User talk:Motor

Multi-licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License versions 1.0 and 2.0

I agree to multi-license my text contributions, unless otherwise stated, under Wikipedia's copyright terms and the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license version 1.0 and version 2.0. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions under the Creative Commons terms, please check the CC dual-license and Multi-licensing guides.

Software infobox

Sorry, I have no idea where I am meant to put this reply! Anyway, just thought I would say that I went to the discussion page intending to add a comment saying it seems like a good idea to add the logo to the box. I spotted that someone else had already brought it up, although there were no more posts on that thread, so I thought I would just be bold and try to implement it! I'm afraid I had no idea how much discussion might be needed before doing something like that. I did realise that pages with no icon displayed logo={{{logo}}} but thought it might prompt people to actually add the logo on those pages! It was an experiment really, I was interested to see how the community would react. Maybe I should have created a variant template and used it on the first article that I had added a logo to, which was Eclipse (software). Maybe I'll try that? CharlesC 13:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just replied on your own talk page. After I posted there I added it to my watchlist -- not that it matters really. You were right to be bold about adding the logo, but because a template changes can alter so many pages at once it's usually prudent to leave a note explaining what you are planning and see if there are any views first (unless it's just fixing a typo etc etc). Having said that, it's often the case that going ahead and changing it is what prompts some action, while yakking on the talk page gets nowhere... meh. I've always tried to compromise: for example, I wouldn't create a new template just yet (it's your choice though)... I'd post on the Software template talk page telling everyone what I was planning, and if you don't get a reaction by tomorrow, just go ahead and add it... but it would be diplomatic to fix up the pages that will be changed by your modification. - Motor (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outer Limits

Are you an Outer Limits fan too? --Blizzard 1

I suppose so. There's an episode on every day at the time I sit down to watch the TV, so I've seen and enjoyed a lot of them. By the way, you can sign and date your additions to talk pages by using four tilde "~" characters in a row. --Motor 10:38, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Motor, I've put a note to you on The Outer Limits discussion page. Slowmover 20:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Motor, you made a strange edit on the Abbadon_(episode) summary page. Basically it seems you deleted the synopsis, maybe accidentally, it's not clear. I wrote on the talk page there. Ampassag 18:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Personal Attacks'

Pardon me Motor if this is a 'personal attack', but you seem prickly in the extreme. The only thing I can recall as being anywhere near a comment on you was my last (exceedingly minor) edit of the KDE page where I corrected the spelling of 'organization', and as part of a comment I said 'silly Motor'. *That's* a 'personal attack'?! I really have to wonder how you woulda reacted if I had actually insulted you. Sheesh. And as for the anonymous comment, I stand by it- what idiot edits an article, for the sole purpose of making one statement wrong?

The "K" originally stood for "Kool" ("C" as in "cool" was The "K" originally stood for "Kool" ("C" as in "cool" was already given away to the Common Desktop Environment), but was changed soon after to stand simply for "K", which is "The first letter after 'L' (which stands for Linux) in the Latin alphabet."

That was his modification, I corrected it. 'K' does not come after 'L'- 'M' does. Was it maybe intemperate? Yes. Was it wrong? No.

In summary- I didn't insult you, so back off; and the anonymous person made a bonehead, plain wrong edit, and I was exasperated. --maru 15:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See maru talk page for reply. --Motor 16:40, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, the Wikipedia guidelines for American vs British English say to use whichever is either most predominant in Wikipedia, or what applies best to the article or what the article is written in, in order of ascending priority. Wikipedia is largely in American English, Gnome is an American project, and reading through the article, the only thing that I can find that is British English and not American, is precisely the word we are quarrelling over. So I think I can safely say it should be 'organization', not 'organisation'. But I don't want a revert war, so I'm gonna drop it until I hear from you. 'Course, we could always go to arbitration... --maru 15:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all... I notice you have now modified your original bold and incorrect assertion that "American English" is the standard on Wikipedia. Second... GNOME is not largely an American project, that is simply incorrect. Third, I wrote most of the article, and I can assure that it is "British" English with a few exceptions where other people written something and I didn't "correct" it (naturally), or where I simply preferred the "American" spelling when writing it. Fourth, when I edit I try to fit in with the style of a pre-existing article. I would also revert the edits of anyone who started converting an "American" spelling article into "British" spelling one while adding nothing of substance. I do not edit the writing of others to fit my style or spelling, and I have no intention of allowing you to simply start changing the spelling of an article to suit your personal preferences -- and I think you'll find that any arbitration will agree with me on this since it is the only workable policy in articles that are not *definitely* British or American or anything else. Certainly considering that your contributions to the article are minimal.

If you wish to do something constructive to the GNOME article, I made a few suggestions on the talk page. I would welcome the help, since (as I said) I wrote most of the article and have felt for a long time that it needs more detail and more voices in order to become a better article. You can see evidence of this in the talk page. --Motor 16:40, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Well, I've done some more thinking, and a lot more editing, about the spelling and personal attack things and I've finally come to the conclusion that you are entirely correct about the personal attacks. I apologize to you and the anonymous user. I'm sorry.

And vis-a-vis the spelling: if you care enough to stop and revert every anonymous IP or registered users change of 'organisation' to 'organization', well, that is within your rights, since you contributed the most to it. But if more and more people keep on trying to change it, you might want to reconsider spending your time that way. --maru 19:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the apology. As for the spelling -- I check every edit on articles of interest to me, that is the nature of wikipedia. Had I let the user alter the heading, it would have made it inconsistent with the rest, not least the "organised" immediately below the heading itself. That is beside the fact that is it is perfectly valid spelling already. Thank you for your concern over how I spend my time, but it's really not necessary. I watch the edits on 150 articles currently and it takes but a few moments to ensure that an edit adds to the quality of the article, and is neither incorrect nor simply ignorant. Wikipedia is designed to make it easy to revert such changes, if necessary. Feel free to contribute to the GNOME article if you wish, as I said, there are many improvements, not least of which are some newer screenshots. Motor 21:59, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

"Link of the gorons"?

Hi, on The Legend of Zelda series races you put this line...

"Notable Gorons - merge in Link of the gorons article"

...in the edit header. Why? The whole point of merging all the characters into a single article was to avoid dispersion of non-notable characters. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I'm just interested as to your reasoning for this. Or have I completely misunderstood this statement? Anyway, thanks in advance! --Master Thief Garrett 00:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just noting where the information came from so that anyone interested could follow the edit history by following the link and seeing what happened. Here's a quick summary: I spotted the Link of the Gorons article on the newpages, took a look and realised that it was, at best, a minor character and the data really belonged in the main article. So I copied it across, and made a few minor corrections and changed the Link of the Gorons article to redirect to The Legend of Zelda series races. When creating the edit summary, I mistyped and "Gorons" became "gorons", and the link was broken... and since correcting edit summaries isn't possible... I suppose I should have noted it in the talk page. --Motor 09:10, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Ahhhh... I hadn't noticed that article. That makes sense now! --Master Thief Garrett 09:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blackburn Rovers

Your work on Blackburn Rovers F.C. is absolutely brilliant! What a pleasant surprise to see all that history up there. The image scans are particularly good. You might want to pass your eye over Blackburn to see if you can contribute anything. It's something I've been developing for a while. TreveX^talk 23:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I'm planning to get around to filling out some of the later history sections too (eventually!). I'll take a look at Blackburn. Motor 08:10, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

Bryce Harrington

Hi -- Since you've ben working on the Inkscape article, I thought you might be interested to know that the Bryce Harrington article is currently being voted on for deletion. --Bcrowell 16:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GIMP Toolkit

NOTE:I've copied this to the GIMP Toolkit talk page. If you could continue it there please... - Motor (talk) 09:53:59, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

Why did you reverse my edit to GIMP Toolkit ? The information that it's architecturally unfit for garbage-collected language is true, important and relevant to in the section about support for programming languages. Taw 02:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because with the edit (and edit summary) you were trying to make a case, and not writing a encyclopedia article (and yes, I read the link you included). As I said in my edit summary, wikipedia isn't for grinding axes, nor is it a surrogate for mailing list technical disputes. Also, considering the link you provided, I'm pretty sure it counts as original research - Motor (talk) 04:46:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make any case, I'm merely documenting the facts, and they're not disputed by anyone.

