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. |
Thanks for uploading Image:104 0475.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Nov. 16 & Nov 27 IFDs are all processed. -Regards Nv8200p talk 19:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Per your request at The Albums Wikiproject, I've moved to the Weird Al Yankovic talk page and left my opinions there. You may be surprised at my opinions; I prefer a third and much simpler method which I use myself (I've taken guidance from an admin. on my method and incorporate his formatting into mine). Check the Talk Page for more, and for a detailed example that I am proposing. =) CycloneGU (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
You could add something at the top that says "The track listing is as follows:" followed by a singular reference to Allmusic or some other similar source that verifies the track names and lengths. That would be much simpler. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Numb3rsCastorig.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I uploaded several of the photos on the Whitman page. You came along and altered the images. I believe the images are best when left in their unaltered state. If you do not share this view, please reply so I can stop contributing photos due to conflicting views. Thank you! Victor9876 (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
However, all I did to the images at Charles Whitman was crop them to better illustrate their subjects, remove black spaces, and straighten crooked images. Leaving them as they were was less beneficial to our readers, so I didn't expect any dissention. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
It looks really great! Thanks. I have been doing the same thing with some of my other pics. The date on it says Dec 28....is that when you up loaded it?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Since you have tagged the file, I will state that the original source for the image i am using is the url itself. The copyright it listed on the image itself (i don't see how you can make it anymore clear) and as it taken from the game, it's obvious the copyright holder created the image.じんない 05:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
As the tag and WP:NFCC#10a stipulate, listing the copyright holder is required for all non-free imagery. As this file does not, such tagging is needed. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
re: this edit
What about the notability I added don't you comprehend. Do I have to use big pictures and little words in some magic combination? Go pick on Buffy the Vampire series... the state you rules mechanics put this series into is horribly embarrassing.
WP:NOTE is the worst guideline ramroaded through in my five plus years editing these pages as I argued back when. I'm just trying to clean up a really big mess I found created in holy name of I'm following a guideline regardless of how badly it makes the project look kinda shit edits... which with 180+ high-quality pages impacted really required a monumentally stubborn sense of duty, however misguided. One zealot with a few henchmen totally raped some really good articles from what I can see. (Besides, the starletts have nice tits. <g>)
The academics seem to think having popular culture related articles is unworthy, but fact is until we repudiate the five pillars and we close editing, you may as well try to empty the ocean using a fork— People will go on creating them. The lost editing hours wasted trying to stamp them out makes me very angry and the project much poorer. A high sources standard is not needed for such, quotes from the primary source material are far better than some writers opinion in a magazine or whatever. Or don't you trust people to . Kindly stop wallpapering the world with stupid in-the-face tags (which are also controversial like WP:NOTE!) and help... not be part of the problem. // FrankB 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You feel that because of X, Y, and Z reasons, this article is worthy of note; instead, (hypothetically) I feel that absolutely nothing on television worthy of note. This is an awesome recipe for conflict between editors. To avoid this, we all agreed beforehand that there needs to be objective criteria that will determine article "worth"; unfortunately we called it the "notability guideline", and that's caused a lot of confusion.
Instead of me of you deciding what we want deserves articles, we compare the article to the guideline and see if it meets muster. That way it's not me saying an article is notable, and it's not you saying you don't think so; we can both easily read the guideline and see if it meets the criteria set forth.
For example, I think my wife's notable, but you may not. Instead of making such an article and fighting back and forth with nasty words as to the importance of my wife, the community can simply point to WP:N and say, "We all collectively agree that this article—not your wife specifically—doesn't meet our threshold for notability/inclusion."
Not only does "Charmed Again" not meet those objective criteria ("[Evidence of having] received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"), but it doesn't even meet the verifiability policy. I'm neither "against" or "picking on" this article, nor do I explicitly want it deleted for any given reason at this point. The tags are there to help people know that there's something wrong with it, and what they need to do to fix it and help keep the article around.
