Jay32183

Welcome!

Hello, Jay32183, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Reyk _YO! 20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing with the Xiaolin Showdown list of episodes is not working. You can have the pictues but we need to have it in the same format as before with the shen gong wu and listing the xiaolin showdowns Herb-Sewell13:36, 30 June 2006

May be so, but suppose we don't have enough pictues, and now we'll have to write a shortened synopsis for every episode. Herb-Sewell13:55, 30 June 2006

Dude, all I'm saying is that the new format is really hard to people who are trying to improve the articles of the episodesHerb-Sewell 00:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Color scheme?

I can see that you changed the value for "color scheme" but I cannot see any difference at List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes. Should it look different somehow? Ryulong 00:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess my problem is that I'm using Internet Explorer, then. Is there any way to alter the code so it's useful for IE users? Ryulong 00:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hay jaw

I saw you using my AWB settings, however you deleted a "for" here. I'm not sure exactly what you're doing but if you need help pelase contact me. --mboverload@ 01:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup in aisle Xiaolin Showdown

King bryan (talk · contribs) has been inserting a lot of useless and horrible grammatically structured information into many articles. Clean-up may be necessary. Ryūlóng 08:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping orphan the stack of Kimiko screenshots from the Xiaolin Showdown episode entries. Dr Zak 14:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in lists

Hello, I see you have contributed your thoughts to Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It's been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the concrete proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata 02:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Super Mario 64

I'm glad you're trying to improve the article. As much as I would love to make over the article of one of the greatest games ever made, I've got my hands full with another one. :) But I'd still like to help you out, so here is the section "THE MAKING OF MARIO" from Steven L. Kent's book, The Ultimate History of Video Games: From Pong to Pokemon--The Story Behind the Craze That Touched Our Lives and Changed the World (2001). Here is an Amazon link detailing the book so that you can cite it properly. I don't believe Amazon mentions the location of publication, but it is New York. Without further ado, here is the text, taken from pages 529 and 530:

Shigeru Miyamoto, creator of Donkey Kong, Mario, Zelda, Yoshi, and Star Fox, entered the video game industry with a unique philosophy that was always reflected in his games. "When you draw a laughing face, your face should laugh," he once explained in an interview. "When you draw an angry face, your face should be angry. The character will capture your emotion. The emotions and fun in a game are not made while thinking about business."

By the time Nintendo launched Nintendo 64 (N64), Miyamoto had been creating games for nearly twenty years. He had witnessed and aided the evolution of the business, software, and technology of video gaming. His first game, Donkey Kong, was created by a five-man team and contained approximately 20K of code. Now, as he made the flagship game for N64, his team had swollen to more than fifty members. Instead of 20K, he and his team would write 8 megabytes of code - more than 400 times more code than in Donkey Kong. Instead of designing levels that fit on a single screen, they created enormous 3D landscapes complete with trees, castles, and dinosaurs. Adapting to this new challenge, Miyamoto created a new philosophy. While most game designers were coming up with features, then building their games around them, Miyamoto worked on creating expressive landscapes, then created ways to use them.

"One thing that was different with Super Mario 64 was [that] we wanted to make some snow mountain, a really big one. That came first, and afterward we asked [each other] for the ideas about how to make use of this mountain.

It was as if we were building up an amusement park. We first found our location. We purchased the mountain, and afterward, we thought of some interesting things we wanted to implement on the mountain." - Shigeru Miyamoto

Super Mario 64, Miyamoto's lead game for N64, did a better job of bringing a two-dimensional side-scrolling game into the world of 3D than any game before it. To accomplish this, Miyamoto's team used all of the old characters and objects made popular in early Mario games, then incorporated new devices that could only occur in a 3D environment. The big end battles, for instance, pitted Mario against a much larger foe on a huge 3D platform. The only way for Mario to win was to circle around the enemy.

Building from Miyamoto's amusement park analogy, Super Mario 64 included huge slides and other kinds of activities that bought true variety to the game. Everybody at Nintendo recognized the game as a masterpiece; the only problem was that Miyamoto was taking too long to build it. According to Hiroshi Imanishi, Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi's right-hand man, the release of N64 was delayed until Miyamoto was satisfied with Super Mario 64. The delay would have been even longer, but Yamauchi finally told Miyamoto that the game was good enough.

