[[User:Ex-Nintendo_Employee|My Userpage]] has why. Hope you never encounter this kind of situation. [[User:Ex-Nintendo Employee|Ex-Nintendo Employee]] 23:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
[[User:Ex-Nintendo_Employee|My Userpage]] has why. Hope you never encounter this kind of situation. [[User:Ex-Nintendo Employee|Ex-Nintendo Employee]] 23:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
== Arbitration ==
Hello,
I've requested arbitration on the disagreement over the [[Template:Trivia]] wording (and its mass application by bot). Currently at [[Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration]]. Thanks - [[User:Tempshill|Tempshill]] 16:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I just felt it needed a change...coz the other one was really outdated...im looking for an existing image to replace the one thats currently there. if u have any problems tell me.
-Breeana
/me was just being bored :D .. Anyway, gosh, don't you know etiquette on talk pages?! YOU MUST ADD A HEADING! And I had to like do that for you, what's with you!? /me stops the sarcasm.. Anyway, Hi Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as of a few hours ago, I took the plunge and joined the Simple Wikipedia.. This is me.. Also, we should fix up The 4400 article that I'm going to create in the next few minutes.. I really hope you want to help me, but I will not be offended if you don't xD .. Have a nice night there, you cool UK person (I LOVE THE U.K. :P ).. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 02:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
hello[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Medium.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Medium.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam(T/C)01:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
i am very confused[reply]
Your vote on SEWikipedia
I've now closed User:J Di's RfA on Simple English. J Di was not promoted, at 50% support. In the interests of fairness, I decided not to count votes from users which have not made any edits to the Simple English Wikipedia except to oppose the RfA, so your vote was not counted in the final result. If you have any questions at all regarding this or anything else, please direct them to my Simple English talk page. Thanks, Archer718:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Desperate Housewives
Agreed on "recurring" - that was a term that had been slipping thru the edits and ought to be removed - still; "Starring", "Also Starring" and "Guest Starring" are very valid terms. If you for some reason wanna delete this details for the article I suggest you put it up for suggestion on the talk page.Pjär8022:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Colours for Buffy articles
Why have you just gone ahead and changed all the colours related to the Buffyverse with no discussion at all. Really you should have proposed the change and explained why it should be changed rather than just going ahead and doing it.--NeilEvans20:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no CGI in Blake's 7 - It was made in late 1970's to 1980 and all models :) If you've seen Doctor Who, the original series - not the new one, it's comparable to that. Even though the special effects are primitive it was very interesting show. Cyberia2320:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the BBC had a limited budget back in the day, but the new Dr. Who which they also make is really well done with the latest CGI technology. Cyberia2320:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the longest time I struggled with WinDVD and Microsoft Media Player using various screen cap programs but I'd always get a black box instead of the video image I wanted. I found out the problem was because DVD's play in a special video layer separate from your desktop. The trick was to force the DVD player to play video in the same layer as your desktop which hurt performance and made the movie choppy - yet I was still unable to get a capture since WinDVD refused to play without the layer active, and I updated to Media Player 11 and it's settings are different from Media Player 10 and below which allowed you to deactivate layers. I ended up using Snag It 8 - which allows you to catch images from the DVD layer using Active X. Now it works. Cyberia2321:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I changed the image you made of the Galactica entering FTL. You just had the flash showing - I thought it would be better to show both the ship and the flash at the same time.
Did you notice the goof in that particular scene? Prior to the jump, Galactica closed it's hangar pylons - even Tigh said they must be closed or they can't jump - however, in the jump scene, the hangar pylons are fully extended. Ronald D. Moore admitted the mistake in the commentary on the DVD. Cyberia2321:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I need a big favour!
Hey, Matthew, um, I really like the format of List of The 4400 episodes and I was wondering if you could do that for List of Tru Calling episodes, I mean by removing the screenshots from the list page.. I am doing this for a few reasons, 1-Screenshots can take long to load for dial-up, 2-I've been much too lazy to add correct fair use rationale and reduce size, so I'm setting all of these images for deletion.. So, while you do that, I will be setting the images for deletion and removing reference to them on the individual episode pages, just to let you know that I'll be working too :P .. If you decide to do it, drop by on my talk page :) .. Thanks alot, and I'll owe you :P .. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IM'ing
Nothing against you or anything, but I dislike IM's. I don't like being bothered when I'm online. Same reason why I refuse to own a cell phone and I know too many obnoxious people who'd call me constantly if I did. Cyberia2323:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flags
Matthew - re: your revert at Galactica, it's not an issue. However, when did you change your mind about flags? Seems to me you used to add them to the infoboxes. (Noticed you changed your ID, by the way. Makes sense to keep the surname "dark" on the Internet.) Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy08:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Manufacturers
Hi, I'm inclined to reject your assertion. Neither is registry a bounded relationship for e.g. for a starfighter. And if you look into my change before revert, you would see the string "Manufacturer(s)". -- Ylai08:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your reply: No, it is not necessarily unimportant. The fictional setting can lend the importance regarding the manufacturer in term of the narrative context, which I in fact would argue in the case of SAaB. -- Ylai09:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA
Your patronising comment is clearly ad hominem and hence counts as a personal attack. Note that the list of examples on WP:NPA (I persume this is what you're referrring to?) is not exhuastive. Please direct your comments towards the substance and not the contributor in future- and you might also have a look at WP:TALK for your reference. All the best, Badgerpatrol10:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to get a better dictionary (although Urban Dictionary is always fun- I particularly liked def. #3 "When something bad happens to someone and you honestley dont give a piss"- surely the height of erudition??). This definition was given by the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (not a patch on urban dic in terms of reliability, of course....)
" exclamation UK HUMOROUS something you say to show that you feel no sympathy for someone who is behaving like a child: He called you a bad name, did he? Ah, diddums!".
I would say that ridiculing someone who has a fair point per WP:TALK and implying that are "behaving like a child" counts as a personal attack- wouldn't you? Please don't do it again. Badgerpatrol11:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have reverted your edit as it didn't work properly on 800x600 - it still appears with Kate and Walt on seperate lines. Number 5709:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried it on two different 800x600 monitors (different makes etc), and your version does not fit properly - the top line of "main characters" does not fit, and leaves kate on a seperate line. The same also happens to the second line of main characters. Number 5710:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Perhaps you are using small/smallest text size in your internet browswer when viewing on 800x600? This is the only reason I can think of that allows you too see the whole template without line breaks? Number 5710:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I should have said that I tested it on two different computers (which have two different monitors). I can't imagine how you can see it fine on an 800x600 unless your text size setting is smaller or smallest. As you can see on the screenshot (which also proves the resolution is 800x600), it doesn't fit.
Any suggestions on how it can be done? Perhaps setting the text size in the template to 95%? Also, I don't understand why Libby is classed as a main character whilst Rose is not... Number 5710:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly not - the 4400 template also produces broken lines (which I have now fixed). I don't think it is a good idea to make such a major change as there are quite a few other people editing the Lost template and I don't think it would go down very well! Number 5711:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your new version still breaks the top line of main characters - Jordan Collier appears on the second line on his own. I am intrigued - what combination of screen/text size do you use? The edit I made fitted on 800x600 and 1024x768! Number 5711:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid it has made it worse - now the Production, Main Characters, Elements and Miscellaneous lines are all broken. The template needs to be the maximum width allowed in Wikipedia at 800x600 to fit it all in. Number 5711:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best effort so far was this one, which could be broken after Kate as long as the left hand column can be fixed to remain the same width (putting in < br > as it is means the left hand column widens and ruins it!) Number 5711:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not even 8 hours left until the programme finale of Stargate SG-1! I can't wait :) , I should be positive it's ending, I mean, we still get those DVD movies later, plus 214 episodes is alot :P .. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 12:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Fenton?
You used to be Matthew Fenton right? What happened? I see this is a whole new account. And if you don't mind me asking, what happened after your request for adminship was denied? Something about vanishing.
I restored the quote to the way it was before the anon messed with it and turned it into pure speculation. The ZPM was heavily depleted in the course of the episode and this was stated, and it was not identified if the ZPM was depleted or not in the course of the episode, at the VERY least, the note that the ZPM was drained, should remain, even if the second half of the note should be removed - Count2311:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why you undid it in the List of Prison Break episodes? Season 2 contains many upcoming episodes with reviews from the Futon Critic. Moreover, the list of Lost episodes has the same warning. -- Magioladitis13:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? The summary changes vert often until we watch the episodes and for one more reason: many people add unconfirmed info and this is a goos warning before we remove it. --Magioladitis13:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chech this: Category for lists of upcoming episodes of a television series that are planned to be filmed/aired in the near future, and have been officially announced by either the production company or the television station.. So it is exactly our case. -- Magioladitis13:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For me it's clear that if such a warning should be both in Lost and Prison Break or in none. This warning have been made exactly for listing all the upcoming episodes. I'll put the warning exactly before the upcoming episodes just for you to show. Please tell me your opinion. Friendly, Magioladitis14:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you in general believe that this tag is uneccessary or only for the specific shows? I think it's a way to know which show are running this season. I see that are many shows tagged with this "warning" -- Magioladitis14:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. Of course, i still haven't convinced 100% what it's the best to do but at least now what the things you describe make more sense to me :) -- Magioladitis14:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI re: Stargate "Unending"
Matthew: Just so you know, I've restored the note about Michael Shanks' voice to Unending. While we're generally trying to avoid trivia, that particular note is an opportunity to illustrate some of the ways the show's creators add "in-jokes" to the program. The text is worded in a way that doesn't speculate as to the intent, but instead allows the reader to come to his or her own conclusions. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy17:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, can you change the image of Baltar reading the note to an image of Lampkin. A few people are requesting it be changed or an image of him added to the article. He technically was the main focus of that episode. Cyberia2305:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think the YouTube link was allowed; that's why I removed it the first time. The IP re-added it not too long after I had got rid of it. I'm glad you removed it this time. Acalamari20:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grey's Anatomy
I see. my bad. But should Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 3) article be changed to reflect this? It's kinda weird that canada airs before US, this being a US prog. Well, if you are sure, than okay, because I dont live in the states, nor canada. =)
When I edited Primeval and changed the original run 'last_aired' to today (March 17, 2007), you changed it back with the reason "Still present, series two has been ordered".
