User talk:Gracefool/Archive 2006-2007

lowercase

Hi! Just wanted to let you know that {{lowercase}} would probably work better for you than {{wrongtitle}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ··gracefool |☺ 02:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for taking on Iron Maiden. It's a lot better now. Algae 09:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice of you. I was just thinking how much of a waste of time Wikipedia is, but it is cool to know some people appreciate it. ··gracefool |☺ 00:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Laypeople

I just wanted to say I agree with you regarding the possible name change, but it isn't (with the exception of Stockton Day) the layperson part that is creating the argument.It is the born again portion of the title, which is creating the argument.Some people think it should include any true Christian, some think only those who describe themselves specifically as born again.I truly believe that if a more inclusive article such as the deleted Christian Entertainers list were still around this argument would not be happening.It included all Christians - Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, nondenominational etc. It was easy to obtain "evidence" supporting inclusion.And it was a nifty "launch point" for the much more narrow categories such as born-again, evangelical or specific denominations.After it was deleted it left no place for Christians that couldn't specifically fit into subcategories.So while removing the layperson portion of the title is important to solve one problem it won't solve the other.I have been trying to think of a good title for a broader Christian page. I was hoping you might be able to help me think of something appropriate. ThanksCalifornia 12 10:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant for the new article to be that broad page, with links to subsets like List of Christian evangelists, entertainers, protestants etc.
I just had a thought - probably the way with least argument would be to give up on lists and just use categories. That way each person can be described accurately (by denomination, self-profession or whatever) while still being found in Category:Christian people. But I don't see that happening, people like lists for some reason.
I think the "born-again =/= Christian" argument is silly. Every self-professed Christian believes that they have been saved - which is what born-again means, no more and no less. So really, the list should be merged with List of Christians. The "born-again" and "layperson" identifiers are meaningless. So my vote is to delete the list. ··gracefool |☺ 08:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Christians appears to be only for people who are famous specifically for Christian works, which still would leave no place for notable people who happen to be Christians.Unless the article could be in someway revamped to allow such?Or a different list were to be made for these? Categories don't necessarily end problems for example - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Kiel&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Kiel Some people just like to argue I'm sad to say.And I don't understand why the "hate categories and list faction" such as Bblackmoor can't allow the many people here who enjoy such lists and categories to do so.As long as the information on such a list is accurate. California 12 12:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant List of Christians and its subsets. All people in the laypeople list also belong somewhere in those subsets. ··gracefool |☺ 00:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC) 00:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but I can't find a subset for entertainers who are Christian.There is a subset for Christian Entertainers, but it is strictly for people who specialize in Christian movies or music.In which subset could we place the entertainment industry people from the other list Tom Hanks, Chuck Norris etc. if merged? California 12 11:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I moved List of Christian entertainment people to List of entertainers in Christian media. I suggest you make a list called List of Christian entertainers and put those people in it. ··gracefool |☺ 01:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was a list that was just of Christians in entertainment, but it was deleted. I created that one so there'd be something on it. They indicated such a list has to relate their Christianity to their entertainment or it'd also be deleted. Also I appreciate the effort, but I don't like people edited my user page. For future reference you should tell me if an article or list has been changed and then I'll make the appropriate edit. Thank you.--T. Anthony 03:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to re-create the Christian Entertainers list, but please look at this discussion.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Category:List_of_Christian_Entertainers Please pay close attention to remarks by Christopher Parham.If you agree the page should be returned, I would appreciate any support you could give.California 12 11:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of bringing it back both as a category and a list. Go for it - as Christopher said, the vote to delete was dodgy anyway. ··gracefool |☺ 19:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.I've never tried to bring a page back before.Is putting it on that page all that is necessary? Or do I need to take other steps? I am a novice at this process and would appreciate any advice you could give, as I'm not certain if I'm doing it correctly. California 12 12:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually you shouldn't create a page after it's been AfDed, but since it didn't follow the proper process, it's quite reasonable. Yep, just create it like you would a normal page. ··gracefool |☺ 20:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went with a different name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_Christians_in_Entertainment_and_Media Trying to keep everything properly referenced on the discussion page, hopefully it will be less controversial that way.Every name has a reference so far.I added a warning about that in the intro.Hoping that is not in violation of guidelines.California 12 12:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DND

I performed a cut and paste history merge on DND/DND (disambiguation). From the history I can't can't tell what my error was. From you comments I'm guessing DND redirected somewhere. Could you explain what the problem was?--Commander Keane 04:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It turned out to be the fault of SNIyer12, who moved DND to DND (diambiguation), and it seemed like you'd done something because I didn't notice the spelling error and wondered where it went... So yeah, not your problem at all, my bad. ··gracefool |☺ 11:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AD&D

Hey I just read your comment on AD&D, if your still interested in helping witht the article, I've created a sandbox on my personal page for building the article.