Now, secondly: I'm not going to rise to the bait and argue with you about opinions on policies and guidelines. You may not appreciate the Notability guideline or Verifiability policy and why they're in place and enforced, but they are and that's the cost for playing here. If you still wish to discuss them and your opinions/intentions, I recommend you do so at WT:N and WT:V; I won't here. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You're still arguing against/about the guidelines and policies again, and I'm not going to have those discussions with you on my talk page. You calling me incompetent, and "spitting" on the guidelines doesn't make them go away. So long as they're there and they reflect the current majority consensus (regardless of how you personally feel), they're the rules we play by. If you don't want to, I'm aware that there're a large number of specialty Wikis with less-stringent regulations on Wikia. In fact, it appears the Charmed Wiki may be what you're looking for.
I made no claim of a lack of coverage, only that the article lacks evidence thereof. I would recommend you vet your very many sources for reliability and include them in the article.
Again, "rape", "nazi"; easily interpretable as personal attacks.
That said, you're probably right, it probably is notable, but the article needs evidence of that; that's why the tags are there. If I felt there were no chance of this meeting the guidelines and policies we've discusses, I would probably ((prod)) or nominate for deletion instead.
Lastly, the notice at the top of my talk page tells you that if you comment here, here's where I'll reply. I'm sorry you don't like my SOP, but your repeated incivility and plainly personal attacks won't make you my exemplar for courtesy. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
In my attempt to find the last clean version of the article I managed to undo your image resizing (I had already found errors in the version you reverted to previously, sorry). Do you want to have another go based on my edit, or have you reverted already? No problems either way. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Since I just archived my talkpage, I may as well start a new thread here. I have finished my copyedit of Law & Order: UK, but the lead will have to wait for later. The main differences from before are that I removed most refs from the infobox, restructured the refs into run-on refs instead of newlined refs, removed oversectioning, merged single sentences into groups of themes, and did the actual copyedit for prose. Almost no info got lost, although you should check if I accidently changed the meaning somewhere (I am mostly unfamiliar with the franchise). – sgeureka t•c 14:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the ((Copy to Wikimedia Commons)) template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:Luther Burger Goolge.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. During the move I changed the name of the image to better reflect Naming Conventions policy, the article that contained the image has been updated to reflect the new name as it exists now on Commons. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
File:392221718 9e66d89ca7 o.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Luther Burger Goolge.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Luther Burger Goolge.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I did put a rational on that image the day I uploaded it. You must have not read it. Go to File:Rgbfull.jpg and check it again, it's on there. Thank you.--Stco23 (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I improved the fair use rational, I hope this makes you happy.--Stco23 (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I just reformatted your signature at WP:RM because it was breaking the text formatting for the section lower down. I couldn't work out exactly what was wrong in order to fix it, so I just substituted it for a bog-standard User:pd_THOR one instead. Feel free to replace that with the correct version though! Best, Knepflerle (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
You're very welcome. I've done a couple more and will have another look asap. Best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
No problemo. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
--Dravecky (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop reinserting the broken link that I have corrected. It is &ep=101, not &ep=0101. When you follow the correct link, the page title quite clearly states that it is episode 101. And that is a reliable source. — Edokter • Talk • 14:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the URL's title, do you assume that "Episode" = "production code"? I don't. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
My understanding was that the 101 in the URL is the production code. If you strongly disagree, then remove the citation. While I agree with you that since there is a challenge, a source must be provided, I also believe this to be an extremely minor issue not worth the contention, and the length and tone of this debate is, I fear, becoming a bit "pointy". So long as the season and episode number is identified, an actual production number is mere trivia. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you comment on the talk page of the article about a comment by a new editor. It would help, after all, to have some secondary as well as primary sources, and soe evidence that the name in the article title was in fact used. I'll keep in touch with it there. DGG (talk)
