User talk:Anetode/archive 3

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

Magnetic Accelerator Cannon is being proposed for deletion. I do not feel it should be deleted, but merged into the future Technology of Halo article, because it is unsourced and written in an in-universe tone. Please lend your support. --DevastatorIIC 00:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was Jaranda's prior speedy deletion of this article improper? I tagged the article with db-repost, since the article was identical to that listed in the deletion summary in the deletion log. I just added db-bio because that was also the original rationale given. Sertrel 22:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your redirect from Trail mix back to Gorp but the reason that I listed it for speedy deletetion (and it's my fault for not making this clear, so I apologize) is that on the talk page a concensus had been reached to move Gorp to Trail Mix (apparently the more common name). Unfortunately the user that initiated the move only copy/pasted it instead of using the move feature. It was my intentions to have Trail Mix deleted and then initiate the move that the user started. Since this seems to have been bungled so much I think I will just list it on requested moves. Thanks! --ImmortalGoddezz 22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, like I said I should have been more clear about why I was listing it. I didn't know about that tag, oh well always learning something new on wikipedia, thanks for letting me know I appreciate it. :) --ImmortalGoddezz 02:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wp:CVG talk concerning the use of arcade flyers for visual representation. If you're interested, could you perhaps drop by? Thanks. Combination 10:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first thing's first, for some odd reason the link you posted in the original comment didn't show up when I viewed it. All I saw was "consider internal linking" and no link, so that probably added to confusion. My bad. Or my browser's bad. Whatever. Anyway, I honestly believe that more people will enter the term "Tribes" when trying to locate the game, not the social concept, but it's hard to prove that either way. WhatLinksHere is intriguing for the page, but if anything it just shows that people are being remarkably lazy in their internal linking, since linking to a redirect page is bad practice and there is no effective reason why the correct article name shouldn't be linked instead. What we really need is a gague of which article people are trying to find when using the search function, and I have an idea on how that can be figured out. I propose the Tribes page be changed, temporarily, to a page which contains links to the target pages in question, but asks users to mention on the talk page which one of them they were searching for. The links to the article from other articles would, of course, need to be corrected first, but they really should be fixed anyway. That way we should be able to get over a relatively short period of time a semi-accurate gague of which pages people are looking for when searching for "Tribes". Thoughts? -- Y|yukichigai 22:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"sharp disagreement" doesn't do it for me. Front up with the facts before you revert.Mccready 11:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Nuance-Communications-logo.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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. BigDT 23:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Aol.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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. BigDT 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for notifying me of the possible deletion of one of my submitted images, Image:Dodge Hornet.jpg. Since there is another picture of the Hornet on the Dodge Hornet page, then there's really no use of it on here then, so I'm for pro-deletion on it. Once again, thanks for the notification. The Helper S 04:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's uncontroversial, then it will go through WP:RM without a problem. However, if there is no debate, then it's not really known whether it is uncontroversial or not. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 13:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you just have to cut through the tedium of process for the sake of process. I'll check up on the pages in a couple of weeks to check on the progress of this move. Thanks for the note ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He may well be notable, but the article itself largely qualifies for a "db-empty", since there's nothing there. BigHaz 21:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said that a fan journal for Oblivion was a spam link. Why is that? There were links to fan journals on the Morrowind page Bibliomancer 18:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All links added to The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion must satisfy guidelines. I removed the link to your journal because it is, in effect, a personal blog started just a few days ago. I wish you luck with your journal, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate avenue for self-promotion. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I think the copyvio tag was appropriate because copyright does not require the source to be commercial content. If someone writes something, it is automatically copyrighted. It does appear that the author of the Web site is the same person that copied the content over to Wikipedia, so I'm sure it is fine. I didn't notice the tiny signature in the corner of the Web site, otherwise I probably would have contacted the editor first. Are you going to contact them? The article should also be wikified soon, otherwise it might be more appropriate to just turn it into a stub and expand. Thanks --Aguerriero (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:N64DD.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 13:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A meetup of Wikipedians in Minnesota is proposed: please stop by the discussion page if interested. Jonathunder 01:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Meetup October 29, one o'clock, Mall of America. Jonathunder 20:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late notice, but there is a change within the mall for the meetup location today: see this page. Jonathunder 15:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not getting back to you right away. I am under the impression MobyGames links were OK. This has been brought up before on the CVG Project before. The consensus was that every game should link to the MobyGames entry. We usually don't link to review sites, but MobyGames is more than just a review site (and not all games they contain even contain reviews) and it is arguably the largest database of video games on the Internet. The Template:Moby_game was created for that purpose. The rationale is that MG offers things usually not included in the pedia such as credits Oni Credit cover art Indigo Prophecy cover art screenshots Age of Empires III screen shots blah blah blah. I've been kinda banging away on this for awhile obviously. Thoughts? Comments? --Ravi 21:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disupting the 5.0 million figure, but the use of the given source as a verification. Perhaps the {{check}} tag wasn't the right one to use, but as I mentioned on the article's talk page, I'm not seeing anything in the given source that supports the number. Also, with respect to "Q4" number, Microsoft never said "fourth quarter", and the way it is presented in the article, it is implied that the estimate is for 10 million consoles by the end of the year, when there are several more weeks after "holiday" or "it's first year" or "the time the competition enters the market", which can mean several hundred thousand more units by the end of Q4. Dancter 17:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that you have tagged User:Pulsar vectram as possible sock puppet (2006-06-05) and the user has removed this template on 2006-08-07. Is this o.k., is this user really not a sock puppet? I'm asking also because this user has copied an older version of my userpage as his/her page which is specific about my contribitions etc. Which real user would want this on their page? --Bisco 17:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I understand that it's better to use a free image than a Fair Use one whenever possible, this image is so horrible and so unrecognizable as Paul Stanley that it is effectively useless, and in fact, counter-productive to the quality of the article. No photo at all would be better than this one. wikipediatrix 01:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to work with User talk: business so give guidance if necessary. I do not know what Paul Stanley image is in question but I have several and would put one into the public domain with attribution. Please check my KISS gallery at http://dwightmccann.com/ChumashCasinoResort/KISS072606.htm and let me know. Dwightmccann 22:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this seems to be how it works, eh? :-) I will put one of the Paul Stanley's into the public domain. I am willing to put one image per concert/headliner into the public domain with attribution from each of the concerts I shoot at the casino or Maverick Saloon. I usually have 50 to 100 usable images and publish five to twenty-five. The casino or bar pays me to intially shoot them so they aren't Pro Bono images. I think it is good for the artist, good for the casino/bar and good for me. While it is a business it is also about community. Please feel free to peruse my website and make suggestions. Dwightmccann 17:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please stop renaming "Synopsis" to "Story" to justify the removal of spoiler tags. The section synopsizes the game's various plot elements, and thus the name. Renaming it "story" is needlessly confusing, because the game's actual story is only touched upon in the section's third subsection. In addition, the spoiler tags are not disruptively placed, so there is no reason to remove them. They simply serve as a way to let the readers know what kind of information is contained in the section, and thus to make the encyclopedia more friendly to the casual reader. JimmyBlackwing 09:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're going on a little image delete rampage. I would suggest you discuss adding files to deletion before actually doing it. How am I suppose to debate the deletion if I can't enter comments due to the fact that the section is too long to display in my edit box? I have started a discussion on the Chevrolet Camaro talk page so that everyone has a chance to chime in. Roguegeek (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was my mistake for not reading through the policy completely. Thanks for pointing it out to me and please ignore my comments. Roguegeek (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the picture of St_Mark's_Clock. It'll do until I manage to go there! ;-) Cormullion 09:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my PERSONAL PHOTO from my hard drive. It's me, my friend took it. I put all this info in the box when I uploaded it. Did you even bother to read that? UCF Cheerleader 02:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore I AM the copyright holder. I give permission to MYSELF to upload it and now its on here. What's the problem exactly? UCF Cheerleader 02:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you need to add something other than "full license", as that term is legally meaningless. Please add either {{GFDL-self}}, {{PD-self}}, or other applicable free-use license to the photograph. There's no need to get irate, Wikipedia policy on image copyright is very finnicky. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do that? Can you add it for me please? You seem to know a lot more about this stuff than I do. UCF Cheerleader 02:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anetode, you may be interested in this. Best, Gwernol 13:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Explanation in its Talk page) Hal Jespersen 14:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey anetode,

