Innes and his family did live in Adelaide, Australia for a period (approx 1936-46?), as far as I know Angus Stewart did not settle in Australia but in Tangier? 121.45.33.3 08:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right of course. Thanks for spotting it. Tony 09:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Tony
Tony, I see you've removed the incorrect Author link. Perhaps the incorrect Country link (Australia) and Category (Australian Novels) should also be fixed to complete the job?  :) 121.45.34.117 06:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Britten's Children

Hi, I did not think of that, now I am not quite sure. It does seem to me that we should treat non-fiction works about real people differently - it is not the book but the person that seems to be the issue here. But you are right, of course, about linking the main article. What happens all too often however, is that the sexuality - especially THIS sexuality - of a personage is broken out of the main article and relegated to a separate one, in large part to protect the sensibilities of other editors, and to some extent to manage the length of the articles. To be honest with you, I have little appetite for engaging in another struggle, this time with the Britten editors. This is not the kind of work that can be done by one person working alone, and I am fed up, to be perfectly honest, with adversarial situations and try to avoid them whenever possible. So it would be much more to my liking to leave matters as they are - this links Britten (an obvious candidate) to the modern pederasty category, facilitating research for anyone interested, and sidesteps the need for me to grapple with another bunch of defenders of the status quo. If you have a better idea please feel free to let me know. Haiduc 12:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice on Peyrefite's book. I wonder how he would have classified it. What I come back to again and again is the fact that there is always overlap between these categories, and it is hopeless to try to force something that is borderline to fit exclusively in one or another. The fact is that the book is of interest to people researching both pedophilia and pederasty since the fathers' interest at times could be said to be pedophilic and at other times pederastic. In reality their love interest is unitary, not binary, so that here the problem is one of definition. As for the main relationship, you could argue it as being pederastic, since it is that of an older adolescent for a younger one (not all that different from the Melanesian pederastic model, if you want an analogy). At any rate I would request that you replace the two links to pederasty, for all the reasons mentioned above. Regards, Haiduc 03:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marking edits as minor

Hi Tony. It looks like you've set your preferences to mark your edits as minor by default. You should probably change this setting, as most of your edits are substantive. See Help:Minor_edit#When_to_mark_an_edit_as_minor. Thanks! Fireplace 00:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

will do.Tony 00:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Tony

[edit] I am concerned.

Unsigned comment deleted as being inappropriate. Tony 08:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Tony

[edit] Maundy Thursday

As I recall, the protaganist had been raped at the age of fifteen by her older cousin. Hope that helps. Regards, PC78 11:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Guy Davenport

Rather than discuss it on our private talk pages, I'd prefer any discussion happened on the Davenport talk page so that others have an opportunity to weigh in. SethTisue 20:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:I-know-my-first-name-is-steven-film.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:I-know-my-first-name-is-steven-film.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. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:33-snowfish.jpg

Hello, Tony Sandel. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:33-snowfish.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Tony Sandel. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 00:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Amazing-grace-and-chuck.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Amazing-grace-and-chuck.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. BetacommandBot 04:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Abomination.jpg

Hello, Tony Sandel. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Abomination.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Tony Sandel. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:All-american-boy.jpg

Hello, Tony Sandel. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:All-american-boy.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Tony Sandel. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Allan-stein.jpg

Hello, Tony Sandel. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Allan-stein.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Tony Sandel. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Avoidance.jpg

Hello, Tony Sandel. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Avoidance.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Tony Sandel. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Billy-novel.jpg

Hello, Tony Sandel. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Billy-novel.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Tony Sandel. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Boy-o'boy.jpg

Hello, Tony Sandel. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Boy-o'boy.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Tony Sandel. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Brothers-bishop.jpg

Hello, Tony Sandel. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Brothers-bishop.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Tony Sandel. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image removal

Re [2]: As per the various notes above, our policies regarding the use of fair use images as described at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Policy item #9 prohibits the use of such images in userpace. These images were in use on your userpage and were appropriately removed. Such images may only be used on actual encyclopedia articles. --Durin 13:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. I'd put them there as a discussion for a new article layout. thanks, Tony 09:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Tony

[edit] Deletion?

