This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This creates a lot of white space in the article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, seriously? I don't really see any difference: previous versions (top and bottom) vs. current revision (top and bottom). As far as I can see, they effectively render exactly the same (save of course for the first image's sizing). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you redirected this page to UHF - Original Motion Picture Soundtrack and Other Stuff.

Looking at the old version of this article, I'm not sure if the redirect should have been necessary, because compared to other UHF song articles, the amount of information and references are pretty closely related to each other.

I'm thinking about converting the redirect away, to the last version of the song, describing something about the song and so on. How about it? ~Iceshark7 22:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I redirected "Spam" because (a) it was not a single, (b) it has no reliable sources, and (c) it made no claims of notability. The prior version of the article was a stub, and reverting the redirection to that doesn't resolve any of those issues. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What actually leaves me worrying is that the other songs from the album have these issues aswell. As a balance, the other songs may be redirected into the album too, because in my point of view, those assert the same amount of notability as Spam (song would.

I'd include these songs:

• Gandhi II
• Attack of the Radioactive Hamsters from a Planet near Mars
• Let Me Be Your Hog
• She Drives Like Crazy
• Generic Blues
• Spatula City (With extra images)
• Fun Zone
• The Biggest Ball of Twine in Minnesota

In many of the articles Spam (song) is linked on, it was originally meant as a brief of an example, how it is related to those articles, rather than just looking at the title name, "Spam". And to be honest, articles linking into Spam (song) is way higher than any of the other songs in this album, excluding singles.

Maybe this needs a consensus of some sort. ~Iceshark7 23:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (songs), but it only has some community backing and has not been accepted by the community as a whole. A lot of "Weird Al" songs have articles that (per my interpretation of WP:N and WP:V/WP:RS) shouldn't; but more ... enthusiastic (read: rabid?) fans have reverted my changes and shared a few unkind words as regard to my character. So I generally make my changes, but don't follow-up because that's not a fight I want a part of. Maybe someday. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Those could be listed at WP:AFD as a multi-article nomination. By that, it's only good faith - there is no punishment for anyone if the case will be speedily closed or similar. (I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be speedily closed anyway.)

A proposal is another method, but those would be obviously deleted if your redirect have been reverted already. So WP:AFD is probably one of the only choices, if some decisions based on policies are to be made. I do agree with your points on redirects - but if there is a consensus to steer to the other way, the balance of style is still something to pay attention onto. ~Iceshark7 23:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove non-printing space between headings and paragraphs, as you did for Alliance (Firefly). Although this space is not required, it is highly desirable for making editing easier for people who aren't computer programmers used to tight lines of jammed text ☺, which is the majority of Wikipedians. Please remember that the primary point of wiki markup is to make editing easier for non-techies, and that we don't count individual bytes like in the days of computer yore. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect to your tagging of Flesh and Blood (Star Trek: Voyager), I've deleted it because:

a) None of the Star Trek's articles have references, the show itself is the reference. b) About notability, there is a single article for every of the hundreds of episodes of the series, and none of the others are challenged. We have it all! Challenge the entire project or dont do it one by one, please. Regards. --Damifb 11:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, (a) the article requires reliable third-party sources for verification; the show itself is a primary source and does not meet Wikipedia muster per policies and guidelines.

(b) The idea of challenging the notability of articles on a WP:ALLORNOTHING basis is silly: you're saying that either I should challenge all of Star Trek on its notability or not challenge any of its constituent articles? There's no basis for that, and it simply isn't reasonable: Star Trek the phenomenon is notable, "Flesh and Blood" the episode is not, or at least has not provided evidence so.

Unless you can conjure up a terribly compelling reason not to, I'll re-tag the article appropriately so that others can have the opportunity to try and address the pertinent issues. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. What I'm saying is that if you think Flesh and Blood is not notable because it's only an episode's article, then you should tagg all the Voyager episode's articles, wich are 174. I think the point of having the plot of every single one of them gives worth to this particular one... are you following my argument? Are you willing to delete just this one?

About references, see this edit for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equinox_%28Star_Trek%3A_Voyager%29&diff=150483797&oldid=149893660

Do you disagree with that tag removal too? Just asking...