I don't know so much about first edition, but I will help with a second edition page. ··gracefool |☺ 01:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionism

I replied to your question here. Let me know if you have any others, Cheers, Sam Spade 16:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"minimal" Rockbox Musepack support

Hi Gracefool,

I'm just curious why you refer to Rockbox MPC support as "minimal". Playback of all bitrates (as far as I know) is supported. Seeking is not, but that's more a deficiency of the format (brute force seeking used to be enabled but was far too slow to be useful). --Bk0 (Talk) 00:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, I've removed it. ··gracefool |☺ 00:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conventional warfare "linkspam"

Hi. I noticed that you recently made an edit to conventional warfare and I was hoping you could weigh in on a particular issue there. Thanks! uriah923(talk) 22:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done :) ··gracefool |☺ 23:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. uriah923(talk) 14:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix disambiguation

I understand the change in order that you made on the disambiguation page for Matrix, however, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) outlines ordering entries in order of usage (see the section "Order of Entries"). The Matrix series is first in the list because it is by far the most common reference. While William Ford Gibson's contributions to the name are related, it is not a direct link for the disambiguation page, and therefore should remain lower on the list (as per the MoS). -- Natalya 17:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, thanks. ··gracefool |☺ 21:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for deletion

Just a courtesy notice in case you are not watching WP:RfD that I decided not to delete the redirect As of early 2004 which you nominated for deletion, because unlike the other redirects, it is not miscapitalized. I am not sure whether you or the other people commenting on the nomination realized this, and therefore I decided to use my administrator's prerogative to keep the redirect. Please let me know if you have a problem with this. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I didn't mean to nominate that. However I think it deserves deletion anyway, so I've nominated it again. ··gracefool |☺ 23:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia

I noticed your change to Category:Multimedia and considered reverting it because usually you don't want something in both a category and one of its subcategories (Software is a sub of Computing). I've been cleaning up some of the high-level computing categories where people tend to dump stuff without looking for more specific places, so I am getting to know the various computing categories fairly well. One thought is that the Multimedia category might fit well in Category:User interface. What do you think about using that and then dropping both Computing and Software? JonHarder 04:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that. The thing is that most, but not all, of the articles in the category are software, so it can't just go under Software. Multimedia isn't about user interface like the other articles in that category, so it doesn't belong there. ··gracefool |☺ 04:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this closer, "User Interface" probably isn't quite right. I'm having to think this through more carefully. I work in a public school where for Federal and State aid purposes, I am asked at least yearly to report how many multimedia computers the district has available for student use. The definition of multimedia for this purpose is roughly "a computer that has a GUI, CD player, speakers and Internet connection." So in my mind, multimedia is first, specific hardware; second system software, including the OS and thirdly application software that uses these things. All that, just to give you an idea where I'm coming from and to help me think out loud. So, I guess my preference is to leave "Multimedia" only in the "Computing" category, or alternatively as a second acceptable choice to put it in both "Computing hardware" and "Software" and then drop the "Computing" category. JonHarder 05:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's such a mishmash (as expected, since the term is used in such a fuzzy way in real life), I think I'd rather delete the category altogether — I just can't be bothered. Yeah, it could go in Computing hardware and Software instead of Computing. ··gracefool |☺ 03:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft software

I hate to butt heads with you again on a computing categorization question, but here we go again. I'll explain the problem and not do a quick revert. The inclusion of "Windows software" as category of "Microsoft software" has created a category loop which we usually want to avoid. This is the heirarchy of the Microsoft categories, starting with the most general:

Microsoft -> Microsoft software -> Microsoft operating systems -> Microsoft Windows -> Windows software -> (Microsoft Software)

The last step, recently introduced, loops back almost to the beginning. I believe the above progression is going from most general on left and getting increasingly more specific as we move to the right. This cycle can be broken anywhere in the middle, and I believe the best way is to revert the recent edit of Category:Microsoft software that made it a subcategory of Category:Windows software. JonHarder 03:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I reverted it myself. ··gracefool |☺ 07:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:deprecated {{fn}}

One at least one article that i have seen today (Dublin), and i would suspect several articles in which the text is written in the same way, the text after a footnote that is in the same paragraph 

looked like this

The only change that i could find was a change in the coding of the templat with the "notice", where after it was removed it went back to it's previous look. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Woops, that was because of the newline before the <noinclude> tag. I've fixed them now. ··gracefool |☺ 07:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, i find that template to be useful for the addation of simple notes into articles. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what?