I have not deleted the article. I have removed unsourced amterial. Please source and return but unsourced material can be removed without discussion. Though I have opened a discussion, please comment there. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please read my query on Talk:Touched

I think there's a bad wikilink to Scott Campbell. can you help? --Richard 15:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:A-kind-of-hush.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:A-kind-of-hush.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:A-kind-of-hush.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:A-kind-of-hush.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} 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 {{non-free fair use in|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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:A-good-start,-considering.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:A-good-start,-considering.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:A-boys-own-story.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:A-boys-own-story.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:A-boys-own-story.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:A-boys-own-story.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} 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 {{non-free fair use in|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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nightmare on Elm

While no child abuse is actually pictured as far as I know, the movies do deal with it in sort of a referential way. It's REALLY strongly implied. First off, Freddy Kruegar did murder many children, which I would definately call 'abuse'. But if we're talking sex, in one girl's dream in Freddy VS Jason the girls doing jump rope say "freddy loooves children, especially little girls...". Later, Freddy takes that girl back in time to when she was younger (even though it's still the same mature actress playing her, she's wearing a dress suited for a little girl) and she witnesses her father trying to kill Freddy as Freddy killed her mother. After they fight, Freddy pins her and implies he's going to rape her. Again, it's not obvious, but an underlying theme they probably don't address since in the later movies the Nightmare on Elm street series took on a sort of comedic fashion and showing it directly would be too seriously horrific. Tyciol 12:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:33-snowfish.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:33-snowfish.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Abomination.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Abomination.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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 17:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Alter-boy.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Alter-boy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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 17:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Allan-stein.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Allan-stein.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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 18:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:All-american-boy.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:All-american-boy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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 18:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Avoidance.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Avoidance.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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 21:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Boys-of-st-vincent.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Boys-of-st-vincent.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Close-to-leo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Close-to-leo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 18:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Doubt.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Doubt.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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 01:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Dream-children.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Dream-children.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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 03:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Ernesto.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ernesto.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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 04:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Goodnight-mister-tom.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Goodnight-mister-tom.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 16:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:My-fault.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:My-fault.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 05:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Immoralist.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Immoralist.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 08:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sarah-novel.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Sarah-novel.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Sandel.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Sandel.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Lamb-novel.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Lamb-novel.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 23:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:I-know-my-first-name-is-steven.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:I-know-my-first-name-is-steven.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 00:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Second-best.gif

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Second-best.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 04:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Slayer-of-innocence.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Slayer-of-innocence.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 05:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:The-world-of-normal-boys.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:The-world-of-normal-boys.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 06:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The-sex-offender.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The-sex-offender.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 06:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The-heart-is-deceitful-above-all-things.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The-heart-is-deceitful-above-all-things.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 06:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Pixote.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Pixote.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 08:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Avoidance.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Avoidance.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 {{non-free fair use in|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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 07:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film

Hello, I've noticed that you added the above link to The Cider House Rules and various other articles, yet the link is redlinked and therefore the article does not exist. Is there a reason for your additions? If you are in the process of creating the article, I would suggest that you not add the link to other articles until it is created. María (críticame) 14:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Please do the article first, not all these red links everywhere --BozMo talk 14:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
uploaded now Tony 15:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Tony

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:I-know-my-first-name-is-steven.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:I-know-my-first-name-is-steven.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 {{non-free fair use in|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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 17:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graham Ovenden