--Damifb 13:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Okie, I follow. I'm not saying it's non-notable 'because it's only an episode article', I'm saying that 'this article about a television episode does not evidence any notability'. Now I wouldn't tag all Star Trek: Voyager episodes because I'm sure there are some which are (or could probably be made to be) verifiably, individually notable; "Caretaker", "Threshold", "Flashback", "Scorpion", and "Endgame" come to mind when considering.

If it cannot be shown to be notable w/WP:RS, than yes I would be willing to delete this single article.

I do disagree with that removal, per WP:V: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I guess you may be right on strict policy bases. I see we both have good faith. All I can say is that, as a fan, I would be very sad if it's deleted. I cherish Wikipedia as a resource where you can find almost every single thing you can think of, the biggest encyclopaedia in the world. I'll be saving every episode in my hard disk, haha. See ya. P.D. : Yeah, Scorpion is awesome! --Damifb 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

These are episode summaries, not dissertations about the episodes. Further, I'll be adding pointers to StarTrek.com summaries about these episodes, so please stop worthlessly tagging them as needed sources, as now your arguments are both pedantic and invalid. Grey Hodge 02:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

They are episode summaries. WP:EPISODE. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Then next time take the same time you spend putting in useless tags, and instead make a pointed to the StarTrek.com entry or the MEmory Alpha entry. They're more useful than the pretty blocks. I understand your affinity for order, but progress is more desirable. Grey Hodge 07:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Damifb, he's only right on strict policy basis because he's a Rules Troll. What that means is he comes here to beat articles and Wikipedos to death with the letter of the law, and purposefully go against the spirit of the law. So, you may say "the rules need to be revised so he cannot abuse them!" which sounds good, but fails. The rules also say Follow the spirit, not the letter. It's part of the policy to ignore all rules. In short: screw pd_THOR, he's wrong. --TIB (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A friend has alerted me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Follow_the_spirit.2C_not_the_letter and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WIARM both of which I think sum up the arguments against your needless tagging. Be sensible, and don't apply all rules to the point of becoming counterproductive. Grey Hodge 02:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

general reply

So what I'm gathering here between the incivility and personal attacks is that reliable sources, verifiability, and notability aren't really needed for Wikipedia articles, and that I shouldn't really bother making sure that articles have them? The policies and guidelines set in place are only really followed by the people who hate Wikipedia anyways, then?

Simply put folks: Every Wikipedia article requires evidence of notability, verifiable to reliable third-party published sources.

Now, this article does not meet these criteria; but in case the article has merit to meet them, article tags such as ((notability)) and ((unreferenced)) are there to provide others the opportunity to bring the article up to par. They are not an attempt to be ogrish, but helpful--and simply removing them does not mean the article meets muster. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree the comments like "screw you" and such are unwarranted. However, you are simply incorrect in your statement of "simply put". When it comes to projects of this size, nothing is simple and clear cut. One must use judgment when applying the rules, and realize that in some circumstances, certain rules just don't apply. A simple summary of a TV show where everything can be verified by watching the episode is one of those circumstances. Further, the article wasn't making any original or novel claims about the episode, or its effect on anything external. It is no more in need of citation than a TV Guide summary. Now, were this a review of the episode, a critical look at it, then I would support you whole heartedly. I again urge you to refresh yourself on these two articles. [1] and [2] Grey Hodge 07:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding a diatribal reply, I'll first ask: (1) what relevance does WP:WEASEL have here and (2) what exactly is the ineffable "spirit" of the notability guidelines that "Flesh and Blood" meets or qualifies under? The notability guidelines say (in a nutshell): "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This article does not, and as such I tagged it appropriately.

