User talk:FT2

ADVANCE WARNING: NEW YEAR SCHEDULE

I'll be away from December 20 \ 21, until January 1 \ 2
In the meantime, please leave any messages on this talk page to read on returning.
Have a very good new year, whatever your version of a new year may be, and a healthy happy editorial 2007!

-- FT2

Wikipedia IRC channel: [1]

Services Link: [2]

Others: society -- religion -- studies -- research -- ap -- asa -- terminology -- emo -- med

Controversy header good idea

Hey, good idea putting a controversy header on the election "controversy" page. Zen Master 17:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FWIW

I liked your original reply on the VfD page better. :-) Baylink 19:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

THANKS!!

I did not have a chance to see what you were doing yesterday (nor have I taken a look yet today) but I was very impressed with the effort you were putting into this. Your process of collecting the consensus votes and working through the complete article, while at the same time posting to the talk page your progress to keep the antsy members of the contributing group abreast of your progress, seems to me to be a particularly appropriate form of agressive mediation; something I believe this article/dispute has been in need of.

While I cannot offer an appropriate reward, please know that your efforts have been noticed and strongly appreciated!

- Amgine 17:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to second this, reviewing the summary I constructed for the text, it seems like you spent a great deal of effort over this. CheeseDreams 22:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zoophilia reconstruction

I am new here so please let me know if I am posting inappropriately.

I would like to comment upon the work that FT2 has done regarding the neutrality of the zoophilia article. I have come to expect Wikipedia to be a RELIABLE source of information with VERIFIABLE content. I would still like to see the appearance of references and links to peer-reviewed psychological and zoological references. However the wildly POV aspect of the original article has been well toned down and FT2 is close to a neutral discussion. Personally I find the whole subject distasteful but have had to study it from a psychoanlytic POV and therefore appreciate the efforts of FT2.

Thank you. --kaijura 21:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hiya. Thank you. We try. The harder a topic is, the more important it is to add balance and reliability, but thats not always easy either. A lot of people added work, and much of the balance was due to others.

A historic version of the page, with research quotes (Jan 2005), can be found here. I think that'll be what you are after. It contains a lot of peer review info of the kind you might be after, which turned up when I was originally researching it myself. The research was later removed from the article due to size constrictions. FT2 04:51, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I would just like to point you to the discussion page on the zoophilia article regarding the religious perspectives section.

comparing/contrasting Judaism/Christianity

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I value many of the changes you have recently made to this article. And I want to apologize for having been overzealous in reverting some of your earlier changes. I know that in one case you were — as far as my research shows — wrong about one of your edits, concerning killing in self-defense. But in reverting that I reverted other changes of yours. I am sure that as I continue to work on this article there will be times when I revert or edit other contributions you have or will have ade to the article. But please know that I will be more careful in the future, to make changes more judiciously. I think several of your recent edits have really improved the article, and I want you to know that I acknowledge that, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for "about Wikipedia".

What the headline says. I was checking the aftermath of the Ciz war for unknown and probably masochistic reasons, was glad to see that you hadn't been driven off by it and more so when I found those few well-fritten lines. I'll have to add it to my quote list... if I ever get one. --Kizor 21:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Just to say that I think the work you do on here is interesting. (let me see if I remember how to sign this thing with the tildes) Saudade7 20:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Cite

"Wikipedia does not exist to determine truth. It is not our purpose to decide if NLP's claims are true or not. It is instead our purpose to fairly represent both NLP's claims and the claims of its critics. The purpose of consensus within Wikipedia is not to determine truth, but to determine the wording of articles. Nobody needs to modify their personal views in order to achieve consensus on the wording of the article. However, anyone who is not committed to Wikipedia's core principles is likely to be more concerned with hammering their viewpoint than they are with agreeing upon wording which fairly represents all side." user:Jdavidb [3]

Gender Differences

Loved your response at the Science Helpdesk on a thread that was moving in a troubling direction.

