User talk:Gracefool/Archive 2008-2013


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pinball construction set box.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pinball construction set box.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 15:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Parappa the rapper 2 box.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Parappa the rapper 2 box.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes 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 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. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 15:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Umjammer lammy box.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Umjammer lammy box.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes 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 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. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 15:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ico box usa.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ico box usa.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes 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 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. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 15:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cowboy Bebop Blue cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cowboy Bebop Blue cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes 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 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:D&d original.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:D&d original.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUK

WikiProject Auckland This is an invitation to WikiProject Auckland, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's articles on Auckland. Please feel free to join us.

Taifarious1 09:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have put some work into the Gary Gygax article, which I have nominated for a GA review. If there is anything you can do to help it get passed, please join in! Also, feel free to comment on the D&D WikiProject talk page regarding our efforts to get articles in the 0.7 release. BOZ (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of As of January 2001

I have nominated As of January 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. David Pro (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drow

Hey there. :) In my quest to get more Wikipedia articles up to "Good Article" status, I've gotten ambitious and decided to take on the Drow article. Yeah, call me crazy, but I'm going to do it. :) I've put a bunch of work into the AD&D 1st edition section, using the sources I had on hand (don't have Q1 so did what I could), though I probably went overboard and will need to trim back a bit. I'm going to start on the 2nd edition section soon, but I would appreciate any help you or anyone you know can give towards building up the publication history properly, finding sources, checking for inaccuracies and completeness, etc. I'd especially need help in bulking up the novels section, as I don't have any of these. Any help you can give, even as a cheering section, would be appreciated. :)

We can get this done... if you haven't seen what we've done already, previous successes include Dragonlance, Drizzt Do'Urden, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Forgotten Realms, Gary Gygax, Planescape: Torment, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, and Wizards of the Coast. :) BOZ (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. ··gracefool☺ 06:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. :) "We" are members of the D&D WikiProject, mostly myself, Drilnoth, Peregrine Fisher, and a few others who come and go. :) You're welcome to (re?)join the WikiProject, or help with our efforts, or just watch us work! BOZ (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have a WikiProject page? ··gracefool☺ 22:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we do. :) BOZ (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:White dwarf 237.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:White dwarf 237.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 15:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Technical terminology

I have nominated Category:Technical terminology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 23:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your doppelganger accounts

Just calling to make sure these are actually you and not some vandal impersonating you. If it is, why would you need all these accounts, surely it is impossible to reserve every single variation of your username. Triplestop x3 15:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that's me. I'm reserving names which could be annoying if someone else used them. AFAIK there are no set rules on how many doppelganger accounts you can have. ··gracefool☺ 04:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if someone really wants one of these, just ask. ··gracefool☺ 05:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Mimas deathstar.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Mimas deathstar.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:Brevity

I have nominated Wikipedia:Brevity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Druid (Dungeons & Dragons)

I have nominated Druid (Dungeons & Dragons), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Druid (Dungeons & Dragons). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Testmasterflex (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote

In February 2006 you added a {{Tdeprecated}} to Template:Footnote. After I made a testedit to Hebrew phonology I came to the conclusion that it is not a good idea to deprecated this template. The problem with its successor Template:Ref is that it looks precisely like real footnotes (references), which makes using both on the same page confusing. Apart from that we see that some articles, notably in the phonology corener of Wikipedia, still use this template after all these years. I have therefore removed the {{Tdeprecated}} template. I am available for follow up at my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Renato M. E. Sabbatini

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renato M. E. Sabbatini (2nd nomination). You participated in the first AfD. - Eastmain (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Design goals of Cite book template

As far as I can tell from the history, you seem to be the original contributor of {{Cite book}}. I have heard that originally all the cite xxx family of templates were modeled on APA style. Can you tell me if this is true? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct - but we weren't strict about it. Why? ··gracefool☺ 18:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes there are new fields added, and there are disagreements about how to format them. If the goal is to follow APA, then the APA manual should influence the decision. Of course, if the APA manual was only loosely followed, then I guess it is decided by whoever is the most persistent. Thanks for your reply.
More specifically, there is a fairly new template, {{Cite thesis}}. There is disagreement about whether to merge it into either {{Cite journal}} or {{Cite book}}, and whether the title of a PhD thesis should be in italics. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's not necessarily to follow the APA, so decisions should be judged on their own merits, and decided by discussion as per usual. As for {{cite thesis}}, I've posted its talk page. ··gracefool☺ 23:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How good is your memory?