However, you're right on this point: "An actual episode may be used as a source for information about the episode and constitutes a primary source. Such use does not constitute original research if it is used to verify a fact." (Wikipedia:Television episodes#Reliable sources). Being only a plot summary does not require further sourcing than the episode itself. I personally would still have listed that reference (((cite episode))) to make it easier for somebody to find and verify the source. However, being a "simple summary of a TV [episode]" does not an encyclopedia article make. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have created a new tag and added it to this image. This image is not suitable for copying to Commons, as it would probably be deleted there. It is not public domain in Germany. -Nard 22:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you copied unnecessary duplicate information from the Actor Infobox into the Criminal Infobox? Ward3001 01:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it was incomplete. I'm ambivalent about your removal, should you be inclined to inquire. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The same info is already presented twice in the article: in the Actor Infobox and in the text of the article. No need for that much redundancy. Ward3001 02:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've hidden your candidate for commons tag on this graph for a while. Reason is that it's still very much under development and there's a current dispute over how to present it. Once things have settled down I'll copy it over to commons. --Monotonehell 06:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No biggie, I understand. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the script problems are caused by the changes made to file history of images. The script no longer recognizes the uploader from the format and hangs up at that point. I'm hoping Howard comes back to fix it soon, I'm crippled. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

I noted, a couple of weeks ago, you put this on the list of possible unfree images. Let me first off say I don't believe the user who reuploaded this image is the same as the banned user JuliannaRoseMauriello. I looked at sebdvd's(?) contributions and they don't seem to fit the pattern. Also, I am a fairly well-known member of Julianna's fan community and have had dealings with the banned user, JuliannaRoseMauriello, in the past. He's the one who compromised my Ispy1981 account. He has also been a particularly bothersome stalker of Julianna's, which brings me to my next point. I have reason to believe this image was originally stolen from Julianna's (now non-existant) myspace by the blocked user and mass-distributed, therefore ending up on the internet. I have, in the past, asked to be contacted regarding a picture for the article as I have a few (4 out of costume--public appearances,3 in costume). I'd really like to see a picture of her AS herself, not the character, but, I'll be honest, I've read the rules regarding images and it just flies over my head. I'm really not much of an image person, more a writer. Any suggestions? I'll be watching for a reply. Thanks. --Sethacus 21:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you don't think it was JuliannaRoseMauriello (talk · contribs) who uploaded the image when the image description page lists him there. You may also want to add your input about your personal experiences with this image to the PUI page as they seem pertinent.

As for requesting free-use images, I've never actually done it myself. I can give you a few pointers though.

1. Check Flickr. Flickr allows uploaders to license their images under the Creative Commons and if somebody has licensed a "JRM" picture under a "cc-by" or "cc-by-sa" then it would qualify for Wikipedia's use and you should grab it. Having said this, I just ran that search and came up with nothing. But that's point one.
2. Read Chowbok (talk · contribs)'s form-letter for contacting people and/or their agents and requesting free-use imagery: User:Chowbok/Photo request boilerplate. Read and proceed.
3. Peruse Videmus Omnia (talk · contribs)'s user page under "What I do here". He has some explanatory text there, as well as a link to his own processes for requesting free-use context.

I hope this is very helpful for you, and if you have any questions, please let me know. I intend to attempt to do the same sometime soon for a few articles I've had my eye on; but you try for the "JRM" article and let me know of your successes. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, some miscommunication and some weirdness The image, as originally posted by the blocked user, was added by another user, possibly unaware of its history. That user's edit history doesn't seem to match the blocked user's. But, looking at it, it seems as though the only account in the history is the blocked user. Odd.

I've copied Chowbok's form-letter and will be sending it to the Carson-Adler Agency. Thanks for the assistance.--Sethacus 16:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Good deal; lemme know how and if it works out for you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an FAC. So please do not add wikilinks to articles with which readers are familiar such as "organisation", "mobile phone", "elevator" and castrate. It is against WP:MOS. the article was overlinked and failed FAC once because of this - your edits have been reverted. Vikrant Phadkay 15:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I made two edits to Casino Royale: I disambiguated "Grand Canal" to "Grand Canal of Venice", and wikilinked "Lake Como"; and neither of these edits were reverted. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edits [3] although well-intentioned, just formatting to the Chris Crocker article are a blatant violation of Do No Harm policy. Please read up on WP:Bio. The subject of the article has received death threats and has worked to retain a level of anonymity. Your addition of date/place of birth can risk their safety as well as anyone perceived to be them. I realized you were just formatting but I didi want to bring this to your attention on this article because of the death threats and anonymity issues. Benjiboi 12:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I take no offense. As you said, I was only reformatting the information that was already there. Having come across the article from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik, I didn't actually read the article, just noted the infobox information could use a little work. As you were. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 05:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll either look it over tonight before I go to bed or tomorrow after my test. I'm kind of busy studying right now. But with a quick glance, you seem to have done a good job so far. --Nehrams2020 04:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