I disagree. While series two has been ordered, and this is to be noted, the last_aired needs to be changed. However this is my own personall opinion.
If it was noted that a second series is coming in 2008, Wouldn't it be better if it was changed? Scottie Too Hottie721:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering... what made you decide that this article satisfies WP:N? I still can't see any references that show that ""A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject."
If the episode is the source, is it possible to give a citation for that? Either who published it on DVD, or network-and-date-of-transmission? I don't feel good about having nothing that looks like a citation - if I were to invent an episode of a TV show you had never heard of, and inserted it as a Wikipedia article, how would you go about verifying it? --Alvestrand03:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tense
Firstly, I apologise for reverting 4 times. I hadnt realised I'd got to 4. I certainly don't want to get into an edit was about this. I will change Crossroads, Eldorado etc back, but after that I will leave it. I do feel a bit victimised the way you took the ones I listed as examples and then changed them to suit you. These had been happily at past tense for a while and it is totally unnecessary to change them. --Berks10517:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you ever listen to anyone? A neutral editor has come in and suggested you cool it. Instead you ignore them and carry on regardless. That is no way to behave on Wikipedia. --Berks10517:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, I'd like to apologise if at any point I seemed agressive or rude over at The Vicar of Dibley. It certainly wasn't my intention (I'm more interested in not letting this spiral out of control), and I didn't mean to insinuate anything regarding your membership of WP:IS NOT WAS. Happy editing! Farosdaughter18:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SG-1 Spoiler
Actually its not because as I was going through the page I got a good chunk of the story spoiled. But w/e I'm not going to get into an arugement or edit war over this.--88wolfmaster 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there was an Ori ship lost during the fight when it got hit by the Kawoosh of the supergate activating. ALthough it wasn't from being destroyed by enemy fire, it was destroyed during the battle. Crad001020:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please ban this user[1] from Wikipedia? He keeps editing the airdate of the Grey's Anatomy episode My Favorite Mistake!! Now, I know for a fact that the correct airdate of that episode is March 29, 2007. However, the user I am referring to keeps editing the airdate to March 22, 2007, William Shatner's birthday!! So please ban that user from Wikipedia forever so that I don't have anymore problems, OK? Thank you very much. AdamDeanHall20:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you revert my edits. Cant u see i was trying to help. :(
Daedalus class
You want proof that the ship has missiles? Hello, we have seen it fire missiles multiple times. We have seen that they are visibly set up in a VLS setup as they launch from flush points in the hull rather then from missile launchers. This is common knowledge as of the very start of season 2 for SGA. Alyeska07:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove subcategories of Category:Television program cancellations by year from articles. This scheme is used for all programs regardless of the reason for the series end. Per the category description:
This is a set of subcategories of television programs by the year of cancellation, based on the broadcast date of the final original episode. These programs are listed regardless of whether the cancellation decisions were made by the broadcasters or the producers.
One more thing, if you feel the category scheme's name is misleading, and would prefer something like "Category:Television program series ends by year", I'd recommend making that suggestion at WP:CFD. Dugwiki15:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew replies -
It matters not if the category's creator set that as its goal, obviously that goal is disputed - and - has no consensus backing it, to conclude: do not reinsert without a consensus and a verifiable source it was cancelled, barring that you'll more then likely be reverted, again. Matthew 15:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The goal is not disputed. It is clearly part of the overall scheme of including years of establishment/disestablishment of entities and works as category tags. If you feel the scheme doesn't have consensus, please feel free to direct me to a link indicating the dispute. Also, if you feel the category scheme should be altered, please feel free to bring it up at WP:CFD.
Aargh... you out-typed me on the SU page. (Thanks, BTW.) I've made a few more tweaks, since you caught most of what I was changing anyways. Bad title, eh? --Ckatzchatspy09:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to revert... the italics code doesn't do anything in the O4 template, and the older text implies that there are other series that weren't produced by MGM. (Reword as you like, but please avoid the old MGM text as part of the first sentence.) --Ckatzchatspy09:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, something new would be nice - especially a new storyline! I think they've kind of lost their way over the past few years - the show needs to get back to what it's really good at, which is the "small" stories as in the earlier seasons. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy09:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know "both of" (they are actually one and the same...) these guidelines. Which doesn't preclude my disagreeing. Especially seeing as your correction introduced a typo and a bigger inconsistency: if you intend to fix the tense, at least do it across the board. Slapping cleanup templates on a FAC when you are in the process of discussing with the main contributor is not very constructive either, which I why I swept it off. Circeus14:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it is your duty to make sure your edits don't make the article worse. And knowingly making tense inconsistent inside a sentence does just that. Circeus15:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change of username
I notice that you've had your username changed. It would be helpful to others who have come across you in the past to make a small note of this on your userpage somewhere in the interests of transparency and accountability, seeing as there are RFA's and RFC's under your old account. Furthermore logged actions (not contribs) have not been transferred from your old account, so it is important these are made available. ed g2s • talk16:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the DVD's bought from Amazon like it says there only 5 episodes not 6 yea it is a 2 hour but still only 5 openings and 5 credits so 5 episodes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leftkidney (talk • contribs) 09:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
So you liked the ending? I dunno if I cared much for it. I was surprised when some anon user added all the unsourced spoilers to Crossroads Part II a few days ago and I deleted them as nonsense - I thought waht he said was going to happen was rediculous but then, HE WAS RIGHT! Damn... All I say is that Season Four has some serious explaining to do. Tigh was one of the last people I'd think was a Cylon. But I dunno, All Along the Watchtower was kinda weird... and Starbuck's sudden return was kinda cheesy IMO. We'll we have a who frakkin year to wait to see what happens. I'm probably going to refine the plot for the episode later how it's written now sucks - I'll do it once all the hype dies down. I can't believe how many people scrambled to get the last word in last night after the show. I just sat back and watched the chaos unfold. Cyberia2319:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you may be right - perhaps they are high beings of some sort, but what I found strange is during the opera house dream there were six white tapestries. I thought when D'anna saw the Final Five there were five tapestries - one for each white robed figure. Why were there six? COuld we have a 13th Cylon. I think the 12th is Roslin (she's sharing dreams with Six and Eight) or maybe Starbuck, but I'm thinking we'll find out there is a 13th as well, perhaps maybe Baltar after all. Baltar's hair and beard makes him looks like Jesus Christ, he now has worshipers who believe in him and follow him, he's gotta be something else that he doesn't realize yet. Maybe he's the anti-christ or something, but he's not human. Cyberia2319:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the BSG movie is supposed to air this fall on Sci Fi. I heard a rumor that it may deal with what happened to Starbuck from when she disappears to when she returns. Cyberia2320:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I removed Starbuck because the image wasn't showing up for me, I thought someone in the history deleted the image link but left the thumbnail frame so I axed it. If you can fix it then put it back I guess. Cyberia2300:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I use Mozilla Firefox. I only keep IE because, well Windoze throws a fit if you try an delete it, and I need it for updates from Microcrap as they'll only install with Active X and IE, which doesn't work with Mozilla. Starbuck shows up now. For some reason the tag started with two "{" instead of "[[" which was probably why it wasn't showing up. I updated the article, yeah it's long as shit now, but Starbuck is there. Saying she comes back isn't a spoiler IMO, but too many people are saying that she's definitely a Cylon and nothing in the show says that. Not even RDM. All he says was Starbuck was coming back in the end. I'm not fully buying that Anders, Tory, Tigh and Tyrol are Cylons - they're probably from Earth since Tyrol says it was music from "my childhood", and that like your assumption of Baltar, maybe they're some kind of higher beings who've forgotten their past and are just now awakening memories of who they really are. Cyberia2308:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion stacking
Please don't engage in discussion stacking[3]. Our decision process is substantially disrupted when people use side channels to slant discussions in their favor. It's especially bad that you are doing so with such an inaccurate and inflammatory characterization of Ed's actions. There is no rational basis for your claim that Ed's proposed language would completely prohibit screenshots from Wikipedia. Please be more considerate in the future. --Gmaxwell16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EFC
I appreciate your opinion on the boxes around the quotes; but there is nothing wrong with them. I also don't agree that there is too much white space; I think it helps separate the seasons a bit better. Please don't use your opinions are wiki guidelines. FrankWilliams16:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of web users use IE not Firefox; it seems silly to worry about a formatting issue that occurs with small percentage of Firefox browsers. BTW: what is MOS? FrankWilliams16:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol, he brings this argument into the discussion quoting that page ? Firefox and friends are at 36.8 % of the browser usage according to w3schools. That's well over 1/3 of the users dearest Frank :D That's not an amount any webpage editor should ignore, and definetly not wikipedia. (i'm guessing that the average FF usage under Wikipedia editors is even much higher than this average, and then we DEFINETLY shouldn't ignore it. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that a quasi-slapstick movie starring Corin Nemec in which a character is named Parker Lewis and says the line "I just can't win," leaves any speculation as to whether or not there is intent to reference Nemec's show "Parker Lewis Can't Lose"? Do you honestly question that link?Conn, Kit13:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert the change I made? It was much better, and you didn't even say why. --SilvaStorm
Excuse me? Mine's crap?! Mine had more to it, it actually showed a character and wasn't just a statue. And what are you talking about, it does have a fair use rationale - TV-screenshot. --SilvaStorm
Yo
Yo, I'm too lazy to get onto Instant Messaging right now, and I just wanted to say that I will not be on the computer as much starting this Saturday-31 March.. So, if you need to get a hold of me, please use Wikipedia User Talk, or my E-Mail.. Have a great day! Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 23:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been in the article history for a long time. It's not a big deal to me, I was just repopulating the category to how it was before the botched CfD.~ZytheTalk to me!10:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daedalus
Great copyediting, but be careful to use American English for an American-based television show article, rather than traditionally British English terms like 'dialled' and 'manoeuvre'. Personally, I prefer those words as well, but the manual of style dictates otherwise. Just a thought. Cheers! -- HuntsterT • @ • C15:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I understand. Not a big deal; I catch what I can. I'm a born American and I still use British spellings in my personal work. -- HuntsterT • @ • C16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that I disagree with your edit summary reasoning. You said that having images on the left is "silly", this is something I have never heard or seen in practice in any other article, is there some strange policy? And I believe I had clear reason, three images in close sucession on the same side looks "silly" in my opinion. I'm not reverting it yet, I'm just curious as to why you think it was wrong. Gran216:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Matthew,
You wrote on my user page that notices and comments such as the trivia-notice are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. I don't see how. Can you explain that to me?
