User talk:AnemoneProjectors

	Archives
	12 June – 5 September 2006; 12 September – 23 October 2006; 23 October – 31 December 2006; January – February 2007; March – April 2007; May – July 2007;

Please leave a new message.

You are being misrepresented on the talk page for the Human penis size article

Editor meco has posted a statement at 19:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC), on the talk page for the Human penis size article, that you, the nominator for deletion of, Category:Men with unusually large penis, are now his supporter in his effort to include his silly list, "Men famous for their large penis," in the Human penis size article. He is confusing you with AnonEMouse, who mentioned three names of non-porn stars in the category deletion discussion, which, in his confusion, and despertion for support, he takes as an endorsement for inclusion of his list in that article. 72.76.10.245 22:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 23:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YW 72.76.10.245 23:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the instructions for adding photos very complicated

I wish to add a photo to Will Young's page but cannot understand the instructions! It is a jpeg photo of Will in concert. Can you help? Oyster24 14:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's probably easier if I direct you to Wikipedia:Uploading images for the guidelines on what to do. I hope it is helpful. Good luck. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 16:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where to submit this, but I've found a 'griefer' on Wikipedia

Activites of this user Freedomeagle centered around deleting images, I think we have a griefer since he seems to go around indiscriminately tagging each image he finds. Klichka 19:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such user. Corvus cornix 19:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The activites of user Freedomeagle seem to be centered around deleting images, I think we have a griefer since he seems to go around indiscriminately tagging each image he finds. (Fixed) Klichka 19:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images should have fair-use rationales so I believe Freedomeagle is correct to tag them. He should also inform the uploader that the rationale is missing to give them a chance to add one before the image is deleted. Anyway, see Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 21:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna Fitzgerald

I do not understand why you insist on reverting perfectly accurate edits on this page. It is unnecessary and reduces the accuracy of the article. I don't know what point you are trying to make, but if I decided to constantly revert/delete perfectly true information, you wouldn't be best impressed, would you ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.37.249 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary to remove personal opinions from Wikipedia articles. They do not belong here. If you want to say that someone is "cute" or whatever, join a fan forum. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 22:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I do not regard this as purely a personal opinion (although it is true in my opinion). The general concensus of eastenders viewers is that she is cute. The article should include a section on 'popularity' or 'public perception' in order to improve it, whether or not it is 100% "factually accurate". I mean, the page on George Bush contains sections on his perceived image. Surely this is not 100% "factually accurate" , not in the same way as the statement, 'Bush is the president of the USA'. This comparison highlights the hypocrisy involved - if the article on Bush can have such a section why can't this one ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.37.249 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this "general consensus of EastEnders viewers" then? Even if true, it doesn't matter if people think she looks cute. Her looks are not important and describing them does not improve the article. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 23:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you go on the digital spy forums, a series of chatrooms about various soaps (as you probably know) you will find several threads specifically dedicated to both the character, Abi, and the girl that plays her, Lorna Fitzgerald. Very often the focus of these threads is 'Abi/Lorna is so cute' or a similar sort of statement. The comments made, both in these threads and in other, more general, eastenders threads, almost universally reflect this. Therefore it is safe to say that this is infact the general consensus of eastenders viewers. By saying that she is cute and adorable you are not merely "describing her looks", you are describing her persona. This is clearly a very relevant and important part of the article and obviously does improve it. Also describing her appearence is important since the article should contain as much relevant info as possible - and this is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.37.249 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A forum isn't a reliable source, and doesn't make it the general consensus of all EastEnders fans. And it's still not important or relevant, so it will not be added to the article. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 18:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Fowler

Hey, what are your thoughts about the comments on the Pauline talk page? Are you still interested in getting it to FA? and do you think we should try and work all the storylines into the development so we can erase the duplicated information? I asked Trampikey, but he doesnt seem to be active here at the moment and I wanted to get your opinons before going ahead with it. I'm not bothered either way, but i'd be willing to do it if everyone thinks it's a good idea.Gungadin 20:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest with you, I haven't read most of the comments on the talk page (because they're so long and I have a short attention span!) but I would love to see the article reach FA status because we've all (you mostly) worked so hard on getting there, I think we've come too far to give up now. I suppose working the storylines into the development is the best idea, as other fictional characters with FA status don't have storyline sections. I feel a bit guilty though because I don't think I have it in me to do the work. But if you're willing to do it, I'll try to help in what ways I can (probably minor ones). — AnemoneProjectors (?) 20:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, I dont mind doing it gradually, I was just worried about getting rid of the storyline section without approval, particularly as all the other character pages will still have them. Sometimes when i'm writing all that OOU stuff, I cant help but think what a load of bull-shit i'm writing - who would ever need/want to look that deeply into a soap opera character. I certainly don't and i'm the one writing it, lol.Gungadin 20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we should start our own EastEnders wiki, where every character, shop, house, animal and plotline can have its own article. Then we could write as much plot as we wanted!!! It should be called Wiki-stEnders. Let's not do FA on any other articles, I like to keep them rubbish ;) — AnemoneProjectors (?) 20:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think an EE wiki would be a good idea actually, particularly as some users are beginning to completely delete all the plot summary from some of the American soap chracater pages and then put them up for AFD. It wont be long til they start on us. It seems to have started after they developed WP:PLOT, which is the deletionists wet dream come true, :o) Gungadin 22:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Hunter picture