That is all. --Ginkgo100 03:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks for the help on the science helpdesk and the link to Last_universal_ancestor. You rule!! Do you have a LiveJournal or website?--Sonjaaa 04:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.5

Hi FT2,

As you may have seen, Wikipedia 0.5 (the test release before WP:1.0) is now up & running, and accepting nominations. That is of course great news, but right now nominated articles are building up much faster than the reviewers can review them. Can you help us clear the backlog by joining the term of reviewers? We are judging whether articles should be included in this test CD version - since it is fairly small (2-500 articles?) we have to limit it to article of both quality and importance, as described here. You can probably focus on articles in your area of interest. Do you have time to help out? Thanks, Walkerma 16:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal pornography

Sorry for replying you that late. I guess it is a bit early to construct a separate "animal pornography" article. However, if user contribution reaches a considerable amount (which is very limited presently) at the Pornography section in the article Zoophilia, this may well be created. I think the issue is incipient by now. I also think that it should be named as "Bestiality pornography" because although it is certain that this is not an appropriate naming, it is the most used generic name. By the way, Club Seventeen is not Danish but Dutch, so I corrected this info. Best Regards. Behemoth 14:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Also, Club Seventeen is not a company but a label of the company Video Art Holland, I edited accordingly. Behemoth 14:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cultural and historical background

Please comment here [4]. Please review the recent edit history of the article. I did not think that using BCE and CE would be offensive to Christians, and the fact is the article has used these twerms for years. Moreove, I didn't think identifying the article as relevant to Jewish articles would be offensive to Christians. Ithink along with me you probably put the most work into this article. If I am right that we had achieved (after a lot of struggle) a very stable consensus, you were part of that, and should comment. I appreciate your help, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cultural and historical background (part 2)

(Historical posts in this section hidden behind "comment" to keep it short for reading. See source to view)

Thats evident even to a lay-person like me. For example what happened after (Testimonium) inevitably colors understanding of what happened at the time, and must be examined to attempt to find what's reliable, what's unreliable and what's likely. As one example. So yes, context is not "closed" to "just at the time" or "imminently before". I think we agree. Is that what you mean?

What do you think of the above suggestion, as a way to break out the historian approach from the theological? Ie, in broad terms, one article on the background and context of the HISTORICAL SPLIT IN RELIGIONS, and the other on JESUS as a historical figure, and JESUS in his historical context. FT2 (Talk) 13:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is hard for me to see the difference between splitting Jesus from religion - something I find difficult to do because I think there is no understanding Jesus except in a "religious" context (it is just that what we mean by religious and what is included in that context is something people are divided over for good reason because it is so complex as it is a time of terrific flux for both Judaism and Christianity) - and splitting the historical from the theological which I think makes 100% sense. Perhaps my confusion is, I don't identify religion with theological. To me, religion (including theology) can be either a point of view, or an object of historical study. I see wisdom in keeping the theological view of Jesus and the historical view of Jesus (or, Jesus as a historical figure and Jesus as a figure in theology) separate. But I do not see how to write this article without including religion and theology, as objects of historical study, i.e. from a historian's point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heading out a bit, we'll probably be discussing this for a bit, to see how we see it. This might be useful to recap on though, about how complex subjects are seen in Wikipedia, just to be sure we have it as common knowledge:

Articles on Wikipedia do routinely (and expectantly) overlap. Thus, different areas get their own articles, and each to an extent overlaps others - there's not a sense of "clear-cut breaks". Partly thats like how chapters in a book can cross reference or anticipate each other, and partly also because long articles are deemed problematic for many readers (see WP policy on article size). So for example, what happens is, different articles may summarize others briefly, and refer the reader onwards for more. So in a historical article on the cultural background to jesus' life and times and the divergence/emergence of the religions, we might have a section on jesus himself ... but it might be 3 paragraphs and a "See main article" note. That way each article is self-contained, and if mentions background and strongly connected issues as neeed, but focusses on its core issue. It also means an article doesn't have to say everything, but doesn't omit much either. So for example, an article on LGBT culture will have a section LGBT activists (even though not strictly in the topic), because its relevant and useful... but it'll be a brief summary section and a "See more here". (Thats an example, I have no idea if its true or not!)

Likewise, we have a pretty good article here in this one we're discussing. What is it about -- never mind the topic or "should" or "was originally? The article as it stands, is a good article on how rabbinic judaism, and christianity, diverged and emereged, and the background to understanding that. Inter alia, questions like "how does Jesus fit into it" or "How do the gospels fit into it" or "What is known about Jesus from a New testament, jewish, or historical viewpoint", are relevant, but not central, because knowing how the gospels agree and differ on jesus' life does not primarily add to knowledge on this subject. If you like, its a different chapter in the same book. So the correct way we handle it is, we mention it briefly with enough info that others can see the picture in this article, and how they overlap... and then "See also: historical jesus" or "See also: historicity of jesus".

