User talk:TheBigNatural/Archive 1
Welcome
[edit]Welcome!
Hello, TheBigNatural, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks :-)--TheBigNatural (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deletion
[edit]I see you've recreated anyway. It's OK, when I read it, I saw links only to her own website and IMDB, neither of which are RS. I hadn't expected there to be anything after the navbox, so I didn't see the refs. I've put the sections in a standard order now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you!--TheBigNatural (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
February 2012
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to Ronnie Ortiz, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. Ankit Maity Talk
Contribs 07:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did not blank the page but simply redirected to Ronnie Ortiz-Magro, which according to IMDB, MTV, and all the other sources, is his name. Only Wikipedia listed him as Ronnie Ortiz.--TheBigNatural (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]
Message added 07:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ankit Maity TalkContribs 07:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Bree Olson & Images
[edit]Okay, let me make it clear to you since I believe you reported another user to 3RR over images;[1] falsely claiming that he has not attempted to discuss it when it was clear as day it was being done through the edit summaries.[2][3] Again, you ignore my edit summary that states that the image is superfluous by reinstating it with a "everyone is doing it" rationale. So let me ask you directly in your talk page rather than waste space on the article talk page. What is the point of having that extra image? Does it illustrate a certain point discussed in the article? Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh and read WP:Galleries if you don't understand the policy at issue. It's not "I don't like it". Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- The image is taken from Wikimedia commons, so there is no copyright issues. Second of all, Bree is a very well-known celebrity due to her brief association with Charlie Sheen. Most celebrities have more than one image on their articles during different occasions as long as free images are available at the commons and Bree should not be an exception. I would appreciate if you refrain from stalking my contributions and my dispute with other editors. Assume good faith. Thank you!--TheBigNatural (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Plus the "career" part of Bree Olson mainly deals with events that occurred in 2006-2008 during her adult industry career, which was also when the image was taken. Bree is no longer in the adult industry right now. The image is in line with the content of the subheading.--TheBigNatural (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- So your point was that the image fits because it's from an event in 2007? Even though the article doesn't mention the AEE or how events like those are notable or relevant? Spare me the lecture about stalking and good faith. I actually saw your edit war on Cyrus before reverting you on the Olson issue. You still falsely claimed on the noticeboard that another user refused to discuss with you about the issue. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know why you're trying to lawyer your way through this. If you want to write an article on adult film conventions, go ahead. But such information would not belong on Bree Olson's article. My attempted discussion with the other user is irrelevant to our current discussion. And just for the record, he removed both the warning template and my reply from his talkpage [4] which is an obvious indication that he is unwilling to discuss.--TheBigNatural (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- He has the right to remove the warning under WP:BLANKING. Your prior very recent behavior over a similar issue is relevant to whether I should assume good faith from you. You want a discussion based on policy, and you complain that it's wikilawyering when I do it. If the information about being in the convention doesn't belong in the article, why should an image that illustrates point also belong? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I understand that but he also removed my attempt to engage him so basically he's giving me the finger and saying he doesn't want to talk. Ugh this is soo frustrating. But anyway you're jumping from conclusion before even knowing what the situation is. The problem with free image is that almost every image we have of celebrities are from red carpet appearances, award ceremonies, conventions, premieres, live concerts, or sometimes mugshots. In Bree Olson's case, both images of her article are from her appearances at adult film conventions. You really should be complaining about lack of convention information before I even added that image since the profile image in the lead is also from a convention.--TheBigNatural (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hence that's why I believe the image is superfluous. We already have the image from an event in the infobox. There's no clear reason on why there is the 2007 image other than it's from 2007. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you look at other celebrity's page, there are many images of the same nature but of different time frame. Nothing says that each article should only have 1 image.--TheBigNatural (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Other stuff exists" isn't really a proper argument to consider. Instead, since wikipedia is not meant to be a wikigallery, the proper consideration is relevance of the image and to a lesser extent the length of the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Once again the image is relevant due to the subheading it belongs in. Excluding it would be a departure from overwhelming precedents.--TheBigNatural (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Other stuff exists" isn't really a proper argument to consider. Instead, since wikipedia is not meant to be a wikigallery, the proper consideration is relevance of the image and to a lesser extent the length of the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you look at other celebrity's page, there are many images of the same nature but of different time frame. Nothing says that each article should only have 1 image.--TheBigNatural (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hence that's why I believe the image is superfluous. We already have the image from an event in the infobox. There's no clear reason on why there is the 2007 image other than it's from 2007. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I understand that but he also removed my attempt to engage him so basically he's giving me the finger and saying he doesn't want to talk. Ugh this is soo frustrating. But anyway you're jumping from conclusion before even knowing what the situation is. The problem with free image is that almost every image we have of celebrities are from red carpet appearances, award ceremonies, conventions, premieres, live concerts, or sometimes mugshots. In Bree Olson's case, both images of her article are from her appearances at adult film conventions. You really should be complaining about lack of convention information before I even added that image since the profile image in the lead is also from a convention.--TheBigNatural (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- He has the right to remove the warning under WP:BLANKING. Your prior very recent behavior over a similar issue is relevant to whether I should assume good faith from you. You want a discussion based on policy, and you complain that it's wikilawyering when I do it. If the information about being in the convention doesn't belong in the article, why should an image that illustrates point also belong? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know why you're trying to lawyer your way through this. If you want to write an article on adult film conventions, go ahead. But such information would not belong on Bree Olson's article. My attempted discussion with the other user is irrelevant to our current discussion. And just for the record, he removed both the warning template and my reply from his talkpage [4] which is an obvious indication that he is unwilling to discuss.--TheBigNatural (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- So your point was that the image fits because it's from an event in 2007? Even though the article doesn't mention the AEE or how events like those are notable or relevant? Spare me the lecture about stalking and good faith. I actually saw your edit war on Cyrus before reverting you on the Olson issue. You still falsely claimed on the noticeboard that another user refused to discuss with you about the issue. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Plus the "career" part of Bree Olson mainly deals with events that occurred in 2006-2008 during her adult industry career, which was also when the image was taken. Bree is no longer in the adult industry right now. The image is in line with the content of the subheading.--TheBigNatural (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- The image is taken from Wikimedia commons, so there is no copyright issues. Second of all, Bree is a very well-known celebrity due to her brief association with Charlie Sheen. Most celebrities have more than one image on their articles during different occasions as long as free images are available at the commons and Bree should not be an exception. I would appreciate if you refrain from stalking my contributions and my dispute with other editors. Assume good faith. Thank you!--TheBigNatural (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
TheBigNatural, if Morbidthoughts or the other user wouldn't have reverted you, I would. And I have most of the articles that you edited on my watchlist, so it is hardly stalking. Nymf hideliho! 17:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- You guys are reverting just for the sake of reverting. Ugh this is soo frustrating. AGF guys geez--TheBigNatural (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]
Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you bot. Will do :-)--TheBigNatural (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Cyrus + Lovato Images
[edit]Apologies for my behaviour towards you during this dispute. I should have known better in discussing with you ~ instead of edit warring over images. I haven't been "my self" as of lately, and I think its time I have a small but useful wikibreak. In the mean time, I'm totally fine if those images are re added ~ I think I have overlooked things a little too much, and I belive a fresh pair of eyes, is more than appropriate. So apologies, and thank you, -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 05:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
[edit]Hi. When you recently edited Evelyn Lozada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puerto Rican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)