According to your own link, they do seem to be disputed -- if not the fact that you can provoke a memory leak (which is hardly unique), then certainly the severity of the problem. Not to mention, this isn't a highly technical article.

I and Ruby/GNOME2 developers found a problem that requires a change to Gtk architecture to fix correctly.

I'm not disputing that you have a technical issue with GTK while writing Ruby bindings (who doesn't), nor am I interested in defending GTK developers, merely stating that Wikipedia is not the place to complain about specific "bugs". Does the official GTK documentation acknowledge the problem, if so, perhaps you could quote that?

One of the Gtk developers that answered agreed that the problem exists, but he's clear they're not going to fix it. So nobody's disputing the facts. The problem (cooperation across GC boundaries) is not unusual, it should be documented in general in any decent reference on GC,

Your edit was not documenting the issue. It was complaing about it. Your post to the mailing list documents the issue, and that's where it belongs. If you think it hasn't had due attention, then repost it. In fact, you might find it useful to include a link to your edited version of the article. You can find a link to it via the page history (sorry if you already know this, I'm just covering bases).

and in the Gtk case it seems it has been already discussed, even as early as 1998, wrt Guile bindings. If you cared to read No original research, you'd see quite clearly that this has nothing to do with my edit. Taw 08:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it... it is original research. You think you've found a big technical problem with GTK. Reading the link it's clear that he does not agree with you about the severity of the problem, in fact he says quite clearly that "they" designed around it. None of this is relevant -- you are quoting your own research on a mailing list as a source. As I said, the mailing list is the place for this. - Motor (talk) 09:03:52, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

Merging Hammer Film Productions Ltd.

The Hammer Film Productions Ltd. article has lots of great stuff about the pre-horror days of the studio, but I'm not sure about how to merge it with the Hammer Horror article, if at all. I can handle the merging of the prose, but the technical side worries me a little - edit histories and so on. Advice welcome.Rayray 14:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you are planning to unify all the Hammer articles into one all-conquering Hammer article that covers all their operations and history? In that case, you need to decide first of all what you are going to call it. Let's assume (just for this explanation) that it's going to be Hammer Film Productions.

Currently, Hammer Horror contains the most detail and the most useful edit history, so that will be the page upon which we will build. This is how I would proceed (if you agree let me know). There is currently a redirect on Hammer Film Productions -- I will put that up for speedy deletion (there shouldn't be a problem, it has no real edit history.. it was created purely as a redirect).

Once that page is deleted, I/you will move the Hammer Horror (see the "Move This Page" option on the sidebar of the article) to Hammer Film Productions. Then we can begin sorting out the other redundant Hammer pages to redirect to Hammer Film Productions (assuming all the info has been merged). Let me know if the name sound right, or if you have something else in mind. - Motor (talk) 15:21:27, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

BTW: The reason I suggest Hammer Film Productions as the base is that it's listed as the production company for all the film and tv stuff, and it's not common to see companies on Wikipedia listed with inc. or Ltd. etc etc. - Motor (talk) 16:38:00, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and put "Hammer Film Productions" up for deletion and it went through. I've moved "Hammer Horror" to Hammer Film Productions. So I suggest you go ahead and merge in the information from Hammer Film Productions Ltd. -- but watch out if you plan to copy blocks of text. I can't say for sure, but the page looks like it could be a copyright violation. I may be unfairly maligning the writer, but looking at the edit history I see lots of prose suddenly pasted to create a new article by an unlogged in user, and that often smells of copyright problems.

I, Robot (disambiguation)

G'Day Motor. In I, Robot (disambiguation) you wiki-linked extra words, which disrupts the efficiency of a disambiguation page (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)). I've changed the format to one link per line. Otherwise, you fixed up the page nicely, cheers. --Commander Keane 12:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I read the guide before making the change, and it gives one example using the Grateful Dead in which the band name is linked, IMO because it helps people find what they are looking for. The statement "one link per line" is quite clearly marked as disputed, and flatly contracted by the example. The previous state of I, Robot had lots of unneccessary links, but I see nothing wrong with linking the artists, it's going OTT that causes problem. - Motor (talk) 13:31:05, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

That's cool. --Commander Keane 13:38, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I, Robot (short story)

Hiya. I think that I, Robot (short story) should *also* link to the Cory Doctorow story, as it's another "I, Robot" short story, rather than getting rid of the link entirely -- Palfrey 20:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article isn't about "I, Robot" short stories generally, it's about the original Eando Binder short story titled "I, Robot", which doesn't really have anything to do with Cory Doctorow's later story (which, as I understand it is more a take-off of Asimov's short stories). Having said that, the article really does need a disambig line linking to I, Robot (disambiguation), which already links to the Doctorow article. Thanks for bringing it up. - Motor (talk) 21:04:51, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

Tigon British Film Productions

Motor - I've started an article on Tigon British Film Productions, which is linked from Hammer Film Productions. I'm going to expand it a bit over the next week or so, but thought you might be interested in adding to it, or at least making sure it all looks OK.Rayray 13:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I look forward to seeing the result. - Motor (talk) 14:07:20, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Re: Blackburn Rovers edits

Fair enough, I was concerned about the intro becoming a second history section which was happening with some other club articles, but now that I've re-read it I can see it more as a summary. I just made one minor change that isn't really summary information (League Cup score), and expanded upon it in the "new millenium" section. And I assure you it's not just because I'm a Spurs fan! ;) - Pal 20:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GNOME

Sorry if I was unpolite. -- Carloswoelz 02:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opera

You know very well that the discussion about Opera's license is located at that page's discussion page, you are taking part in that discussion on that page yourself , so don't try to make me discuss it somewhere else.

That's a dishonest way to handle these discussions. It is like setting followup to another newsgroup in usenet. It takes only one such trick from you to destroy your own reputation, and you just did it. ~ Roger4911 01:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Discussions regarding changing the software infobox template are taking place on the infobox discussion page; discussion regarding Opera are taking place on the Opera discussion page. Furthermore, it's probably a good idea to familiarise yourself with how templates work. - Motor (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are aware that the page Opera_browser_features was created for the same purpose you are proposing(?)to disambiguate the opera_(web_browser) page. (The Opera browser in itself is not ambigous but contains all its features). I would really like to urge your caution when moving pages that has previously been discussed and agreed upon to create. I would commend you for a lot of your cleanup work (also on the Opera page), but please stay away from moving pages around like this. I am tempted to revert to the version the existed before you merged, and link to main feature articles (Like the one about M2) from the features page instead. TomAn 16:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, no pages have been "moved" in the Wikipedia sense of the word. Second, I read all the discussions before starting to edit the page. Third, I added a merge template to each article, and then started a discussion on the Opera Browser page, and then waited a respectable amount of time to listen to any objections... and then began slowly moving the information across ensuring that, at each stage, interested editors could see what was happening. The fact remains that "Opera Browser Features" was a pointless page consisting of (a) redundant and poorly written information, and (b) lists of keystrokes and howtos that are completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. There was simply no justification for it to exist separately from "Opera (web browser)".