I am not understanding something and I hope you can help me. Back in 2006, you marked {{fn}} and {{fnb}} as deprecated ([1], [2]). Your edit comment at that time was "deprecated (use note with labels instead so new footnotes don't break old ones)". It's not clear to me how adding new footnotes with fn/fnb would break old ones; presumably, editors have to use care to avoid duplicate refs using either set of templates. Can you enlighten me?

Some background: I noticed that a Featured Article Candidate (Elvis Presley) used fn/fnb and I hadn't seen those templates before. I looked at the docs, found they were deprecated and there wasn't any information on how to use them. I thought it was a bad idea for an FAC to use deprecated templates, but when I started the process of converting them, the combination of {{Ref}} and {{Note}} seemed slightly more difficult than fn/fnb and I am not sure what was gained, at least in the simple cases used in Elvis Presley. I can certainly see cases where a note should be referenced multiple times and fn/fnb is not up to that task.

For example, to remove fn/fnb from Elvis Presley, I'd probably replace fn/fnb along these lines:

old code old output new code new output
Some text{{fn|a}} Some text{{fn|a}} Some text{{ref|fn_a|a}} Some texta
{{fnb|a}} Explanation {{fnb|a}} Explanation {{note|fn_a| Note a:}} Explanation ^ Note a: Explanation

There are a couple minor appearance details (caret, bold text) that could be changed by editing fnb; they might be important in terms of usability ot MOS, but I don't think that's the issue. Other than that, what's the advantage of using ref/note versus fn/fnb? — John Cardinal (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{ref}} should be used for references, {{fn}} should be used for footnotes (see #Footnote above) ··gracefool☺ 19:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From {{fn}}: "The template {{Fn}} is deprecated. Please use {{Ref label}} instead." The page was last edited by Debresser (he updated the template message to point to Ref label), so I don't understand his comment above saying he didn't think it should be deprecated. Evidently, he changed his mind. That seems wise. I have converted a few pages and found a few solutions for the various use cases. None of the solutions are as simple as {{fn}}/{{fnb}}, but that simplicity comes at a price: many of the articles using {{fn}} are broken in one way or another. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Fluid shares

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Fluid shares. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluid shares. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Popcatwithusers

Hi! I have nominated Template:Popcatwithusers for deletion and, since you created the template, wanted to invite you to share your comments (if any) at the discussion.

Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Metal Storm, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (Hohum @) 00:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have to use a template, I've been here longer than you. But yeah I should have included the {{fact}} myself. I copied it from Future Force Warrior. ··gracefool☺ 03:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but I think they've changed the template to add the "welcome" boilerplate - either way, I use the templates to save time - no comment on your time served as an editor was intended. (Hohum @) 17:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Herzog Zwei 2player.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Herzog Zwei 2player.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for D&D cover images

Hi there,

I was looking at the cover images uploaded by people and making a tally to see who I could contact for help, and I noticed that you have uploaded a few such images. Obviously I'm not asking you to take this whole thing on by yourself, but any help you can give is appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#Need book cover images. Thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Batman box.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Batman box.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Courcelles 13:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not orphaned anymore, someone changed the article but it was reverted in hours. This shows a flaw in your system of checking - the image had been orphaned for less than an hour when you posted this warning. You need to check that it's been orphaned for a decent length of time first. ··gracefool☺ 00:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't, because the F5 tag has a seven day hold time, (So even an instant tagging wouldn't matter) and we work off a database report that is published every night at 0300, so the image was actually orphaned for at least 10 hours. Courcelles 02:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right thanks. ··gracefool☺ 04:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding improperly cited material