((Unreferenced)) should be used only on articles that have no sources (references or external links). The ((Refimprove)) template is appropriate for articles with some sources but not enough. ((Unreferencedsect)) , ((Primarysources)), or ((Citations)) may also work well for your purposes. Thanks--BirgitteSB 17:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked through your contributions to see what you were talking about, and found Christopher Collins? I used ((unreferenced)) because the article didn't/doesn't have any references, only a few external links--is that what you were looking at? I actually use ((unreferenced)), ((unreferenced-section)), ((more sources)), and ((primary sources)) frequently with the appropriate degrees of applicability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, upon further review, you're not referring to the sources I removed, are you? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No I am talking about the external links (particularly IMDB) which is a source that this guy is actor and what he worked on various shows. It still needs more and better quality referencing but it is past the bar of complete fabrications and things of a more dubious nature. The more articles with low-quality sources tagged with ((unreferenced)) and put in the same category articles with no sources, the longer it will take for hoaxes be repaired and fabricated articles to be deleted. Right now articles tagged in June of 2006 are being examined and referenced. The category was half-full of articles with one or more sources that had to be re-tagged before we could actually look over the ones without any sources. I personally found two complete fabrications and a number of strange hoaxes that seem to be spread over the internet to some degree. Please save this category for the worst of the worst so maybe they won't sit around for over a year and a half before being found out. You can likely find better references for an actor in less than five minutes if are really concerned about the quality of IMDB. Actors are not that hard to source. But if you want to just tag it and forget it, please use ((refimprove)).--BirgitteSB 18:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Heard, understood, and acknowledged. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The image is of a book that's discussed in the article. According to the wikipedia rules, that's allowed. So stop marking it for delete already. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean Image:Fran Drescher Enter Whining.jpg? The image lacked, and continues to lack a detailed fair-use rationale. To meet the non-free content criteria, the rationale needs to explain how "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." All the image description page details now is that it is "in accordance with the wiki fair use rules" without detailing in what fashion it is doing so.

I don't personally feel the image meets the non-free content criteria, but I'm not specifically advocating its deletion; were I, it would be listed at WP:IfD. I'm tagging the image so that other editors may work to bring it into compliance before any judgment is made on it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In short, you're a deletionist. Fine, delete it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your kind now owns wikipedia, and are doing nothing to improve it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, your kind hates illustrations, and you use wikipedia policy to justify deleting as many as possible. Your attitude is offensive. Why do you even bother notifying? Just delete what you don't like, and be done with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know how I missed your ... input, but I never received a notice bar that I had. Well, I've never categorized myself as such, and nobody else has before you, but if you prefer to categorize your Wikipedian contacts, I see no reason to dissuade you. Further, I don't intend to delete anything as its beyond my technical capabilities.

"My kind owns Wikipedia?" I'm not in the employ of the Wikimedia Foundation, so I'm not sure what you mean. I don't know for certain that the Foundation works specifically to improve Wikipedia (although I should imagine so), but I certainly do—or feel I do at any rate; I haven't run into too many Wikipedians who specifically have the opposing viewpoint.

Wracking my brain, I can't really think of any aspect of Wikipedia I hate. I do do my best to employ and enforce the community-written policies, guidelines, and standards of Wikipedia; and sometimes that does constitute pursuing media that I feel is in non-compliance. I usually notify members when said media is in doubt because its generally considered both polite and expected. I'll say again though: the deletion of media (or articles) is not within my realm of technical abilities, please don't think I'm a Wikipedia administrator or sysop. Lastly, I'm sorry you find my attitude offensive, it's not intended to be.

To placate you, I won't "pursue" the image any further than to request a fair-use review by an administrator. I understand that this process is in extreme backlog; so if, in the meantime, you (or any other editor) contributes a specific and comprehensive rationale that I can appreciate as being within the WP:NFCC, I'll withdraw the request. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello,
In 2005 you posted to the McDonaldland talk pages about a proposed merge of the individual characters' pages into the main body of the McDonaldland article. I cannot see if this was ever done and I have recently proposed the same.