The Opera Browser page is open for discussion about how to proceed from here... do we start a more appropriately named article ("Opera (internet suite)" possibly) dealing with the timeline of the suite as a whole, or not. Feel free to contribute to that if you wish, but as far as I'm concerned Wikipedia is better off without the "Opera Browser Features" article. - Motor (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you read any of what I said as constructive critisism, you would have noticed that I suggested using the opera_browser_features as a page for more detailed articles. Why do you think detailed descriptions are "completely inappropriate"? The page was created for that purpose. And why do you think it had no justification existing? Do you know why it was separated? It would have been better to clean the two pages up independently than to merge them and spawn new pages for the same reason opera_browser_features was created. This is the same as ie. Firefox has and it was agreed upon by all the editors then. (And IMHO, 5 days is too little when deciding to merge a page.) TomAn 09:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would help if you had read my reply properly. I don't think detailed descriptions are inappropriate, I think that documenting keystrokes and writing howtos is inappropriate for Wikipedia -- that is what Opera's help system is for. The Opera Browser Features articles was and remains a pointless article (with a poorly chosen name) with virtually zero content over and above the opera web browser article. And finally, I consider 5 days more than enough time, especially considering the state the Opera article(s) were in. Having taken a look at your edit history I notice that it was around 5-6 months since you last edited the Opera article, or any article (not counting any edits today) -- I'd say that's probably a bit too long to wait for comments. - Motor (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I take your point, but I still think that documenting unique features is good. Header navigation and spatial navigation (which you are referring to by keyboard shortcuts) is not something people know what is since it does not exsist in any other browser. Showing what it is by the shortcuts worked well. Lets see where this heads. I think linking to separate articles where appropriate could be a good thing. TomAn 11:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that documenting unique features is good. -- as do I. "which you are referring to by keyboard shortcuts" -- have a look back over this thread... I've always deliberately used the term "keystrokes", not "keyboard shortcuts". I don't mind explaining that you can, for example, "navigate between headings using just the keyboard"... look in the article source and you'll find an HTML comment (added by me) saying that we should explain what access keys are (in general terms) and what they do within the Opera article itself and not rely on a link. However, it's not appropriate to document what keys to hit in order to do it, or more generally, what steps you need to take to perform certain actions. We only need to tell people what Opera can do, not how to do it because that's a job for Opera's help system/documentation.

I'll try and put it another way: it's far more useful and appropriate to explain what header navigation is, and above all, why it is important than telling people what keys are used and how to do it. - Motor (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Proprietary Software

I see what you're trying to do, but it would be better if it was based on Template:Infobox Software2. The technical preview of Opera 9 is released, but it can't be mentioned with the old software template. --LBMixPro^(Speak on it!) 07:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know... nor should it be mentioned in the infobox. An infobox is just for the simplest, most basic, and most important information for those who are skimming. Technical preview releases are better discussed on the article itself. Quite apart from that, (as I've mentioned before) Infobox 2 is far too complicated, confusing for newbies and is radically different from the way normal wikipedia editing works, and does not solve any real problems. - Motor (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer Films Productions - The Mummy

Good stuff on the Mummy - nice to see quotations from the Daily Cinema, and a fuller exploration of this period in Hammer's history.Rayray 11:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you back. I wondered if you'd got tired of Horror film history :) Anyway, thanks... I've added quite a bit of stuff recently and it could do with a good proofing/polishing if you feel like it. - Motor (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These things go in phases with me... that and I've been applying for my own job and have been pretty busy. Happy to help with polishing and proofing though. Keep up the good work.Rayray 13:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opera usage share

I understand that Opera does indeed identify itself as Opera even when it identifies itself as a different browser, but what makes you think that the websites that track usage share neccesarily account for this? They certainly could but they may not. I have encountered plenty of websites that have not correctly identified Opera as Opera. What I am looking for is information on whether websites that track usages share know how to identify Opera. I've actually looked for this myself and I haven't been able to find it. Theshibboleth 02:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have encountered lots of small sites that misindentify browsers and produce awful pages as a result... but you want to suggest in the article that Opera is somehow undercounted *by businesses whose job it is to perform this count* because of its UA string -- when, in fact, the Opera identification is right there to be counted by even the most incompetent coder. There isn't the slightest evidence to suggest that this is true, or that it has even a miniscule effect on browser share usage figures. These articles are supposed to be factual and verifiable. I hope you've noticed that the version I keep reverting to is a simple statement of facts/figures. If you have a problem with the figures themselves, that's fine... but you need to take that up on the Usage share of web browsers page. - Motor (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation on Trollaxor

You have reverted this article three times in the last 24 hours (and four times in the last 36). If you wish to dispute the outcome of the AfD for the article, please do so on WP:VFU. I did not see any consensus on the article's talk page to delete/redirect it. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 22:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fansubs Speedy/AFD

I've placed Lunar Anime on speedy:bio and I've noticed you had strong feelings about fansub groups on wikipedia in a previous AFD. Maybe you're interested in deleting this one, too? --Timecop 04:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

tv-screenshot not film-screenshot

[:Image:OL-thegalaxybeing.jpg] No big deal, but images you load such as this one should be labeled as TV screenshots instead of film screenshots. I fixed the licensing for this image, used in "The Galaxy Being", since I ended up reusing it in Cliff Robertson. Whether such re-use is fair use is a separate question :-) ... 66.167.139.18 23:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC).]][reply]

I know, but the selection in the drop down box when I uploaded said "Television/Film screenshot" (it's now been changed to be seperate catagories)... so as far as I was concerned, it wasn't my problem. - Motor (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie Monster

What made you feel the urge to remove the International section of Cookie Monster? It's perfectly legitimate there. -- user:zanimum

I noted my reasons on the article's talk page. In short: people have not supplied any kind of verification for the entries, and I have no way of checking myself. For all anyone knows, the section is full of swear words in non-English languages or people entering their own school nicknames (or anything else for that matter). 19:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Congratulations!!! This Tech Barnstar is presented to Motor from LBMixPro for his edits to the Opera (web browser) article, making the article a highly detailed look into that web suite, while keeping the alternate browser newcomer in mind. May you continue to be a good contributer to Wikipedia.

Baxter Template

Thanks! Lcarsdata ^Talk | E-mail | My Contribs 06:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox2

It would be a bit inconsistant though, as I have started making infobox2's on other GNOME articles. I think that infobox2 makes things a lot easier, and could be used in pages such as Comparison of.... I don't think it is used enough, but on software that doesn't have new versions regularly, 1 is good enough. bruce89 17:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the "comparison of" bit on the discussion on the Opera talk page... it's not a real problem. Infobox2 makes editing more difficult, not less... because it is completely different from editing anything else on Wikipedia. At best, it makes the lives of people who compile lists and comparison pages slightly easier, but it also puts another barrier of complexity in the way of new editors. It also actively hides edits to a page. It's just not a good trade-off, which is why I've refused to use it on any page I edit... including the main GNOME article, Opera, Nautilus, Metacity, OpenOffice.org, among others. - Motor (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism sections

Hi! I was just looking at biographies to see how the issue of criticism was handled on various articles. I liked your comments on the Cory Doctorow page, which match my own sentiments. There is a small but vocal group of editors insisting on a criticism section for Xeni Jardin, and the criticism basically seems neither notable nor substantive. However, my attempts at altering that section have met the most resistance I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. Would you be interested in taking a look? Jokestress 02:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could the reason for the resistance be that in your attempt to get links removed you quoted irrelevant Wiki guidelines to try and back up your weak arguments?--Gerardm 11:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... I'm trying my best to parse that sentence. Let's see: My reason for removing the criticism sections on Doctorow and Jardin are that neither sections were backed up by reliable sources... as well as other reasons that I listed on Xeni Jardin. Perhaps you should have read that first before coming to my user page. - Motor (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very clearly that was a reply to Jokestress. As for your response, it is laughable. Are you suggesting that a person in the street can not criticise President Bush because they are not a reliable source? I don't care who criticses someone; if the criticise is valid (note I don't say I agree with it) then it deserves to be reported. Do you believe people don't criticise Jardin? If you don't then why shouldn't their view be represented? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gerardm (talk • contribs) .