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Floating wind turbine, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please ensure material you add to Wikipedia is properly cited, and more specifically, is cited with reliable secondary sources. Your recent additions to the Floating wind turbine article were just bare URLs, and the bare URLs were to a company website. N2e (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm that was the edit before mine. ··gracefool☺ 00:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. Very sorry about that! My edit to the article was okay, but I incorrectly clicked on your Talk page rather than the one I should have to leave the message. Recommend deletion of the whole Talk page section. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Aquatic Locomotion, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If you vandalize any further biological articles by inserting POV tags on evolutionary facts, I will report you to the admins. Here's a nickel, go buy a better belief system. Mokele (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand that as a committed editor of evolutionary articles you probably do see a lot of legitimate vandalism from creationist types, but my edit was not among them. You clearly need to re-read the definition of vandalism. My edit was in good faith. All I did was add some {{citation needed}} templates in places that were legitimately unverified, and added some phrases like "believed to be" in front of assertions of specific unproven theories. I don't know what you mean by "POV tags", the only place I put that was in my edit summary. I'm not a rabid creationist, I believe evolution happens, but I believe statements on Wikipedia should be backed up with sources.
  • I agree to back off with the NPOV attempt, and I'll be more careful with my edit summaries in future. I'm a very reasonable guy, but others are less reasonable and you're much more likely to get your way by being nice!
  • I'm very concerned at your aggressive, threatening approach. Your criticism is misplaced and is in blatant disregard of Wikipedia policies like Unacceptable behaviour on talk pages, User space harassment, No personal attacks and the very Blocking policy that you cite. According to policy at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (which I would expect you to know very well by now, having reported many users there), even if I were a vandal, I should have multiple recent warnings for obvious and persistent vandalism. Threats like this are likely to scare-off newbies from contributing to Wikipedia altogether.
  • To top it all off you insult my (assumed) belief system. Statements like that really have no positive impact at all and will just make people angry.
  • I'd be well within my rights to report you for bad etiquette; I believe I've shown above that you reporting me wouldn't get very far.
··gracefool☺ 01:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the actual topic of substance, the "unproven theories" have copious fossil evidence to back them up. Evolution is not a POV, it's undisputable fact - we literally have more proof of it than of gravity. Adding "weasel words" to statements detailing well-documented evolutionary events is at best evidence of badly insufficient understanding of the topic and at worst is a technique I have seen used before by creationist trolls. While it seems you were attempting to help, and I may have been rather harsh, I would ask that you do not make any such further edits regarding evolutionary topics. Mokele (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not deal in "fact"—it deals in verifiability. It would appear that requesting a few citations for unsourced statements is perfectly appropriate, and fully comports with WP:NPOV. I find no vandalism at all in the edits of Gracefool in the subject article. Mokele should, indeed, assume good faith in initial interactions with other editors; which I have politely requested on her/his Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to see Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive101#Not assuming good faith and incivility by User:Mokele. Swarm X 18:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transformer insulation citing reference

Hello Gracefool, I am in receipt of the message to site a resoure regarding Transformer Dyring techniquest that I updated over the weekend. This was my first time so tried to follow instructions. My question is, when citing a resource, I don't think I'm allowed to refer a vendor website that has instructions for different types of resins, drying time and applications, correct? If not, I'll cite another reference. The vendor's website is rather thorought but I don't think I'm allowed to make that reference. Please help me clarify and I'll move forward.

Ajay S. Ajsharma01 (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC) ajsharm01, Ajay Sharma[reply]

I'm not sure what specifically you're talking about but the policy on choosing sources to cite is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. ··gracefool☺ 08:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you some assistance?

Hi there Gracefool, I'd like to know if you could help me please in the article Ethereal being, which may need some grammatical improvement. Would be possible you give a quick look, make it right (if necessary) and remove the grammar tag (recently inserted) when it seem ok to you? I am not a native speaker of English language and perhaps (likely) I made some mistakes when editing it (months ago). By the way I love your beautiful country, next year I am going to visit it (but I am a little worried with the last earthquakes, I hope everything is ok by there). If you wish to reply, I will keep watching this page. Thanks for your attention, and always have good edits. Best, Hour of Angels (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in the subject, try someone who has edited a related article. ··gracefool☺ 21:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly of interest

The reactivated discussion about m:Wikicite. – SJ + 05:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks ··gracefool☺ 06:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-spyware coalition

The web page for Anti-spyware coalition is defunct. It might be better to remove links to this page. I just noticed when I tried going there. Sincerely, Teacherstudent27 (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which Wikipedia page are you talking about? ··gracefool☺ 00:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I found the link on many malware/adware/antivirus type entries. I was looking for some information on anti malware software in general, and the link showed up routinely on many wikipedia pages. The main page for them is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Spyware_Coalition and their off-site website is: http://www.antispywarecoalition.org/ Their website seems to have no identifyable relationship to spyware at all. Teacherstudent27 (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well their domain registration has expired, that isn't their website it's a cybersquatter. If you find that, you can search on a web cache like Google or The Internet Archive (see Wikipedia:Link rot for more help). The most recent snapshot on The Internet Archive is http://web.archive.org/web/20110624010223/http://antispywarecoalition.org/. Given that their domain has expired, the article should probably be removed, or at least updated to indicate its unknown status (with some googling you might be able to find out what happened to it).
BTW you should link to pages with wiki markup rather than pasting external links. ··gracefool☺ 09:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SCOUT eh!