do you think it could stand up to a good article review now in its current state? Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering about your notice, PdThor. Is the website where the image is found not enough? I would welcome some assistance in squaring the matter away to your satisfaction. Let me know. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you added to orphaned template to the above image. Please be aware that there is a discussion on this image at [1]. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Peedee, I noticed you added the unreferenced tag to the section on Chainsaws for stone, concrete and brick, but as the only available material to me on this subject is commercial stuff, I thought I could hardly use that. See also: more about this on the talk page, where some links to videos are added. If you know of a way to add a link without advertising, please do! Greetings, --Satrughna (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
If you are removing the picture on SG-1 season 1, please replace it with something like this http://stargate.ugo.com/images/sg-1/stargate-sg-1-season-1.jpg, i don't know how to upload a pic. new on wikipedia.--Trust Is All You Need (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice re-touch of the photograph, which unfortunately suffers badly from artifacts and discoloring. It looks better now, thanks! I like how you formatted the infobox caption, is it from the MoS? decltype (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Unless the name is wrong, bypassing redirects is generally discouraged. In the case of Hippie, you bypassed Peace symbol, which is actually the correct title of the article, and redirected it to Peace symbols which was a bad move that has yet to be corrected. Symbol articles are generally referred to in the singular not the plural, although another variation using "symbolism" is also used. Several people have moved or created articles with the plural "symbols" and this is not accurate per naming conventions. By bypassing the redirect, you are changing whatlinkshere, which supports restoring the original name. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey Thor. I'm not sure what you intended, but Alesha (Law & Order: UK) was a redirect to itself; thought you'd want to know. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. With regards to the USA acronym - fair enough. I guess it doesn't matter too much. I was looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations) and it says U.S. is preferred over United States for brevity (although that is said in relation to article names). It also says that the full name should be given in the first instance in the article, and acronyms subsequently. I was figuring the infobox to be the first instance. The MoS uses "U.S" rather than "USA". What do you think? It's a fairly minor point, but I figure you must care about it or you wouldn't have reverted. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
As for U.S. vs. USA vs. U.S.A., etc. I don't honestly care that much; since "USA" was an acceptable acronym at WP:ABBR, and I liked how it looked, and it was less ambiguous than omitting the "A", I stick with it as my own personal SOP. Nobody's ever reverted my doing so before, so I've taken it as acceptable. :^) — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Television actors or Category:Film actors are supposed to be completely empty of individual articles, with all articles diffused into country-specific subcategories instead. I added Category:Better category needed to any article for which the appropriate national subcategory either could not be determined from the article content or was being disputed by you or SummerPhD — because articles do not belong in the undifferentiated parent categories, any article that's in one of those categories needs a better one than it currently has. Bearcat (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of 9/11 conspiracy theories, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards — Cs32en 17:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Was there something bad with the sources? I just don't understand why you undid my edits. Johannamo (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I have done some searches and am actually turning up academic discussions on this character in university press published books. I am working on some out of universe sections off-wiki, although I have begun adding some of the scholarly analysis to the article already. Anyway, please consider for example how Camille Bacon-Smith writes, "In the Blake's 7 character Cally, who can never experience the telepathic presence of another because her people are dead and the humans cannot communicate on her level, the loneliness of many women who feel that they give understanding but receive nothing back to nurture their sense of belonging finds representation."[1] Bacon-Smith identifies a contrast between Mr. Spock and Cally, noting how unlike Spock, "the telepathic alien Cally on Blake's 7 could send thoughts but could not receive them from any other sending telepath. Separated from her own people, Cally could communicate with others at the level of the mind, but she could never receive communication in return. Whereas for Sock telepathy diminished the solitude of the alien, for Cally telepathy only made her alien solitude more acute.[2] Bacon-Smith goes on to argue that while "Mr. Spock represents the positive value of an understanding merged with the other, Cally represents the tragedy when comprehension of the totality of the other is forever denied."[3] There's a number of material like this that for some odd reason the regular Google search doesn't necessarily pick up and I am working on thinking of how to put it all in the article, but anyway, please take into consideration on this one that I am in the process of adding out of universe commentary, which actually does exist in academic sources and in more than just passing references (Bacon-Smith cites Cally over a couple pages. Thanks your for your time and consideration! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 08:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Peace | ||