The Steven Soderbergh probably contains too much trivia. Nobody is arguing with that. So, now consensus has already been reached about the fact that the article contains too much trivia, why do we still need the template?
More important, why do we have to tell that to the general reader? If you look at the Steven Soderbergh article, hardly anything on that page is presented more prominently than the fact that that article contains a trivia section. Is that not something that would be more appropriate to discuss on the article's talk page? Johan Lont12:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOE
Sorry about that, didn't see the replies. However, I'm in agreement with ed_g2s in the discussions you mentioned (and as you can see on my talk page, I consulted him about it first). I know it doesn't seem fashionable to say it but I think that the pictures add nothing and so by FUC shouldn't be there. ...adam... (talk • contributions) 23:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woah tiger - I'm not being hot headed (although thats the first thing someone who is being hot headed says), I apologised for the slightly hasty removal and then expressed my opinion. There is no edit war (unless someone else is warring now without my knowing), I didn't revert your revert or anything of the sort - I replied on the talk page. Also, out of curiosity - where does it say that consensus overrides policy? (no sarcasm there - that was the least sarcastic wording I could find of that question.) ...adam... (talk • contributions) 23:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats cool. I'm still pretty new at this thing. I understand what you say about consensus - however, I think I lie in that minority. I don't actually like the policy and think that the images should stay, but I'm a big believer in free content and following the policy. I have absolutely no intention of fighting this issue though - this seems such a massive issue that there's bound to be a policy change sooner or later that will make this gray area black or gray. Thanks for the clarification though, I will save the whole of those conversations for some bedtime reading and digest them properly. ...adam... (talk • contributions) 23:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sopranos Internet Leak
Thanks for the advice pal, I read what it said...
"If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."
So I have linked to a mainstream news article found on google news that indicates that this is indeed a fact that it has been leaked. So now Wikipedia is not linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work. I assume we don't have a problem now.--Barockoiiu02:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SG-1
How is that worse? An organized table should be better than a long list. and if the objection is because of the use of flagicons, fine, I choose to use them to break up the list.--88wolfmaster 21:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Majorly's RfB
Hey Matthew, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support and I do intend to run again eventually. I'll see you on MSN no doubt ;) Majorly(o rly?)02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Templates
I've reverted the addition of the "obnoxious" template to multiple articles; clearly it has no consensus for the insertion within articles, secondly it is now standardized, thirdly it has no direct purpose nor is it actually compliant/backed by any policy (you'll have to do better then appending "per WP:NOT", etc). I'd advise you to get consensus to insert that template within articles, it is disputed. Matthew17:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry no - you aren't a vigilante of Wikipedia - you say all of those things yet the discussion is still going on. When a page is nominated for deletion - do you delete the page first and delete the links to that page before it's actually discussed and agreed upon - no, that's absolute crap and you should know better.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?)17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I did not mean to misrepresent your comments and I have not - pointing out a flaw wouldn't be misrepresenting. However, I will say that I am unsure of which edit yo urefer to when you say "Your edit to pages insertting that templates". If you mean the first time - then yes, by that logic you would delete the article and links to the article before the consensus to delete was reached (and return the article if the conensus was keep). If you mean the second time (after you removed them) - then the comment above applies.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?)17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, your other supporter Peregrine agreed on the new format. This new format also got the list featured status. Since an admin didn't find that TV.com meets WP:RS, there is no reason to remove them. BIGNOLE (Contact me)21:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize about assuming Tom was an admin. I thought only admins could do the "approved" stage. I wasn't aware that they had it set up like GAC. As for the "you're", I was meaning the universal "you", but, you specifically haven't gone to those pages for clean up. That isn't your job, I know that, but creating almost 100 more isn't going to solve the problem with the other pages. As for the Prod Codes, I'll search for a better source, and if I cannot find one then I will remove that column of information. BIGNOLE (Contact me)21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've ignored it. But I do see where I misinterpreted what you were saying, or I think I see. You were calling the seasonal pages "disgusting" (if true, then I agree). If you couldn't find any prod code with RS, then I'll go ahead and remove them. As for the images. Since I removed the plots, for article size purposes, I figured I should remove the images. Also, almost all of the images have Kryptonsite on them. I plan (I still have another 3 weeks of spring semester) to go through my DVDs and screen capture the same images again, so that they don't have kryptonsite on them. Also, it's much easier to prove fair use for 22 images in one article, than it is for 127 images. The season pages need better formatting. There are 127 episodes, as of right now, and even you have to admit that you won't be able to provide enough substance, reliably, for every one. I'm thinking that those seasonal companion books that Craig Burn, and Paul Simpson, created will probably have production information in them. I don't know for sure because I've never actually come across one personally. BIGNOLE (Contact me)22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Be bold!" with B5
Thanks; I didn't want to be the one being that bold, after getting into it with other editors who are more spam-tolerant than I. --Orange Mike16:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rude and Inappropriate Name-Calling
Spamming
"Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Matthew19:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
I wasn't spamming, and I think you are extraordinarily rude for throwing that term at me on my User Talk page. I didn't post the link, but when I looked at it, it seemed to me that the interview with Hatch nicely augmented the article, which is why I put it back. I remind you of WP:LAWYER and WP:OWN, and request you to not plaster my page with any more false, inappropriate, and unfortunately-unremovable-according-to-Wikipedia-rules warnings.
Spammers are evil scum, and I am literally trembling with fury that you would call me that vile name. How would you like it if I called you a motherfucker? You wouldn't like that, so don't call me a spammer.
They aren't inappropriate, they aren't commercial spam, none of them are advertising, every single one of them is relevant to the article, and what you're doing is personally insulting to me and vandalism to the article. I'm requesting adminstrative review. -- Davidkevin20:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Irishguy. I've restored the links, except for one which may be far-fetched. Care to explain why you removed them, as they are obviously not spam? --KZTalk• Contribs22:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Talky
Hey, no problem, that is what friends are for. Anyway, again, I have no desktop with internet to use, except at school (I'm borrowing my Dad's notebook presently, but at home, I have to use my crippled internet with my Handheld, with NO keyboard, and I must use the stylus :X ).. Anyway, hey, um, I could not get AIM for the Handheld, but could we IM with MSN temporarily? My MSN is my AIM screen-name plus @hotmail.com.. How're you doing? Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 21:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hey, also, I am going to see a movie soon, so I'll see you later of your day.. Also, check it out,my userpage is now a redirect to my talk page. It's so much better, anyway, see you later... Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Picture Deletions
It has become aware to me that you have been deleting some of my Battlestar Galactica screenshots. I understsand that you may feel that some of the picture are unnecessary, but all of these picture are there to enhance the quality of the articles I am adding. I, as always will not load articles full of screenshots, but I will only add pictures where they are more helpfull in explaining the information of an article than mere words. If you believe they are redundant, please make your arguement with me instead of deleting them. Sith Penguin Lord01:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew van de Kamp page ..
Hi Matthew,
Why do you keep deleting the updated picture of Andrew van de Kamp ? I posted and chance some of the other changes like making some text´s bold... I mean quit being so annoying or give me a good reason not to post that picture of Andrew ..? Darth Yotho00:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attitude with a capital A
Why are you like this ??? because you think it's crap it has to be deleted. It's a promo image made by ABC to portray both Andrew and the actor Shawn ...
As I read your talk-page, I can see you have quite a habit of pulling these kind of stunts ..