When this article was nominated for AfD in 2005 you were involved in the discussion. It has now been nominated again. This is a notification in case you are still interested in taking part in the debate. Regards, DiverScout (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Lower Hutt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ray Wallace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I removed the link. Looks like this bot has a bug. ··gracefool☺ 00:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bot picked up the fact that you edited the wikilink to Ray Wallace so that it pointed to the DAB page (Ray Wallace)Nwhit (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks, I thought I was reverting one change but I actually reverted two... fixed now. ··gracefool☺ 22:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typoscan is working again

Just in case you haven't been following Wikipedia:WikiProject TypoScan, Reedy got this working again. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good to know. ··gracefool☺ 04:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Rise of Nations scene.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Rise of Nations scene.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...I'm still being asked to add fair use rationales to images I uploaded eight years ago, when {{fairuse}} was all that was required. I still think it's over the top to ask for anything more, all I have to do is point out the obvious... which I've done now. But really, what is achieved by this? There's no legal necessity to justify usage that is solidly established as being fair use. ··gracefool☺ 00:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding the rationale, I've checked over your other uploads , so you shouldn't be getting any more messages. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ··gracefool☺ 22:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invoking bracket matching check

From a note on the wikEd talkpage, I understand (or think I understand) you use User:Ais523/bracketmatch.js. I have installed it on my js page User:DePiep/common.js. Can you tell me (no documentation found) how to invoke that script in an edit? I have no clue, and I see no button. -DePiep (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No idea actually! I'm wondering the same thing... ··gracefool☺ 22:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:-) eh, do you use it? -DePiep (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I don't know how to make it work! ··gracefool☺ 05:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Topic closed then. -DePiep (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

whisperback: WP:AWB/B

See Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#edit_summaries_must_be_editable Rjwilmsi 12:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's Noticeboard

Your name has been mentioned in a discussion concerning User: Agadant and the Web Sheriff article at the Administrator's Noticeboard. You can join the discussion by clicking here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, joined. ··gracefool☺ 03:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parkour article

Just letting you know that I've reverted your recent edits of the 'Parkour' article (for being unsourced and controversial/incorrect), but welcome further discussion.

Although what practitioners do might be considered creative, creativity is not one of the goals of Parkour so I don't think it deserves to be singled out for special mention in the introduction to the article. The same goes for playfulness, which I think is the wrong word to use to describe finding enjoyment in finding practical solutions.

The article no longer contains a list of movements so I think it is wrong to include a list in the introduction, which is after all supposed to be a summary of the article. Furthermore, the concept of individual 'movements' is not used in Parkour (in fact is even harmful to it) so even if we do try and include a description of the actions in the article we need to phrase it differently.

'Competing against yourself' is an inaccurate use of the word 'compete' so I think there are better ways to make that point if it is needed. More importantly, given that Parkour itself is non-competitive and contains a strong anti-competition philosophy, I think we should take care not to use any variation of the word 'compete' when desribing Parkour, especially in the introduction.

Although Parkour involves moving from one place to another, it is incorrect to say that it involves taking flight from something. Also, Parkour doesn't encourage a 'flight' response, it actually does the reverse and encourages practitioners to confront difficulties rather than avoiding them. For these reasons I don't think referencing 'fight or flight' is helpful to this article. Feraess (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is the theory of what parkour is, and there is description of what traceurs actually do. The article should cover both.
Currently, the description is very general:
Parkour is a training discipline that developed out of military obstacle course training. Practitioners aim to move from one place to another, negotiating the obstacles in between. The discipline uses no equipment and is non-competitive. A male practitioner is generally called a "traceur", a female a "traceuse".
This gives the uninitiated almost no idea of what parkour is. Running hurdles, or climbing, or swimming, or any of a myriad of sports could fit that description.
I've now improved the article significantly, using a raft of academic sources, with discussion on the talk page. ··gracefool☺ 02:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Browser-based games

Category:Browser-based games, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, voted to agree with rename. ··gracefool☺ 09:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:The dying earth by jack vance.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:The dying earth by jack vance.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lord Soth for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lord Soth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Soth until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Simone 14:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, added to discussion. ··gracefool☺ 03:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]