User talk:HelloAnnyong: Difference between revisions

Do you have something that alerts you when there's a change to the 3O page, either directly or through your watchlist? You seem to consistently find new listings before I do, and I check my watchlist fairly often. (Not complaining please understand, you do great work.) I've found the way to make my watchlist an RSS list, but I can't seem to find anything that will even alert me through RSS more often than once an hour and most of them will only do it once a day. You seem to get there much faster than that. (On the other hand, I hardly know anything about RSS so I may just be doing it wrong...) Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. No tricks, just my watchlist. It helps to distract me from doing actual work. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source Navigator, in addition to other tools like doxygyn, Ctags, Csource may be considered as analysis tools too --Notopia (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um... I guess? They still don't meet the list's inclusion criteria. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

from the definition of Static code analysis and its purpose of understanding, code comprehension and review, they meet the criteria in some way or another, besides, they are included in a discussion about the same topic: http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.59495.17 --Notopia (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On List of tools for static code analysis, which is a standalone list, the inclusion for criteria is that the product has to be notable on its own. This is usually done by the topic having its own article which proves the notability criteria. And by the way, a forum thread doesn't fulfill WP:N. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you dismissed two recent 3Os without really looking at the history, sorry. The recent Orion one was not a one-off, look in the history, we've been dealing with this for months. The flag of China one was not resolved, as one editor keeps edit-warring about it. Please give them both a second look. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't just toss the flag of China one; I left my thoughts on the page, removed the 3O tag and it looks like it's been quiet ever since. Nearly a day after, there have been no edits to the article or talk pages. I've got them both on my watchlist and will respond to conversation, but there's nothing going on. And the same is true on Orion. Aside from some vandalism on the front page, no one has added anything either. I said that the issue there seemed to be a one-off as I only saw one edit in the last two months from Wes.faires. On top of that, it's clear that he's the minority opinion - KarlM, Hyperdeath and yourself have all said that the text he's trying to add is unacceptable. I just added my opinion on the page if that helps. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Yup it has been removed as spam several times already, I'll take it out again. - Ahunt (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think your right in calling it spam. It appears to be the systematic addition of an external link to a commercial external site. The user [[1]] is permanently banned for adding this link, and I suspect Druidswok is a sock. The actual site they're linking is purely commercial and doesn't seem to provide any reason for notability. I think its could be worth a sock investigation and look at blacklisting the site if they're found to be socks.. (Like your username too). Cheers, Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a query back at you.. This software article: Cafu Engine was just created (Actually translated from the German wikipedia, written by the person moving it) - Its well written, but appears to be created by the author of the software. I removed a blatant plug and placed a COI tag, but am not sure whether its worth doing more. It doesnt read like a spam article (mostly), but most of the external links go back to its own website. Any ideas on how to treat it? Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all but one of the EL; they're really unnecessary. The main problem with this article is that I don't think it satisfies WP:N. I'll start up a talk page over there for discussion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'm never sure how to handle notability of software or objects (Mainly because there are no speedy delete tags for them). It'd actually be a nice article if it was was independent & notable.. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Clovis Sangrail and HelloAnnyong, thank you very much for your feedback. I'm very happy about your rating regarding the quality of translation – I'm not a native speaker and it's normally not easy for me to write good English prose, or even to estimate how the result "sounds" for native speakers. I'm also new to editing Wikipedia, and I'm sorry for the problems with the article, which I take very seriously and will do my best to fix.
I'll continue and write a reply to HelloAnnyong's message at Talk: Cafu Engine asap, and with your help hope to get everything sorted out. Thank you very much! Carsten Fuchs (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out some PR person has hugely enlarged and made the Bristol RenFaire page into a walking advert. I have zero time at the moment, but since you've been so great about the Renfaire page in general, might you be able to take a look? Someone -- rightly -- taggerd it with ll sorts of dubiousity. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, what a mess. I just reverted way, way back to a version with far less suck, and I'll leave a note on the talk page and keep an eye on it. Thanks for the heads up. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I apologize for the imposition. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tanbo art, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 06:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		Decided to leave you a comment, this is one of the coolest thing I have ever seen! Thanks for translating it and adding it to English Wiki. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yeah, it is pretty crazy. I'm just glad that someone on the Japanese Wiki got that good of a picture... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! Those are awesome. I've seen spome similar stuff before[2](this book has some awesome stuff too), but nothing quit that intricate. Again, thanks!. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HelloAnnyong,

I was wondering whether you could delete the COI/neutrality tag you attached to the Dean Karlan article.