Re this edit: I've reverted it for now. 1) It's unsourced, and I can't find any verification in NewsBank. 2) It's in an area that's likely to be risky in terms of WP:BLP; I'd recommend getting it vetted at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Gordonofcartoon 13:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi - there's lots of references via Google, but I can't find a really authoritative reference, so will leave your revert.Tony 13:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Tony
Thanks for the reply. I just found an authoritiative one:
"Brotherhood of Ruralists" A Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Art. Ian Chilvers. Oxford University Press, 1998. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t5.e399>
Apart from Blake, the best known of the members of the Brotherhood are probably David Inshaw and Graham Ovenden ... Ovenden is best known for pictures of prepubescent girls, which have sometimes been attacked as pornographic. In 1977 he published a book called Nymphets and Fairies, and in 1979 he wrote: "My work is the celebration of youth and spring—the fecundity of nature and our relationship to it. This is why the subject-matter of my work tends towards the girl child (more often than not at the point of budding forth) and the English landscape in all its richness and mystery." ... <snip ref to Hetling affair> ... Ovenden had another clash with the law in 1993 when officers from the obscene publications squad of the Metropolitan Police seized a large quantity of his photographs. They were eventually returned following a petition on Ovenden's behalf by fellow artists.
I guess something can be condensed from that, but I'd still run it past WP:BLP. Gordonofcartoon 22:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but the reference can only be seen by memebers. I'll just put the original stuff back on (tweaked) as it doesn't seem too contentious.Tony 09:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Tony
the reference can only be seen by members
That doesn't matter; we're not limited to sources universally available online. For instance, many bio articles cite the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which is only avalable in print form or online subscription). The version you've restored is unsourced, making it fair game for removal anyway, and even more so for potentially contententious bio material. Gordonofcartoon 10:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
just as a matter of info while passing by, the ODNB is supposed to be available in all UK public libraries.Qnd there anyway is no prohibition against paid sources, which is fortunate, because much of the best material on most subjects is in that unfortunate status.DGG (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edinburgh: A Novel

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Edinburgh: A Novel, 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}}. DGG (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to see that it was notable, and I have asked on the article talk page for more details and also a shorter section on the plot. I suggest you do the same for all of the articles on works of fiction you have been submitting. My agenda in this is not hidden: I want to sort out the notable books from the non-notable, remove the ones that are not notable, and strengthen the articles for the books that are notable. the user of the encyclopedia is best served not by a detailed account of the plot, but an explanation of why the book is worth paying attention to in the first place. The amount of detail in the plot would just be enough to make it clear what the book is about & who the characters are--the way I think of it is so someone who sees the book mentioned in a discussion somewhere will be able to find out what is being discussed and why.
My agenda throughout WP is the same--I want strong articles, emphasis on both strong and articles. Sometimes this means drastic cuts, the need for which is often best judged by outsiders. I think of WP:PROD as , well a "prod" in the ordinary sense of the word. 21:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure most people agree with you on short plot descriptions. Have a look at the latest Harry Potter article! Where I've done a short summary, people have called them stubs and asked for more details. The trouble with adding non plot stuff is that it can be interpreted as OR.Tony 14:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Tony
yes, the way some people talk, there's no winning with the articles on novels. But what always works in WP{ is sources. surely in all the reviews of a prize winning book, there is some discussion of the plot--get the reviews--the full text--and find it, and put it in as in-line footnotes according to WP:FOOT. Looking back on the Le Miserables discussion, instead of just finding articles, we should have actually read them and made references to key parts of the plot as they sources discussed it.
as for the present status, I think you've done very well as a first cut. (but I'm going to say it is not clear to me what happens after the viewpoint shifts--that section sounds like an anticlimax--what is the situation as the book ends?). I may try some more, but if I make errors correct me--I have not read the book. the point of the account is to tell me what happens so I will know if someone else refers to it. DGG (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your question...

First off, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings Tony. But negative comments about contributions and articles are not forbidden under any policy in Wikipedia. Personal attacks, directed at and about a particular individual are strictly forbidden. But I did not call you, or your contributions in particular, a "turd", I called an article that. And there is no policy that even discourages me from being critical of articles. You are not the only contributor to the article I was critical of. VanTucky (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Raising-cain.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Raising-cain.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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Real-boys'-voices.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Real-boys'-voices.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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination of Pål Johan Karlsen for deletion

Your nomination of Pål Johan Karlsen for deletion linked back to a previous deletion discussion. I have fixed the link and opened a new discussion here if you wish to comment. Best, IronGargoyle

[edit] Is this your real name?