If you have access to academic databases such as LexisNexis, Academic Search Premier, or Proquest (search for old New York Times articles), I would highly recommend those. If not, I can always try to add in stuff later. Good luck! --Tristam 06:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus gathering at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)

Hello. Thank you for offering your opinion and "vote" to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Episode Article Naming conventions! We notice that there may have been confusing in collecting the opinions of yourselves and others. Thus, we would appreciate it if you took the time to voting again at the poll. Please choose "#Support" or "#Oppose" for the first option. Additionally, you may also make a completely separate vote for which disambiguation title with be used.

For example, you may vote to support the first policy and then support the convention that articles have the disambiguation suffix "(<series> episode)" appended to their name. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sopranos LOE

I will start the expansion of the episode summaries tomorrow, because in my time zone it's getting late. I think that one paragraph of 5 sentences per epiosde should do the trick. Once I do, you can copyedit them as you see fit. —Cliff smith 05:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Karkonosze/Giant Mountains/Krkonoše

Just in case you're interested, there's a new Karkonosze → Giant Mountains or Krkonoše vote here. Cheers! +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Help please

People keep inserting fanon on the "Kimiko Tohomiko" and "Raimundo Pedrosa" articles...and frankly, I'm getting sick of it. The statements went from fan speculations to being considered as actual facts, and the same users keep posting it, it's ridiculous. Is there a function to at least prevent non-registered users from making edits? Gah, some help would greatly be appreciated :(

Tainted poll?

Hi. Sorry to bother you. You participated in a television episode article naming poll which now lives at this location. Some feel that wording changes have compromised the results of that poll. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at what is there now and add a quick note at WT:TV-NC#Looking for anyone who objects to the last poll to say whether your feelings on the matter remain the same? Of course you can feel free to read over the entirety of both links for more information. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Jack Spicer

No, you went about it the right way. I did it wrong. I've put things back and put a {{db-move}} speedy deletion tag on Jack Spicer so Jack Spicer (poet) can be moved back there. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A pearl among administrators - Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk • contribs) - has fixed things up. Magic ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Naming convention

Well it's not specific enough just putting "Lost" or "Futurama" in parentheses when some pages have "episode" as well. --SilvaStorm

Peer review?

Hi, I just want to ask if you'd like to do a peer review of the Luigi article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Luigi. —The Great Llama^moo? 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility

A sentence such as "Suggesting a poll is spitting in the face of everyone who has participated in the discussion and is the most disruptive and uncivil behavior that one can engage in at this point." is not particularly helpful. [1]Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! --Elonka 01:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dragon World

Please see Talk:Dragon World dispute for your vote on whether we should keep the Human (Dragon World) article or have it merged into Dragon World. Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 15:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Where's that diff???!!!

Hi. You made this comment earlier re: the old Star Trek naming convention. Where is the original discussion that explained all that? I need the diff for my RFAR statement! Thanks.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Jay! Thanks for helping in my PR. I'll add a "Development" section to Rise of Nations as you said when I begin to attempt to feature it. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Paulins Kill Featured Article Candidacy

I thank you for your comments and suggestions on how to improve the Paulins Kill article in order to make it worthy of being named a Featured Article.

So far, I think all the issues have been addressed with the sole exception of the listy Flora and fauna section. Now there are two ideas on how to tackle that, and there are possibly others. If you could weigh in on what the preferrable method to tackle this in the next day or two, I'll be able to fix it before Christmas. Also, in addition, if you could take a second look at the article and its candidacy and examine whether the edits made in response to the FAC page comments address your concerns adequeately, I'd be much obliged. —ExplorerCDT 01:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Yeast as this week's WP:AID winner

AzaBot 03:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A Series of Unfortunate Events

Hello, Jay32183 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to A Series of Unfortunate Events. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of A Series of Unfortunate Events and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! Clamster5 02:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Jupiter as this week's WP:AID winner

AzaBot 14:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Universe as this week's WP:AID winner

AzaBot 21:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, finished a season