Very clearly that was a reply to Jokestress. -- Umm... on my user page, in reply to my edits to the Xeni Jardin article. As for your response, it is laughable. Are you suggesting that a person in the street can not criticise President Bush because they are not a reliable source? Not on Wikipedia they can't. You obviously haven't realised this yet, but this isn't a street, it's an encylopedia, and it has certain standards for information to be included. Do you believe people don't criticise Jardin? If you don't then why shouldn't their view be represented? -- you continue to ask this question, when it has already been answered -- three times. You are quite welcome to include criticism of Jardin, if you properly source it. - Motor (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping in. Just for context, Gerardm is the editor who added xenisucks.com originally, and 95% of all his edits have been related to that. Lots of similar one-note singers camped out on that page right now. Jokestress 16:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I did start this out with respect for your edits and defended your right to edit the page repeatedly. Now I'm thinking I made the wrong choice. It appears you've seen there was consensus among just about everyone but you, and then went out to drum up support for your way of thinking. Now we've got a page that's protected, and even more determination on both sides of the issue. The page was not bad. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it was acceptable. All you've done now is annoy people and make them more resistant to your changes. I ask you this...are you willing to work to consensus or not? Even when the general consensus means that your choice is not the one decided upon? --Kickstart70-T-C 17:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit collision (second today) was 12 minutes apart from your edit. Please be more careful and work on updated pages. --Kickstart70-T-C 18:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These things happen on a wiki -- it was fixed. I see no reason for you to complain. - Motor (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily no, but you had this happen twice this morning on this page. This is not so much a complaint as a reminder. --Kickstart70-T-C 18:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit overwites happen on busy pages, because they can slip through without being caught at the save page stage (it's a matter of exact timing and MySQL.) You have no need to remind me... particularly since the matter was fixed. If you have nothing else to add here, I suggest keeping it on the page in question. Thanks. - Motor (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cripes. So much for WP:Civil. Take my comments as you will. I'll still continue to make them. --Kickstart70-T-C 18:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

xeni jardin talk

Motor -- I know you are very invested in getting something done quickly on the xeni jardin criticism section. However, giving other editors a couple days to catch up and comment may be beneficial. Dstanfor 04:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on my talk page re Xeni Jardin

Hi Motor, thanks for your note. I can only make suggestions, and thanks for responding positively. I realise at one stage you were addressed directly, so it was appropriate for you to answer. I don't know if the RfC is still live, but if not, I suggest you renew it. Tyrenius 08:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your stance, and obviously that is an issue that needs to find a resolution. In the meantime, there is an opportunity to assemble more data (I am not proposing a copy). As I'm sure you know, the article was proposed as AfD and there was a unanimous keep consensus, so I can't see it being deleted.Tyrenius 07:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Motor, thanks for your note. I've got to go out now, so I'll reply later. In the meantime, you might like to think about making the points using more moderate language. It's not that I mind particularly, but I don't think it will help your case in the long run. Feel free to amend or delete and rephrase, or leave if you wish. Tyrenius 07:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take the remarks as aimed at me, but thanks for taking the trouble to make sure I had read them correctly. There's something that's getting lost in the smoke here, namely that the current edit and my suggestion for consensus does not actually make any criticism of Jardin. It says that a web site has been set up which makes criticisms of her, which is a subtle but important difference. That is a fact which can be verified with an acceptable source, and that is how wiki operates. This is not an assertion of the site's notability; it is an assertion of the NYT's notability. It is a record of what the NYT has seen fit to put into the public domain.

Jimmy Wales has commented specifically on this case to answer a question on it:

Is a "(Xeni)sucks.com" blog a notable or reliable source?

Usually not. In a case like this, some mention would seem to be in order since the site was mentioned in the New York Times, but the actual reference in this case is the New York Times itself, not the blog. Merely being mentioned in the New York Times does not license them to insert whatever random lunacy they may choose to print in their blog, into wikipedia as "critics say..."

I'm not quoting Jimbo as some ultimate authority, but as someone whose opinion should be taken seriously, and, furthermore, because I believe this is likely to be a position supported by a consensus of other neutral editors. You do of course have every right to dispute this, but it should at least give pause for reflection.

The key points he makes, which I have adopted in my consensus proposal, are 1) mention is in order 2) the reference (i.e. notability) is the NYT, not the site 3) XeniSucks' criticisms should not be quoted.

The standard we have to maintain is NPOV, which means putting to one side our personal feelings, which are OR. Your argument is that XeniSucks should not be mentioned because it is run by people with a grudge against Jardin. There is no wiki guideline that per se which bars such sites from being mentioned.

There is a Wiki guideline that material should be balanced. I feel that the layout of the current edit creates an imbalance which gives too much prominence to criticism, and have attempted to redress this. Without the heading "Criticism" above it, the NYT/XeniSucks mention will not be emphasised in the way it is now, but will be integrated into the flow of the text.

Furthermore we are working towards a consensus that will ensure more biographical content is provided before any more criticism is included. This will render the NYT/XeniSucks mention much smaller in proportion to the whole. A good way to minimise its effect is to contribute more material, and there is an invitation to compile this on a sub page, so that it can be added when the protection is removed. Perhaps you'd like to contribute to this.

Your stance of strong disagreement with any mention of XeniSucks is noted and on record. I invite you nevertheless to agree to my proposal, as it will then form a consensus which enables more content to be added to the article, which I think is the priority. You are welcome to add a note by your name that you strongly disagree with the mention of XeniSucks and wish this to be reviewed at a later date. This would then mean four editors have agreed to a working solution for the time being. If this can be achieved it would be an accolade for all concerned.

Tyrenius 01:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Motor, thanks for demonstrating your goodwill in putting your name to the consensus proposal. I note your point that "the text "XeniSucks.com" is not made into a hyperlink, or a note with a hyperlink", i.e. that there should be no further or future action to bring this about to give XeniSucks any more prominence than it already has, and I think this is valid. There is already an existing footnote which provides the information, should any reader wish to follow it up. This is the purpose of footnotes in books, namely to provide information which is additional to and not considered appropriate for the main text. Tyrenius 17:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, I did misunderstand your point. However, Kickstart70 is not going to contest it, so provided other editors are of a like mind, then we should be able to proceed on that basis and not use note 9. However, please see that note 11 mentions XeniSucks but does not link to it. Your requirement is fulfilled. The link is to Boing Boing and an article by Jordan herself. She is the subject of the article, and it is a link to what she has chosen to say. I would be grateful if we could move on from this point. Tyrenius 18:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following my note above, I have copied your Accept comment back into the first section on the Towards Consensus page and hope this is acceptable.Tyrenius 16:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the 'consensus' text from the consensus page over to the Jardin talk page. Kickstart70 has already agreed to the point you want, as in the following exchange:

Accept, with the following provision: that the text "XeniSucks.com" is not made into a hyperlink, or a note with a hyperlink. The link is to the NYTimes... and that its inclusion at all is subject to review at a later date. - Motor (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm not going to argue this point, but it certainly is a weird and uncomfortable situation to link to a news article about a website, but not link to the website itself. Some sort of false protection. --Kickstart70-T-C 14:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the material on my pages needs to be either copied across or linked. I'm not sure the best way to do this at the moment. Any ideas?