Thanks,

Shardulkoza (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thought I'd leave a note in response to your reversion of an edit I made to the article on Chipotle Mexican Grill - didn't mean to offend. You attached a note to your edit explaining that the information I'd removed was sourced and I admit, I didn't investigate the source at the time of my initial edit - probably should have. But I'd expurgated the statement, "Chipotle serves more naturally raised meat than any other restaurant," because it's difficult to support, rather than for a lack of trying on the part of whomever it was that initially added it.

I still think that sentence ought to be omitted from the article, or else qualified to make it less absolute - one source does not a truth make, and the source was misquoted. What the sourced article actually says is, "This year, Chipotle will serve more than 60 million pounds of naturally raised meat - more than any other restaurant company - including all of its pork and chicken, and more than 60 percent of its beef." Clearly that statement refers only to the company's doings in the year 2009. And given a source that said what the article says in the same words, the statement still wouldn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article because it's subject to constant change, and depends upon the assumption by the writer that the author of the sourced material compared every single restaurant that existed at the time, which is unverifiable, which is the bottom line.

What're your thoughts on the matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stagyar Zil Doggo (talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't respond to this here, but I did leave a response on the Chipotle talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping an eye on Jerusalem on the World Heritage Sites in the Arab Countries List! It's a hassle to have to deal with that every couple weeks.Chouji Ochiai (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HelloAnnyong, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Tasburgh House Hotel, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So a self-fulfilling policy, it has to be notable to appear in wikipedia and if it appears in wikipedia then it's notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.95.154 (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? No. You create an article that fulfills WP:N through sourcing and whatnot. Then you can add it to the list. It's not catch-22. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HelloAnnyong,

As you know digital 3D technology is new to the market. Most of the products for sale currently require the use of 3D glasses by the viewers in order to see the 3D effect. Autostereoscopy allows for the viewers to see the 3D effect w/o the glasses. This is new and the terminology for this technology is new as well. As you see more Autostereoscopic 3D displays enter the market you will see the use of "Auto 3D" term more often. Most consumers are not going to refer to there new 3D TV as an "Autostereoscopy TV", or as a "no glasses 3D TV", they will call it an "Auto 3D TV". The term is new and just starting to pop up around the net and at Consumer Electronics shows, so I understand how you can have doubt with such a new fresh term.

Here are just a few online examples that I have found: http://www.shopdigi.com/product.aspx?pf_id=A19MABU : Here is an "Auto 3D LCD Display" for sale. http://www.ampronix.com/content/web/siemens_sxd1899.asp : Another "Auto 3D display" for sale. http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=104865 : Here a few forum users are refering to the new technology as "Auto-3D". http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Auto%203D&defid=4809012 : The term was recently defined on the Urban Dictionary, not a hugely reliable source, I agree. http://www.3dz.co.uk/3d_lcd_monitor.html : This site is selling an Auto 3D kit that allows for 3D w/o glasses. http://alfa.magia.it/3DGugle/DirectAna.htm : This site refers to software feature that gives 2D images a 3D effect by using the "auto 3D feature". http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=18362197 : Users on this forum are refering to the technology as "Auto 3D" http://www.3d-forums.com/auto3d-no-glasses-needed-t58.html : This forum is refereing to it as "Auto 3D". http://www.docstoc.com/docs/16182854/3rd-China-3D-World-International-Forum-_-Exhibition : The China 3D World Intn'l Forum & Exhibition is calling it "Auto 3D". http://www.displayexpo.jp/english/exhibitor/index09.phtml : Both the Mitani Corp. and Newsight Japan Ltd. are reffering to these products as "Auto 3D" http://ces2010.techradar.com/2010/01/07/lg-pushes-three-pronged-3d-approach/ : LG's new projector has Auto 3D image calibration. docs.google.com : The 2008 Intn'l Workshop on 3D info Tech referes to "auto 3d". http://randysimons.nl/125,english/126,3d-page/ : This site refers to Auto 3D displays

You may have to search some of those pages with the Find feature but I assure you "Auto 3D" is a new term, that we will see more and more of as the technology becomes mainstream.

Let me know if you have any questions or need more references, Thanks - —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenGambler (talk • contribs) 04:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So... exactly one of those even remotely qualifies as a reliable source, the TechRadar link. I know it's a term that's used, but you don't need to put it everywhere on the page. There is no reason to add a self-redirecting link to the See also section. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think the two International technology forums count as reliable also? Nor the fact that some companies are already selling units dubbed as "Auto 3D". Why do you keep removing it, whats the deal? No, it doesn't need to be everywhere, but it does need to be somewhere..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenGambler (talk • contribs) 17:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:RS and WP:V. Forums are not reliable since the information on them can change at any time. And I keep removing it because you're adding it in a completely inappropriate way. Big chunks of text saying "Companies and consumers are beginning to use the abbreviated term, Auto 3D, when reffering to 3D displays that do not require the use of glasses to view the 3D effect." are inappropriate. It is a marketing term that at most should receive, at most, a small mention. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even looking at the source? When I refer to the 2 technology forums I am not reffering to an online messaging board with members submitting content, I am reffering to an Electronics and Technology Expo, like CES...

docs.google.com : The 2008 Intn'l Workshop on 3D info Tech referes to "auto 3d".