I thought you may be interested, the edit war you were in a few days ago with an Anon that resulted in his and nearly your blocking for 24 hours. it turns out that the account that went and started reverting after he was blocked, ALSO belongs to him. I had a checkuser run after PGLanier logged in and started to revert the edits as well almost immediately after the 3RR block, they confirm it was him Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PGLanier. Just keep your eyes open if you get into an edit war with the Anon again, I've posted a warning on his talk page about tag-teaming and i'll be watching him to see if does it again - Count2301:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phaser
The source for the backronym of Phaser is from Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Fact Files and (I think) the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, which I think are all canon enough to mention on the Phaser page. If possible, use my talk page to inform me of your decision. --Prototype 01 11:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Succession boxes
Why did you remove only those I added and left those that were already in place (e.g. Caretaker (Voyager episode)). It's much cleaner this way, instead of putting it in the infobox, which is stuffed with too much information... Can you give me the url where it shows this consensus? Nestra (talk • contribs) 17:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
By the way, this user is annoying me.. He/she KEEPS without provocation, changing Summer Roberts to Summer Roberts-Cohen.. I do not get this user, there is NO proof she even changed her name :X ..Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 17:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you contesting my prods? I've been the one doing the research. There are no sources; it will only ever be a plot summary. The articles do not now, nor will they ever meet the expectations of WP:EPISODE. Jay3218321:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, objecting on those grounds is not cool. Insisting that every episode should have an article is really bad and not helpful. Most single episode articles need to be deleted, but people just won't quit their whining. Jay3218322:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the primary editor. I have expert knowledge on the subject. The articles need to be deleted and you need to get out of the way. I wish these could be good articles, but they can't. Jay3218322:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TZ2k
I was very unimpressed with both of the later TZ resurrections. They seemed to focus a lot more on horror and shock than the juxtaposition of ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. Personally, I've got my Tivo set up to grab all the TZ episodes, but delete any of the "new" ones unwatched. Travisl21:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - Jericho character list
Matthew - just so you know, I've reverted your deletion of the header in the Jericho character list, changing "Former" to "Deceased". This is only because deleting without reorganizing leaves that new section disorganized. That aside, if you want to realphabetize while getting rid of the "Deceased" section, I'll support you. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy21:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFCU
The reason why I nominated Kzrulzuall for sysop was because we knew each other in real life. Sp3001 was created since the computer in the library we go to fails to be able to use my JavaScripts without freezing the computer. Being with me at the time, he created the account for me as the IP was blocked by VSmith at that time. --The preceding comment was signed byUser:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 10:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continuity
Creating some sort of standard to adhere to is what creates continuity. if you have a problem with the titles I used why don't you suggest a different title that is broad enough to encompass several articles.--88wolfmaster 01:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Low quality -- too dark and it doesn't really show anything interesting, just a bunch of backs
Removed for the above reason from the only article in which it was used Jericho (fictional town)
film cat
working on converting it at this point - looking for assistance in creating the appropriate template form to do this. SkierRMH18:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question from the assisting party: Are templates required also for talk pages? Can't they just categorize the talk page as article needing cast? HoverfishTalk18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures
Please stop deleting my pictures on the List of Reimagined Battlestar Galactica locations. If you wish to delete them, post something on the discussion, but just don't delete them. Sith Penguin Lord22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look on the main page of Medium, I source FOUR websites that Medium has ordered six more episodes, which means May 16 won't be the finale after all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 04:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I added a link to the computer game Provocator which you removed because I used the word 'Clearly' ( "Clearly inspired by Battlestar Galactica") and deemed it 'fanpinion' !
Please take the time to look at the Provocator page. Once you've read about the game and seen the screen shots, I defy you to claim it isn't "Clearly" relevant to the list of BattleStar Games!
If the list must be of official BSG games only, then I'll add a 'Games inspired by BattleStar' although I feel this is unnecessary.
Whatta ya say?
Respectfully, yet somewhat miffed,
SuperHewit
RE: Provocator link removed?
Hi again,
Sorry - just read your explanation on my user page. Still new to this, apologies for spamming your board needlessly!
Citable research coming up :)
I've reverted this edit, the NBC, IMDb and TV.com links are to be grouped as external links, they're not sources (in the case of IMDb and TV.com they are not valid sources as they are not verifiable), the NBC link is a valid source but the actual link contains no source information used. Also fan-sites are not valid sources or in most cases valid links, and Wikipedia is not a links database so fan sites do not belong here. Matthew09:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken I was stating a source/reference, I have seen this in literally many articles here on Wikipedia, so saying that a reference site not be added is ridiculous, it was not an external fan page. I also think external links on a TV list episodes page is inapporate.--Migospia11:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and as I have stated, they're not valid sources as per Wikipedia's gudielines/policies. All articles should be sourced, but only to reliable sources - fan sites and user submitted websites are not reliable, they have little editorial oversight. Matthew11:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said it is a valid source it talks about Medium episodes which have proven to be valid, I have seen websites here used as sources that should not, what is your problem with this site to be used as a reference although the reference is vaild and more importantly it is imporant to the article it is being used.--Migospia15:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it has published/copied information which is reliable, it is still a fan-site at the end of the day and hence unreliable unless it has some editorial oversight and a long history of providing verifiable history. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources; which I'd already linked to. Addendum: I have no further interest in communicating with you until you have read Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines. Matthew15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have to get a third party in here because you are not understanding me or what this is it is confusing what you are trying to do--Migospia08:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC) They are not external links but sources at least for when I edit the page as well as others, it is just inapporate I believe[reply]
Thank you for your help on my RfA. I appreciate the constructive comments. Although I realize that my RfA was pre-mature, I was impressed at the kindness of the wikipedia community. Happy editing, and thanks again for your help! --Trumpetband22:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your bogus warning
Is there any reason you feel the urge to act in a rude manner? I know very well what 3RR is and you know as well as I do I haven't violated it. Given your current behaviour, I'd strongly suggest you review this.--Kamikaze16:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jericho
Hey... sorry it took a while to get back to you. Yes, it is more interesting - I find I enjoy the show more when they are addressing the conspiracy and the ramifications of terrorism. I'm not big on the rather artificial plot devices such as Dale/Skylar, the fire in town, Gray Anderson etc. What about you? --Ckatzchatspy22:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MEDIUM
You have to stop what you are doing can we get a third party, because like I have said it is not being used as a fan site or external site but a reference site because that is exactly what it is and references are good to state and list, I have seen it in almost every episode TV list on wiki so how could it not fit into the guidelines, what is your problem against it?--Migospia14:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last time till I try and find someone else to come into this because you are not stating any logic, and because I linked to tv.com and imdb.com do you think I run those websites too? geez you must have forgot to read my header of being nice on my talk page--Migospia14:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Van De Kamp
And what, exactly, is there to discuss Matthew? You clearly see this as a personal war, you were never involved in this image issue until you saw I was working on the article and your snidey comments about "winning" prove it. Why should I engage with someone determined to needle me as much as possible who doesn't even care about the image? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VisitEureka
Please see this thread I have posted in regards to your queries. Delete the info and links if the information is proved incorrect when the episodes air. I have provided that page with info I received exclusively - I believe that was a VERY generous thing to do and the references linking to the articles that information was posted from is only fair. If you don't like the site - don't post the exclusive info. Thank you, VisitEureka.net 19:04, 23 April 2007 (BST).
check the history again.
I only removed the tag after i deleted the trivia. Someone keeps putting the trivia back in, over and over. I actually agree with you that the article should not contain trivia. However, i'm going one step further and saying that trivia is not suitable for wikipedia because it either fails notability or it's an unverified claim (like the Watchman thing). dposse15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lost Catch-22
Hi,
I dont want to start an argument here but from the catch-22 discussion page it seems that people dont want such 'Dramatic' images that may 'Spoil' the program, the image may be more appropriate futher down in the article after the Spoiler Warnings.
Cheers
R0ck1t19:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My Mistake Here
Sorry i just read an article on Triva Sections, but i still think there should be a section in Lost episode articles that has shot bulleted list of relavent facts (As in previous episodes). And i understand about the image but as clearly stated in the article disscusion it is clear that people do not want that image up, i see no problem with my image contribution and i uploaded after yours had been removed by another member. For these reasons i feel that this image is unnapropriate at the top of the article and would ask if you do are not satisfied with the alternative i supplied that you should upload one that you may see more suitable.
I would be grateful if you consider my request and review the Catch-22 discussion page.
Cheers,
R0ck1t20:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that YOUR opinion may be that that moment was significant but if i quote you here "please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page." The 'community census' is obviously that people do not find the Charlie Dead image appropriate, for this reason i would be grateful if you replace the previous image or use the Lost title screen and make a suggestion for a better image, i should then be able to upload it,
On a further not i spotted you added the Trivia tag to 'The Brig' as the Trivia article states Trivia sections may be used in establishing a new article and are therfore appropriate for upcoming episodes, otherwise i now agree with you on aired episodes however.