Re. any anon IP violating the consensus agreement: this will not be acceptable, and I think can be rv. immediately. Admin assistance will not look favourably on a consensus of this nature being thwarted.

Tyrenius 18:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Because there was consensus until jokestress and motor came along and we had to reach a new consensus. Does this consensus have to stand for all time now, or when new editors come in, don't we have to reach a new consensus? Dstanfor 12:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motor, I have added the following to Tyrenieus' talk page on Xeni Jardin, discussing your acceptance of the consensus:

I'm uncomfortable considering Motor's "acceptance" to be an acceptance. I think accepting a consensus is more than writing the word "accept", followed by text indicating a lack of acceptance. His text speaks much more strongly than the word accept, and I propose that we consider his "acceptance" to be anything but. - 63.107.91.99 14:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best to respond there, however, I wanted to insure that my opinion was available to you. - 63.107.91.99 14:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Bridge Too Far

Please tell me Motor why you deem a movie-related link on another movie's page in the "See Also" section to be irrelevent. Bark 17:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in the edit summary... there's simply no justification for that see also entry. The film referenced is minor, and the information it is linking to is, at best, fan trivia. - Motor (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a trivia section. The information is courtesy of IMDB. The item is relevent to a trivia section, as you said. Trivia sections are relevent to film entries here on Wikipedia. I'm trying to compromise here. Bark 19:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trivia section is a copyright violation, and quite apart from that it does not make the PCU information any more of a worthwhile addition to the article. Sorry. - Motor (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am pursuing conflict resolution.Bark 19:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. - Motor (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee in regard to the article A Bridge Too Far. Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the meditaion, and indicate an agreement to mediate within fourteen days. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#A Bridge Too Far, and indicate your agreement or refusal to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation or contact a member of the Mediation Committee.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bark (talk • contribs) .

Good day, I'm your mediator regarding A Bridge Too Far if you have no problems with me taking the case, please let me know so we can start. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drini (talk • contribs) .

Replied on poster's talk page. - Motor (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mediation

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/A Bridge Too Far -- Drini 00:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first post

I've got broadband, so I checked for you. It was on 11th September 2003, on GNOME. HornetMike 19:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GNOME LiveCD version number

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNOME&diff=53152880&oldid=53151873

I can't say I disagree about having the extra version number, however we have a whole paragraph about the official GNOME liveCD although there is no such CD for the current version of GNOME...

There is an English only version available at http://ftp.gnome.org/mirror/temp/gnome-livecd-2.12/gnome-livecd-2.14-i386-en-1.iso, however nothing indicates if this is "official" or not.

I've been chatting with some GNOME devs on IRC and they can only recommend using the latest Ubuntu beta, as Ubuntu is the base of the liveCDs anyhow.

I've reformulated the paragraph to try to avoid confusion, and avoid encouraging people to try outdated versions of GNOME, just to see if you agree with the mods.

Love Karderio 15:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it really matters much about it being outdated -- that's really for the GNOME project to deal with. Many distros (certainly Fedora) don't contain the latest version either. The text you added -- "although this LiveCD does not always contain the very latest GNOME relese" -- breaks up the flow. If you really think it worth mentioning that it is not always the latest version, then I'd do it inside the note itself... inside the <ref></ref>, and not in the article body. Thanks. - Motor (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PowerPC

I've just done some cleanup work on this article, which you tagged. However work still must be done. We should convert the lists into prose, that would help a lot. What do you think? Thanks. — Wackymacs 13:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copied to Talk:PowerPC and replied there. - Motor (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronan O'Driscoll

Sigh. I hate it when people do that. Time for an admin to stick a {{deletedpage}} on it and edit-protect it, possibly? Tonywalton  | Talk 10:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are doing the same thing with Ryan chan. I'd just let the speedy delete process continue. The hang-on tag isn't binding. If they re-create the page(s) then we should consider taking it further. - Motor (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Woman

Id like to say thank you for helping me out with that situation.

I plan on adding some more information to it right now

Duck6 13:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Alletson

Do you still consider the article not Wikified?

I'd humbly suggest that despite your misgivings, it's not a bad page at all... Dweller

It wasn't a bad page... it just needed work to make its style and tone more of a wikipedia article. The tags are not orders and you can remove them yourself if you feel that the article now satifies the general guidelines for style and content. Just for some context: I tagged the article while watching Special:New pages -- along with about a dozen other articles, and a further dozen (or so) junk/vandal articles that I tagged for speedy deletion... and lots more articles were given a general clean up to pass muster. - Motor (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Sturm Article

Please stop attempting to have the article on Bob Sturm deleted. I happen to live in the DFW area, and he is a very well known Dallas Area radio host. I can assure you it is a very accurate article. Arbinado 21:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can dispute the proposed deletion on the AFD sub-page, as the notice says. You are not allowed to simply remove it. Please do not so so again. Thanks. - Motor (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add to my discussion page without permission. Thanks Arbinado 21:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Comper

This is just a quick response to your {notability} flag at Elizabeth Comper. In my view, she is notable because of her role as a founder of FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together]]. Please see http://www.fightingantisemitism.com/fast_related.html for a list of media articles about this organization and its founders. I have added this reference to the Elizabeth Comper article. I should probably have done so earlier. TruthbringerToronto 00:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xeni Jardin again

Thanks for getting in touch. I'm glad that everyone who was involved in the consensus has stood by it. I suggest restraint and a measured response. I am sounding out Lost.goblin and let's see what the reaction is. Tyrenius 00:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page archive

Thanks for helping out to fix it! Tyrenius 14:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I'm glad to see we made some progress cleaning up the KTCK article along with all the show hosts. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia but when I saw those pages on Bob and Dan I couldn't help but do my best to get them taken care of. Later.. JohnM4402 05:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hair or Ben

You're an experienced editor and I'm not! Can I have some advice. I put a speedy deletion notice on this article and it's been removed by its original creator. It's clearly a stupid, slightly hacked copy of Deal or No Deal (UK game show) that's been put up as a joke. Advice? Dweller 10:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... the vandal is clearly both persistent and thorough. Shame he's not using his skills in for more constructive purposes. Dweller 10:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis a repost of speedy deleted nonsense. Keep an eye on the creator Noeledmunds (talk · contribs), he's been tempering with the AfD for the "article", and tried to remove it from the AfD log for May 12. Kimchi.sg 11:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed. I was about to undo it myself when you got there first. I'll keep an eye on him. - Motor (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss inventions

I stared open-mouthed at this page, not quite knowing where to begin. I then posted a rather lame entry questioning Ursula Andress, but really, the whole page is ill-conceived. I've not a clue where to start... what would you do with this page? Dweller 12:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From his edit history the editor who created it seems like a constructive Wikipedian... but just hasn't quite got the idea of the style and tone needed. I've added a {{tone}} tag to the article. I recommend sitting back and letting him get on with it for day or so to see where he's going with it. - Motor (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like good advice. Thanks. Hope you don't mind these questions... you seemed like a helpful and knowledgable editor. Dweller 12:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I talk a good game. ;-) - Motor (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N.Nagaraja(M.T.B.) AfD

I raised a new issue at the AfD page that you might affect your vote. I'm contacting all the past discussants. --Kchase02 (T) 20:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoleto merger proposal

As you can see, I've agreed to this. I'm afraid that it was my fault that it happended: these cpital letters make a difference.... Can you go ahead and do it or arrange it; I don't know how.