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/16182854/3rd-China-3D-World-International-Forum-_-Exhibition : The China 3D World Intn'l Forum & Exhibition is calling it "Auto 3D". —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenGambler (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that I am adding it "inappropriately", then please, you add it where it should be.. but it SHOULD be on there. It is being used and will be used more and more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenGambler (talk • contribs) 18:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you're not getting is that neither of those websites are particularly reliable. Even if those papers claim to be whatever conferences they're from, how do I know that that's true? How do I know that someone - like that person who added them to Google Docs or docstoc.com or wherever - hasn't tampered with the information inside? References to the actual locations of the papers or work is better. Either way, I've added a line at the top about the term so this isn't an issue anymore. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I never thought about somebody being able to manipulate those documents. I suppose you could use the wayback machine to verify the content from the point of publishing. I just wanted it added because it wasn't there and I really think it should be. I see your addition, and I agree it is better than what I had added. I will not add anything else on this topic. I do hope that I've proven to you that Auto 3D is a new term being used when reffering to this technology and I thank you for your good judgement and wiki editing expertise. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenGambler (talk • contribs) 18:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess I submitted the report wrong, eh? Sorry. I've done a lot of vandalism-fighting, but haven't started an SPI before. Thanks for fixing it, I guess. :) Regards, • CinchBug • 00:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HA, okay, I think I see what I should have done--I was supposed to file the report under ObserverNY instead of the IP address. Thanks for submitting the correct report! ;) • CinchBug • 00:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no problem. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment on the talk page, but for a new user to know how to restore content and use terms such as meatpuppet makes me suspicious. If it doesn't stop, we can put in a 3R report and/or a request for page protection.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... I already put in the report. And RFPP would be turned down for something like this since it's just one IP. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HelloAnnyong,

(That's weird Hi Hello...)

Anyway, what's the problem with the content that I restored? It keeps getting undone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.60.87 (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least three users have removed it as being inappropriate. I don't know if someone put you up to reverting that text or what, but we've discussed it on the talk page and concluded that it should not be included. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see this? We knew our little tendentious friend had issues, but holy cow. Drmargi (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. That's.. pretty ridiculous. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To say the least. I just read back through the epic "discussion" (which reads like scifi when you treat it as one document) looking for socks, and there may be a couple more. Drmargi (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		The other day, I noticed the wiki utility counting up your contributions and -- at the least -- you certainly deserve acknowledgment of your tireless efforts! Since I wandered across the 3O project some weeks ago, I've been thinking about jumping in as a 3O contributor, and you stand as a shining example of how thoughtful, neutral comments can defuse tension and advance WP as a project. Thanks! (Also, I love the Korean flavor to your name ;o) BigK HeX (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! Always glad to lend a hand. And as a side note, my username is largely a reference to a TV show. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HelloAnnyong. You have new messages at Talk:Ethnocentrism.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for your comments on the State of California. Here 's a userbox just for you. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user eschews userboxes.

Sorry, but are you a little confused. Bonus tracks are worthy info. Go on any discography, click on an album, and it will probably have a bonus track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.231.37 (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is before you added the 12th track info on Lunasa. Sorry. And also sorry about the disruptive edits.--77.99.231.37 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would you choose to vandalise the Aisha article by removing constructive edits? That's just rude! It makes me believe that you are some sort of pedophile protector or follower of allah who hates to see facts about your prophet aired! If this is the case you would do well to study WP:NOT especially the section regarding soapboxization!

Thank you sir! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.199.185 (talk • contribs) 14:41, April 26, 2010

Haha, wow. That's the first time I've ever been called a pedophile protector on here, so thanks for that. Um, I assume you're referring to my removal of WP:POV and otherwise wholly inappropriate additions to the Aisha article. It should probably be pointed out that I'm not the only person on that page to remove POV text from that page. I promise you that I'm not here to soapbox in any way; hell, I'm not even Muslim. But while we're quoting Wiki policy at each other, you should look into the policies regarding adding unsourced original research, or misquoting or misusing sources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you find this amusing! I am not referring to any "unsourced original research" or "misusing sources", if you check my ip address against the talk page edit log youll see what i'm talking about...I've re-added the comment which you removed.