I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed unanimously with a final tally of 38/0/0. I appreciate your trust, and will do my best to uphold it. I'm also glad that you liked the work done on Red vs. Blue, but you'll have to thank some other diligent editors of WikiProject Machinima for that as well; and it's an ongoing effort. Don't hesitate to let me know if you ever need anything. — TKD::Talk 05:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition of a copyrighted image to V (Vanessa Hudgens album) was a violation of Wikipedia image copyright and fair-use requirements as you neglected to add a mandatory detailed fair-use rationale. Please note that Wikipedia takes these violations very seriously. Thanks. --Yamla 15:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding me. Image:VanessaV.jpg is a copyrighted image, it is also, however, the cover art for V (Vanessa Hudgens album), where it was used explicitly for purposes of identification. The fair use rationale for cover albums - all cover albums - is spelled out in Template:Albumcover, the improper usage of this image would be to illustrate the artist Vanessa Hudgens on her article. Now I understand that you may be trying to impose a draconian standard of redundant rationales in album cover art images, but posting a warning that accuses me of violating Wikipedia policy on copyrights is a bit less polite than asking me to provide a more detailed rationale. It is also plain incorrect as Wikipedia fair use policy allows for the use of cover art images to identify and illustrate music albums. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you took offence at the warning. I know you were acting in good faith and my warning should have been tailored appropriately. The problem is that this image has a fair-use rationale for one use but not for the other and has been used in the past in blatant violation of the license, solely to depict Hudgens. As such, the fair-use for this particular image has been a big problem and has been disputed many times. As such, we really require even a brief mention for each particular use of this image, as required by the license itself. --Yamla 16:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "I'm sorry as well for the brusque response. I've duplicated the rationale for usage at V (Vanessa Hudgens album), all current usage of that image appears to conform to Wikipedia policy."