Hey, as per your request of informing you, I have just finished Season 4 of the x-files articles.. I think I'm getting the hang of this :P .. Anyway, I should have Seasons 5 and 6 done in about 24 hours :P .. --Illyria05-- 07:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, um, I've figured out how to edit the template, so Season 5 will have everything correct, as will when I do future seasons... --Illyria05-- 17:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Paulins Kill FAC

You commented on that featured article candidacy for the article Paulins Kill 4 weeks ago. It is still a candidate. Your concerns have been addressed, will you please read through the article and offer your support? —ExplorerCDT 20:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Even if you can't support, could you add a little note as to whether you think your concerns have been adequately addressed or not. —ExplorerCDT 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Paulins Kill now a Featured Article

As of a few moments ago, Paulins Kill was promoted to Featured Article status. I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to and suggestions for improving the article over these past few months and that I appreciate your help in bringing this article to notice as a Featured Article. Once again, thank you, and keep up the good work. —ExplorerCDT 22:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Peloponnesian War as this week's WP:AID winner

AzaBot 12:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Wall Street Crash of 1929 as this week's WP:ACID winner

AzaBot 01:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Omi (Xiaolin Showdown)

I've nominated the article Omi (Xiaolin Showdown) for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Omi (Xiaolin Showdown) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omi (Xiaolin Showdown). Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Omi (Xiaolin Showdown) during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. If there are articles in publications independent of the show's producers and which are verifiable and reliable (not blogs or fansites or mirrors of the Wikipedia article), please add them to the article as inline references. Regards. Edison 16:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Birds of Paradise (Xiaolin Showdown)

Ok...no problem. Sorry about that!--Salvax ^{T - C}--21:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Episode List vandal

Hey Jay, I hate to be the whistle blower, but that anonymous user who keeps ading season four has done it again. I checked out his talk page and found that he's already received his last warning. I think it's unfortunately time to block him. Seabiscuit_1982 16:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

List of My Family episodes

Following your comments I have enlarged the text, I'm sure you will agree that this is now big enough, although it can be made bigger if needed. Otherwise I don't see what is wrong with this table now; if you feel that who wrote each episodes is necessary (I don't think it personally), this could be added to the existing table. You say a reformatting has been requested, by whom and can I see their reasons for this? On another point, when you originally changed the series one table, you also changed the capitalisation of the episodes titles. The capitalisation before was the correct capitalisation according to the episodes themselves and it would be appreciated if in future you could check this before changing it? Thank you. --Berks105 11:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, while you have showed me when the request was made I see no reason given. It worries me that the Wikiproject is trying to install an episode guide format without first having got support from outside the Wikiproject group. Secondly, you say the show takes artistic licence with the titles. That is immaterial, the fact is the episode titles that appear on the show itself are the official ones, grammatically right or not. Quoting from TV.com is like quoting from IMDb, neither are reliable, the actual episodes are reliable as this were we get the titles from in the first place, we can't change them just because they aren't grammatically correct. The summaries I enlarged to 100%, not 90% as you say, and if you want them larger still I can do that. --Berks105 10:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, with regards to the text size. As I have said I think its big enough, and I cannot work out to enlarge it so only the summaries are the same size as the titles. I still argue with the "correct capitalisation"; you are being very arrogant here. The fact is we get the episode titles from the episodes, therefore by the same token we have to use the capitalisation they use. If we don't we might as well just change the episode titles if we don't like them! I remain unhappy with the 'standard format' as I believe it does not suit all episode lists. --Berks105 10:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In-line citations

I've userfied Omi's article. You can use it to work on refs.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Thank you for your recent posting of an anonymous editor to Administrators intervention against vandalism. In the future though, when reporting IP addressed to WP:AIV, please make sure that they have had a final warning in the recent past. Due to the nature of IP addresses, spans of time between edits may indicate different users. Being it is possible that the currently vandalizing user did not get a true final warning they are often not be blocked. To remedy this, please make an effort to ensure that all vandals reported to WP:AIV have an appropriate, and recent, final warning. The most common final warnings are {{test4}} or {{bv}}. If you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to ask me on my user talk page. Thanks again!-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of X-Men 1992 TV Series episodes

This list could do with some more independent opinions. Is your position a support or object? Colin°^Talk 12:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed your support. Colin°^Talk 12:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Dad's Army episodes