If you would like to comment on this, please check out the McDonaldland characters merge discussion.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 07:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

Wow, there's a blast from the past. I still support a merger of the constituent articles, and have provided that support at Talk:McDonaldland#McDonaldland characters merge. Also, cheers on following up with the editors from the talk page. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 11:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007
Project News The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way. A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details. Member News Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia New Members Congratulations to our 225 new members	From the Editors The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below) We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future. This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page New irc channel Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network: #wikipedia-en-bio Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up. Contributors to this Issue Psychless (talk · contribs) Phoenix 15 (talk · contribs)
Complete To Do List Write an article Expand an article about: a person an actor an animator an artist a bishop a businessperson a diplomat an educator an engineer a lawyer a military person a musician a photographer a saint a politician a scientist a sportsperson a writer Improve an article by: adding references adding categories Review an article Romano Volta • Suzanne Carrell • Mullá Husayn • John Gilchrist (linguist) • Thomas Brattle • Answer requests for comments Work on the Portal Portal:Biography Assess an article Assessment requests Unassessed articles Assessment Progress Biography articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Core Other ??? Total FA 34 1,583 1,617 FL 189 189 A 94 94 GA 42 7,948 7,990 B 93 36,260 36,353 C 34 156,595 156,629 Start 2 727,548 727,550 Stub 1,031,148 1 1,031,149 List 7,412 7,412 Category 2 137,086 137,088 Disambig 8,044 8,044 File 27,351 27,351 Project 1 196 197 Redirect 3 41,464 41,467 Template 12,554 12,554 NA 236 236 Assessed 211 2,195,708 1 2,195,920 Unassessed 32,090 32,090 Total 211 2,227,798 1 2,228,010 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 10,576,355 Ω = 5.39
We couldn't do it without you!

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .

From Image talk:WuBai&ChinaBlue - WhiteDoveCDCover.jpg#rfu:

AjaxSmack (talk · contribs) added ((album cover fur)) to the image [ Image:WuBai&ChinaBlue - WhiteDoveCDCover.jpg ], which supposes a number of intentions, the primary of which is that the image is being used in the article about the album. I've never come across that template before, and it is apparently a standardized boilerplate used for album covers in the articles about them. However, in this instance, it was implemented to rationalize using an album cover the depict the artist on it; this usage fails WP:NFCC#1. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This image does not violate WP:NFCC#1. It is under copyright and not replaceable by free content and it is clearly labelled as illustrating the album, not the performer. In this case, the performer has no separate article pages for albums — they are dealt with together on one page. If you have issues with this usage, please discuss it first at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content where it is currently under discussion before conducting deletions.

Excerpt from that discussion: "...In accordance with the various laws applicable and the Wikipedia policy, it's actually ok to post all album covers (yes, all) on the artist's page in addition to the album article. It's not, however, appropriate to do this as we prefer (not, do not require, but prefer) context based inclusions only on the Wikiguidelines...There is no copyright or fair use law in the world that would prohibit use of every album cover by an artist being listed on the artist page and on the album page. We do choose not to do it because it's inappropriate, but it's certainly not illegal, and definitely within Wikipolicy..." - User:Lincalinca

If you disagree with this please bring it up there and when a consensus is reached, proceed on that basis.

— AjaxSmack 22:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me what is wrong with WLEX's logos. Help me out since someone is putting the correct copyright info on them. I don't really know what to put, but I want to see them stay there. Thanks. -WLEX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.208.205.253 (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The gallery of copyrighted images w/o any accompanying encyclopedic content isn't allowed, per the non-free content criteria (NFCC). The NFCC are purposed to keep Wikipedia (the free encyclopedia) from overusing copyrighted material except where necessary. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you reverted my edits to Stella Hudgens? She is all those ethnicties. Thanks. 65.33.220.127 02:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

