User talk:Ah0000000ga

Talk page for templates relating to pagan topics

Hello there, I'm aware that at least five different templates have recently been produced and added to pages within this general area. I'm a bit concerned that this profusion has taken place without much discussion from editors who work on these articles, and I'd suggest that this should be discussed centrally so that there is a degree of uniformity in articles within the same family. I'm writing to you because I know you have been adding at least one of these templates and will therefore have an interest. If you would like to join this discussion, please do not reply here, but go instead to the talk page I have set up for this purpose. Of course if you want to have a 1:1 discussion about this, then please do reply here or on my own talk page. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Further to this: I see you're adding a template to a lot of Wiccan articles. As you will see from that template's talk page it never really achieved consensus for use. I'm going to revert your placement of it, and suggest that maybe we discuss the whole template thing at the talk page linked above. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Kim here, I've just reverted some of your mass additions of this template. Please seek consensus before attempting to replace it. Thank you. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Triple Goddess

See Talk:Triple_Goddess#Wicca_template... AnonMoos (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of DudesNude.com

A tag has been placed on DudesNude.com, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mayalld (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding hangon

Adding a hangon template doesn't mean that the page won't be deleted. It is a message to say that you believe that the problem with the page can be fixed. If the admin who reviews the request believes that it cannot, then the page will still be deleted. Mayalld (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted within a minute because it was an absolute no-brainer. That article was clearly eligible for speedy under both G11 (advertising) and A7 (non-notable web content). Hanging on isn't relevant, because nothing that you can do to the article will make it notable. That is why it has been deleted three times by three different admins.

If you believe that everybody got it wrong, your correct course is to take it to DRV, which is like AfD in reverse. If it is restored by DRV, it makes it pretty much safe from a future speedy deletion. What is not the correct way to proceed is recreating the article repeatedly after it has been deleted. Mayalld (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I can only repeat. If you think it was wrong, take it to DRV. The the fact that other articles are allowed is never an argument that works. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Mayalld (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Please stop adding inappropriate images to Wikipedia, as you did to Sodomy law. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. Dekisugi (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you add an inappropriate image to an article, as you did to Human sexual behavior, you will be blocked from editing. Dekisugi (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been warned

Your vandalism actions have been reported. Dekisugi (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah0000000ga has a point. While I agree the image is unencyclopædic and does not appear to add anything at all to the articles in question, it is not being added "randomly". Please, Ah0000000ga and Dekisugi, discuss this further. How, Ah0000000ga, do you think the image imprves the articles to which you added it? Merely adding it "because you can" looks rather like you trying to make some sort of a point. Tonywalton ^Talk 13:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Meandmybf.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Meandmybf.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Exploding Boy (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The image in question

You've already breached WP:3RR on Bareback (sex) in relation to the image in question. I've reverted you on the page in question because it's a controversial topic which you're pushing without having ascertained consensus on the point. Plus I wonder whether you're breaching WP:Autobiography or have a WP:COI... ;-) Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 23:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have? I didn't know i reverted the image more than 3 times in one day, could you provide the diffs for that claim please? I was just trying to be bold, and other peoples arguements are contrary to policy and practice in similar articles. As for autobio, that about articles about yourself. The image is actually of a friend of mine and his boyfriend i just wanted to use it and helped them put it up. My main point is to have an image for this article, which is why we created meandmybf.jpg in the first place, no try to find somewhere to put and image we like. I have even asked that other people suggest alternative images or that they alter the image somehow.Ah0000000ga (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Thank you for responding =)Ah0000000ga (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Most people were just very ride and dismissive and immediately told me i was vandalizing the article unjustifiedely, one of the recent comments was, you answer two peoples comments together you are playing games don't be a dick. I disregarded them.Ah0000000ga (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are your diffs :

1 [1]

2 [2]

3 [3]

Please be sure not to chase people for responses on Wikipedia - it's not like being in an office - and bear in mind that people may have other things to do in the meantime so might not be able to revert immediately with responses! Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 23:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not in violation off 3RR the edits occurred on the 17 20 and 21, 3rr must all occur during the same day or else it is not 3rr violation. I'm sorry if you feel accosted, you don't have to respond, i was simplifying informing you that i had replied and since i reply on my own page the only way to let you know is to inform you on your page. I don't know if you are in an office or wherever and i don't care, chill out. I wasn't demanding an immediate response so ya know.Ah0000000ga (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologise - you are correct, and I apologise for not having looked closer at the history. I don't feel accosted, just chased - you replied, then replied again asking for a response. Normally I find that leave a response, and if the person wants to reply then they will. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 23:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt chased, i can see how "would you answer" made you feel that way. I just didn't know how to say that i had left my message on my page. I did feel a sense of urgency since i was surprised that i had allegedly violated 3rr. also i like to have the whole discussion in one place.

Don't worry about it - I've found that people will generally monitor pages and / or talk pages that they are involved in. Anyway, must go. Am watching Mrs. Brown and can't remember how much of it is based on fact. Have an enjoyable festive season. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 00:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that repeatedly inserting information or images into a given article against or without consensus can be taken as an example of tendentious editing. Please don't feel that the 3RR rule gives you 3 free reverts per day; that's not how it works. The image you have created is clearly controversial among Wikipedia editors, having been removed from every article you've attempted to place it in. I would suggest that you take that into consideration. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on that page, there is the commonsense practice of checking out similar articles, and ignoring unwarranted hysterical and emotionally motivated "i don't like it", its just a penis in a butt. Any debate would be tendentious, and the image was removed without any justification many times with allegations of vandalism, simply trying to exonerate and establish whether or not i broke any rules doesn't make me tendentious, it makes me concerned for the way things work here. I am simply following the policies and if you don't like them tough. But a small group of wikiality-driven individuals isn't going to convince me that i can't edit as i am free to do. My most recent edits were in an attempt to reach a compromise, placing the image in a less visable location which would require scrolling, and using a hide/show box for those who wish to see a comprehensive informative graphic depiction of the article's subject matter. These images are always controvertial and are often removed by PC-nazis and pornophobes. This image is not porn, because its purpose is while perhaps dual use is to inform on this article.Ah0000000ga (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The consensus so far is not to have that image in the article. Your argument here (which acknowledges the image's pornographic style) isn't helping you at all. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You make me want to hurl! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboutidea (talk • contribs) 18:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)