Two questions - are the fan/unofficial sites I have in references ok? The other is can references be solely made up of book page numbers (with ISBN's etc?) - from one of the existing book references. Thanks, RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 13:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And can teh mini synopses have spoilers in? RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 13:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Dad's Army episodes

I've done some heavy editing. Would you consider taking another look and reconsidering your vote? Thanks for your input, RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 01:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Its been removed from the FLC page, but apparently not yet failed - as in template on the flc page? Should I relist it now that all editors concerns have been met? Thanks, RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 21:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Rwandan Genocide as this week's WP:ACID winner

AzaBot 23:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

I've reverted your removal of the nogallery tag at CAT:CSD. There are way too many images up for deletion right now. This causes severe lag time if someone tries to load the page and has to wait for all those images to load. You said that "admins need to know what they're deleting". Well they do...they click the image's link which takes them to the image's page where they view it and delete it. It's the same as if they were going to an article. Metros232 19:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The original adding of the tag did not include that explanation in the edit summary. I assumed some one had missed the fair use exemption decision for the page. Jay32183 19:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The original edit summary wasn't descriptive because almost all us administrators who patrol CSDs know why it was added. Sometimes it's added with a comment saying "+nogallery tag, over 100 images" or something like that, but it's understood by most why it's added when it is, Metros232 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Naked News

First of all, stop menacing me. Second, everything was fine with the Naked News photos until, I created new articles this week with Naked News pictures. Third, I've created profile, only for Yukiko Kimura, Whitney Saint-John, Erica Stevens & Alex Pantos. These profiles have been tagged; as far as I'm concerned, the other pictures of the Naked News profile don't have neither sources information. So, I don't understand, why everything was fine until I create some profile and then, pictures are subjet to deletion. So please explain this sudden change.VincentG 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In the information box under the picture of Christine Kerr it's written (without the brackets): [241×180 (9,752 bytes) (Naked News newscaster Christine Kerr. screenshot)] Is it what you want me to write with the files I uploaded? Because like I told you, the only files that are tagged are the ones I've uploaded. The other pictures of the other girl's profile are not tagged. So, I will comply...but if the other pictures don't comply tag them as well. But like I said, I'm eager to learn, but I demand justice and some good explanations. See you man.VincentG 01:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the pictures that I have uploaded. It is not clear enough for me; so in that case, I think it's better to wait and find a solution to post the pictures.VincentG 02:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No rationale templates

I realize you apparently disagree with it, but the general opinion on the wider forum (and wider forum discussions override template talk pages which draw only a small minority of editors) holds that screenshot templates do in fact give a minimal fair use rationale sufficient to protect them from speedy deletion under I6. This is especially true for the image under contention, since the Disney tag gives as much substantial defense as a detailed rationale would.

Of course, the lack of any image source makes the issue rather academic for this particular case, but I strongly advise you to not act against policy page consensus here. --tjstrf talk 05:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the highly sensible discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 16#Can we clarify I6? where it was concluded that not only is there no consensus for what you are doing, but that norationale tagging images which have the correct template is pretty much just laziness since all the necessary information to write the rationale (except possibly the source) is present in the tag. It would take 30 seconds to put a rationale on those images you are presently mass-tagging, which means a loss of maybe 15 seconds for you but which would save the project as a whole in wasted labour because someone else has to go and add it since you won't. The tags that no rationale deletion properly applies to are grouped at present under Category:Wikipedia:Generic fair use tags. --tjstrf talk 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion I linked to says that the distinction of "Generic fair use tags" was made so that it also covered the near-variants such as fairusein2 and so on. And even if what you say was true, your tagging for deletion rather than fixing the problems is unproductive. If the image is an album cover, how many seconds does it take to type that the image is rationalized under fair use in articles where it is an illustration of the album it represents? Certainly less time than it took for you to tag it and then another person to add that same text. --tjstrf talk 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

William Monahan article at FAC

Hello. I noted that you are a resident of Massachusetts. I wonder if you would mind doing a review of my article on one of your fellow Bostonians, William Monahan? I'm running the article through WP:FAC and I'm trying to get as many opinions as I can. Your comments would be of great help. Perhaps you could even write up Monahan's early years in a more interesting way? I talk at length about his years in MA and I see that you went to the same university as him. Anyways, I'd be interested in what you think about the article.-BillDeanCarter 03:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kepler at FAC