What is the basis of this assertion and why the snide edit summary? -- Netoholic @ 00:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude - I just moved the comment from here. ··gracefool |☺ 00:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template cite book

Hi Chris. Thanks for your contributions to {{cite book}}. But I think we would have major problems going that far. We really need backwards compatibility with book reference. I have thus been so bold to revert you on cite book, sorry. Besides that, I must say I have mayor technical reservations against your new proposed multi-author handling. It would increase the complexity of cite book considerably and I think it is not needed. But I might have overlooked something. I would appreciate if we could discuss this on the talk of cite book before breaking compatibility with book reference. Best regards, --Adrian Buehlmann 19:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on cite book; I've now stopped using book reference. :)
Serein 01:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to Adrian at Template talk:cite book. ··gracefool |☺ 09:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya! I would like to thank you for this edit that eliminates the call to that wikilink template. I have tried several times to do such a thing in the past but I always fell on my nose. Well done! --Adrian Buehlmann 08:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I learnt a lot in the process of making User:Gracefool/cite book. ··gracefool |☺ 11:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MDR

I am curious as to why you created the page MDR as a redirect to High dynamic range rendering? MDR doesn't seem to be related to anything on that page. Qutezuce 20:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medium dynamic range (high dynamic range is sometimes called this). But yeah, it's pushing it, so no matter. ··gracefool |☺ 21:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. bobblewik 23:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ··gracefool |☺ 00:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! bobblewik 19:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boat Anchor

I can personally confirm that the term "boat anchor" was already popular ham radio slang by the time I became a ham in 1971, well before the start of the personal computer era. Since many hams were intimately involved in the early days of the personal computer, there's no question in my mind that if the term became popular with personal computer users, it is because they borrowed it from ham radio. In fact, I think I've ever only heard the term applied to ham radio equipment, not personal computers.

I know that makes me a primary source and you'd rather have an independent written source. I suppose I could try to find such a reference, but most of the ham radio magazines of that era are either not readily available in electronic form, or are available only as images that cannot be easily searched. If I come across one, I'll add it. Karn 05:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ··gracefool |☺ 02:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Happy birthday from a member of the Wikipedia:Birthday Committee! - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 11:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I voted to oppose. ··gracefool |☺ 12:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN in the cite_book template

Hi Chris,

I'm translating the it:Prato della Valle article into English and I'd like to use your cite_book template. It works great except that I'm not able to link the ISBN part; that seems to depend on the specific code used: mine is B0000E9BWK, which appears *non-hyperlinked*... if I replace it with 0-7869-1850-8 (taken from one of your examples) it works, either with or without '-' characters. Any hints?

Thanks, --Gennaro Prota 13:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cite book doesn't do the linking - MediaWiki does. Any ISBN preceded by "ISBN" is automatically wikilinked, eg. ISBN 1-111-22222-9 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. Is B0000E9BWK seems not to be an ISBN, but another type of identifier. ··gracefool |☺ 02:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been changed (by me) to use an explicit isbn= field instead of the id= field. The linking is still done by Mediawiki, though. — Omegatron 15:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleting isnt deletionism?

maybe i'm out of touch but i thought that belonging to the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and the Harmonious editing club. would have meant that you would put a note on the talk page that actually contained the relevant explanations about the Ben Hana links. maybe restoring the explanations to the article would have been more inclusionist than just deleting the last remnant of that part of the older article. I'm a bit sick of the labellings, (inclusionist/deletionist) a bit sick of the deleting without homage to the actual circumstances, and all the rest of the EXTRA work created by that behaviour. An apparently homeless person becomes a celebrity? isnt that massively socialogical? doesnt that say more about us than them? why kill an opportunity for people to find out more about the process going on there. Isnt discussion supposed to pre-date the edit? I cant be bothered with the talk or the edit much anymore, but i wish to understand whats happening, when it seems in-congruous. moza 12:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re the links I removed — I can't see a reference to them on the talk page. But in any case, neither link is about Ben Hana, so they don't belong in this article. They belong in some philosophy article — feel free to readd them in the appropriate article.
It doesn't matter whether a homeless person should be a celebrity; an encyclopedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. The fact is he's very well-known in Wellington. So long as the article is verifiable and isn't excluded on some other basis, it belongs in Wikipedia. ··gracefool |☺ 01:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

I invite you to take a look at Christianity Knowledge Base and join our project!