Is this your real name or is it from the main character of the book Sandel? Just wondering? Jmm6f488 05:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Men-they-will-become.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Men-they-will-become.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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Amazing-grace-and-chuck.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Amazing-grace-and-chuck.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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your article on mentoring relationships between adults and children

I came across it accidentally while doing a google search, and was quite surprised to see it had been deleted, and also disappointed with the level of the discussion at the deletion page. If you would like a hand in resurrecting the article, please let me know. It seems like a valuable resource that should not be lost, and far more encyclopedic than some of the lists currently treasured on this site. Haiduc 00:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Err, its not a good idea to restart a deleted article anbd it would be a candidate for speedy deletion, SqueakBox 00:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Who are you?! I was addressing myself to Tony. Haiduc 01:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am another wikipedian and I was pointing out to both of you that it isnt a good idea to re-create said article. Its on my watchlist and it was deleted for good reasons. If you want a private conversation with Tony there is always email but if you say stuff like you did others will take an interest. That is because this is a page on wikipedia, SqueakBox 01:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 01:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I will point you to List of fictional revolutions and coups for an example of a very similar article. Presumably it has not been deleted because it does not interfere with anyone's political agenda. The deletion of Tony's article is a clear hatchet job, as evidenced by the NAMBLA smears which were used against him, and it. A list of works depicting mentorship relations is clearly a useful resource (i.e. List of fictional youth mentoring relationships). And I might have been more receptive to your chiming in if you had provided a couple of words of explanation for your position. Haiduc 03:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the reasons for deletion are outlined in the Afd, and IMO its way too vague a title. Oliver Twist and Fagin? How far do you go? SqueakBox 19:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Visit-home.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Visit-home.gif. 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. BetacommandBot 14:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My work on Onslow

Thanks for your comment from March. I have created an article on Frances Vernon and I'm in the process of creating one on 'The Fall of Doctor Onslow'. I shall also put a link into the Vaughan article as you suggested. The Relativist 08:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC) My work on Onslow is now pretty much complete.The Relativist 21:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sarah-novel.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarah-novel.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 06:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Really?

Do you seriously not have anything better to do than critiquing my edit summaries? I do not appreciate you trying to tell me how I should record my edits, my language was robust but not offensive. Exxolon 21:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Half-the-house.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Half-the-house.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 07:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Young Girl

Here's a source for you, and I'll add it to the article: http://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2006/08/gary-puckett-and-the-union-gap-young-girl/

According to this source, the liner notes for the Greatest Singles Boxed set say the song Young Girl was a “…warning to a would be lover of an underage girl of the consequences of him not being able to resist her charms”, and the lyrics speak for themselves: Young girl, get out of my mind My love for you is way out of line Better run, girl, You're much too young, girl With all the charms of a woman You've kept the secret of your youth You led me to believe You're old enough To give me Love And now it hurts to know the truth, Oh, Beneath your perfume and make-up You're just a baby in disguise And though you know That it is wrong to be Alone with me That come on look is in your eyes, Oh, So hurry home to your mama I'm sure she wonders where you are Get out of here Before I have the time To change my mind 'Cause I'm afraid we'll go too far, Oh, Young girl.

Seems pretty clear to me...but then, maybe I'm just a foul minded old lady. :-D Jeffpw 12:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to delete the refs or the entire edit. The subject doesn't interest me, and I just sort of fell into the article. Happy editing. (edited to add: OMG! I went directly to the Young Girl page of the second ref. I had no idea it was a Pedo site! Sheesh! Wow! Argh! <speechless here> Tghis feels like when my nana bought a "Baby Realistic" for her neighbor's Down's Syndrome child by mistake. Jeffpw 15:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophilia and sexual abuse in fiction

Tony - please do not revert my changes without discussion. My edits were not 'pro-pedophile activism', but were much-needed revisions to the page as a whole. Strichmann —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strichmann (talk • contribs) 09:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loving Sander

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with Loving Sander. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. --Orange Mike 15:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of the lists

Hi. Why do you think that "sex and children in..." is unacceptable? A.Z. 01:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfDs: Dares to Speak & Loving Sander

I've nominated two articles that you wrote. There's nothing wrong with your writing but the books do not appear to sufficiently notable to have reliable 3rd-party sources. You can add your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loving Sander and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dares to Speak. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burroughs Queer

