User talk:Archivey/Archive1

Venezuelan British

Hi. Just to let you know that a comment you made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venezuelan British has caused some confusion. It might be an idea to return to it and clarify what you meant. Thanks, and thanks for contributing to the discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2009 January 2

I notice that you contributed to IFD debate on 02 Jan 09. You might be aware that the closing admin of most of the images on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2009 January 2 has deliberately gone against the consensus of the IFD discussions for some images! In effect totally ignoring our submissions and deleting the images anyway when consensus was to Keep. This is against the rules of wikipedia and needs addressing. If you feel aggrieved about an image that was unjustly deleted you should raise the issue here Wikipedia:Deletion review andi064 ^{T . C} 08:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've submitted my opinion to that debate, but I doubt that it is going to save your work… sorry. Fairly shocking behaviour in my mind. The two admins involved in getting your image deleted seem to be a pair of idiots who work as a double act . So I’m going to watch them like a hawk and have them de-admin'd if they step out of line by closing each others nominations against consensus again, all the best Archivey (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

POV accusation

Greetings; I just wanted to follow up on the comments you made on my deletion proposal for two images. The discussion is moot since I was not in the right forum. But your comment "Nominator needs to understand that not agreeing with the message an image conveys is not a critrea for deletion on this encyclopedia" needs to be addressed -- I actually do understand that, and if you read my nomination, you would see that I never suggested that my agreement with a particular message was a criterion for images. I appreciate your input, but I just wanted to clarify that your accusation that the nomination was "pure POV" is false and attributes bad faith to me. There are many images on Wikipedia that I don't necessarily agree with (including several almost exactly like this), but this image in particular was suggested for deletion by multiple editors on the talk page of an article where the photographer was edit warring to promote one of those images. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a showcase for amateur photographers, and I don't think we have a place for images that appear libelous or violate the basic rules of appropriation (images of individuals used without explicit permission). On top of it, the photography is atrocious, and the photographer is clearly using the image descriptions to push a POV that we cannot verify (I don't see any evidence these photos were taken at a "protest," for example). Files for deletion may not be the right forum for these objections, but to say that my nomination was a "political POV" attack is false. Cheers, csloat (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edit history on anti-Semitism etc. proves that you do indeed have a political POV on the subject matter, are not being objective in nominating these images for deletion; and I was correct in my assessment of the reason you want these photos deleted. Purely objectively your arguments for deletion are weak and as far as the “borderline stalking” statement is concerned, somewhat hysterical. The photos are fine, if you object to how they are being used on Wikipedia then take your argument to that article’s talk page. Wikipedia is not censored and you cannot get images deleted because you do not agree with the message they portray. Images of individuals can used without explicit permission, if taken in a public place or a place that the public have access to on payment or otherwise there are also other exceptions. These images are very clearly taken on a public road. Archivey (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF for details on why your accusations are completely out of line. As I said there are plenty of images I don't like and I don't submit them for deletion. And frankly I don't think it's "hysterical" to compare taking pictures of little kids in cars without permission to borderline stalking; it's certainly illegal to post such pictures without permission (you are dead wrong about that, at least according to US law). You may think my arguments are weak but that is no reason to accuse me of intentions I never had. Besides, what the hell is there to "agree" or "disagree" with in the photo anyway?? It's a picture of a kid in a car. csloat (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry, you acted correctly

== another POV accussation ==

You removed a paragraph of sourced content saying that it was POV. I have to ask: what POV are you talking about? It describes how the political and social ambient helped to to create and popularize the New Romanticism. I already provided sources, and they don't look biased to me, so if you think that the info is incorrect, then please find sources describing the correct social influences instead of deleting those just because they sound wrong to you. Please, wikipedia articles have to be verifiable from sources, not from editors opinions. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Three editors on that articles talk page consider this political POV pushing, your sources do not provide an independant apolitical viewpoint of the subject; and as this edit is against consenus will no doubt be removed by another editor shortly. Archivey (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My excusses, I had missed that you had already started a discussion at the talk page at Talk:New_Romanticism#Political_POV, I'll comment there. Sorry about my harsh comment here. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I accept that it was a good faith edit not pushing your own personal POV, but it gave a political aspect to a culture that was apolitical at the time. Archivey (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Heaven 17

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:

[[Category:Electronic music groups]]
[[Category:Synthpop]]

Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards,--Stepheng3 (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Article Rescue Squadron

I notice that you are part of Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians. I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Ikip (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Katie Morgan

Please do not list birth names for porn performers unless the name is specifically, and reliably, sourced. It is considered contentious information, there are multiple OTRS proceedings from it. We've already had one stalker that outed someone's birth name into the media through her article, because journalists have a habit of copying from WP.

IMDB is not a reliable source. Horrorshowj (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Re : "If you delete more from Wikipedia than you add then you are a vandal, nothing more, nothing less"

Is that quote something you fight against or aspire to? Because this is precisely what you did to parts of the Heaven 17 page, which did not consist of "spam" and "excess commentary", but important information describing the contents of certain releases. What's there now is incomplete and factually inaccurate. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.230.41 (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Helen Goddard AfD

I don't think your suggestion that homophobia is involved in arguing to delete Helen Goddard is constructive. I can see no sign of homophobia in any of the deletion comments, and I would consider it a personal attack if you meant to include my nomination as being homophobic. Could you please strike out that comment? I would argue that it is a form of homophobia that has lead to the exaggerated coverage of this case. Compared to say Alison Smith, Madeleine Martin, Bridget Mary Nolan, Karen Louise Ellis, Sarah Jayne Vercoe, Heidi Choat, Cindy Leanne Howell, Jo Gorman, or Rachel Holt, Helen Goddard's case has gained additional headlines only because the pupil was female. Fences&Windows 23:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)