(The article "historical jesus" then likewise mirrors this the same way, by summarising in a few paragraphs the cultural and historic context of his life as background to its main focus, and "See more here" back to this one for detail)

An article doesnt have to cover everything. Its not a book. A shorter, more focused article is like a chapter in a book, it doesnt stand isolated. The best question is, "Is this a clear, valuable, reasonably defined area?" In LGBT for example, "LGBT and the law", "LGBT history", "LGBT and religion" are all well defined sections. They are each stand alone, but reference the reader to one another to see more, which each one then summarises as needed, to form background to their own focus. "Divergence and emergence of RJ and C and its background, is a well defined, sensible, focus. Other stuff, put in other articles, and summarize here if needed with "see also". Don't try to do it all in one article, the trick is to pick sensible focuses and this I believe is indeed a good one.

Hope that clarifies? I'm out for a while, maybe a few hours. FT2 (Talk) 13:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about overlap and summaries, of course, the trick is the right proportion. I think the other key issue here is the thin line between (1) content forks, which are very necessary, and (2) POV forks, which are forbidden. If you, CTSW,. and John Kenney can work out a compromise - not because we value compromise as an end in itself (I think that usually leads to bad articles) but because you have had a long honest thoughtful conversation and the result is a well-thought out article compliant with our policies and ideals acceptable to three (or more) very experienced, knowledgable, thoughtful, and well-intentioned editors, well, I'd be thrilled. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. First obvious comment, you too are one of those whose views must fit in this discussion. Not just others. Second, to clarify what a "POV fork" is, so we're sure we are similarly understanding it... a POV fork is where you get 2 articles, eg: "Jesus - the critical view" and "jesus - the view of people who don;t agree with critics", instead of one article that includes views generally. If both views are notable, you might have 2 subarticles to examine them independently, but even so the main "Views on jesus" would include both and point the reader to the other 2 articles merely for more detail, not as "alternatives". And the sub articles would make clear that this is one of the 2 main views and they are more fully contrasted in the main article, or would include a small criticisms section that points to the other one. So you dont get "one competing version by one team, another by another team, competing as 'the wikipedia view'." Thats a POV fork scenario.

What's confusing me is, that I dont see any actual conflict in this article, as you seem to feel there is. I dont see a big dramatic difference going on between editors. Can you explain if there is one, and if so in simple terms what you think it is? FT2 (Talk) 10:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About forking, I am just referring to this, Wikipedia: Forking. You wrote, "I think it's a mistake to be bound by where an article came from" and in principle I agree. But I DO think content forking is an issue here, and we could be guided by what it says in this policy. Does reading this policy give you more insight into the point I was trying to make - or help you clarify your response? It might ...

About me - no excuses - I just feel that I ought to step back because I have had such a heavy hand in the article already (as you more than anyone else knows!). I am pelased with the article but fear I have lost at least a fair shar eof objectivity. As for the need for compromise, well, just look at the most recent talk - don't you think John kenney is vociferously disagreeing with you or at least CTSWYnekan? I am not characterizing this as an all-out brawl requiring arbitration. I see this as a disagreement among several editors I respect a good deal. Should the article stand as it is? Should it be merged with the Historical Jesus? Should it be broken into four parts, some of which should be merged with other articles (how I began this conversation with you)? I think these are the questions and John Kenney and CTS and I think you disagree over the answers. But how we answer affects what should be added to (or taken out of) the article. I'd like to see more engaged confersation between you, John Kenney, and CTSW (and maybe others like Angine and Jayjg) because I know that if ALL of you reached an agreement it would be a good one. I have already expressed my views: it is in the very organization of the current article. But I am also expressing my self-doubts and my desire to see others whom I respect reach a consensus. At the very least it might give the article a shot in the arm, take it in a new productive direction. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, "But I DO think content forking is an issue here". Can you clarify, a bit? What exactly is the conflict you feel is needing addressing? Is it that the article is too long, doesn't match its title, doesn't include notable POVs relevant to its title, is disputed about whether theological views and jesus' life should be in it, is disputed because jesus' life shouldn't be in it...? I don't yet 'get' where you see the fork being (if there is one at present) or the pressure to fork (if thats what you are suggesting might be needed), coming from. Can you explain more on that? FT2 (Talk) 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're mixing up two issues. One is the content fork. This is a fact, and it was what I was trying to explain in the history of the article - that this started out as part of the Jesus article and was spun off. That is content forking, it happens all the time, and is not in itself a problem. But it is a fact that this article is the result of a content fork. The second is the issue of conflict, and it is not me who is really in conflict but you and John Kenney - if you think conflict is too strong a word, then substitute another. But clearly anyone reading the talk page will see you and he disagree over something. My personal opinion is, part of the issue is, when one does a content fork, what content exactly is forked? This is a judgement call and I suspect that one reason you and John and CTS disagree is you have different opinions of the nature of the fork. When one person says the article should stand on its own, they are saying that the fork was perfect. When one person says it should be divided into different articles, or merged with another, they are saying the fork was flawed. But there may well be other issues - I am only calling attention to one, which , if pursued, might lead to a resolution. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe I haven't followed the talk page in depth. Can you summarize the concerns of John and CTS for me, briefly? So I can see if we do in fact differ? I'm not aware of having argued with them over anything recently at this point? FT2 (Talk) 11:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And can you comment, would you (as in you personally) be OK with placing this article as discussing the historical divergence and separation and emergence of the 2 religions, and "historical jesus" handling the sections about "jesus in a historic context"? As a means to keep it clean? I appreciate there is overlap, but as a focus for the two, it seems basically a cleaner divide to me (if there is in fact a difference of editor views on content). FT2 (Talk) 11:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement between you and John K - for starts:

You: I think the appropriate starting point is the same as any Wikipesia article -- neutral representation of subject matter (no matter what the subject "should" have been or "was" over a year ago). Thus, the subject matter on this article is "historical and cultural background", and any sources with notable views belong here, not just a select few. Thats basic NPOV. If the purpose of the article is to showcase a specific viewpoint, then rename it to "Sanders, Vermes, and Fredricksen's school of thought on the cultural and historical background of Jesus", and then focus the article on their views. FT2 (Talk) 12:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

John K: Yuck. What an awful idea. There's plenty of other scholars we should be discussing. Just because Slr mostly wrote this article to begin with, and is most familiar with those scholars, only means that other people should try to add in broader context about the views of other historians. john k 12:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As to the other matter, distinguishing between Jesus and the separation of the two religions, here is where you and I agree in principle: thee sill be overlap between articles, and this article must summarize what will be elaborated in greater depth in other articles namely the emergence of Christianity and the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism.

In this I also agree with you when you wrote, "if it helps, most articles covering point events, or incidents leading up to point events, also cover the aftermath too. Thus, the article on Chernobyl also covers aftermath of chernobyl, the article on Mount St helens covers rescue and aftermath of St helens, and so on. That's part of an encyclopoedia's role to put its articles in their context too. So an article on Jesus' cultural background is more than okay, to show how it played out, overlapping slightly the next stages in the development of both religions. That shows how it played out, the aftermath and provides context, and is very normal and usual. Hope that is of use. FT2 (Talk) 23:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)" Slrubenstein | Talk 12:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do you and I differ on anything that you can see? Before we go further? FT2 (Talk) 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am honestly not sure. I realize that this is the worst possible thing to say to someone who is being thoughtful and concerned to find a compromise, but I feel just the same way and have more of a set of concerns which I I have laid out as best I can, rather than firm positions from which I can argue against anyone. You said earlier that perhaps you haden't read the talk page closely enough - I think you were being modest and I don't think that was or is true, but ... if there is ANY place we might disagree it is that I think you should read CTSY and John's comments very carefully because I want to see any disagreements among the three of you laid out carefully and clearly, and see how we can all work together ... Slrubenstein | Talk 20:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, which I can respect. As it happens, I was being honest. I haven't read the talk page in depth. But your concerns above seem mostly to relate to others issues, ie that you are happy how it is, but you worry that others are not, and if they become happy, you will be too. Is that about right? What do you see as the basis of their feeling of unhappiness (if so)? And what do you see as obstacles to whatever changes they might have in mind, to fix that? And last, what directs your feelings what is good, and what isn't for the article? FT2 (Talk) 21:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image thumbnail test

File:World-map(zoo media).gif

identical image as GIF

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, FT2! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 20:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you downloaded 1.2.1, not 1.2? The link to download 1.2.1 is here. Prodego ^talk 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me a while, I forgot to change my status. You need to enable cookies in IE (set then to medium), and make sure you are using an admin account on your computer. Prodego ^talk 00:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

I'd like to see the names or diffs of articles for Question 2 of your RfA please. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 07:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found them on your user page, but I'm sure others would like to see them in Question 2. Good luck with the RfA -- Samir धर्म 07:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temp links