I don't think lusting after 12-14 year olds is pedophilia; it certainly would not qualify in law as pedophilia, and it strikes me that labeling artistic expression as the same thing as sexual acts on a minor child, even as depicted in literature, is blurring an elemental disntiction. That being said I do know that Burroughs is over the top in many of his books- and I am a big believer in interpreting "art" as commonsense before one tries to go deeper, or higher, depending upon your point of view, about a story. I know his routine about the slave salesman in Queer would loose many, as the satire is, shall we say, sharp like a ten pound axe. If I say I see the commidification of persons in the satire of that section, and a deep social comment on the nature of emerging acquistive American society, then you can just as rightly say you see pedophilia, I guess. I am unaware of how you came to determine the age of these persons as 12 though. If you are talking about the South American kids maybe you can explain the age reference- it doesn't stick in my mind that there are any 12 year olds "lusted after" by Lee. So if you want to detail the instance in the Pedophilia in literature (boys), you may have some resaonable cause, but you're getting into a very unenlightened place in my opinion when you try to themetically assess a novel based on aspects of character's personality and psychology in abstraction from the whole story. The guy is a homo- to be blunt- if he sees sexual qualities in young people- its not pedophilia. The term jailbait has such popular currency for reasons that seem too obvious to mention, and these type of thoughts or feelings are not pedophilia. I mean I was just watching a Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward film on tv recently called Mr. and Mrs. Bridge and there is scene where Newman, looks out the window at his daughter and sees her sunbathing then grabs his wife. Is that incest in literature, or just human insight. I am going to stick this on the Talk:Queer (novel) page too if others want to comment to. --Mikerussell 17:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Second-best.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Second-best.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 19:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Guy Davenport

Please don't copy the text of other articles and paste it into Guy Davenport. The same material should not exist in two places in Wikipedia--that's why we have wikilinks. (In addition, you inadvertently pasted the ref list and cats from one of the articles into the Davenport article, thereby messing it up even more.) Deor 21:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Related technical question: Despite your having said that they would be deleted, the APPLES AND PEARS, THE CARDIFF TEAM, and A TABLE OF GREEN FIELDS entries all still exist, in various forms. (If one enters "THE CARDIFF TEAM" into Wikipedia search, one is taken to the GUY DAVENPORT page, which is potentially confusing; if "APPLES and PEARS", one ends up at the A + P page as trimmed down by "Neon white".)

Are these three individual book pages really going to be deleted, or not? SocJan 00:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


[From a post you made to "Neon white's" Discussion page:] [ . . .]On the matter of Apples and Pears, I think you'll find that editor SocJan is the one who started not abiding by Wikipedia codes.Tony 20:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Tony
Please explain exactly how it is that I "started not abiding by Wikipedia codes".
Which "codes"?
In what way(s) "not abiding"?
You must either support this charge or retract it by crossing it through. This is the second or third instance in less than a week that you have accused me of some motive or some action, failing to support your accusations with any specifics even after being challenged to do so. I have never questioned your motives. When I have found your posts in violation of Wikipedia rules, I have specified exactly which rules. Please extend to me the same courtesy. SocJan 01:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


"Neon white" is correct in asserting that Wikipedia does not allow editors to write original summaries of fictions, and to put fictions into categories, unless those summaries and categories are beyond dispute. Again and again you say, in effect, "It's obvious; the works clearly have this content and the work can be categorized as I say".

When content and category ARE obvious and undisputed, you should be able to find support -- in Library of Congress subject headings, for example. But you insist on including works that the LOC does not categorize as you do, and providing summaries that are far from indisputably neutral. In such cases, you are unquestionably doing ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Perhaps you are just ahead of your time, and the Library of Congress and others will eventually catch up to you.

In the meantime, Wikipedia NOR and NPOV guidelines absolutely forbid editors from proceding as you want to do, claiming that your plot summaries and categorizations are jusified by the texts themselves. Your readings of texts are your readings; it is not obvious that all readers will agree with you.

A book published in 1952 and set in England can usually be categorized in Wikipedia as published in 1952 and set in England, without reference to any source beyond the book itself -- because these sorts of fact are only rarely disputed.