With regards to this edit, it seemed at the time to be vandalistic overcategorization, but I'll revert as the reference provided appears reliable in its content. I'm sorry to assume ill faith, it just seemed like an IP's drive-by vandalism and I didn't look at it closely enough. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing to other users - since when did I do that this time, very funny you are. Dr Tobias Funke 20:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to infer that you had yet, but was reminding you not to again. There was no malicious intent or ill faith intended, but as you've made no other edits to Wikipedia since you canvassed for your previous nomination of the same article, I just wanted to remind you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me that you tagged this image so the imagebot wouldn't remove it.--CyberGhostface 17:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) notified you of the orphaning of the image; I had tagged the image with ((no copyright holder)) and ((no rationale)) prior to that. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. I would have preferred that you had notified me when you tagged my image so I could have added the source and fair use rationales to it. It was one day away from being deleted and I had no idea that you tagged it a week prior.--CyberGhostface 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Who knew. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Knew what?--CyberGhostface 17:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Should have spoken to me first before going down the delete route. Such a waste of time ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about Image:Danceswithwolves2.jpg? Should I have? I didn't expect disagreement or argument from my initiative; had I felt it a contentious point, I may have done so. That being said: I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Wasting my time isn't something I do if I can avoid it, and certainly wouldn't do if I were enjoying myself. Ergo, if I'm working on Wikipedia, I won't be wasting my time. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Recently, you added the following template to the above titled article: ((non-free)) Please explain your action. The number of images in the article is not IMHO excessive. There are a multitude of articles with even more fair-use images than this one. Why did you single this article out.

And please -- don't tell me that the argument of other articles do it is invalid! I consider the policy inept (see the note with my signature).

It is a question of degree. If there was a scene by scene depiction of the story from begining to end, you might be justified. However, there are only 3 key images used to illustrate the story and one each illustrating the related works.

If you still must insist that even this trivial showing is excessive -- WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST? -- Jason Palpatine 07:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC) This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

I just dropped a cruise missile on the previous version of the classes section in the Team Fortress 2 article, cutting it back to bare necessities (using archived link in case someone reverts my edits in the meantime) in an effort to get compliance with WP:NOT#GUIDE. I've removed all the extensive game information, keeping a base outline of what the classes are designed by Valve to do, as well as any information from their promotional video (the way I see it, the characterisation of the classes has been praised by critics, so it is acceptable to give a brief outline of that personality from the videos). As the person who originally tagged the section, I would like your feedback on my effort. -- Sabre 12:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh Yeah, that looks much more succinct and apropos.

I'm still not too keen on the arbitrary non-free images littering the section. Too many would be too many, but what are the reasons for using the few examples that are there now? Talk:Team Fortress 2#images didn't seem to get very far. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Now the Source SDK can handle the new engine, I'll see if I can't make a single non-free image displaying a couple (not all the classes) in more detail than the box art, hopefully in a more appropriate style than four separate non-free images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S@bre (talk • contribs) 15:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I passed along your inquiry to the image creator. I imagine she will respond within a day as it took her only a few hours to respond the first time ++Arx Fortis 18:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I see you just tagged the notes section of the Can't Buy Me Love article. I was grappling whether I should remove that section or not because it doesn't seem like a). It's backed up by a reliable source and b). Doesn't sound encyclopedic in any way, shape or form. I sort of wanted an outside opinion before I went on a deleting spree so, do you think it should be removed? If so, I will remove it, I just didn't want it added back because I was the only one who thought it shouldn't be included. I can't fathom that whomever wrote that in will be able to source is properly though. Thanks! Pinkadelica 13:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's unlikely to be reliably sourced and should be removed. But people can get affronted with summary removals, so I tagged it initially so that if it were removed later, there wouldn't be any complaints that it wasn't "given a chance". As we find ourselves in agreement, I would probably just remove it at this time. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please review the current state of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forsaken (Warcraft) and its subject article. I think the state of that article at the time was sufficient reason to bring it up for AfD, but the topic itself and the current state of the article make it more worthy of keeping. -Harmil 18:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(Or however that's supposed to work phonetically.) X-COM: UFO Defence is a very significant game. Not only was it a hit and critically acclaimed in its time, it's been the pinnacle of its genre for thirteen years and counting, the amount of time between The Legend of Zelda and Diablo II. This was in large part due to its atmosphere, in particular its aliens - to this day, you can mention Chryssalids to a retrogamer and expect not only recognition but a rant.

