User talk:Earpol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Multi-licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License versions 1.0 and 2.0
I agree to multi-license my text contributions, unless otherwise stated, under Wikipedia's copyright terms and the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license version 1.0 and version 2.0. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions under the Creative Commons terms, please check the CC dual-license and Multi-licensing guides.

VfD on radio stations[edit]

Hey, just wanted to make sure you didn't take my submissions of WRDF and WRFD to Votes for Deletion personally. I nominated the articles for deletion because a lot of us at Wikipedia feel that tiny radio stations like WRFD are not notable enough for Wikipedia. If you feel that WRFD is more notable than the thousands of comparable stations out there, feel free to show it in the VfD discussions and in your edits to the page. From your contribution history, I can see that you've made a lot of valuable edits, especially to Earring and Dimebag Darrell. Thanks for all your great work for Wikipedia! Szyslak 11:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

United States Economic Discussion[edit]

Please respond talk:United States. 03:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Labeling your changes to the Earring article as "additional refinement" when they really consisted of reverting most of the edits I'd just done, was a bit misleading. Furthermore, there were specific problems I saw that I was trying to correct (the worst of which I identified in my edit comment). Now that you've reverted those changes, the problems are back. The fact that some of them were basic grammar corrections is especially irritating. Tverbeek 03:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Saying that the left vs. right thing "isn't true" is more confusing than informative, and maybe that's part of why it's gone through so many revisions. It is what people said, and it is how many people interpretted it. (I got my left ear pierced in 83 and my right ear in 84, so I have a pretty clear memory of what people were saying.) And because the "rule" was going around, most people who didn't want to be misidentified went along with it. So there was some correlation. And because the whole world didn't drop dead since then, the notion is still running around, and many people still let it influence their piercing choices. Whether you like that is beside the point. It's out there and they do. Putting information about it in with the rest of the cultural history doesn't "give it weight"; it describes it and puts it in context, and lets anybody decide for themselves whether or not they like it and whether to abide by it. Tverbeek 19:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"In recent decades, some people have subscribed to the concept that a man's choice of pierced ear is symbolic of his sexual orientation. While true in some cases, it is generally not valid, because many people have not adopted this symbolism. Moreover, since the mid-1990s, the concept itself has been fading." The main problem with that is that it validates your POV (that it doesn't and shouldn't mean anything), while dismissing as merely "some cases" an entire generation of people for whom this silly rule was important, and as real as any other social norm or standard for behavior. On a college campus or in a high school cafeteria in the mid-80s you didn't have to "subscribe to" it; a pierced right or left ear had a generally-understood meaning. And that meaning wasn't just a baseless myth or legend; when I - after a lot of thoughtful consideration (and a six-pack of beer) - pierced my right ear and stopped wearing the left one for a while, it deliberately did indicate my sexual orientation, and people understood it. Furthmore, I'm skeptical that the notion has really died out as you believe, because pierced left ears still outnumber the right ones; there must be a reason. I don't understand your persistence in denying this, just because it doesn't reflect your own experiences. Tverbeek 00:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Can you please check my comments in the deletion log of Stud earing. I do not want to go into a Wikipedia:Edit war, so please do not remove the Image:Studearring.JPG from every page.

Genesis Communications Network[edit]

A tag has been placed on Genesis Communications Network, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Genesis Communications Network is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Genesis Communications Network saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Pablothegreat85 16:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hippy Sippy[edit]

You did it a long time ago, but I just discovered it. Thanks for starting the article Hippy Sippy. Cheers and happy editing, Kingturtle (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Alrosa Villa[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Alrosa Villa, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alrosa Villa. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CsccLogo.png[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:CsccLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A page you started (Jim Ward (quarterback)) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Jim Ward (quarterback).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

Hi. In the future, when there are multiple possibilities for an article title, rather than simply turning a redirect into a page, you should create a new article (with the appropriate dab in parentheses).

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 TT me 13:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]