User talk:AerobicFox/Archive 2

Join the discussion on the proposed official Wikipedia theme song here.

---

Blenn Geck, etc.

Guess who Blenn Geck turned out to be a sock of. Here's a hint:
 :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No wai!

apparently the O RLY owl image is copyrighted....

Oh well. Thanks for letting me know.AerobicFox (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Johno334

I've only had the one interaction with Johno334. Whatever their intentions, the good faith warning is a necessary first step. If you suspect this is a sock account or a ban evader, but don't know who, perhaps someone from the Corps of administrators will recognize the modus operandi. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AFD

Please remove or strike your tally box at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan (2nd nomination), which I struck and you unstruck, per WP:AFD#AfD Wikietiquette. How does "Do not add tally boxes" not apply to you? Besides the explicit instruction at WP:AFD not to add such a box, AFD is not a vote. Also it is quickly incorrect, as editors change their votes or additional ones and chime in after the tally box. How many other AFDs do you see with tally boxes? That is something which should not come up until the closing admin looks over the number as well as the strength of arguments, and it is common to ignore a great many of the !votes, such as in the AFD for which this was the DRV for Serene Branson. It also encourages canvassing ("We only need x more votes to sway the case to our side!")Sorry that I struck your inappropriate tally box rather than waiting for you to remove it after a request on your talk page, but you were demanding a speedy close of the AFD based on it, which would have made any further requests or actions moot, so I felt time was of the essence. Thanks. Edison (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

While it is against wikietiquette it is not against policy. An AfD (Or MFD this case) here on wikipedia is figured out by the strength of the arguements, even if there are 6 for keep and 2 for delete if the two who want it deleted bring up a good enough reason for deletion the result could be no consensus or even delete. I am all for keeping wikipe-tan by the way =), I have seen the votes but I know just the votes alone do not matter much WP:Vote - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologize but I think you misunderstand my reasons for giving the vote count. I do indeed acknowledge that this is not a vote, but once an afd gets as large as that one it can be hard for people to keep track of the positions of everyone, the vote count was just to better help people visualize. Also, Afd is not a policy or guideline, but just supplemental material created to explain how these typically proceed and how editors generally behave. I have gone ahead and removed the poll though as a sign of good will; if you wish to continue the discussion then by all means.AerobicFox (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sure you had good intentions so dont worry about it. The whole debate over wikipe-tan has been going on for over a week now started up by this sock user, it has grown heated and chairs have been thrown, I am just waiting for it to end here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am also waiting for this to cool down and go away without any more outbreaks of shouting.AerobicFox (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your good-faith move, which I really appreciate. Note that although it is "Not a policy or guideline," when someone posts multiple "Keep" or "Delete" !votes they similarly get struck, every time. The instructions for AFD have evolved to represent the consensus of the community, and are comparable to policies or guidelines in that they represent "how things are done." Thus I feel that tally boxes are inappropriate and should be removed, since a closing admin can and does tally the !votes differently, depending on how well they cite policies/guidelines. If the AFD instructions need changing, then one can go and try and change them, rather than ignoring them. Edison (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Placing extra votes is a bit different from counting votes, and attempts to establish community consensus for WP:AfD would be plagued with difficulties. Anyways, let's just move on from this.AerobicFox (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI

76.119.137.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You are being discussed here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice.AerobicFox (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. Nice meeting you. Good luck.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you too.AerobicFox (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I reported the IP to WP:ANI, just in case someone feels like darning a sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

In the night when there's nobody there, what does he care?AerobicFox (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

^^that was a Beetles reference 07:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Great. Now I've got Eleanor running through my head. In stocking feet, yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the IP has been put in the sock drawer for the next month. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And it did not escape me that the IP did virtually no real editing, but merely tried to inflame other editors (including on his "parting shot" after being blocked). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe he'll read this and then try editing next time before coming to the GB talk page in an effort to divert suspicion. Although maybe I'm overestimating the effort he would put into this(I hope so).AerobicFox (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Geolocating IPs

Hello, I'm sorry to use your talk page for the matter not connected directly to encyclopedia, but let me recommend yet another tool for IP geolocation, called whatismyipaddress.com. Among the few I've tried, it's the most accurate one. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Also, please feel free to post any type of helpful advice/etc here, I am happy to receive it.AerobicFox (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: User box sleeping in

Yes, you need to do it manually. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 00:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. AerobicFox (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ruto remark on Legend of Zelda page

I don't think that the single comment belongs because there's no context to explain it. You said it's not hard to understand, but I'm assuming that you've played the game. It wouldn't be hard to hard to understand for someone who has played because they understand what's going on. They remember that the text specifically says that Link doesn't understand what Ruto means about engagement (When you first receive the Zora's Sapphire). The person who played the game will also remember adult Link's reaction to Ruto in the Water Temple when she calls him her husband. And, the player will remember her saying that they can't be together because she's a sage when she gives him the Water Medallion. But the average person reading the page has none of that context. He only sees one line about a symbol of engagement between the two of them. There's no context to explain it so it would be very easy for the non-player to misunderstand what was being said. It would be easy to think that the two of them were planning on getting married and were happy to do so. Therefore, I don't think the sentence belongs UNLESS more is written on it as explanation. However, I also don't think it's a vital point so I would question how much it needs to be in the article in the first place. Thanks. Ultimahero — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimahero (talk • contribs) 04:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine.AerobicFox (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing my perspective.Ultimahero (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

Sudheerpdv listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sudheerpdv. Since you had some involvement with the Sudheerpdv redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ravendrop 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Peggy Kleinplatz.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Peggy Kleinplatz.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Peggy Kleinplatz.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Peggy Kleinplatz.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Pull up dispute

If you would join me on Talk:Pull-up (exercise)#Additions by AerobicFox, I take issue with some of the changes you've made here and would like to discuss the dispute. DB (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI.

I mentioned a point you made here. Hope all is well. V7-sport (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool, hope all is well with you too. =) AerobicFox (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Tulāsana for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tulāsana is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulāsana until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Factual addendum to above template notification: The AfD discussion concerns a total of 58 asana articles. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 15:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments at WP:RSN, I have responded with a further question if I may impose a little more. Thank you once again. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you think a WQA would be appropriate for Collect's irritating habit of using the <g> emoticon? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Polar Record

Did not republish the Tatham work - the cite you give is for the review found on page 384. The review states that the work has "embellished" biographies, and was more than 10% written by Tatham who has no real notability as an historian of any sort. Cheers - I trust you will emend the "republished" comment at RSN. Collect (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)