I changed the picture on the Andy Hunter page, but it was taken of. Why? The picture I put on is so much better then the one there is now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rune Thandy (talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because your image doesn't have a corrct fair use rationale. Check the description page for your image, and Wikipedia:Non-free content, for more information on this. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE : Lorna Fitzgerald. Excuse me matey - I'm not quite finished

In actual fact, a forum is a perfectly reliable source and is of course the consesus of Eastenders viewers since a wide variety of people comment on these forums. Hence it is a representitive sample of the population of Eastenders viewers and is therefore a reliable source. Seeing as I have 9A*s at GCSE, including subjects where you need to use sources, I think I know what I'm talking about, matey.

And WHY THE HELL isn't it important. It is clearly very important and relevant info to be included in the article. You have not justified why it isn't important, you have merely stated it, thinking that just because you are an "administrator" (ie: you spend more time on the internet than most other people) that gives you a right to do whatever you want. How exciting for you !! You don't seem to be able to come up with a logical reason as to why it cannot be inluded, or a logical response to any of my arguments, you just vaguely state, 'it is not important'.

I also noticed you protected the article. How very immature of you. Doing this means you get your own way just because you're a poxy administrator. I noticed on another wikipedia page (about protected pages) it says administrators should NEVER protect pages in an edit war witha non established user, but instead should resolve the issue on a user talk page. You are unable to do this, since you are unable to reasonably justify why my edits can't be included so you resort to the petty action of protecting the page. Well, seeing as you have gone against wikipedia policy by protecting the page in an edit war, I may have to report this to someone higher up, unless you include my edits in some shape or form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.19.169 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the consensus of EastEnders viewers. The majority do not post to forums. It's not important because it's not important. I protected the article against vandalism (i.e. yours). It is not an edit war. That is all I have to say on the subject and I will not respond to threats. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'It's not important because it's not important'. Wow, what a great justification. What the FUCK do you mean ? It IS an edit war, and I was not vandalising the page, I was adding factually accurate info, you retard. Just beacause you're pansexual and you're probably in love with a turtle or something. Just because you want to lift up its tail and sniff its little bottom, you gaylord. Just because your bisexual and enjoy sodomy you spaz. Fine don't respond to my "threat" (I think it was pretty generous of me to give you a warning you dickhead) but I WILL report this dogma. I don't care if this is all you have to say on the subject, I am most certainly not finished. Just because you didn't get 9A*s you are obviously very jealous and want to ruin my edits. So fuck you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.19.169 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, I'll unprotect the page and let you add what you want to say about Lorna's cuteness. Just because you've made me laugh. Who cares about Wikipedia guidelines and policies anyway? — AnemoneProjectors (?) 21:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What vile, offensive comments. Find a published source that says she's cute and you can quote it in the article. A forum topic does not count by the way and would not be seen as a reliable source. Some reporter may have described her as cute and complimented her acting in a review of Eastenders. If you are desperate to say she's cute then including it in the article that way would be acceptable.Gungadin 22:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Cambridge

I've just reverted an edit to Cambridge made in your name, stating that "Many cyclists in Cambridge prefer to do so naked". I must say I've never witnessed this phenomenon! I notice you are an administrator, so I assume good faith - I just hope someone doesn't have unauthorised access to your account. All the best, --Malfidus ~ (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a news article about 1 person riding through Cambridge nude, although I don't think that this is enough to be included in the article. Tiddly Tom 17:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is one person who is quite well known for doing it, and there are two local news articles about him that I have seen. Apparently there are other people who cycle in Cambridge naked, but I haven't seen them for myself. I just wondered if it was mentioned at all on the article and it wasn't so I decided to add it (I should have sourced it but I was feeling lazy). Feel free to remove it if you don't think it should be there. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 18:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are infact several people that have done it, it should be kept. I think the statement should be well sourced though. After a quick Google search, I can only find one instance[1]. If you could find more, it should be kept, if not, in my opinion, it should go. Tiddly Tom 18:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only other source I can find is this, which just mentions that Richard cycles nude. Richard was also organising a World Naked Bike Ride in Cambridge[2], but it was cancelled. Now that could probably be sourced and added. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 18:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, we have one nudist cyclist, whose exploits on one particular day were uncommon enough to spark a news article. Nude cycle protests and nudist bike events have taken place in other cities (eg. York), without being mentioned in those articles. As it stands, the disputed statement is misleading, as it sounds as though a number of Cambridge residents regularly cycle around nude, which just isn't true. If you believe it to be notable and relevant content for an encyclopaedia article (which I honestly do not), please qualify and source the statement. --Malfidus ~ (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]