Thank you! Much appreciated. --Yamla 16:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not the proper way to send a message, my apologies. I went to go take the links down, but it looks like you, or someone else has already done so. The link, however, does belong in the Hip Hop Fashion wiki, because it is the best resource available for current information relating to hip-hop fashion.

You mentioned that Wikipedia prohibits the posting of links even if they are suitable. In what situation is posting a link ok? For example, there is a great Pigeon John interview on our site. Would it be against policy to post a link in his Wiki to that interview specifically? Similarly, if I were to write the first Wiki on a subject which we had covered, would it be ok to put that subject's feature as a link, or Format as a reference, in their Wiki?

Thank you for all of the information you've provided.

Mikegusto 17:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my thanks for your support in my successful RfA, which I was gratified to learn passed without opposition on October 25, 2006. I am looking forward to serving as an administrator and hope that I prove worthy of your trust. With my best wishes, --MCB 01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, i don't really get how to upload pics without getting them deleted. I'm pretty new to the Wikipedia world. So if someone can tell me thnks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinesekid05 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for all the notifications on all my photos. The Helper S 19:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking me the page for USD dollars, usually someone would report me for asking for information. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.71.151 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for uploading Image:Badcock Orig.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to let you know I am still putting images into the Public Domain although I have switched over to putting my PhotoArt collages rather than individual images as the attribution is important to me but seems easily dropped. The collages, the production of which is part of my agreement with the Chumash Casino Resort, are somewhat self attributing. They also seem to add more "flavor" for many of the groups I have done, giving both clear, crisp and recent images as well as a sense of their performance productions. Since I am doing almost one act a week including collage I expect I will be a continuing contributor for the forseeable future. Perhaps I'll even get the urge to edit/create at some point. Dwightmccann 23:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have just reverted some Vandalisim where they have posted fake release dates. I had that fixed until you reverted it back, As for the specs I'll see that gets fixed but I'll have to make a minor revert to fix the other problems. Sawblade05 01:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW this page needs protection so I am also working on requesting it too.

To User:Sawblade05, User:Anetode and User:JimmyJoeBobby:

Please be careful when reverting - and remember the three revert rule. This states that you cannot revert (i.e. remove or partially remove someonelse's edits) more than three times within 24 hours. The exception to this is "blatant, simple vandalism", which I don't think applies to Test Drive Unlimited. On this, I think you have all either come very very closed or have broken the rule within the last day.

As Antefoe and Sawblade05 seem experienced and have reverted in good faith, whilst JimmyJoeBobby is new, I'm not going to take any action such as blocking - this is often done with the three revert rule, but I don't see how it would help here - but I encourage you all to remember that, whatever the situation, reverting is not a good way of editing on Wikipedia. The page is now protected so hopefully this can all be ironed out on the talk page. Robdurbar 16:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that first diff you gave me was blatant vandalism, though I accept that some of his were. As I say, I do believe that your reversions were in good faith; if I'm missing something about the specs that makes it vanadalism, then I apologise. --Robdurbar 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK; well just be warned that the policy only allows for 'simple' vandalism, for the very reason that it is almost impossible to tell the difference between a stupid good faith addition and complex vandalism. Thankfully, such a situation as you were in is quite unusual but in future I would have avoided reverting the edits of Sawblade05 whilst the vandalism was ongoing; it saves any possible accidental violations. --Robdurbar 09:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:RobsonWalton.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok ☠ 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]