Image Tagging Image:Yak and mare.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Yak and mare.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 21:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Cow and tractor.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Cow and tractor.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 21:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Dog and toy.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Dog and toy.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 21:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Racoon and dog.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Racoon and dog.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 21:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Per Wikipedia:Fair use, none of these images are okay. See Policy items 1 and 10, and Counterexamples 2 and 8. I have added a link to our free, reusable media at commons:Category:Animal sex to help replace these images. Jkelly 00:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being overly liberal in interpreting Wikipedia:Fair use. I don't understand, by your reading, how anything could ever not be fair use, if the criteria is "any image, from any source, that shows something we want to discuss". I suppose that it does still rule out decoration. If you think that I'm confused about this, I suggest involving more people in the discussion. Jkelly 02:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied

I userfied List of users of Neuro-linguistic programming. It is now located at User:FT2/List of users of Neuro-linguistic programming. It just doesn't belong in the article space, but if you want to use it in your writings, go ahead. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

temp save of working edits, will delete after

NLP

Honestly, I think I'm done with NLP. My problem is that once we do this editing, someone will come by and make it awful again. It's just pointless. Too many meatpuppets. Too many socks. Just too much work for this old Wikipedia soul. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA withdrawn

I really respect your decision to withdraw. Make sure you clean up the page into this format, and remove the RfA from the main WP:RFA page.

Though I hadn't met you before today, it would be my honor to renominate you when you feel your edit summary usage has improved enough. Λυδ α cιτγ 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. Good work, and your decision to withdraw will only make my support even stronger when you are next up. --Guinnog 17:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of war crimes

I have put my reply to your question into Talk:List of war crimes#Introduction as others may like to see our discussion. I do not think you and I are a million miles apart on this and can quickly come to an agreement Regards Philip Baird Shearer 11:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore my comment

^{25 June 2006 22:54} Ste4k wrote: Hi FT2! I read your comment and misunderstood what NN meant. I was actually answering to the comment that someone had missed the point. Just wanted to reiterate the actual point because I was bored. :) Happy editing!

A system for Citing Sources

Wikipedia has always had a problem with your suggestion and related ideas. I'm not sure if you are aware of older suggestions such as Wikicite. For some reason, these ideas never take off at Wikipedia. I am interested in the idea that it might be possible to use the Wikiversity project to create a community where there is more respect and support for the hard work of creating an open wiki-based record of evidence that supports assertions that are made in Wikipedia articles. There is a chance that Wikiversity will be an active Wikimedia project in the near future, then it will be possible to start using it as a platform for learning how best to manage Citing Sources in a wiki. --JWSchmidt 00:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Bestiarii (EUR Museum).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bestiarii (EUR Museum).jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds 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. 21:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Promotional views on zoophilia

Hello FT2. I notice you have made many edits to the zoophilia article, and I noticed that you have mentioned this in your own article. With respect, I fail to see how you can be proud of the new version of the Zoophilia article It is only really bigger than the prior version, except the new version has more argument in it. I understand that some may be sympathetic towards zoophiles, but realistically, the vast majority of people will find it distasteful. This is not handled properly in the article. In short, there is too much argument for arguing zoophilia may be love for animals, and not enough simple straight statements of fact.

I'm sure you should have noticed the word "however" and similar argument appears in places in the article, and I see no reason apart from promotionality, that you choose to leave them in. There is also an absence of the kind of damage incurred to animals. In fact, the only kind of image that should appear in the article is the xray slide sort, of various injury to animals.

The images are promotional. As zoophilia involves pornography, I see no way how any such art images can be justifiably used in the article. To place classical art as an illustration will leave the article open to much rancor in future for the majority who find zoophilia abusive and distasteful. There are clearly many more negative images that could be placed in the article, so why are they not placed? Also, the Michaelangelo is a painting about classical mythology full stop. The swan is not actually a swan, but a greek god (Zeus). The swan is a representation of Zeus.

So really, the article you have worked on is far from neutrally presented. I intend to remedy this rather big and obvious set of problems. JHartley 05:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you FT2 for merging the reindeer pages and adding a smoother apperance. I was struggling with how to make each individual article unique, but they are better merged. I am glad to see what I started has now been perfected. --Merond e 12:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoosexuality and bestiality series

I was thinking - since there's a fair amount of zoosexual sub-articles, it might make sense to make a series box for it and organize it that way, like the "LGBT and Queer studies" series. For the series name I'm thinking of something like "Zoosexuality and bestiality" series. I personally feel strongely about having only one zoophilia / zoosexuality article since these words truely are synonyms, I cannot find a difference between them and I've already quoted two researchers before who state them as being synonyms, and the current state makes it rather confusing. So I suggest seeing what can be moved from the current zoophilia to the zoosexuality article and the larger sections be given their own smaller articles, which can then of course be listed in a nice series box. The current zoophilia article when redirect to what is to become the zoophilia / zoosexuality article. Will be a bit of work, but in the end should result in a more tidy and transparant situation which is easy to browse. I don't want to just start moving things myself though since you've done a lot of work on these articles and I'd like to hear your opinion on it first. Greets, BabyNuke 20:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Camonica2.png

Could you please find a different source for Image:Camonica2.png. I don't believe the current source is entirely reliable. It looks more like a sloppy MS Paint job right now. An actuall museum would be a better source. --Phoenix Hacker 10:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email...

