User talk:WikinaziHunter

Personal attacks are not an acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. Your User name is offensive and the list on your User name is offensive. Please rethink your approach. RickK 02:22, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you find my list offensive. I will remove my list, but I would appreciate keeping the username. Wikinazi is not ment to be an offensive word, but rather a slang approach to describing the behaviour of some individuals on this board. When I put those names on that list they're not ment to offend the person, but rather enlighten them to the fact that they might not always be right. Instead of reverting instantly and starting a fully fledged edit war why not take the time to talk about it and maybe come to a compromise. I appreciate the fact that you did not edit my page straight away, and hopefully we can come to a compromise. WikinaziHunter 02:29, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Any compound form with the suffix "-nazi" is going to be offensive. Comparing the enormity of the Holocaust with the inconvenience you experience by being reverted is intrinsically offensive. The suffix '-nazi' is designed to be offensive: is feminazi a neutral term? Then answer is no, and neither is wikinazi. - Nunh-huh 02:48, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from. The use of the term Nazi is aimed more at the characteristics of a Nazi (ie facism) rather than implying that the user is themself a 'Nazi'. Besides, any way you look at it, it doesn't matter. If you want to prevent people from being offended, maybe you should remove Nigger, Faggot, Coon, Fuck and Shit from the Wikipedia first of all. Don't forget to ask "DICK" Cheney to change his name too as people could easily mistake his name for referring to a Penis. Oh - you might want to remove that one too :) WikinaziHunter 03:48, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to remove anything. I'm just telling you that your name will cause offense, in case you had any question about that. - Nunh-huh 04:19, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove categories. They're generally useful. Also, yes, your name will cause offense. ugen64 03:04, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and it's against policy to revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. ugen64 03:04, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Stop reverting my legitimate edits. You will be banned if you do it again. --Jia ng 03:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Then Jiang too will be at fault will he not? Ok I accept the categories can stay, but the changes Jiang made to Soong May-ling should be removed. -WikinaziHunter 03:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The difference is that you will get banned and I will not. Care to explain what is wrong with my edits and why you are reverting them? --Jia ng 03:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's pretty pointless to put in links to topics that don't exist. At least create a stub for that link first if you're going to do that. Also are you positive that she celebrated her 106th birthday? -WikinaziHunter 03:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The reason I ask if you're positive, is because it is a debatable answer. Some say 105, some say 106, thus being the reason why the edit I made reverted to the version which implied that it could be either. -WikinaziHunter 03:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was good Wikipedia practice to put in links to topics that don't exist (presuming that it is a topic that deserves an article), on the grounds that a nice red link gets in people's faces and encourages them to write an article, whereas leaving it unlinked doesn't. --Stormie 03:25, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

If I had to pick, then I would say 106, since that is how the Chinapeople like to count their age - start with one. She was either 105 or 106 but she did not celebrate both. She had to pick one and I believe it was 106. Since I can't back up my statement, I took out the claim.

It's not pointless to put in links to topics that don't exist. That's how the wiki works. But regardless, an article does exist at Eleanor Roosevelt and the br tag in the image caption was unnecessary and created whitespace. I don't know why you reverted those. Cheers, Jia ng 03:29, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok, no worries Jiang. I was under the impression that the red links were more of a 'Wait, there's something wrong here!', but I can definately see your reasoning for putting them there after what Stormie said. As far as the age went, I too thought that it did sound odd containing both, but my first thoughts were that you had just picked a number as you didn't provide a summary of your edit. Anyway, not to worry all is sorted now. If I come across something similar i'll be sure to use the Talk page first. -WikinaziHunter 03:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Image:Karpinski.jpg has been listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Karpinski.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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.

--Bash 21:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:William Hung Promo.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:William Hung Promo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Ejfetters 15:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]