Thanks!!! 70.30.57.80 06:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: What's up with this revert?

What's up with this revert? You deleted my non-vandalism edit via popups, with no explanation... please be more careful in future. ··gracefool |☺ 03:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That, my friend, is linkspam. Please review WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not the place for posting lists of links on various topics. If you're looking for links to sites, you can always go to dmoz or some other linkfarm site. But please try and keep this crap off of Wikipedia. I would've reverted your reversion myself, but it appears that some other user already did that for me. Dr. Cash 04:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those links weren't added by me to begin with. Your revert also removed a lot of other worthwhile changes (including some by me), and as I wasn't sure which you meant to do and which you didn't, I reverted almost all of it. I assume this is more like what you wanted. ··gracefool |☺ 04:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But in any case, even if you just reverted linkspam, you need to give a reason for the revert rather than just using popups, unless the spammer is a persistent offender. A blanket, unexplained revert is against policy when the cause is not obvious. ··gracefool |☺ 04:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the Register article, that is fine, and actually quite useful. However, it is not really an 'external link', as it is more of a reference. So I just moved it to the References section. Dr. Cash 04:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about my addition of the Multitracker section, and a few wording changes made by someone else (see the first diff link above). I.e. whole sections you seemed not to notice... ··gracefool |☺ 15:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DDO/DNDwiki

I dopped by to visit, was suprised to see cyberskull's name here lol, know him from a while back. Anyway; are you still interested in helping launch DNDwiki? Now that a few other wikis have settled down a bit, I'm almost ready to go back and focus on DNDwiki for a while (-: -- Peerless, too lazy to login, so posting from 69.178.90.247 @ 04:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Redirect5p

Template:Redirect5p has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Hairy Dude 11:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. ··gracefool |☺ 13:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland meetup

Just to let you know that a meetup is planned in Auckland for the 25th of June (see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland for more details), and that you are cordially invited. GeorgeStepanek\talk 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd like to know...

You were a big help back in September when four of the first articles I created about Guantanamo detainees were nominated for deletion. Thanks!

I thought you'd like to know that someone has announced their intention to nominate all articles about Guantanamo detainees for deletion, starting with Shaker Aamer. -- Geo Swan 20:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I voted to keep. If you can give me a list of other detainees AfD'd (or better, links to their AfD pages), I'll vote on them too. ··gracefool |☺ 08:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you. -- Geo Swan 15:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look...

Thanks for taking a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaker Aamer.

Two more articles about Guantanamo detainees have been nominated for deletion:

Shall I let you know if other articles come up for deletion? -- Geo Swan 01:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. ··gracefool |☺ 07:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal on Notability

Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa Wikipedia:Non-notabilityl is in progress to define the role of notability in articles. Please help us make this successful! Also note the proposal Wikipedia:Importance is a deletionist proposla that seeks to officially introduce notabiltiy for the first time. --Ephilei 04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I give you a heads-up?

Can I give you a heads-up? There is another test {afd} against the Guantanamo articles, filed yesterday -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli. I thought you might take a look at it, and offer an opinion. Thanks! -- Geo Swan 22:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I voted to keep. ··gracefool |☺ 04:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Grace—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 15:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cite book

What's User:Gracefool/cite book? — Omegatron 02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used it in the initial development of {{cite book}}. ··gracefool |☺ 05:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. — Omegatron 15:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:D20 logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:D20 logo.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. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fair use rationale for Image:D&d_Box1st.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:D&d_Box1st.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation 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. Sandstein 17:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fair use rationale for Image:Chainmail_3rd_edition.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Chainmail_3rd_edition.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation 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. Sandstein 17:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already has the {{bookcover}} template. Please check more carefully next time. ··gracefool |☺ 23:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{bookcover}} is a fair use licencing template. It is not a fair use rationale, which is required in addition to the licencing template. See the text at the bottom of {{bookcover}}, which reads:
To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. Please include in your fair use rationale details of the particular edition (publisher, market & year of publication) of the edition you have used, and also acknowledge any cover artist if such artist is acknowledged in that edition's frontmatter.
I've accordingly readded the no rationale warning template. Please provide a rationale as outlined in Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. Sandstein 05:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, thanks, I've added a rationale. ··gracefool |☺ 05:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating "Matte (disambig)" for deletion

Please note: I am nominating Matte (disambig) for deletion.
You are shown in the history as having edited this page.
If you wish to object, check the details by clicking the link above.