Got it - perusing as I type... speak to you soon :) - Glen 13:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bang and Milne Model

I enjoyed reading your July comments in the Big Bang article's Talk. I've just added a very teensy reference to the Milne Model in the Big Bang article. I'm afraid that my answer to your questions may appear boring and nearly incomprehensible, but this is totally different from anything you've heard, and it's been around, and almost entirely ignored, since 1933.

Culturaland Historical Jesus

Please comment here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#Proposals Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Animal porn shop front.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Animal porn shop front.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal sexuality

Thank you for experimenting with the page Animal sexuality on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. It seems odd to me that you're vandalizing after such a long history, but I can't see it any other way. let me know what's up, if somehtin gis up, Noit 19:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page, this seems to be a slip of the revert finger, or a misunderstanding. The piece I added was a citation from a mainstream paper, of a quote attributed to a state wildlife department, on the subject of that section. Rather than just undo your revert and reinstating that citation, I've instead posted a reply on your talk page clarifying the edit, to make sure that we're clear before re-editing the article. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's fine. The absurd tone of the writing threw me off. I don't want to judge if it's a good quote to use, but it's clear to me now that it wasn't vandalism. Noit 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

At the top of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience the following is stated:

"Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments."

Unless you desire to become a participant in the request, I think you should move your comment to the talk page. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please comment

[5] Slrubenstein | Talk 16:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I know you think I need a slap on the wrist for being a belligerent editor, and I admit I do have some rough edges, edges that you may have had some effect in smoothing off, but I'm not sure the mediation request is germane any longer. I can't conceive of any further issues we cannot work out together, now that the bulk of what I wanted to see achieved has been achieved. All along I was concerend about the overly positive tone in the zoophilia article, when I know from things I've read and seen that there are real dangers, which need to be be clearly stated. They are now, and I see far greater balance in the coverage.

Anyhow, I think the mediation request should be dropped, either by one or both of us withdrawing our agreement/signatures, or by whatever other method there is (I notice a "delete" button on the mediation page). Skoppensboer 20:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Zoophilia.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Hello there, my name is Peter M Dodge and I go by the handle Wizardry Dragon on Wikipedia. While I am not a member of the Mediation Committee proper I have offered to mediate this case. If this is okay with you, I would like to proceed. Please let me know either way, and if you have any issues with this please let me know so I may try to address them. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Shop of Horrors

There is no other film with the title "THE Little Shop of Horrors." The musical and its 1986 film version are titled "Little Shop of Horrors." (Ibaranoff24 08:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

As the articles for the 1986 film and the musical play are linked at the top of the article for the 1960 original, there's no need for the year of release to be in the article's title. (Ibaranoff24 10:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Same-sex marriage

In one of your contributions to this article, you used a reference from the Telegraph to support your assertion. However, in searching the Telegraph website, I could not find the article. Could you supply the link and/or the author's name in order to complete the reference. As it now stands, the reference does not meet WP:V. Thanks. Jeffpw 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I don't dispute the cource, but according to WP:V (so I have been told when references I used were criticized) newspapre articles need to have the author of the piece so readers can look them up. I know it's a pain. If you can't find it, it's no problem. I was just using the reference elsewhere and wanted the name for competeness. And no, I don't know where that fact can be found elsewhere, but I am willing to try later (at work now). Jeffpw 15:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just passing on what I learned whwen an article I wrote was up for FA. They got really picky about the references, and demanded to have authors and titles for newspaper articles. But anyway, it seems that's not the only problem with that reference. The reference supports an assertion that 31,000 Civil Unions have taken place, and according to someone on Talk:Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom(see section 9), the number is roughly the half. Either someone read the article incorrectly, or the Telegraph accidentally doubled the number (number of people cited as number of unions. Another possibility is that the person who is concerned about the number got it wrong. That's another reason I would like to double check the source. Jeffpw 16:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]