Thanks once again, R0ck1t20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just read your comment unfortunatley there is no appropriate moment when you can see both of them together, this was infact my first choice. Sorrey that is of course excluding the photo found in the jungle but this seems to unrelavent to me.R0ck1t20:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a good shot of desmond tackling charlie that seems 'dramatic' enough to me i'll upload it now and add a link to the discussion page, if you like it or people give a positive respose feel free to add it in or tell me to. If you are still not satisfied feel free to sugest again.R0ck1t20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (Oh and BTW its complaining about the size of this page you may want to archive some stuff)[reply]
Having had problems with you before, under a previous now retired user name, it is sad but predictable that once again you have used your bullying, arrogant tactics. After I change the tense on Astronauts, amongest other edits, you then go through my very small edit history and change every page I have edited. There is no clear evidence you are right, but there is no point in trying to argue as you just bully people. You assume the is/was refers to whether the programme exists; thats wrong, its refers to whether its airs. Most ordinary people (ie outside Wikipedia) would refer to a former programme as "was", but as a grammar Nazi you insist on your way being right. Wikipedia would be far better without you. Once again I will retire from Wikipedia, I had hoped to come back, but your attitude reminds me why I left. You should not follow people, its harrasment to look at every page someone has edit to change one thing. --BritTV18:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have doubts you have looked for any evidence, and they wouldn't be any. The point is in general conversation most people would refer to a finished programme in past tense. To say "is" sounds stupid, and I think the amount of users and IP addresses that change many pages (only to be reverted by you) reflects this. But I will let you win, as I really can't be bothered to fight. The fact that you saw it as necessary to put [sic] shows how pathetic you are. Why was it necessary. Our conversation was about edit changes, not my grammar! --BritTV19:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do consider my edits constructive, I consider yours to be the opposite. You, and many others I admit, make Wikipedia look pathetic. Previously I worked happily and unopposed on many, many articles, until you came along. And regarding Arthur's Treasured Volumes, only a few minutes remains, yet you consider this enough do you! Your arrogance and general attitude amaze me, and as a final comment I only hope one day that you actual realise you are not good for Wikipedia and retire yourself. Then everyone would be better off. --BritTV19:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When will ABC reveal their 2007-2008 schedule and pickups?
Exactly when will ABC reveal their 2007-2008 schedule and pickups? It's hard to tell which programs have been renewed and which programs have been cancelled. AdamDeanHall20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please be careful with AfD notices
Hello Matthew, I noticed your notices about the ANI discussion on fancruft and the AfD on Kept Man, and I wanted to point out that posting such notices on unrelated talk pages may be a violation of WP:CANVASS. I understand why you would be concerned about the fate of TV episode pages, and I tend to agree that they should be allowed to remain on Wikipedia, but I don't feel that cross-posting on other TV show talk pages about Kept Man is quite proper. I feel though Ned Scott should have left a note to this effect on your talk page rather than place charges of vote-stacking on each TV episode talk page. --Kyoko21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopaedia
The standard spelling on Wikipedia is "encyclopedia", so it should be used in templates, I think. However, if you can point out why it was spelled "encyclopaedia" (in a cleanup template), and why it is spelled "encyclopedia" in all other templates, I will accept. --NetRolller 3D10:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's widely accepted to spell that word as "encyclopedia" here (on Wikipedia, remember, not Wikipaedia, and every other template spells it that way, so there is a general consensus on "encyclopedia"), so it serves no purpose to stand out. Also, a little bug of the template: the first line isn't bold. --NetRolller 3D10:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Space:1999 Laser Tank
I'd prefer to keep the infobox in, for it myself, I was going to put an image in. Can't we have the infobox in as a catchall for spacecraft and sci-fi vehicles? I think I might just revert it for the time being till we come to a consensus.Douglasnicol01:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the infobox says 'Spacecraft' in the edit template, but it's perfectly sufficient for this purpose, and is more efficient than using a seperate infobox that will basically just duplicate most of what is in the spacecraft one. If you look at most instances of the use of the spacecraft one there are many entries in it that are not fully utilised. Douglasnicol13:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For petes sake, now you've removed the bulk of the entry. I was considering trying to make an infobox but you seem to be downright impossible to work with. Douglasnicol13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any objections to me then modifying the spacecraft one, taking out what isn't relevant and maybe adding in somethings that are? Douglasnicol13:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've not submitted it yet, "Propulsion" doesn't sound quite right for a land vehicle, yet in the realms of scifi we have all sorts of power apart from internal combustion including nuclear, gas turbine etc, but propulsion still doesn't sound right. Douglasnicol13:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem quite right either, maybe propulsion and power can be merged into one category in land vehicles, covering the style of engine, after all on a spacecraft like the Enterprise the propulsion would be warp engines and the power would be the matter/anti matter mix, there's not as much need for that on a land vehicle entry. However, I will add a chassis entry which shows whether a vehicle is wheeled, tracked, hover, even legged. Douglasnicol13:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the template. At the same time I've also deleted the old one from the Space:1999 Moonbuggy article and substituted the new one. I will be putting images of these craft in soon (handy when you have the two seasons on DVD), especially on the Laser Tank entry as they are three distinct designs. I've also moved both the Buggy and tank from the category of Space:1999 spacecraft and started a new category. Oops, meant to sign my comment.... Douglasnicol15:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit, the max speed entry is missing, whenever I add it, there's always some odd character showing up at the top of the page. Any ideas? Douglasnicol15:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what's wrong here...I put in a screen grab, the image is Moonbuggy.jpg, using the standard image insertion doesn't work. How come? Douglasnicol16:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, with the use of PowerDVD, I've completed the set up of this page, what do you think. I hope to get more information on it as well to pad it out a bit. Douglasnicol20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is true but irrelevant. We're not talking about a few dissenters gathering in an out-of-the-way place, we're talking about dozens of people gathering on a high-traffic and high-profile noticeboard. I would prefer to resolve this amicably, but please do be aware that I will take any steps necessary to prevent copyright violations from being added. In the case of fair-use images, we are far exceeding minimal use by use of images simply for "labelling" episodes. That's clear decorative use. SeraphimbladeTalk to me11:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting theory. Might you be able to tell me how IAR permits you to ban someone from editing a page? As to copyright law, couple things there. First, I imagine you'll find I know it pretty well, I'm often asked for assistance in selection and drafting of software licenses, and have done so on more than one occasion. Secondly, Wikimedia's fair-use restrictions are deliberately far more restrictive than copyright law, but even under fair use, comment or commentary on the work in question is essential to a fair-use defense. Even the law frowns heavily on decorative fair use. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you are aware that by your theory, IAR perfectly well allows me to ignore your "community ban"? Discussion has taken place, spurred by Ryulong's actions, but that's largely irrelevant. This is an issue the Foundation has spoken on, and when they set rules there's no ignoring them. You can ask them to change them, if you'd like me to help you contact them I'd be happy to, but until and unless you convince them so it is as it is. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Foundation did not specifically say "You may not use fair-use images in lists of episodes". And indeed, in exceptional cases, such an image may be acceptable, or it may be appropriate to have a single picture of the series or its logo at the introduction to the list. However, fair-use images as "labels" are not by any definition a minimal use of such images. The episodes may be identified by name instead. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. It is not solely my opinion that we should use free content whenever possible and non-free content at an absolute minimum level, it is that of the Foundation (though for reference, I am behind the Foundation's opinion on that matter 100%). In this case, the fair-use images are decorative, which is a clearly prohibited use. The images themselves are not discussed in the article which uses them. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've got the burden of proof in the wrong place. It is not incumbent upon someone who wishes to remove a fair-use image to show it violates fair-use policy, it is incumbent upon the person who wishes to include it to show unequivocally that its inclusion is legitimate by both the law and our fair-use policies. You have not yet offered a single affirmative argument as to why the use of these images are not decorative. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A vote on an out-of-the-way subpage is not an appropriate substitute for the required individual fair-use rationales, nor can it override the Foundation or our fair-use policy based upon their ruling. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked through some of them. They make no difference. The law, and the rules of the Foundation, supercede even a unanimous consensus on Wikipedia, even if one thousand editors here unanimously agree. Fair-use images must be kept to a minimum, period. Using them as "labels" is not keeping them to a minimum, when it's obvious that the article can exist without them (and indeed, when such versions exist in version history.) SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something doesn't become true by repeating it often enough. I have most certainly presented a legal argument (one of the pillars of fair use in the law is comment or criticism on the copyrighted work). It is most certainly possible that a judge would consider the list to do so on the work "as a whole", but it's just as well possible that he'd consider the lack of comment on the scene or screenshot to militate against fair use. More importantly, however, I have most certainly noted how it fails the Foundation's resolution, for two reasons. Firstly, while we are permitted a narrow exemption policy under the Foundation ruling, these images fail rule 1 (they are replaceable by a free equivalent, a plain text label, or if you wish a graphical label, perhaps a free-drawn, stylized graphic of the episode or show's title you would release under GFDL), rule 3 (the use is excessive and gratuitous), rule 8 (the images are used for decoration, and are not absolutely essential), and rule 9 ("All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum." (emphasis mine)). Secondly, the resolution still and yet states that such use must be "minimal", and that we shouldn't use a fair-use image except when we absolutely have no choice. In this case, we have a choice. It may not be a choice you like, but they're pretty clear on that-if there is a free option, we take the free option, and that's the end of that story. Now, there is your reasoning, once again, and I hope that's clear enough for you to see it's there. On the other hand, I've seen no reasoning from you as to how the images do pass legal muster, the Foundation resolution, or our fair-use policy, you've simply kept repeating that they do. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The measure is excessive and in some cases outright counterproductive. I've copied your note on your talk page to mine. Let's see if any others join in. --Kizor01:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image Use
I think you should no that Nick, Chaz Beckett and sever al users are arbitrially deleting images from episode lists of various shows before a consensus on this issue has been decided. Nick has actually blocked the Lost epsidoe list. I think this vandalsim should be reported to the wikipedia administration and that they should be banned if they continue in there behavior annoynmous 03:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC
Date format
So you know, the Manual of Style states it doesnt matter on the commas in the dates, as the users date display preferences will override anyway MOS on dates so the reverts over commas or not seem, well, maybe a little silly :) -Mask?08:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not quite like that. We dont want us specific dates. This isnt the us wiki, its the english. Thats why we have that software tweak, so US, UK, AU and all other english speakers dont editwar over date formats. -Mask?09:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh! hadnt even thought of the fork issue! You may want to bring that up on the MoS talkpage to add that bit into the official policy. Good catch. -Mask?09:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: is it just me
Well i'm not surprised, i was expecting this day for the longest time. I don't agree, but i won't take it to arbcom either. I'm already involved in an ISA wheelchair issue that just landed me at Arbcom, and I'm not looking for another case. Still it's a shame. the images clearly improve the articles in my point of view, within USA rules. And I don't see why we should scare out of this without ever receiving an official complaint from a copyright owner. The EDP is flawed and too limiting towards image usage in wikipedia. Wikipedia has gotten too scared simply because it has gotten big. In affect we should use our power to stand up for what we believe in. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've personally diverted my real editing attention more towards WP:SPACE recently, and I've seen Ned getting more involved with the organization of Wikiprojects in general, like banners, council etc. It seems WP:TV is rapidly losing it's project organizers attention. Soon it's talk pages will be full of talk, and no one actually listening and caring anymore I think. And I'm starting to not care: the topic has become too much of a warzone for me to still be satisfying to organize the templates, categories, stubs and wikiproject guidelines.... It's sad. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wrath of Graham and other S4 episodes
I was surprised you added two season four episodes, after reverting several of them the last few months. Can you explain to me why FutonCritic is a more reliable source than many of the others out there? Travisl15:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Broad revert
It was unintentional. The edit was a broad revert to once again pull the images out after a WP:POINT edit of someone adding them back in against policy. The spelling fix just got caught in there. On a side note, I gave the link to the image policies on various wikipedia's over on WT:NONFREE -Mask?17:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dude
Thank you for responding for me (re:As Time Passes By). I really appreciate it :) .. I was slightly busy.. Anyway, I should be back to normal Wiki use by the end of May-I hope.Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 18:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template
The reason was given in the edit summary. If you have a bug to report, please do so in an appropriate manner (politely, and assuming good faith). ed g2s • talk10:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful reverting edits as you have been on List of crossovers on Lost. You have currently reverted the page three times.