For this reason, I'd like to remove the notability tag from the article on the alien races, regardless of the applicable guidelines, because we'd only stand to lose from their loss. We'd be well within our rights in doing so, considering that each and every guideline explicitly permits this kind of action. --Kizor (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize. If you check the histories for the original pages and images for the X-COM races, you'll find I worked on them back when I first started contributing to Wikipedia. Further, I too find them very iconic and memorable, but I am not Wikipedia. I tagged the article as it doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, the first being more difficult than the latter, and just removing the tags doesn't mean it meets those requirements. The game itself? Totally and easily. But a list of the races from the game I think you'd be hard-pressed to meet muster.

I'm not watching the article currently, and I made a conscious effort not to once I'd tagged it. If you remove the tags, that itself won't bring the article into compliance, it just delays the time until somebody else comes across it and either tags it again it bring it up for WP:AfD. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow... I'll report that as a bug. --NE2 23:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Trying to get the article up to a quality ready for WP:GAC, as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Featured topic Drive. Cirt 18:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

You removed the original airdate from the article 33 (Battlestar Galactica), as well as the image. I have restored both. Please note that US airdates don't take precedence over UK airdates. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF, I have no bias towards airdates at all: I removed the original UK airdate as the article had no reliable source for it, nor could I find one. If you'd prefer, I could tag it with a ((fact)) for a time. As for the image, it swiftly fails the non-free content criteria, as it is neither necessary nor significant to the readers' understanding of the article. I can nominate it separately for deletion if you'd prefer? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the recent over-implementation of deletionism targeted at fiction related topics, so I fear WP:AGF doesn't really apply, since you are following policies that I do not support. You can be assured however that I have nothing personal against you or your edits. Wikipolitics are wikipolitics after all. Regardless, personally I think removing an airdate simply because it has no source is a bad practice. We have no reason to assume that it is incorrect and it's not a BLP issue either. It is not a statement open to interpretation, but a simple fact that should be possible to verify, albeit perhaps not at this time. Letting the article grow, if need be by tagging it with [fact] is much more appropriate, and the way most of the information in Wikipedia was created. (I know entire lists of data in the Physics and Space areas of Wikipedia that could be flat out deleted on the spot if we started deleting every unsourced fact. Yet funny enough, no one complains about those). I would also like the image to remain in the article and I do not think it fails or should fail NFCC, however I know I will be slammed down in any sort of discussion that takes place on that regardless of what I say, so what's the point in having a discussion at all. I'd appreciate it however if such images are removed in separate edits with the reason of why they are being removed in the summary ergo "image removed because it fails NFCC #". Please be aware that i'm not a BSG editor, I just happened to came across this edit and disagreed with it in part. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 03:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor and civility. I also thank you for appreciating my points and where I'm coming from, and I'm sorry that WikiPolitics (a new word for me, actually) aren't going the way you'd prefer. I'll edit back within this compromise, once to ((fact)) the UK date (and I'm going to remove the flags in favour of the original formatting) and a second time to remove the image again w/an edit summary. Cheers? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You edited the article Osborne Reef, replacing the word "loosing" with "losing". Do what? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pd_THOR, yeah, on closer inspection my bot got that wrong. "loosing" (as in "untightening" or "letting go") is often a typo for "losing" (as in "not winning"), but in this case they do mean the tires came loose from the reef. I've added an exception to my bot so it won't try to correct this again. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Possum, thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I don't get the in-joke with your barnstar. I am not very familiar with the Blossom TV series, have never edited its articles, and remember your name from somewhere but can't tell if I said/did something that you thought was great, was idiotic, or whether you're confusing me with someone. Insecure as I am, I hope you can shed some light into what exactly I did to "deserve" your attention with a star. Just to make sure. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 10:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing insincere meant by it at all, I promise!, I was just trying to be clever in my delivery. Blossom was a TV series renown for their very special episodes, and I was just trying to be clever and sincerely complimentary at the same time. Sorry to confuse you, it all made sense in my head!

As for what you've done: I've been very impressed by the quality of your articular wiki-work (Carnivàle and more spring to mind) as well as your very personable approach to meta wiki-work: WT:STARGATE episodes, the fiction-notability guidelines, and your continued understanding and patient dealings with other editors (new and old). Everywhere I see you around, I can usually find you improving things, people, and discussions. Cheers! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, wow then, thank you. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see discussion at User_talk:Tyrenius#LeKay_photos. Tyrenius (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you have tagged this article? You left no justification on the talk page, so it's hard to try to improve the article. Editus Reloaded (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The article has zero reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which are necessary for both Wikipedia's verifiability and notability requirements. Personally, I don't really think this character warrants her own article (or is notable) outside of Die Another Day; the article is essentially plot exposition and character description, which would be best served merged into the film article (if not already there). The bits about Halle Berry's accidents on-set, if they can be reliably sourced, would then best be presented in the production section of the film's article.