Vivaverdi 13:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note and advice. I see now how I can take care of it. Vivaverdi 13:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Firth

David Firth stuff removal on Meep

Hi, I just though you should know that I reverted your removal of the David Firth material on Meep. (I doubted you would check the talk page, as you've done this on a lot of articles.) In the case of Meep, at least, the material was as well-referenced and relevant as anything on the article (not that Meep is a particularly high-quality article). Anyways, if you still think it shouldn't be there, we can talk about it on Talk: Meep. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 13:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also considering reverting it on Doncaster, too. What is the justification for not having it there? David Firth is somewhat a cult figure amongst young persons especially. M0RHI 17:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed because it was spammed across lots of articles... most of them completely irrelevant. The additions were along the lines of "X is also a character in <insert minor flash animation> by <plug for David Firth>". I have serious doubts that he's even notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article at all (along with any other flash animator whose work extends as far as some blog fans). If you want to re-add it fine... but at you should consider providing some Wikipedia:Reliable sources to back up its inclusion -- you won't find any reliable sources on his article though. Also, you should know, I'm giving serious consideration to submitting David Firth for deletion soon. It was considered before and the result was non-notable/vanity/redirect to Salad Fingers... someone recreated it and the article hasn't improved, it has just filled up with blog junk and waffle. - Motor (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Firth (2nd nomination)

Hi, I don't think you would notice or it should cause a problem but I have replaced Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Firth with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Firth (2nd nomination) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 2 --blue520 19:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. - Motor (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Firth AFD

Rather than continue to convolute the AFD page, I thought I'd bring it here. I now accept your WP:RS issues, despite the guideline's minor self-contradiction; however, I still don't think David Firth should be deleted. WP:RS does take into account cults, and I think this falls into that category. I just checked one of his cartoons on Newgrounds and it says "more than 100k views" which is quite a lot. If the dispute here is the reliability of the sources as opposed to notability, then I think we should work on the article rather than delete it: I certainly think David Firth merits a different article from Salad Fingers. Jono 21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issues are both notablity and reliable sources. He currently has neither, and that's why I put it up for deletion. No-one doubts that he has a small "cult" following, so do many people. It's that he doesn't have enough of a footprint in the world outside of small group of flash animation fans to justify a separate biogaphical article -- and even if he did, there's nothing reliable to put it in. We regularly delete muscians with more press coverage and more reliable information than he has. The issues of reliable sources are even more relevant when it comes to biographies of living people... see WP:BLP for more information. - Motor (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to applaud you for your efforts in this particularly annoying case of over inclusion. In particular, I've also found irrelevant and absurt wiki links into the firth cloud. fat-pie is holding strong at 30k on alexa [1], which indicates something is likely worthy here.. but I'll be surprised to see any of this withstand any test of time. As always, best of luck Firth -- hope you prove me wrong ;). ∴ here…♠ 23:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firth (more on)

However, Firth does come from Doncaster, as does Jonti Picking, of Weebl and Bob fame, both attending my former school. The fact this is popular culture deserves notoriety nontheless. I don't deny that there is a spammer out there, wishing to add the most flimsy of references to David Firth, nor do I condone this in the slightest, but he is an acclaimed man, and is deserving of acknowledgement from his hometown article. (Whoops, forgot to sign)... M0RHI 02:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Reedy Boy/Series Boxes AFD

Oh, didn't know.

Thanks

You learn something everyday!

Reedy Boy 20:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightsaber combat AFD

I just wanted to say I laughed my ass off when I read your comment that they should "turn it into a Wikibook so all the wannabe Jedi Knights can learn their stuff..."

Just imagining a couple of 12-year-olds standing in front of a computer with toy lightsabers practicing their "moves" and saying, "Dude, scroll down - what do I do next?" Ha ha ha ha ha!

Thanks for the laugh. Kafziel 19:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Dragons

Thanks for your proto-vote :-) I've prodded it for now, but I suspect that will be contested. If it is, I'll let you know when someone slaps the AfD tags on. Shouldn't be too controversial or close though, as most of WikiProject Warhammer 40,000 will be around to vote as well. Cheers --Pak21 12:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to let you know that it went through prod without being challenged, so has now been deleted. Cheers --Pak21 08:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Wain

Hey no problem, I understand. But, I am not Greg Wain. The article has already been deleted for the same reason (because the administrator thought I was Greg Wain) and then I had to explain myself, and then the article was reinstated. Now I assume the article will be deleted AGAIN for the same reason.

What should I do (can I change my username)? I would appreciate any help, cheers! Gw06 10:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fyi the article's back up and the editor has been in correspondence with me on my Talk page, promising to demonstrate notability. I await with interest! :-) Dweller 10:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Boaler Alletson again

Hi

Thanks for the edit. What does that person data stuff do?

Noob-called-Dweller 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah... spotted your link. Makes sense. Nice contribution. Dweller 12:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackburn Rovers F.C.

Regarding the picture of the 1884 team on the Blackburn Rovers page. On the image page it says that the player second from the right bottom row is G. Avery. I have this picture in a book of mine and that player is noted as Inglis. It looks like the same man labelled as Inglis in a photo of the 1885 side, and on http://www.rovers.premiumtv.co.uk/page/HistoryDetail/0,,10303~78737,00.html too he is labelled as Inglis. I beleive he is J. Inglis, but in a brief search haven't been able to identify his forname. Jooler 12:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a while since I uploaded that photo, but if I remember correctly... the photo came from CottonTown and the caption came from the reference given in the Blackburn Rovers article , namely: Mike Jackman, Blackburn Rovers an illustrated history. It's always possible I made an error transcribing the information from the book, and I don't have it available any longer to check (library book). If you have two indepedent sources suggesting it is Inglis, then I'd change it to that and then add the book as a reference to both the BR article and the photo page itself. Next time I'm in the library I'll see if the Jackman book is still on the shelves and double check. Thanks for fact checking it though... much appreciated. - Motor (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persondata

I've tried it out on Stephen Fry. (he'd appreciate that double entendre). Will you check it out and let me know if I've messed up. I found the US date system annoying and guessed what to do for a living person.

AFDs

yeah... I'm not sure if we're supposed to give that secret away or not. I'm going to relist again in 2 days on day 4 to ensure a thorough discussion this time around and make sure that any "padding" is appropriately accounted for. The only problem I with AFDs is after day 1-2 they're pretty much only looked at by people interested in the subject. --Crossmr 16:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I find deletion review? Should some trekkie admin come along and close it and claim no concensus I'd like to know where to take it. --Crossmr 16:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review - Motor (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brightwood AfD

I use the speedy tags sometimes but too often I'm just not sure how notable they are. Google and Alexa can only give you so much and I'd rather be safe. Crystallina 21:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadullah Khan

Can I urge you to please take a look at: User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/sk. It's a pretty modest rewrite I've done, but the worst excesses of the original overly exuberant language are removed (and a few links added to show notability). I don't think it's yet a great article, but can you seriously maintain that this is a non-notable biography subject?! I hardly think Khan is the most important biography subject we have on WP, but he's well pass notablity threshholds on both the "author test" and "professor test" (I recognize that all the "praise be" and "honorable"s in the first text are offputting in tone; though I think part of that is a cultural difference... not that I would want any article in that excessively deferential Islamic style, but I can "read past" that flaw in a draft).