This barnstar of peace is awarded to Pd THOR, for changing his mind in a AfD, when sourcing was provided. Ikip (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC) |
Like Chris. thanks. Ikip (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
A discussion has begun in regards to Edokter's behavior at AN/I and your name has been brought up. As I can see no one has notified you, I thought I would do so. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I always imagined the IMDB was an ok source for BLPs, especially if the content sourced is not controversial. I have asked for a second opinion at BLP talk here.Greedyhalibut (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
This has had a lengthy RfC, and, in the end, it was agreed that plot summaries should be improved, not deleted. A consensus was reached, and this was implemented. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Mifter (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien episodes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tavix | Talk 16:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you vote on the following discussion. I'm asking you because of your comment on the wikiproject page. --TIAYN (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
KMFDM FAN (talk!) 00:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
You wrote "whoops" that someone replaced the template in the 2009 Washington Metro train collision. This is not a whoops. It was intentional. The collision has occured. Will it be keep reoccurring like a hurricane approaching land? Therefore, a tiny tweak was made. However, I'm not going to fight over it. I do think the tweak is more accurate.
Current message: This article documents a current event. Infomation may change rapidly as the event progresses.
Tweak: This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the investigation progresses.
I certainly hope the wrecked train won't back up and start smashing into other trains like a horror movie and possessed train with a mind of its own. User F203 (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
i am 85.185.82.97.why removed winona ryder in list from star trek.excuse me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.185.82.97 (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
excuse me,ashamed,thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.185.82.97 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Please note that Category:Television actors, Category:Film actors and Category:Stage actors all have ((catdiffuse)) on them. There is an absolute, non-negotiable requirement to keep those categories empty of individual articles — all individual articles must be diffused out of the undifferentiated parents. If an article isn't sourced enough for a nationality category, then it isn't sourced enough to be on here at all in the first place — so you can nominate such an article for deletion if you choose, but moving an article from a national category into the undifferentiated parent is not appropriate or acceptable, because there's a standing requirement to keep that parent category as close as possible to being empty of individual articles by moving articles the other way. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Secondly, are you arguing that if a biographical article doesn't have a reliably sourced nationality, it mustn't meet our various inclusion criteria (such as the Notability guideline)? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry though for misinterpreting what you meant regarding deleting articles and reliable sourcing. However, did you mean to say that well-sourced articles otherwise lacking sourced nationality "simply don't exist"? That's what I understood from your reply, but must be somehow mistaken as that doesn't make any sense. To prevent misunderstanding on my part, can you rephrase that?
I'm placing a burden of proof on what we can verifiably state without wandering into assumption or inference. If a newspaper article has described an individual as a "native of Seattle", then it is original research on our part to assume or infer that the individual isn't a national of Canada, and has simply lived in Seattle for the majority of their acting career. William Shatner has performed most recognizably in American media but is a Canadian national, and as such is categorized as a Canadian actor in film and television. Douglas Adams was English, but spent a great amount of time writing in the United States by his own admission (see The Salmon of Doubt); having lived and written a great deal in the USA doesn't make him an American novelist. Cillian Murphy was born in Ireland and is categorized as an Irish performer, yet lives in London and has performed in internationally-based media. Precedence (consensus therein, I would assume) seems to indicate that national categorization is based on nationality, not the individual's residence or their works' providence. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I do agree that nationality=birthplace unless explicitly noted otherwise. I, however, do not agree that being "from somewhere", or a "native" of somewhere=birthplace; that's the original research. Granted, it's a likely assumption, however the rub is that it's an assumption at all and therefore OR. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
at Wikipedia talk:PLOT. 67.100.126.76 (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the acknowledgment, mate. I appreciate it. :) --From Andoria with Love (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Daniel.gif. 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 on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)