Specifically I refer to

(cur | prev) 16:21, 23 April 2010 HelloAnnyong (talk | contribs) (11,244 bytes) (Reverted edits by SineBot to version 357830307 by HelloAnnyong (ok, that's really not helpful)) (undo)

Oh and PS, i do appologise i am not attempting an attack...if i was attacking you you'd know about it ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.199.185 (talk • contribs) 14:58, April 26, 2010

Oh, ha, you mean this edit. Okay, yeah, I removed that because talk pages aren't meant to be used as a forum. Comments that are not helpful to the discussion can and should be removed from talk pages - and a comment that says "Good for you! It doesn't change the fact that he was a pedophile though :(" falls within those guidelines. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I may not be as proficient with wiki code as you are to make such links. I have other things to do with my time...but there is no need to be so pompous....and i don't believe that that is a forum-esque comment, it simply states personal opinion about the article which is the function of the talk page as I understand it 110.33.199.185 (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HelloAnnyong. You have new messages at Stonemason89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stonemason89 (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tree shaping article has undergone a series of mayor changes in the last few days. Here is the page before and now Duff has now proposed to change the article's name from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. If you are interested please come and comment on Talk:Tree shaping. I am contacting everyone who has edited about arborsculpture Blackash have a chat 08:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please help me wit a dispute I've been having about SVGs as FUR logos on my talk page regarding the replacement of a raster logo wit an equivalent vector, it would be greatly appreciated. I acme to you first because your the first wikipedian in the third opinion givers list that had an SVG uploade. Koman90 (talk), Network+ 12:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your third opinion on recent edits to Australian Psychological Society. — Manticore 01:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the material you have edited are factual positions relating to the Australian Psychological Society and are referenced as such. The section that was previously included by Manitore is not factual and merely the views of some disaffected ex members who wish to promote their own new organisation-this is against Wiki rules and I ask you not to continue to reinstate Nik50382 (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking text directly from outside sources, like http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/Assessment-of-eligibility-for-Clinical-College-membership.pdf, and putting them into the article. That's plagiarism, copyvio, and completely unallowed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for covering! It's good to get some human feeback :-) As I am still relatively new to wikipedia, I'll now have to have a closer look at reliability of sources. Mentalmoses (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made some research and tried to improve the references. But obviously there are many TV related market data exclusively published by international-television.org and not directly by the original sources (who tend to offer these insights as paid services). And the ITVE group is well known in the industry, so I would expect them to be a reliable source. Anyway, you may consider a second review at User:Mentalmoses#Proposed_passage_for_Television_program? thx, Mentalmoses (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HelloAnnyong. You have new messages at Koman90's talk page.
Message added 17:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Koman90 (talk), Network+ 17:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shroud i Be discussing this with an admin at this point, because i feel i am being personally attacked. Please Email me with a response so i can collaborate in private regarding this matter. Koman90 (talk), Network+ 17:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're being personally attacked here; he's just an editor who wants to make sure that what's being done is right. You can take it up with the admins if you want, I guess. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've twice claimed a consensus here, and I cannot find any evidence that one exists. If you have evidence of a consensus building discussion that discussed SVGs being used as logos please provide it. The last talk in the WP:LOGO archives shows this Wikipedia_talk:Logos/Archive_5#SVG_nonfree_logos_-_allow_or_not.3F which indicates no clear overwhelming consensus as you've stated.--Crossmr (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then bring up the issue on the talk page there and let people chime in. I would think that if there were serious issues with turning the logos into SVGs, they would have come up in the two years since that discussion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the issue IS currently on the talk page started by another user who also has a problem with the 2000px link in SVGs. That discussion was not even a year ago. Not 2 years. You wrote in the discussion that there was overwhelming consensus for their use. Do you have a link to an actual discussion where that was formed? It also seems that the user has now been interpreting the logos existence on a user generated site as evidence that it is in public domain. In fact there were several discussions last year, and all they determined was the fact that there was no consensus Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy/Archive_12#File:Man_Utd_FC_.svg, Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_41#Is_it_time_to_explicitly_address_SVG_images.3F and the discussions fizzled out.--Crossmr (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the first you link provided above is from July 2008. That's nearly two years ago. And I'm only one editor who gave his opinion, so I don't know why you're coming after me for this. I don't make the rules, I just follow them. And I'm not the final authority on fair use images. Go take your issue to the noticeboards or something. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the last time stamp which was 2009. The other 2 are from a year ago. You gave your opinion in which you twice claimed consensus. I'm asking you for evidence of that. I'm not coming after you. You brought yourself into the discussion and made a claim and I'm simply asking you to provide evidence of it. I can't find one and you spoke like you knew about a discussion that perhaps I missed. If you can't provide one, that's fine.--Crossmr (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]