Citing Sources
The production order #=the production code on the list of Dresden episodes. This is confirmed by the SFC press Kit. If you want to quibble about wordage then I'll change the citation to point to the Press Kits but these are offline. Online sources are better for everyone. --John T. Folden21:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it literally states those numbers as the production code. They're Kits published for press use, but they are published. How readily available something is does not discount it as a source. Otherwise a huge number of specialized medical periodicals, magazines, out of print books, etc, could not be used as a citation. If you would prefer to label them as the Order # vs Code then I have no problems with that but there's no reason to remove them. --John T. Folden21:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said it states them as Production Code in the SFC Press Kit. If you want to go to the trouble to track them down then you can verify them as is the case with any other limited publication. I don't believe your opinion on this matter is correct. Would you prefer them put back with the SFC Press Kit as a source or change the title to production Order, etc? Otherwise, I think we'll need to take this through the WP:Mediation_Cabal or similar.--John T. Folden22:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's copyright infringement to reproduce the Press Kit and post it online, which is why i didn't do it or use it as the source to begin with. I acquired my copy off of eBay several months ago. --John T. Folden22:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want to verify the simple existence of the Press Kits. Well, there's two DVDs from them selling on ebay right now, a google search turns up several old auctions, people have been gleaning and posting info from them on the Jim-Butcher.com forum for months (do a search for "Press Kit" including quotes and they start popping up), etc... if you want one personally then you'd have to hunt it down like anyone else does at this late date (considering some of them are almost a year old) but this obviously isn't an item you can walk into Walmart and buy. That doesn't make it any less credible than the next limited publication, like a medical periodical, however it's not as good as online sources. Verifiability requires the info be published or made available by a reliable source, not a guarantee that the source will always be forever available to all and sundry. Which is exactly the reason why I stuck to those online sources as I was previously advised to by the WP:Mediation_Cabal. --John T. Folden23:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Andromeda_-_S02E06.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Andromeda_-_S02E06.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr)21:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah...but I already have stopped edit warring. I'm resorting to mediation and discussion, whereas Dev continues to revert. Do you see how silly this gets?--Ed¿Cómo estás?23:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your edit summary at all; "italics are for long works, not short -- per MoS". What do you mean "long works"? Anyway, the future episodes are italicised to differentiate them from ones that have already been aired, and is a practice I picked up off other templates. What exactly is the problem? Number5717:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Otto471114:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I wouldn't intervene on Otto's behalf, but it is in extremely poor taste to give a templated warning to someone that you are involved in an edit war with. Obviously, you both are aware of the policy, as you are both experienced editors. What did you hope to accomplish by slapping that warning on his talk page? If there is a problem, try to work it out on the talk page first. If that fails, take it to RfC to get an opinion from someone who is not directly involved with the dispute. There is no need to conduct yourselves in this manner. Settle the dispute amicably and quit templating each other. --CyrusAndiron18:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, there is a better way than using the standard template. Those are generally reserved for people who are unaware of policy. A personal message that discused the problem and possible solutions probably would have worked better. Templating a regular editor only annoys them as shown by his response when he gave the warning right back. If you cannot settle the disupte take it to RfC rather than revert warring. Both of you are guilty of violating WP:3RR. --CyrusAndiron18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle XY
Whether you like it or not, Category: Kyle XY episodes exists. Articles about the episodes, including seasonal episode summaries and lists of episodes, belong in it. So if you MUST (wrongly) categorize the articles in the Kyle XY category, then at least have the sense and courtesy to leave them in the episodes category. Not really that much to ask for. Otto471114:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you read the nomination, I am not trying to have the category deleted at all. I am trying to get it renamed so that it is in line with close to 200 other categories in the Category:Television characters by series category tree, to reflect what the category is actually being used for. Your false speculation on my motives are a failure to assume good faith. Otto471115:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kemiv
No it was not a mistake. That section was deleted on accident.
I know it can be hard to search for links. The one you apparently can't find is currently about 5 lines above your comment on the talk page. Billywhack02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Water.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Water.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - The Man Who Fell to Earth (Two).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - The Man Who Fell to Earth (Two).jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - The Greatest Love Story Never Told.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - The Greatest Love Story Never Told.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - The Enemy Within.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - The Enemy Within.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - The Church of Morgan.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - The Church of Morgan.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - The Boy Who Would be Terrian King.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - The Boy Who Would be Terrian King.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Survival of the Fittest.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Survival of the Fittest.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Redemption.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Redemption.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Promises, Promises.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Promises, Promises.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Natural Born Grendlers.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Natural Born Grendlers.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Moon Cross.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Moon Cross.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Life Lessons.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Life Lessons.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Grendlers in the Myst.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Grendlers in the Myst.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Flower Child.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Flower Child.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - First Contact - P2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - First Contact - P2.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - First Contact - P1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - First Contact - P1.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - First Contact - P1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - First Contact - P1.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Brave New Pacifica.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Brave New Pacifica.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Better Living Through Morganite - P2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Better Living Through Morganite - P2.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - Better Living Through Morganite - P1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - Better Living Through Morganite - P1.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - All About Eve.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - All About Eve.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - After the Thaw.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - After the Thaw.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Earth 2 - A Memory Play.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Earth 2 - A Memory Play.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Drop Dead Gorgeous -- Series 1 Episode 4.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Drop Dead Gorgeous -- Series 1 Episode 4.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Drop Dead Gorgeous -- Series 1 Episode 3.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Drop Dead Gorgeous -- Series 1 Episode 3.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re: xyz
My bot isn't spamming as per custom when it nominates a image for deletion it notifies the uploader. I will not change that behavior, so your options are either not upload those images or don't leave them orphans. So get over it Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)20:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 215 - Haunted.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 215 - Haunted.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 213 - Last Call.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 213 - Last Call.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 212 - Forget Me Not.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 212 - Forget Me Not.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 211 - Ashes to Ashes.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 211 - Ashes to Ashes.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 210 - Be Still My Heart.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 210 - Be Still My Heart.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 209 - Be Still My Heart.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 209 - Be Still My Heart.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 208 - The Escape Artist.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 208 - The Escape Artist.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 207 - Rites of Passage.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 207 - Rites of Passage.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 206 - In Escrow.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 206 - In Escrow.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 205 - Hurry.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 205 - Hurry.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 204 - The Shallow End.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 204 - The Shallow End.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 203 - Ghost Story.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 203 - Ghost Story.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 202 - The Ledger.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 202 - The Ledger.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 201 - SendintheClown.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 201 - SendintheClown.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 113 - Rest in Peace.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 113 - Rest in Peace.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 111 - Nighthawks.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 111 - Nighthawks.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 110 - The Bicycle Thief.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 110 - The Bicycle Thief.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 109 - Business Unfinished.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 109 - Business Unfinished.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 108 - Sunday Mornings.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 108 - Sunday Mornings.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 107 - A Cook.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 107 - A Cook.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 106 - Reaper Madness.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 106 - Reaper Madness.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 105 - My Room.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 105 - My Room.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 104 - Reaping Havoc.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 104 - Reaping Havoc.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 103 - Reapercussions.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 103 - Reapercussions.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 102 - Curious George.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 102 - Curious George.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 101 - Dead Girl Walking.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 101 - Dead Girl Walking.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 100 - Pilot.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dead Like Me -- Episode 100 - Pilot.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot21:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you reverted my tagging of a non-free image that doesn't have a fair-use rationale. You appear to have used your revert button to do this--did you believe my edit to be vandalism?