But for a Wikipedia editor to assert, say, that a particular novel has a "theme" of "animal abuse", pointing to a passage in which a man kicks a dog, will not do. First, such a categorization would be original research. Second, if no scholarly article or other published commentary on that book calls special attention to "abuse of animals" in any plot summary or discussion of the book, for an editor to assert in a Wikipedia article that "animal abuse" is a "theme" of the book would be to adopt a non-neutral point of view.

What about this is still not clear? SocJan 01:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (boys)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. --Neon white 13:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You seriously need to go read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR.

Wikipedia:Verifiability says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Sometimes it is better to have no information than to have information without a source.

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation

Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way.

If you took the time to read the guidelines on editing you would already know all this and not be under such a strange misapprehension as to what wikipedia's purpose is. --Neon white 23:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Goodnight-mister-tom.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Goodnight-mister-tom.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 05:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] discussion started about pedophilia list article

Please read the message I've left on the article's talk page about our dispute here. Your input would be greatly appreciated. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Never-the-same-again.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Never-the-same-again.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) 21:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:List of works of literature in which an adult is physically attracted to a youth

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Instead, assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. --neonwhite user page talk 19:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --neonwhite user page talk 18:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Neon white is a hypocrite in making the above accusations. He has accused me of "bad faith editing" on the talk page of the article referred to above. Does anyone know how to get an independent arbitrator involved? Copied onto his talk page. Tony (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Tony

We have more than enough evidence of your personal attacks and disregard for wikipedia policy. Commenting on and dealing with disruptive editors is not a personal attack it is part of editing. As WP:AGF says This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. --neonwhite user page talk 01:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:A-boys-own-story.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:A-boys-own-story.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) 04:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bump-in-the-night.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bump-in-the-night.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) 04:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


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

Thanks for uploading Image:Avoidance.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) 04:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] = February 2008

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --neonwhite user page talk 00:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Be warned. Your personal attacks and vandalism will not be tolerated any further. --neonwhite user page talk 00:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


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

Thanks for uploading Image:Ekaterina.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) 19:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dream-children.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dream-children.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) 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Info requested

Tony, what is going on with NeonWhite and SocJan, and what is going on over at Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (boys) or whatever it is currently called? Why was the name changed? Why are there now two versions? Can you get me up to speed on this? Herostratus (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tony, Thanks for responding on the Talk pages of Herostratus and of your original article. Very helpful.
A problem with keeping the List of Books and deleting the original article is that doing it that way would cause the project's extensive history and Talk page to be lost. Or at least that is what I gather from reading about forks after requesting a history merge; the person who responded said he could see no way to move the history to your newer article. He recommended deletion of the forked article.
I think the best article would be achieved by editing the original to incorporate improvements you made at the fork, and then deleting the new one. I especially like your division of books about boys and about girls, within each alphabetical category. SocJan (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with that as a process. It's the name of the article I am concerned about and it suits a List better. i.e. List of books/films featuring (adult) sexual attraction to children. I think the adult is superfluous.Tony (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Tony
I agree that great care must go into devising a name for the article that will truly reflect the content on the page.
I think you want to avoid the word "featuring" if the list continues to include works in which the attraction is not in fact a central part of the story. Check out Wikipedia's definition of "featuring". (I believe I've mentioned this problem before, on the Talk page of the fork article.)
Also: Eliminating "adult", leaving only "sexual attraction to children", could appear to include sexual attraction to a "child" by another "child" -- in short, the genre that some people call "coming of age" stories, couldn't it? Given all the exchanges about precision in age (definitions of "youth", "child", etc.) that have taken place on the Talk pages, full discussion of the name of the article before any further change would seem to be in order.
But why aren't we discussing this on the Talk page(s) of the article(s)? An administrator asked that this discussion be kept in a single place, and now it's spreading out over our User Talk pages. Can we agree to return it to the article? A lot of the trouble with the page has been failure to follow basic Wikipedia procedures. SocJan (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morte a Venezia

If we re-integrate the two existing articles under the title either of List of Pedophilia in literature or List of Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in literature, or something like that, would you in turn be willing to reconsider on Death in Venice.