I think whenever deletion review is examined, whoever deals with that will probably "relist" it. I could recreate the article now, but I'd feel better about following a consensus procedure. I don't think it's useful to quibble over precise procedural correctness—to my mind, even if you called the AfD "three perfunctory delete comments (not just two), plus one well explained 'strong keep'" that should still not amount to a "delete" closing. But regardless of what "procedure" might suggest, I believe it is fairly self-evident on closer examination that this is an article worth keeping (and improving in the concrete, but notable as a topic).

I would feel happier if you would revisit your deletion review comment. I don't really remember the exact numbers and formulas for when the various actions are taken on review, but I'd feel like it was a cleaner consensus if the original AfD nominator endorsed revisiting the AfD process. LotLE×talk 20:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think overturning a properly conducted AFD is wrong. The admin who closed it did the right thing at the time IMO, and overturning it suggests that he did not. Now... the fact that you have rewritten it is fine, and I've no problem with you recreating a new version, but I stand by my deletion review decision. - Motor (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to state this over at deletion review? Then I'd feel comfortable with being WP:BOLD and recreating it. FWIW, I've never thought of deletion review as a referendum on whether a closing admin was "naughty" and should be scolded... it's about the best action to take in regard to an article. LotLE×talk 00:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had already said at DRV that I didn't mind it being created... but I've made it clearer, so I hope it helps. It's not a matter of scolding an admin... it's just that there's enough nonsense around AFDs that when a closing admin makes a judgement call that is correct at the time, it should be supported... IMO. - Motor (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Jason Silver

On the AFD, you suggested userfication as an option. Even though it has now been closed, I'd like to comment on that. I don't think usefication of vanity material is appropriate when the author shows no other interest in Wikipedia, apart from said vanity articles. Wikipedia is not a advertising space, so we should apply that to any namespace. I hope you consider this next time it comes up. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of European cities in different languages

Why do you ignore foreign language sources? Your comments on the AfD for the article are disturbingly reminiscent of the English only movement. Carlossuarez46 20:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The editors who must check this article speak English. Cross-language articles (especially ones like this) cause major problems... that's just the way it is. I'd say the same thing on a French Wikipedia. It's a maintenance and verifiablity nightmare. - Motor (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you will note -- contrary to your posting on the Afd-- I merely pointed out that your comments were reminiscent of the EO movement; I didn't claim that you were part of it. Only you can see in your heart to know that. No offense was intended. In any event, after looking at what interests you WP-wise, if a Klingon translation for some city shows up, I will let you do the checking on it. ;-) Carlossuarez46 01:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dogcow

Hi. I saw you edition on the article Dogcow with the subject

rm irrelevant dog picture. ref says nothing of the sort.

But it says. You can find at the middle of the source text this:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The dog is often percieved as a cow, and became famous as the "Dogcow": Did you do anything wrong?
Kare: I don't understand why people think the dog is a cow. Look at its tail: It's clearly a mongrel.

I don't know if is a good source, and it seems a rough translation (as you can see on the source text) of the german magazine Spiegel online. But Susan Kare refers to the mongrel dog (look at the image in Mixed-breed_dog#Appearance). I just found that page and thought it was interesting to know Susan's opinion about the dogcow. (sorry if my english is not very good). Mosca2 22:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not including her opinion that bothered me... it was the seemingly random picture of a mongrel that looked a bit like the dogcow icon. The caption was suggesting there was a between that picture and her comment that went beyond "it's a mongrel". My first thought was that it was a picture of someone's dog that had been uploaded and included (that sort of thing does happen). The link was also to a Macslash web forum post translation, which is pretty unreliable. - Motor (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I love this sentence from your user page: I get bored, so I click on the watch list, or "New Pages", or "Random"... and edit things until I get bored again, and then go and find something else to occupy my copious free time.. That is aexactly what I do. Viridae 09:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I think it's most people's approach to Wikipedia. :) - Motor (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened Stuart Millson AfD

In the light of an apparent serious externally-directed abuse of process regarding the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Millson discussion, I have reopened the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Millson 2 with the proviso that anon IPs/new accounts will be excluded as probably sock- or meatpuppets. You voted last time around, so you may wish to take a look at the new vote. -- ChrisO 23:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankenstein links

Hi Motor!

Please stop deleting links to my Frankenstein site. They are in no way spam link as you suggested; they are not made by a linkbot and, more importantly, most of them are set up in a way so that they take the user directly to a specific film or series (eg. hammer.frankensteinfilms.com, universal.frankensteinfilms.com, novel.frankensteinfilms.com). I have put a lot of work into my site (which has been up since 2000) and the project, which is based on my university thesis, is absolutely non-commercial (I have one ad, which helps me pay the server costs). I often get mail from students who use the site for their own term papers and many tell me that they found it through wikipedia. Thanks for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Der moser (talk • contribs)

Copyvio tags on Outer Limits episodes by User:TheJC

Motor, take a look at what's going on here. Someone has added a bunch of TV.com material to many of the episode pages, and TheJC is tagging them all for deletion. I think simply removing the offending content would be better, but I don't have time to chase them all down. One of them got corrected already Talk:If These Walls Could Talk (episode). Thanks. -- Slowmover 19:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they all got speedied, despite efforts to the contrary like yours, Talk:Double Helix (episode). How do we get them un-deleted? -- Slowmover 20:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grrr... very annoying. The tagging editor didn't even check the page history. I've contacted contacted the admin who correctly rejected some of the tagged articles. We'll see what he says. If necessary I'll take it Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Thanks for alerting me. - Motor (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Motor! Lithia (episode) and Double Helix (episode) are both restored - there was no substantive text copied from the site in question. In Our Own Image (episode) remains deleted because there was substantive copied text. Hope this helps! ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Motor, here's the complete list from the deletion log (don't know why one of them is there twice). Since the page history and content is now hidden, I can't figure out if any more of these should be restored. Leaving it to you. Regrets.

• 14:49, July 12, 2006 Mo0 (Talk | contribs) deleted To Tell the Truth (episode) (Copyvio)
• 14:49, July 12, 2006 Mo0 (Talk | contribs) deleted To Tell The Truth (episode) (Copyvio)
• 14:49, July 12, 2006 Mo0 (Talk | contribs) deleted The Shroud (episode) (Copyvio)
• 14:49, July 12, 2006 Mo0 (Talk | contribs) deleted The Other Side (episode) (Copyvio)
• 14:49, July 12, 2006 Mo0 (Talk | contribs) deleted The Joining (episode) (Copyvio)
• 14:49, July 12, 2006 Mo0 (Talk | contribs) deleted Promised Land (episode) (Copyvio)
• 14:49, July 12, 2006 Mo0 (Talk | contribs) deleted Phobos Rising (episode) (Copyvio)
• 14:48, July 12, 2006 Mo0 (Talk | contribs) deleted Origin of Species (episode) (Copyvio)
• 14:48, July 12, 2006 Mo0 (Talk | contribs) deleted Nightmare (episode 1998) (Copyvio)
• 14:48, July 12, 2006 Mo0 (Talk | contribs) deleted Monster (episode) (Copyvio)
• 14:48, July 12, 2006 Mo0 (Talk | contribs) deleted Lithia (episode) (Copyvio)
• 14:48, July 12, 2006 Mo0 (Talk | contribs) deleted In Our Own Image (episode) (Copyvio)
• 14:48, July 12, 2006 Mo0 (Talk | contribs) deleted Final Exam (episode) (Copyvio)
• 14:48, July 12, 2006 Mo0 (Talk | contribs) deleted Double Helix (episode) (Copyvio)
• 14:48, July 12, 2006 Mo0 (Talk | contribs) deleted Black Box (episode) (Copyvio)
• 14:48, July 12, 2006 Mo0 (Talk | contribs) deleted Balance of Nature (episode) (Copyvio)

-- Slowmover 20:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I looked them up myself earlier. I had the ones I created (or knew about) on my watchlist and they've been restored now... except for "In our own image"... which was on my watchlist too... but Redvers says was a copyvio. Perhaps JKleo copied and pasted a plot synopsis in there... well anyway. I'll probably just recreate that one myself and ensure that there is no copy and pasted text. The main ones are back, that's what matters. It's annoying because I went to considerable length to ensure that no substantive text was present in any of the new outer limits articles that I created. - Motor (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Motor.