In any case, please see my notification of Khaosworks, the original uploader, involving this and two other non-free images. All he has to do is supply rationales for the use of these works, which do not belong to us and are not freely licensed, in the three Wikipedia articles in which they're used.
Matthew, Tony's right, there is no fair use rationale on that capture. I'm sure Khaosworks will be onto it shortly, but in the mean time using admin rollback on a tag which is correctly placed and addresses a problem with legal ramifications is a bit off, especially given Tony's long involvement with the project. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looked like rollback, but I'm not clear whether you're an admin, Matthew. Was it some kind of revert script? In any case an informative edit summary would have helped here.
On your reference to gmaxwell, I won't mince words. Did someone contact you and relay discussions taking place on the admin channel? If so, would you please identify that person? --Tony Sidaway15:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understood my request. You don't have to be an administrator to be aware of who informed you about discussions on a closed IRC channel. To repeat my request: would you please identify the person who leaked those confidential discussions? --Tony Sidaway15:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not appreciate the fact that you summarily dismissed my edit to Template:Infobox character as "indiscriminate." I can understand opposing hair and eye colour options if the infobox is used strictly for film and TV characters, but I am looking for a generic character infobox which can be used in articles about characters in written fiction, and, since you cannot see a character in a book, information about hair and eye colour is in no way "indiscriminate." Look at Template:HP character. -Severa (!!!) 10:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And since when have such tidbits as "nickname" and "call sign" been significant aspects of a character? How many characters run radio stations? How is this information not "indiscriminate?" But subjective assessments of what constitutes "indiscriminate" information are just that: subjective. -Severa (!!!) 11:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really liked that song and now you say it won't ever be in the series. Do you have to disappoint people like that? byeee20:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... not so much. It only says that it might- which we don't know. Well, at least you said 'does', not 'will not', because in that case I'd have been really sad. byeee20:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent post demanding that an admin have their rights removed because of an editing mistake has damaged your credibility, as has your followup conduct in the discussion. Please remain civil and assume good faith when dealing with problems. It is infinitely more useful to try and discuss things calmly than... the alternative that you chose. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew: this clearly isn't worth an edit war, given that the announcement is just a few hours away. However, it is important to realize that the "upfronts" are when the networks make their official presentations as to the upcoming season. CBS will hold theirs later today (May 16th) at Carnegie Hall in New York City. Until then, all we can report is what we're hearing from "sources" such as Variety magazine. (Look at the Futon Critic page you used as a reference. That's not an official press release from CBS. Check out this link for an example of a post-upfront release.) As I said, this isn't something to battle over - can we agree to hold off for the real announcement? --Ckatzchatspy08:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably more choked... I liked the post-apocalyptic angle, but found the writing and acting to be somewhat lacking. Nevertheless, it was a Wednesday night staple. (Don't worry, I'm not thinking "don't say it's cancelled because maybe it will be saved." Nothing of the sort - just saying that CBS' *official* statement at the upfronts has yet to occur.) Cheers! --Ckatzchatspy09:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's sad that Jericho was cancelled, I was thinking of starting to watch it (but a cliffhanger ending :O ).. Cheers—Illyria05 Ring•Contrib.03:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with noting that the cancellation is disputed, given the fact that it seems to be a particularly virulent dispute. Just because the editors are anons doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken seriously. — Rickyrab | Talk20:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you autorevert my change to the Trivia template? See the discussion page over there for why my edit is correct and why the WP:TRIVIA guideline would need to be changed for the Trivia template to be worded with a claim that trivia sections should be removed.
It is you who are edit warring - your contribution in the last few minutes has been "you will do no such thing" and a 3RR template message, rather than actually countering my (correct) argument. Why don't you do the right thing and get a consensus established over at WP:TRIVIA instead of trying to do an end round around it by just editing the template to reflect the way you personally believe Wikipedia should run. Tempshill16:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The old Fictional Spacecraft/Fictional Sci Fi Ground vehicle debate again
Just thought you would like to know that the debate we had about the Laser Tank, Moon Buggy etc has erupted here into a category discussion. It's being proposed that the Laser Tank etc be recategorised as Fictional Spacecraft among other things. Douglasnicol17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your new design transcluded in the article I was reading, and it wasn't the standard spoilers template. Tphi15:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As some articles are linked to Template:Spoiler and others to Template:Spoilers, there are now two designs to the warning which is confusing. Please feel free to put your proposed design to the look of Template:Spoiler on its talk page, but leave the Template:Spoilers redirect as it is. Tphi15:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a few minutes, can you take a look at the discussion I'm having at User_talk:Romanspinner#Twilight_Zone_cast_edits and let me know your thoughts on the matter? You've worked with TV episode formatting a lot more than I have, and I'm sure you know the policies and guidelines better. Travisl16:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Matthew, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Tomb of Athena - Battlestar Galactica.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Matthew/Archive/Archive 1. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk04:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the change you suggested. --ais523 11:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler merge
Matthew, please take the time to actually look at what I proposed. {{spoiler}} will be gaining the ability to do the exact same thing as {{spoiler-about}}, but merged into one template instead of using two (which should have happened regardless of any spoiler discussion, simply because they were made without people considering phaserfunctions). It's a technical merge that changes nothing of the appearance of either template, and both will appear the same as they did before. -- Ned Scott21:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sanctuary Intertitle Image
Hi, I noticed you changed the image used on Sanctuary (web series) from the original image I uploaded, to the lower quality intertitle. I was just curious to know what the reason was for changing it? If it's regarding copyright, you should be aware that screenshots are permitted (in fact, they encourage them). I've asked them to clarify the copyright licence. Assuming they respond affirmatively, would you have any objection if I changed it back to the higher quality image? (I also asked this question on the Sanctuary talk page, but you didn't respond so I'm asking you here). Lachlan Hunt15:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image you uploaded was from the end (and not from the beginning intertitle), standard practice on Wikipedia is to use the title screen from the introduction titles. For example see Stargate SG-1 or Stargate Atlantis. "If it's regarding copyright, you should be aware that screenshots are permitted", Wikipedia's policies and guidelines prohibit high-resolution/high-quality non-free imagery (see WP:NFCC), so we must use web resolution images. "I've asked them to clarify the copyright license", unfortunately we can't use high-quality "with permission" images, this is because Wikipedia can be forked (and so people who fork Wikipedia will not have permission). Hope this clears it up. have a good afternoon, Matthew15:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they're the articles I looked at to see what sizes were ok. The SG-1 image is 852×480, the Atlantis image is 640×360. The image I uploaded was somewhere between those, at 720×405, which was reduced from the original 1920×1080.
When I said clarify the copyright licence, I didn't mean specifically for wikipedia. I meant in general, and I'm hoping they provide a licence that is compatible with the GFDL.
Regarding it being from the end, I assume you mean because it contains the URI as well. Fair enough. If that's the case, then I guess the image I uploaded can be deleted if it's not going to be used. (You can respond on this page, I've added to my watchlist). Lachlan Hunt17:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the Stargate ones are a bit big at present (I'll resize them sometime - if I remember, hehe) - that was just an example of the opening portion usage. If they'll release an image under a GFDL compatible license... well that would be marvelous, I certainly wouldn't complain! Matthew17:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Signature
My signature complies with the guidelines set out at WP:SIG. If you're one of those who dislikes fancy signatures, then you're perfectly entitled to your opinion - but there's no precedent for refactoring other people's signatures on community talk pages. (However, I will defer to your preference in signing this posting on your talkpage.) Walton17:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop reverting edits made by me to David Tennant have you read what I've said or are you stupid? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kurabal (talk • contribs).
Just a humble suggestion. It's not worth an edit war over a picture. Anyway, the new one's probably going to be deleted anyway, b/c of fair use, and then you can just replace it with the old one. My two pence, for what it's worth... :) -Ebyabe20:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Juice Plus
Matthew, please stop blanking the adverse effects section of the Juice Plus article. The section is under active discussion on the talk page. If you have any comments regarding the content, include them on the talk page but do not delete the content without an explanation; blanking is considered vandalism. Also, I suggest you read the “do not” section of WPs help guide on reverting [5]. Rhode Island Red14:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, I have outlined in detail that no concensus has been reached for removal of the section in question. In fact the concensus reached was that the material should stand.[6] Please do not delete this content again unless you can provide sufficient justification on the talk page. Blanking of this kind is considered vandalism. Rhode Island Red14:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, please stop deleting the content on the Juice Plus page. If you have comments to add to the discussion then do so, but simply deleting content without commenting is inappropriate. Rhode Island Red13:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you re-read WP:CON and consider whether the disucssion on the Juice Plus page has followed appropriate procedure for concensus building. IMO, it has not, so it cannot be claimed that a consensus exists for removal. Hope you understand my position. Rhode Island Red14:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, the previous consensus was to keep this information. Please review the history outlined in my last reply to Elonka on the talk page (included below). No new consensus has been established to delete it. The onus is on those who are pushing for deletion to state their case on the talk page rather than falsely claiming that a consensus exists for deletion. If you have comments to add to the discussion, then do so, but as I have stated repeatedly, do not merely delete the text without elaborating the reasons. Thank you in advance.