I haven't read the book which obviously puts me at a disadvantage, but is Gustav's obsession necessarily pedophilic?

To me, pedophilia basically means wanting to have sex with the person. Right? Is that where Gustav is coming from?

Couldn't it be that he is longing for, say, his own lost youth or the family he never had or whatever? Or just wanting an antidote to his own onrushing death?

Also, wouldn't it be unusual for pedophilia to manifest itself only at an advanced age like that?

Might it be fair to say that it's impossible to reduce Mann's book to a single label, partly because he is such a great artist.

Are you willing to give on this point if we get the list back to its proper title? Herostratus (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No 'fraid not Herostratus, pedophilia is sexual attraction, not wanting sex. The feelings can lie dormant for years and there is nothing in D0V that gives clues on this for GvA. Pedophilia is by no means the only label for DoV, it could sit happily in Books on struggling artists etc. Books classified as horror or mystery could also have a pedophilia theme or many others. If we use 'sexual attraction to children' then we get around different interpretations of the word pedophilia. Tony (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Tony

[edit] AfD nomination of List of books featuring pedophilia

An editor has nominated List of books featuring pedophilia, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books featuring pedophilia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Pederastic filmography

I have not been on top of this lately, and I am somewhat ambivalent about the deletion, but it would have been nice to chat a bit beforehand. Let me think about it. Haiduc (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos!

Tony! Excellent work merging the various pages of literature involving sexual attraction of adults to adolescents or children! And you succeeded in retaining the extensive Talk page that accompanied your original article. Here's hoping, after all that discussion and work, that everyone can now concentrate on making the article more and more accurate and complete. SocJan (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Ernesto.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. BJBot (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents

An editor has nominated List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents

An editor has nominated List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents

I have nominated List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant AN/I

An Incident report pertaining to you and PetraSchelm has been filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent, serious personal attacks by User:PetraSchelm --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

Can you give me some links to these afds? I have noticed some but thought they were just cleanups after merges etc. --neonwhite user page talk 15:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

They look like they are all going to be kept to me. --neonwhite user page talk 23:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents

People can see the unsourced list in the history. We do not restore contentious unsourced content just so that people can see it slightly more easily during a deletion debate, especially since this may impact on living individuals. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of works for the theatre portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you.Mysteryquest (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here. by calling PetraSchelm a vandal. Please comment on content, not editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mysteryquest (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here. Please comment on content, not editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mysteryquest (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hours for disruption on the various list articles on pedophilia related media, specifically for gratuitously accusing other editors of vandalism when actually it's a content dispute, and for repeatedly reinserting contentious and unsourced or poorly sourced content. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retirement

See my user page. Tony (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Tony

And you will be very welcome upon your return! Knowledgable editors on controversial topics is a must if the WikiPedia project is to flourish. I have myself stayed out of much of the heat relating to the contentious pedophilia-related articles or I'm sure I too would suffer battle fatigue. I take it that is at least part of what you are now experiencing. Hope to see you around when you feel you are ready for another leap! Cheers! __meco (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I was sorry to read this. I have just tried to start taking the book list article back to the way we agreed it should be a few weeks ago. But I don't feel I can do it on my own, partly because of lack of experience with complex edits and partly because I need the subject-specific expertise of others also. Only on visiting this page did I discover about your 'retirement'. With SocJan also gone for a while (though I've tried to ask him back), I might feel obliged to chuck in the towel myself. Any chance you'd reconsider?The Relativist (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Not while editors JzG, Mysteryquest and PetraSchlem are allowed to act as they have been, Sorry.Tony (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Tony

[edit] April 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did here, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You yourself admitted on your user page that original research and the lack of supporting references was a problem with the selection of many of the works including in the "list" articles. Mysteryquest (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The above "warning" seems quite unfounded. If you have an issue with an earnest editor, don't go slapping silly warning templates on his talk page. I'm sure you are capable of putting your grievance in your own words. It's very hard, you know, commencing a discussion with a template message. __meco (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)