I did a quick double-check on the outstanding ones listed above. As I thought, Mo0 was acting in good faith and the nominators were likely doing so as well. Here are the results:

• To Tell the Truth (episode) - obvious copyvio
• To Tell The Truth (episode) - obvious copyvio

• Two separate identical articles: Wikipedia is case-sensitive (the > The)

• The Shroud (episode) - obvious copyvio
• The Other Side (episode) - obvious copyvio from tv.com
• The Joining (episode) - obvious copyvio from tv.com
• Promised Land (episode) - obvious copyvio from tv.com
• Phobos Rising (episode) - obvious copyvio from tv.com
• Origin of Species (episode) - subtle copyvio from tv.com
• Nightmare (episode 1998) - no evidence of copyvio from source given
• Monster (episode) - obvious copyvio from tv.com
• Lithia (episode) - no evidence of copyvio from source given: restored
• In Our Own Image (episode) - obvious copyvio from tv.com
• Final Exam (episode) - obvious copyvio from tv.com
• Double Helix (episode) - no evidence of copyvio from source given: restored
• Black Box (episode) - obvious copyvio from scifi.com
• Balance of Nature (episode) - obvious copyvio from tv.com

Of the three not copied from the source given, I'd quite like to check against scifi.com, where there's a similar episode guide and evidence that at least one copyvio came from there instead. For that reason, I'm not undeleting Nightmare (episode 1998) at the moment. Hope this helps. I'm now going to give the person responsibe something of a hard slap. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. Most of the deleted articles seem to have been created recently (probably by User:JKleo). It was really just two deleted articles in particular, which I was certain were not a copyvios and which you've now restored (lithia and double helix)... and possibly In Our Own Image (episode), which I wasn't sure about. - Motor (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Outer Limits deletions

I'd like to apologize for deleting articles that actually weren't speedy candidates. It's going to sound stupid of me to say this, but I'm still a bit rusty and didn't think things through entirely when I was going through the deletions. Sorry about that, man. :( Mo0[talk] 06:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As I was saying above, most of the articles you deleted seem to have been recent creations by User:JKleo and may well have merited deletion. It was really just two pre-existing articles that got caught up in the sweep. Anyway, it's sorted now, don't worry about it. - Motor (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

If you want to talk about referencing, there's a helluvalot on Wikipedia that isn't referenced. Not much in the Doncaster article is referenced, so why not blank the whole thing. Or, as is the Wikipedia ethic, why not try to reference it yourself? Plenty to be done there, Douglas Bader, Lesley Garrat, or is this only just to continue your vendetta against persons you find undesirable on Wikipedia? Please, grow up. M0RHI 19:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while I'm on it, it says on the David Firth article that he's from Doncaster. I'll let you have that so pleasant, satisfying, odd pleasure of blanking that. M0RHI 19:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to talk about referencing, there's a helluvalot on Wikipedia that isn't referenced. -- this is not an argument for adding more. Plenty to be done there, Douglas Bader, Lesley Garrat, or is this only just to continue your vendetta against persons you find undesirable on Wikipedia? Please, grow up. -- yes, I'm running a campaign against undesirables on Wikipedia. I admit it. You've uncovered my evil scheme. - Motor (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, you flagged it with "requesting references", and removed David Firth. Why not leave it there, and request references on everything, or remove them all? Inconsistency. I'm reverting, but leaving the request for citations in place. If, after some time, there is no plausible reference forthcoming, then it can be removed. You can't remove the most contentious then flag it. That makes very little sense. M0RHI 21:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed David Firth because I've looked for references. I've done the legwork... there aren't any. He's not "famous"... I've left the others for the time being... while you, and I, look for some. - Motor (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding. I was only trying to help and am a much newer user than yourself. I'm sure that if you did find references for Firth, you would add these. I'll try to work on the rest. M0RHI 21:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikEd

The wikEdlogo

Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus:• syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • morefixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages• convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjustthe font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Usually it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Moonlighting-cast.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Moonlighting-cast.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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. cholmes75 ^(chit chat) 19:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Common.css

Per recent discussions, the way in which Persondata is viewed by Wikipedia editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Wikipedia articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata. More specific instructions can be found on the Persondata page. --ShakingSpirit^talk on behalf of Kaldari 01:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Gnome-screenshot-full.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gnome-screenshot-full.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 22:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to your comments on Talk:Blackburn Rovers F.C.

Just a heads-up - someone exceptionally amusing has been editing your comments on the talk page of Blackburn Rovers. My sides may have just split. Tim 14:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:OuterLimitsEp

Template:OuterLimitsEp 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. Jay32183 21:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes

It is unnecessary (and confusing to readers) to add disambiguating hatnotes to articles without ambiguous titles (e.g.: I, Robot (1995 The Outer Limits) and I, Robot (short story)). At risk of stating the obvious, in general, you shouldn't disambiguate things that aren't ambiguous. See Wikipedia:Hatnotes#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 12:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ol-controlledexperiment.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ol-controlledexperiment.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. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ol-themanwiththepower2.jpg

I have tagged Image:Ol-themanwiththepower2.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. CO 02:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Curseoffrankenstein1957-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Curseoffrankenstein1957-1.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. WebHamster 02:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TheOuterLimits-Screenshot-old.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TheOuterLimits-Screenshot-old.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. Ndgp (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ot-theinvisibles1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ot-theinvisibles1.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) 20:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ot-theinvisibles2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ot-theinvisibles2.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) 20:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contact request

Hey Motor, I sent an e-mail through the link but I dunno if you got it. Can you e-mail me when you have a chance? I need to ask you about something (not Wikipedia-related). Thanks!—Chowbok ☠ 17:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ol-nightmare.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Ol-nightmare.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" 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 for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ol-secondchance.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Ol-secondchance.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" 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 for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ol-thehumanfactor.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Ol-thehumanfactor.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" 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 for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ol-themanwiththepower1.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Ol-themanwiththepower1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" 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 for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ol-themice.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Ol-themice.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" 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 for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:OL-thegalaxybeing.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:OL-thegalaxybeing.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) 04:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gabber (instant messaging client)

The article Gabber (instant messaging client) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of topic — notability of topic is not established. (And hardly will be in future – this software is defunct for 10 years.)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blackburn Rovers FA-cup 1890-91.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blackburn Rovers FA-cup 1890-91.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blackburn Rovers FA-cup 1890-91.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blackburn Rovers FA-cup 1890-91.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dark Matters (The Outer Limits) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dark Matters (The Outer Limits) 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/Dark Matters (The Outer Limits) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free use File:Dracula1958-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dracula1958-1.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dracula1958-1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dracula1958-1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]