You have repeatedly claimed that a consensus exists to delete the content,[7][8][9][10] and as I have repeatedly pointed out, it is plainly obvious that no such consensus was ever reached. In actuality, you are the only editor who has suggested removing the entire section, you have not provided sufficient justification to defend your assertion, you have repeatedly ignored my comments on the talk page without replying,[11][12][13] you have ignored requests from me and one other editor to not delete the content and to solicit additional input from other editors, [14][15] you have failed to acknowledge the prior discussions on this topic in which it was agreed that the content should stay,[16] and you have ignored the fact that editors other than myself have contributed to the content in this section since it was restored.[17]
You first did a re-write of the article on Feb 17,[18] at which time I found it curious that you had arbitrarily omitted the section on adverse effects. I pointed out the omission immediately on the same day, [19] assuming it was a mere oversight, and you acknowledged it without voicing any objection to its re-inclusion.[20] The adverse effects section was restored on Feb 24 [21] and you failed to comment on it for the next several months until May 12.[22] At that time, you suggested deleting the entire section and then you unilaterally deleted it on May 17,[23] claiming that a consensus supported your decision, when in fact no editor other than you had said that the section should be deleted. It is now becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith underlying your removal of this content. Please stop deleting it and stop falsely claiming that your deletion is supported by a consensus. If you persist, this issue will be brought to the attention of WP administration for remedial action. Rhode Island Red01:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I apologise for that. But you must try to understand the trouble that ChrisCNichols has been causing, its has come near to vandalism many times. He may be acting in good faith, but he caused lots of problems writing in a informal tone, trying to add photos etc. They are also "Overviews", so I don't see wry synopsis needs to be there. Many others have "Overview", like the Dad's Army one. --UpDown15:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a different discussion. Regardless, it is not useful of you to supporting this user, who does things causes many problems on these pages. But it too late now, nice talking to you. --UpDown15:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Stargate Atlantis - Rail Gun Fire -1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Stargate Atlantis - Rail Gun Fire -1.jpg. 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 '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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot07:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry - I didn't see that because it wasn't when I requested backup. Yeah, sorry. That does basically reflect my immediate reaction to seeing a solution to a large problem on Wikipedia that I spent quite a lot of time on get nominated for deletion under circumstances that are querrelous at best. It was, however, an inappropriate word to use. Phil Sandifer16:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it seems that you were receiving live logs of the administrators' IRC channel, we would all appreciate if you were to tell us who is supplying you with this information. This user is a concern to some of the more serious private issues that are discussed in the channel, such as issues concerning dealing with the various biographies of living persons that have arisen lately. If you could, please e-mail either Mackensen or Dmcdevit with the name of the administrator giving you the logs, as it is a serious security issue for Wikipedia itself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 16:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From somebody whom you (should) consider a sysop
Because it seems that you were receiving live logs of the administrators' IRC channel, we would all appreciate if you were to tell us who is supplying you with this information. This user is a concern to some of the more serious private issues that are discussed in the channel, such as issues concerning dealing with the various biographies of living persons that have arisen lately. If you could, please e-mail either Mackensen or Dmcdevit with the name of the administrator giving you the logs, as it is a serious security issue for Wikipedia itself. Sean William17:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your obligations
You may provide logs or information from or about logs to the Arbitration committee per email, if they contain information relevant to an arbitration committee case, and only if you feel like it. You are not obligated to do so, or to do anything else.--Kim Bruning17:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, just to pop in here, I have star trek articles on my watchlist so I saw your Oberth removal there as OR. The class being named after Hermann Oberth can be sourced to The Star Trek Encyclopedia, written by Mike Okuda and his wife, who design and flesh out the props, art and models used on the show, and can be considered a reliable source for this information. I have the book here with me if you want to thouroughly tag it as a ref, I can give you the isbn number and what not if you need it. Given our disagreements before I figured I'd bring it to you here instead of some impersonal revert :) -Mask?00:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So because you are extremely biased (as shown by the Kept Man AfD), you have reverted a ton of episodes that fail WP:EPISODE outright? You shouldn't be the one to do this; if you found a point problem with it, you should have brought it up somewhere else before reverting. You may like episode articles, but they fail a fundamental principal (this site isn't a plot summary). If anyone is making a point, it would be you. TTN11:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am biased, but I am in the right - I am enforcing a guideline. No information backed by secondary sources means no article. That is it. You can push the "they can be improved point", but that can happen after. You have reverted on the principal that "others disagree with me." Of course they do; that's a given. No matter what, someone is always going to end up grumpy in the end. That is no reason to undo the work because you like them. And have you even looked at what you have reverted? I have received no opposition for those, and, you know, discussion isn't required. I have left messages on some episode list talk pages (two of the ones you reverted), but most would never actually receive them. That is as good of a discussion as you're going to get. TTN11:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do they pass WP:EPISODE then? You failed to answer that in the AfD, and you'll fail here. And you know, these would fall under WP:BRD if anyone really did disagree with them, so you really don't have an actual point in your reversions. You're obviously pushing for a cause (Episode articles for everyone! Get them while they're hot, cheap, and pointless!), so it wouldn't really count with you. What reason do I have not to revert you on that knowledge? TTN11:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The actual episode is a primary source. They have no secondary sources, so your point really makes no sense. According to that, they shouldn't even exist in the first place. I'm going by "Dealing with problem articles", where both answers are no. TTN11:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, you said that they have enough from secondary sources, but the only source on each of those episodes is the primary source. Obviously, you're getting confused or you're seeing secondary sources that I'm not seeing. Would you please point some out? TTN12:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the "sources may exist" argument! It's been a real long time since I've seen that. You missed the part of your quote where it says "verifiable" information, not conjectural information. Each series needs to prove its own worth on a case by case basis. You cannot seriously claim that all of them have information en masse. TTN12:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, That 70's showmay have information, but someone needs to provide it. One Piece, on the other hand, is a cartoon that will run well past one thousand episodes at the rate it's going. It will likely never have any sort of information for each episode. You cannot just claim that both have sources out there, and be all set. TTN12:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though please be kind enough to address the above point instead of wikiLawyering with the "consensus must be found first" stuff. WP:BRD is a fine approach. No one has disagreed with me on that series yet (you don't count). TTN12:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But your reason for the reverts is "no consensus was established." That doesn't fall under BRD; that falls under wikilawyering. You're reverting only on the that basis. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with the actual removals. Anyways, if we're going to do this, please address the above point. TTN12:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Policy doesn't require discussing every change. To use that as the basis of your reverting is just plain old wikilawyering. The merging/redirection of articles is tedious; stopping every ten seconds, leaving a message, and waiting for each one would be annoying, so we have BRD. You cannot apply BRD with "no consensus" because that is the point of it. TTN12:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So do you think a third opinon from WP:3O would be helpful, or is this "analysis" going to take care of everything? TTN13:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now would be a good time to stop. Please discuss and reach consensus before splitting out further episodes, and do not do so unless there are credible third-party sources both for the content and for its significance independent of the series itself. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please hurry this up if possible. I would like to get back on track pretty soon, and I certainly can't do that with you looming around. TTN16:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How large is this argument of yours? You do realize that it's probably going to be your own opinion on how either we should include everything on the site (not happening), or how we should just leave every episode article because they may have secondary sources just lying around, right? This isn't going to change the guideline one bit, so I really don't see what you expect to get out of it (except enjoyment from me being annoyed from waiting). TTN17:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people on the weaker side always do that? Instead of passing me off as nothing, can you at least explain your basic argument? I'm just expecting the usual stuff like WP:NOT#PAPER abuse. TTN17:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EPISODE disagrees with you. Verifiable secondary sources (not "Google it", actual sources) are required. This site needs more than plotsummaries, and these are plot summaries. "Google it" doesn't work, so I fail to see how I have no argument. TTN17:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that some categories have been deleted related to TV episodes, which have involved you and one or more other users. It appears that the categories have been emptied as the articles have been replaced with redirects. In some cases the articles have been reverted after the category has been deleted. I am aware of 2 of these Category:Tiny Toon Adventures episodes and Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! GX episodes and have restored them as they are no longer empty. If you are aware of any additional categories which are in a similar situation related to this "dispute", please let me know so that I may restore them also. I want to be VERY clear that I am not taking sides in this issue, and I am not condoning any revert waring between editors. I have not looked into this enough to know who is right and who is wrong (nor do I care to, as it appears that enough other people are involved). I do however, want to ensure that any categories that have been deleted before they were empty for the 4 day holding period are restored if there are currently articles which should be in them. Regardless of how this matter is eventually settled, the categories should not be deleted until consensus is reached. No need to respond on my talk page, I'll check back here as I've added this page to my watchlist. --After Midnight000101:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy also notes that consensus can change. That several editors are now working on these new templates suggests, in fact, that we've entered the process of change. Phil Sandifer19:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled by your continued citation of Wikipedia:Consensus in defense of your revert warring. To quote from the policy, "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus... Normally consensus on conflicts are reached via discussion on talk pages." You have yet to post to the talk page of any of these templates. Similarly, the flowchart on that page notably does not contain any arrows leading back to "previous consensus." With two divided TfDs, it's clear that there is some momentum for change. Revert warring is antithetical to the process by which consensus is developed. Please stop. Phil Sandifer18:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To prevent such situations in the future, please create a secondary account (e.g. User:MatthewBot) to run your bot on, and visit Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval to get it certified. Because a bot has the potential to do a lot of damage if there is something wrong in the code, the procedure is to let a few other coders take a look at it first. HTH! >Radiant<11:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Otto4711 14:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
18:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
![Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion](/https/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_April_14#Image:Jericho_1x14_"Heart_of_Winter".jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_2){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_I.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-2007-05-14T02:38:00.000Z-Image:Deep_Stand-Off_Attack_Ship_(DSA)_I.jpg){kind=link}
-2007-05-19T04:10:00.000Z-Image:Tomb_of_Athena_-_Battlestar_Galactica.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}