user_talk:
webdinger

Archives

Leave a message, or read the archives:

• February 15, 2006 - May 28, 2006 (20 items)
• May 28, 2006 - September 28, 2006 (20 items)
• October 25, 2006 - August 10, 2007 (20 items)
• November 8, 2007 - Present (8 items)

Well, not really. But there is a problem with your signature.

I have recently noticed your signature in a page, and I have to say that it is a very interesting one (much more interesting than mine, anyway). Whilst editing said page, however, I noticed that it was, rather suprisingly, listed in the transcluded templates at the bottom of the edit page. And it is with little pleasure indeed that I break these news to you: Wikipedia policy on signatures expressly forbids the usage of any templates whatsoever in signatures. I am afraid that you will have to come up with a different solution in order to sign your comments from now on. Mind you, it is still perfectly possible to produce the same signature with other means, even though these ways will probably be less convenient that the template you have been used to. If, on the other hand, you decide that it is time for a change, you can always create a new signature that is cool but still conforms to the guidelines, either on your own, or with help.

By the way, I have no authority to arrest anyone. I can pay other people to do it, though. For I am rich, and famous, and very, very modest. And I... I don't like the look on your face, Webdinger... I think I will just leave... (tiptoes to the exit)

Slowly... (opens door)

(runs) – Waltham, The Duke of 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the heads-up! I'd already realized when I started signing pages with that signature that it was frowned upon to transclude a signature template directly into a page -- since that point (which was probably about a year ago), I've used subst: when signing all pages. Most likely the signatures you discovered that appeared in "transcluded templates" were those that I inserted a long time ago. ;) — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 06:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, now that you mention it, the template page is not linked to more than fifty pages. I suppose this is a good think, so I have graciously let you "off the hook".

By the way, you answer posts in an interesting manner. That is, you double your post count for user talk pages. I shall consider it if I find that I need to appear more active. In any case, I will delete your answer from my talk page, since you have the archive of the whole conversation and I prefer answering in the pages where discussions begin. I hope that you do archive the messages here carefully, or you might be fined (I can always use the extra money). Well, so long.

Almost. Now that I have met you, it would be a shame not to ask you to have a look at WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. You might want to join. Just think of it. Cheers. Waltham, The Duke of 17:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Happy Birthday	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Webdinger a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

--Nadir D Steinmetz 00:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Katharine_close.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add ((di-replaceable fair use disputed)), without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:AirNewZealandFlight901.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) 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:AirNewZealandFlight901.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Inner Surge, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inner Surge. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Birthday, Webdinger, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Versus22 _talk 05:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Amanda Goad has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:BIO1E

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((dated prod)) will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]