Jay, thanks for your kind words about the Johannes Kepler article. I've completed what I had intended to add before going for going for FA.--ragesoss 21:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Here's some Penguins for you! Penguins somehow in their own strange way promote WikiLove and hopefully these Penguins have made your day seem even better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Crested Penguin 05:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Pro Tour

I like what you've done in your sandbox. Any chance of it being rolled out? Shadowin 21:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about AnnaSophia Robb page

Hello, my experience here is very little so I didn't get why did you delete photo of AnnaSophia from her page. Was it violating any legal stuff?

New look at Representative peer

Changes at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Representative peer; pls revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Spider-Man (1994 animated series) episodes

I've wikified the airdates on the list and answered your comment. Would you consider taking another look and reconsidering your vote? thank. Gman124 21:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Something showdown

How do you know they will never? You don't. The episodes are the source for the plot so it has at least one source. PRODs can be overturned (so even that deleted page can be undeleted, yes). Now, if it pleases you then you may AfD the episodes. Your prerogative, I'm ready. Matthew 22:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they should be deleted. You can't have six of one, and half dozen of the other. Wikipedia doesn't bend to your desires.. I find your actions distasteful and disruptive. Addendum: "people just won't quit their whining" - the only people I see whining are the deletionists. Now quit your gorram moaning and go help the encyclopaedia, you know.. why don't you actually IMPROVE those articles? Matthew 22:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

FARC Torchic

Tell me where to find info about creation. Torchic isnn't that notable for stating all such things, OK? Vikrant Phadkay 14:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Fair use disputed}}

Hi, I've noticed that you have recently added this tag to several images that qualify for fair use. Your reasoning, "the fair use rationale does not explain the specific usage of this image in any particular article", is a bit contradictory to common sense. For instance, Image:019.jpg is tagged with {{tv-screenshot}}, which states that the claim extends to "identification and critical commentary on the ... program and its contents". This statement provides a solid base for determining fair use status. If the article, Bart Gets Hit by a Car, includes critical commentary on the event depicted in the screencap, then the assertion that there's no rationale for specific usage is frivolous. There is no mandatory format for fair use rationales, only an expectation that they adequately address concerns outlined at WP:FUC. Tagging appropriately used copyrighted images with disputed tags is counterproductive, as it does not directly dispute the fair use claim, but rather outlines a dubious claim of the inadequacy of the rationale. If you think that the fair use rationale is incomplete or insufficient, then just fix it! Address your own concerns about the rationale, instead of passing the buck to someone else. No, there's no policy or guideline that requires you to do this, but then we are all here to contribute in a spirit of courtesy and collaboration. I don't mean to come off as a complete jerk, this little rant is simply the result of my experience in clearing out logs of replaceable fair use & no-rationale images. It sometimes seems as if users tag images they simply don't like and want to get rid off, instead of being willing to put in the time to fairly assess usage and copyright status. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for completely missing the point. Just out of curiosity, could you point to a rationale of a TV-screenshot that you deem adequate? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of WP:FUC and I resent your accusation that my involvement is disruptive. Your comments so far have been dismissive and condescending, so I am not at all inclined to placate your concern. If you wish to delete this image, then post it on WP:IFD, and offer up your assertion for review. {{Fair use disputed}} is not a deletion shortcut. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism? Wow, you really don't have any respect of users you disagree with. I have no desire to put up with such obstinate castigation; if you are not willing to put any effort into assuming good faith, it is time to seek recourse. FYI: The assertion that a screenshot is accompanied by relevant critical commentary directly satisfies the concerns brought up in WP:FUC#8. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Kindly stop putting frivolous warnings on my page, I do not respond well to childish intimidation. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think that I am acting like a vandal (I can only assume that "vandalism" is code for "disagreeing with Jay"), then feel free to report me to WP:AIV. Until you do that, don't place any more idiotic warnings on my talk page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I have provided a third opinion regarding the image and the fair use dispute at Image_talk:019.jpg.

Seraphim Whipp 10:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe I dealt with the issue that you had a problem with. I assessed the rationale adequately and addressed the FUC concerns that you had. There really is nothing to dispute.

