User talk:Anthony2106

2024 ARCHIVE

"Controversial autism therapy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Controversial autism therapy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 5 § Controversial autism therapy until a consensus is reached. — Anonymous 03:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Friends lesbian kiss episode" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Friends lesbian kiss episode has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 9 § Friends lesbian kiss episode until a consensus is reached. — Anonymous 02:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"When you are young, they assume you know nothing" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect When you are young, they assume you know nothing has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 22 § When you are young, they assume you know nothing until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Boys only want love if it's torture" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Boys only want love if it's torture has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 24 § Boys only want love if it's torture until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vision Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blind.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect creation

It looks like you've been creating a lot of redirects, many of which even when not nominated for deletion seem kind of marginal (weird orthography, not mentioned in the target page, etc). I'd suggest slowing down and really thinking about whether each redirect is actively going to be useful for navigation: just because we can have a redirect, doesn't mean we need it. Rusalkii (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like to think I've been improving as I have been trying to be more careful. Anthony2106 (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"If god is a DJ, life is the dance flor" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect If god is a DJ, life is the dance flor has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 7 § If god is a DJ, life is the dance flor until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Identity first language

i guess it is reasonable to assume that a braille reader is blind. But as a general principle, most people with visual impairment are not blind. Likewise, most people with hearing impairment are not deaf. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct because that makes sense. but I don't think I said that, I said "blind or visually impaired people"[1] Anthony2106 (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"A blind person" is ok. "A visually impaired person" is not. IMO anyway. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You spelt okay wrong, isn't that interesting?

I didn't think "visually impaired person" was bad. Can I just leave it and see if others think its bad enough for someone else to change it? Anthony2106 (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK/OKAY, see WP:ENGVAR.

I'm content to let it stand in the case of Braille (I haven't reverted and don't intend to, though my finger was twitching). My concern is for the general principle. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since @Graham87‬ liked my edit maybe its fine. Let me ping him so we aren't talking about him behind his back.

Also hello Graham87‬ who should we vote for the Australian Electoral Commission? I don't know who's least ableist so I don't know who to vote for. Do you know? Also on your user page you said you find Asperger's interesting. I'm autistic dose that mean you find me slightly interesting? Also I've been learning how to write audio descriptions so maybe I find blindness slightly interesting. Is it weird we find our disabilities slightly interesting? Also maybe you should learn to use NonVisual Desktop Access because it's free and open-source but since you have been using JAWS for the last 20 years it would probably be a big change that's not worth it.

Now I think I'm using this as an excuse to talk to Graham87‬. Anthony2106 (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I used the thank feature to thank you for your edit to Screen reader because I agree that people-first language sounds better there, but I'm mostly meh about the issue. Re the "Articles I find interesting" section on my user page, I removed it because I mostly put it together in 2006 and 2007. Re my usage of JAWS over NonVisual Desktop Access (NVDA): it's partially comfort (I've been using JAWS in some capacity since the age of nine) and partially because I just like the way JAWS works better, especially for customisations. Graham87 (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean identity first language? And I'll figure out the vote thing another way since it is irreverent. Anthony2106 (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes re first sentence. Irrelevant is the word you wanted re your last sentence. Graham87 (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm really bad at spelling, kinda sucks since I write captions. Anthony2106 (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gracie Abrams - That's So True.ogg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gracie Abrams - That's So True.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. ~~~~ S Philbrick (Talk) 15:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I just added a image description. If the image is bad it should be off commons! How does it violate copyright? Sighted people can read the image, why do blind people gotta suffer by using Optical character recognition? Anthony2106 (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a note on the talk page asking why it isn't a copyright violation.

Frankly I'm not betting that anyone will pay attention. I used to be a Commons admin years ago. If I still were I would almost certainly delete it. S Philbrick (Talk) 18:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick oh okay, maybe now you will remember for nexttime if the long text was just a alt tag. Also you can nominate it for deletion, that work faster. I don't think anyone will see the note you left behind. And can you please undelete my older edit as I don't want to look like one of those persons who makes edits so bad they haft to be deleted. Thanks. Anthony2106 (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> maybe now you will remember for nexttime if the long text was just a alt tag.

Your comment implies that you think the copyright rules are different for alt tags. I don't believe that's the case.

There are reasons for undoing in an deletion but your rationale isn't one of them. Sorry. Unless evidence is provided to persuade me or someone else that the deletion, I think it was a valid deletion. S Philbrick (Talk) 11:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> "Your comment implies that you think the copyright rules are different for alt tags. I don't believe that's the case."

But is on commons, doesn't that mean its free? plus if we don't describe the image then its rude. Also how do you remove alt tags from hundreds of past edits when the image is deleted? Anthony2106 (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]