User talk:Munatobe7

Welcome!

Hello, Munatobe7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Natalie 01:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poppers[edit]

Hi Munatobe, your editing of Poppers has been reported as vandalism, I think because you seem to be removing large amounts of referenced material. I'm having difficulty judging whether the removal is justified because I don't know anything about the topic. Could you explain why you've removed the material that was referenced? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Munatobe,

Thanks for your edits on the Poppers article. However, I'm not convinced about all of your edits—I've checked the citations, and all the sources seem good to me, and the article text matched the citation. I've thus reversed some of the changes back to matching the original source.

With the note regarding glaucoma sufferers, I've reinserted the point in something more like its original sense, but I've added an additional reference, as the previous one did not fully explain the point.

Again, thanks for your edits—all help to improve Wikipedia is much appreciated. me_and 10:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Munatobe, I din't come with a view to this article. I was just surprised to see Poppers connected with AIDS and related problems because I had thought all that was ancient history before HIV was identified when people were trying to work out why a lot of gay men were becoming ill amd poppers was an obvious candidate. As the latest relevant reference I could find in MEDLINE was not mentioned in the article and seemed to have a clear conclusion, I mentioned it in the talk. I did think the bombardment of additional topics rather than a more conventional comment in reply to my post rather odd.

BTW your recent reversion of an edit in the article is a slight misunderstanding. The post wasn't vandalism. There is a song called "Pharmacist's Daughter" which mentions poppers in the first line as suggested. However, the edit that inserted the mention was clumsy and was probably meant for the "in popular culture" section. However, there is a general issue in wikipedia with the huge amount of trivia and inclusions need a clear rationale and an argument threaded through them. A random hotchpotch of allusions without any logic is strongly discouraged by the anti-trivia police. --Peter cohen 00:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi yes. A reply to the person's talk page is the conventional method. That way they get a warning that there's a message. Some people insist on replying on their own page, but unless they're running a robot or something similarly major, I don't think that is the best way to do it.--Peter cohen 19:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Munatobe, Thanks for spotting my editing error. --Peter cohen 21:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Chemicalpropsnitrites.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Chemicalpropsnitrites.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Hi, on the images you just uploaded for Poppers, I'm a bit concerned—

Image:Diffbrandssizespoppers.jpg—this looks like an edited version of other pictures. Can you mention where you obtained the pictures? Even though you edited the image, it is still a derivitive of these other pictures which may be under copyright, and if so, the permission of the copyright holder is still required.
Image:Amyadvertforwiki.jpg—I think I remember seeing this on another website; I don't think you can claim that you created it, as you have by using {{PD-self}}, and again, it is probably under copyright. If so, and permission from the copyright holder can't be obtained, it may be possible to use it under fair use. However, the source needs to be provided, and it needs to conform with a host of other rules for non-free content—see the link above.
Image:Chemicalpropsnitrites.jpg—I'm guessing this is a scan from a 1963 book or report or something, in which case, the same as the above applies. In any case, it is generally considered bad form to upload text as an image, as it makes articles much harder for people with disabilities to read.

Additionally, you may wish to upload free (public domain, GFDL, etc) images to Wikimedia Commons in future—that way, all the various wikis can use them, not just the English language Wikipedia.

I've not removed the images above yet, as I don't know whether or not you do have permission to use the images. I have removed Image:Leonardo's Sphincter Musclessmall.jpg, on the grounds that it isn't about poppers, and it doesn't add anything to the article. Readers who want to know about the sphincter muscles can find out about them from the wikilinks.

Wikipedia does need to be quite strict about copyright, so I'm sorry if this comes over as being somewhat strict, but it is necessary to monitor for non-free content on Wikipedia.

me_and 13:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meand. Having never had experience with images on Wikipedia I took the "easy way out" and probably violated every rule there is (plus my eyes were glazed over just trying to read and make sense of the huge amount of what's written on Wikipedia about images). In my zeal to try to dress up the article, I just kept searching and searching and found an obscure site with the bottles. But I noticed that the same images of the individual bottles are all over the web on what seem to be dozens of sites. So I opted to grab one and use it. I may have screwed up.

I agree with you about Leonardo's "Sphincter Muscles". Though an amazing drawing (as were all his sketches of the human body), it probably didn't belong in the poppers article. I placed it there in an effort to try to dress up the section as well as because I thought it related to the sphincter aspect of the physiological effects of inhalation of nitrites. (Actually, the way you've re-arragned the page is much more visually appealing.)

You're also right about the chemical Properties image. I'd downloaded the book on nitrites and it's a graphic in that book. I cut it from the PDF. I thought about asking for permission, but just didn't do it. (I opted for the instant gratification of trying to beautify the article instead).

The Amyl advert is on at least two sites, one of them a site that Hank Wilson is related to. I thought it might appease him, and also since it was an old advert from 25 years ago, that it might be permissible to use it just because of that.

I understand the need to be strict re copyright. I should have approached this is in a more measured way. I just wanted to dress up the article (I may be exactly the kind of person for whom Wikipedia has created all the rules to keep from violating copyrights!). If you want to remove any of the other images I'd have no objection to that. Thanks for 'keeping us honest'! Munatobe7 16:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poppers image[edit]

Hi Manatobe, thanks for your message. I suppose my reasons for reverting to the old image were:

It's a high quality photo
All the bottles are at the same perspective
None of the bottles overlap
The copyright issues have been resolved (see here).

I guess I wo't die in a ditch over this but I do feel the home office image is better. We can always start a thread on the poppers' talk page. Thanks Andeggs 15:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Originalamylbox.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Originalamylbox.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. —Bkell (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poppers[edit]

Hi, Doing complete revert (as you did on the Poppers article) is a technique which is supposed to be used for vandalism. You undid a lot of good faith efforts to improve the page. Re: combining the one-sentence by-country sections into a paragraph. Look at encyclopedia Britannica...you won't see a heading for every 2 sentences. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at the History page showed that my good faith edits got the same treatment as vandals who replaced the page with nonsense or redirected the page to a nonsense title (HOgger). As I indicated in the talk page for Poppers, your "total revert" approach removed the edits that arguably should be discussed (collapsing headings for 1 sentence long sections...though it seems logical to me, fine, it should be discussed) AND the basic copyediting. Or are you suggesting that copyediting needs approval from the consensus of editors for the article? OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OnBeyondZebrax. Thanks for your edits to the poppers article. The reason I'd reverted all of them last night was that I was too tired to go through so many, and the only time the article has seen that many edits at one time has been when vandals have attacked it. In the talk section you'll see that, in the past, when any of us who have spent untold hours trying to build the article into a credible repository of accurate information on poppers have seen such large edits, we've reverted most of them because they almost all were the work of vandals.

Having had time now to go over your many edits, it's refreshing to have such a high quality contributor make needed edits!

Thanks again for your meaningful contribution!

Respectfull, Munatobe7 (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am trying to correct a grammar issue. The discussion on the survey of construction workers, dancers, etc. has too big a gap between the principal parts of the sentence. Before my edits it said (roughly): "A late 1970s survey.......(LENGTHY LIST)....showed that.." The "lengthy list" makes too big a gap between the subject and predicate. It is like saying, in a sentence about a cat who catches a mouse: "The cat, who was sitting on the ledge, soaking in the sun, enjoying the breeze, and listening to the wind, caught the mouse."OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poppers images[edit]

In reply to your message on my talk page, I've had to deleted a number of the images you uploaded. That's because they were marked as "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.", when in fact they were copyrighted, and they hadn't been released under those terms. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Leonardo's Sphincter Musclessmall.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Leonardo's Sphincter Musclessmall.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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]