If you really think that you can provide the sources to show notability of the character outside of the film itself, research them out and work them into the article to satisfy both of the tags I placed. Don't think I want to dissuade you from doing so, I just don't really think you'll be able to. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the ((fair use review)) tag you placed on Image:MeretzkyAndAdams.jpg because the existing fair use rationale appears valid and you did not raise any objections on the image talk page or at WP:FUR. If you have additional concerns about this image, please raise them at Wikipedia:Fair use review so they can get attention. —dgies^t_c 16:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You know what, I don't think the image is used in the same articles as it was when I placed the ((fair use review)) tag. Meh, no biggie, thanks though. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole complexity and length of this process really annoyed me, as I feel this was only one of thousands of images that have to go through the same process. I have put a proposal Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Fair_use_image_for_upload for a policy change to change this process. I have never used the Village Pump before, so I dont know what kind of reception it will get, but this ammount of effort cannot be sustained Fasach Nua (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll definitely keep an eye on that, thanks for the heads-up. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:CI game.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why did you insert the ((nonfree)) tag? This is a video that has more or less been released into the public domain with its license (see image descriptions, the SPA said it could be redistributed just about anywhere), and even if it hadn't been, all of the photo and audio uses would likely still fall under fair use. Mr Senseless (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Less, actually: having watched it, it specifically dictates non-commercial educationally-specific permission usages. Therefore, being non-free media, they fall under Wikipedia's criteria for their usage, the WP:NFCC. Specifically: "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." (WP:NFCC#3) and "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." (WP:NFCC#8). I question the necessity of any copyrighted media in the article as it stands, much less four. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 18:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I'm not so into LoM really. I caught the first season, and I'm BitTorrenting the second, but I'm just a level-2 fan at this point. Thanks again, though. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, good catch on the copyvio there. I saw you IFD'd it: was there some reason it can't be speedied under WP:CSD#I9, or can it be nuke it now? Also, do you have the link to the site it's from, to save me some searching? Thanks much! delldot talk 03:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:^) Thanks. I don't have the primary source, but this makes the case well. You could go through the FHM site itself, if you wanted to. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have followed the guidlines to the best my abilities and added tags to each and everyone of my images, I would like to ask what I have done wrong, none of the images are damaging to the studio, I have tagged all of the sources, I have made character descriptions, what am I doing wrong can you please tell me because I have had a problem simialar to this on an article I have worked on before but we ended up giving up. Any feedback would be much appreciated

Thank you

EwanMclean2005 (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted images should only be used and rationaled when absolutely necessary. To "properly illustrate" a character in a film, from whom there are less than a single, unsourced paragraph or line of exposition (saying nothing of notability), does not (IMO) fall under the auspices of "absolutely necessary". — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [4]. --Maniwar (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your feedback is welcome at Proposed Objective Criteria for TV Episode Notability.Kww (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Were you going to start a review at WP:FUR regarding Image:I'm RickJames Bitch!.jpg? It appears you tagged the image but didn't start a discussion.--Rockfang (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Back when I'd tagged that, I was under the assumption that tagging with ((fair use review)) was sufficient to instigate that process—my mistake. At the time I tagged the image, it was used on something like four pages iirc w/o sufficient rationale I felt. I'm not so inclined to follow-up on it at this time, but thank you for the heads-up! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. --Rockfang (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Pd THOR. Since you recently contributed to the lively deletion discussion for Template:Non-free promotional, I thought I'd let you know that I've continued the discussion about this template at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Template:Non-free promotional. The result of the deletion discussion was to keep the template, but there are still some questions about whether the current template serves a useful purpose and how to prevent its misapplication. Please contribute to the discussion if you are interested. —Bkell (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has added the ((prod)) template to the article Stella Hudgens, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the ((prod)) template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)