Seraphim Whipp 19:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Berating people you don't agree with is immature. I've had far more experience in dealing with Wikipedia image use policy than you have, look over my contributions and logs. I am willing to discuss this issue with you, but repeatedly making statements to the effect of "NO, I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE AN IDIOT" is not going to get you anywhere in a collaborative environment. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I assure you that our disagreement will not unfairly prejudice my judgment, thanks for the note. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing up the page, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lindsay Lohan. I appreciate it. --Yamla 01:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Batman episodes

I have found the references for writer, directors, and references for List of The Batman episodes. Would you consider taking another look and reconsidering your vote? Gman124 01:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Is your position a support or object on List of The Batman episodes. Gman124 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Michigan State University photo

Please do not change the Photo for the Michigan State Featrued topics box

Michigan State University

5 articles

History of Michigan State University

Campus of Michigan State University

Michigan State University academics

Michigan State Spartans

Michigan State University Libraries

I see you have had some problems with other people and there Images, I do not want that. Your contrubs section sad "restoring free image, this does not count as article space)" Well It is the Michigan State College Seal. Using this image is not breaking the Rules, The College Seal is also free because the school is Public and Funded by the Government, with Tax payer money, and there for it is free.Max ╦╩ 15:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ok your right I have look all over and yes the College Seal it is copyright. But What if I could get the University to grant Wikipedia the Use of the image in some form or shape? I live next to the copyright office so I would not be a big problem. What usage claim could it be Used under? the Creative Commons Attribution? Max ╦╩ 18:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Right again, about the problem with permission, I think the MSU FA Topic box still looks cool even with out the College seal. Thanks for helping me understand the problem with the copyright. I do not want to get Wikipedia in trouble. I will now keep an eye out for copyrighted photos,. Max ╦╩ 20:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Royal Assent FAR

Hi Jay, if you get a chance, would you mind revisiting the FAR above as there has been work on 1c. Thanks. Ceoil 19:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Petarded

Ok, it's fine that you disagree, but can you at least tell me what's wrong with the box we already have? I don't want any edit war, so please could you explain what's wrong with the Family Guy episode box? TheBlazikenMaster 11:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Great Lakes Storm of 1913

I've removed the thumbnail resizings as you requested, and the quotations have been moved to Wikiquote. Can you please leave a response? Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-29 15:48Z

U-bot (Xiaolin Showdown)

You placed a db tag on this. IMO neither the original article nor the redirect are appropraite for speedy deletion. The original had little content, but clear conteXt, by mentioning Xiaolin Showdown. The redir from a character to the larger fictional work is perfectly appropriate and does not fit any of the WP:CSD as far as I can see. Use WP:RfD if ypu think this should be deleted. DES ^(talk) 01:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The same reasoning applies to Heylin Plant (Xiaolin Showdown) except in this case the redirect had been in effect for over a year, so the origianl article contents clearly have very little relevance to whether the redir should be deleted. DES ^(talk) 01:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You may be correct that the original information was "meaningless" or perhaps one should say useless or unencyclopedic. (It was not patent nonsense.) That would have made the original articles worthy candidates for proposed deletion or WP:AFD, but not in my view for speedy deletion -- they clearly didn't fit WP:CSD#A1 as written. As for the redirects, the merits or demerits of the original articles aren't relevant -- the redirs should stand or fall on their own. These do not fit any of the speedy criteria for redirects. They redirect to a page that does exist; they are not cross-namespace redirs; and they were not created as a result of typos, plausible or implausible. Your argument that they are unlikely search terms may have merit, but it could be debated -- which is why this should IMO go through WP:RFD if these redirs are to be deleted. DES ^(talk) 14:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Mike Flores

I recently added an edit to Mike Flores which you deleted for a good reason. see here However, if I can source the material, (which would be relatively easy as William Spaniel now has his own page), would the material I posted be appropriate? Thanks, stealthymatt 01:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, however, I have another question. [[User:Smokizzy] recently tagged the page William Spaniel for notability during its first stages of creation. User:Smokizzy only recently got NPWatcher (see his talk page), and has possibly been using it multiple times (see his talk page) without giving a reason. Thanks, stealthymatt 13:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)