Regards, JohnI 18:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I objected. ··gracefool☺ 05:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Puzzle games

A tag has been placed on Category:Puzzle games, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Category:Puzzle games is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on [[Talk:Category:Puzzle games]] saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions.

In addition, I'd like to point out that redirects do not work properly for categories. In the future if you feel the need for a category redirect, please use the {{Category redirect}} template instead. Caerwine Caer’s whines 04:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, recreated with {{Category redirect}}. I even found an article in it (which I moved). ··gracefool☺ 04:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion please...

Greetings!

You have been interested in some of the debates over the deletion of articles on Guantanamo captives. I see you have an interest in the care and use of categories, and captions.

Would you offer me your opinions on a couple of topics?

I am new to starting categories. I decided to re-read all the articles about the Guantanamo captives I thought I would notice connections I hadn't had the background to notice at first.

As I read through the articles I created a bunch of categories. Some were parallel to some existing list articles I had already written, like Casio F91W. Others were new. About half the categories are paraphrases of the allegations against the captives. Eighteen captives face the allegation that they were captured wearing a casio watch.

Now I have had some people express concerns about these categories. But, none of them were able to offer an explanation I could understand about their concerns. Unfortunately, it is kind of like the deletion fora, where a lot of people seem to resent being asked to explain their concerns, interpreting questions as some kind of personal affront.

The last guy to raise a concern, nominated all the subcategories of Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees for deletion, when I asked him to explain himself.

Very frustratingly, not only haven't any of the contributors to that discussion seen any value in the categories I started, found useful, and anticipated continuing to find very useful, but some of them have been abusive, none of them have offered much of an explanation as to what mistake I have made, and none of them seem to have even read the defense I mounted for these categories.

The first {{cfd}} on a category I started was Category:Guantanamo witnesses. I asked User:GRBerry for some advice. He suggested that one measure of whether a category is valid is whether an article that could stand on its own could be written on the nexus of the articles that are included in the category. Does that yardstick make sense to you? If so, about half those categories I started, that are under the gun, measure up to that yardstick.

Could you look at the defense I offered, and tell me if it makes any sense to you?

If those categories all get washed away, as seems likely, would it be considered an abuse if I subsequently requested the undeletion of the categories, one by one? In the absence of any meaningful attempt to explain what is wrong with these categories, I continue to think they are eminently worthwhile.

How reversible is the undeletion of a category? It involves collapsing the its members to the parent category? How reversible is that? Populating those categories took about thirty to forty hours. Restoring a category wouldn't be that helpful if I had to repopulate them.

Thanks! -- Geo Swan 05:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mozillafirefox-logo-white.png

Hello, Gracefool. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Mozillafirefox-logo-white.png) was found at the following location: User:Gracefool. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iwo jima

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Iwo jima, by Bkell (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Iwo jima fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Nothing links here, and capitalization will be automatically corrected if "iwo jima" is entered in the search box.


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Iwo jima, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Iwo jima itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 16:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AD&D_2nd_Edition_Player's_Handbook.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:AD&D_2nd_Edition_Player's_Handbook.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation 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. ShakespeareFan00 20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. ··gracefool☺ 11:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia history question

Hi, Gracefool. I was looking at the history of Wikipedia:Notability (from the days when it was Wikipedia:Importance) and saw that you wrote the first version of the page. I was wondering what the original source for this quote from Jimbo:

"Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions? Hard disks are cheap.
I agree with this one completely. --Jimbo Wales"

I've been reminding people of it lately, and one user dismissed the sentiment because it was "not a real diff" (that is, not a diff of an edit by Jimbo). Do you know where the original quote was from? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was from Wikimedia meta-wiki. ··gracefool☺ 02:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Of course, it turns out that even the oldest version of that page (from January 2002) already has it as an attributed quote, but sourcing it back that far may help. Again, thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh woops yeah I remember now, he originally said it in one of the original mailing lists - unfortunately I can't remember which but it must've been one of the first since it's a very old quote. I did see the original quote at some stage... ··gracefool☺ 04:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call for editor participation at Relevance

Hi Gracefool,

Wikipedia:Relevance requests your presence — see, "Call for editor participation" at the talk page. —WikiLen 17:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Redirect of DDR4

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on DDR4, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because DDR4 is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting DDR4, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 12:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Verbeeg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Verbeeg, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verbeeg. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]