User talk:Yamanbaiia/Archive1

CSI Images

Just wanted to let you know, please make sure you edit your CSI images to include fair-use rationales on each image, for the pages they are used in, as this is a requirement, and without they will get marked for speedy deletion and the good replacement images will get deleted. Just a courtesy note to you. Good job replacing them also. If you need help with a good Fair Use Rationale tag - please see an example at the following fictional character screencap image: Image:DeannaTroi.jpg, I would just copy the entire text there and edit it to fit the image, that is what I do as it sums everything up very well. If some parts of the rationale dont fit the image, remove or reword them, that would be fine. Hope this helps, message me back on my talk page if you need further assistance with this. I normally tag non-free use images without fair-use rationale when I find them, but I will hold off a few days on these images so you can have a chance to address this. Ejfetters 00:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I already did it to the ones you already uploaded lol. Was kinda bored and thought I'd help. Now its easier, just go into any of the image pages now, hit edit, copy EVERYTHING there, and just paste it in the new image completely, then just change the names of the character to the one you're working on. Oh and don't forget to change the pronoun from "him" to "her" when it changes, I would forget that sometimes. If you do this, even your copyright tag will paste in there correctly. Hope this helps! :) Ejfetters 02:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading flickr images

Please don't misrepresent copyright status for images taken from flickr. Neither Image:MichaelCera2007.png nor Image:DanesSchwartzman.jpg were licensed under {{cc-by-2.0}}, the "© All Rights Reserved" notation clearly accompanied each flickr image description. Uploading images under false licenses constitutes copyright infringement and it is against Wikipedia policy. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's no biggie, licensing is sometimes difficult to decipher :) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Costner

the trivia that i added, i thought it was an interesting thing, trivial but interesting. so i did some research about other articles with Trivia, look at Longfellow , "The Bowdoin College Longfellows, an all male a capella group, uses Longfellow as their inspiration." how's that more encyclopedic than what i added? i don't want to nag you, i just want to know how come i can't put that dude's project about Costner in the trivia.Yamanbaiia 13:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message - hope this finds you well! I thought what you added was quite interesting, but Wikipedia is trying to remove most of the Trivia sections at present - see WP:TRIVIA. Hence, while a piece of trivia could sit well in one article, it wouldn't in another. We have tried to improve the Costner article to make it more encyclopedic, and less a fan shrine. But, having looked at what you inserted under trivia, if well referenced it would sit well under the main part of his article as an interesting current fact. Let me know what your thoughts are, and if you want to integrate it into the article but not under a trivia heading, quite happy to help you. Best Regards, - Trident13 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA for CSI:Crime Scene Investigation

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you had chosen to review this article, and I started reviewing it already. Is it alright if I do the review? Generally, people who have contributed to the article before are discouraged from reviewing for GA, because it is a possible conflict of interest. Wrad 22:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, sure seems like it! Wrad 22:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Wrad 23:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Grissom

Sure, I can help you with the article. I'll take a look at the article now and give you my opinion of what should be left out/ added/ re-written. I'll also give you a few links to Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and essays focused on helping users write better articles. :D --VorangorTheDemon 12:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Sidle

Sorry I made such harsh comments. I'm anal when it comes to spelling and punctuation and I'd had a pretty bad day yesterday. Am I right in guessing English isn't your first language? You're doing really well if that's the case. Go ahead and edit. It needs more work of that nature and what you did was actually pretty good. It just needed a bit of editing. If I notice anything with spelling, etc., I'll go back in and edit it without the harsh commentary! --Bookworm857158367 12:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Gordon

Hi. I think I corrected all the errors you listed on Barbara Gordon's talk page. If I missed anything feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 00:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey! Its me again.

  • I fixed the elseworlds section.
  • I corrected all the references, though I did *not* find any which linked to an image of Alica Silverstone, could you have been mistaken or clicked a wrong link? Either way I believe all references are accurate. I used all wikipedia templates for every citation, so if it appears "odd" in the ref section of the article, im assuming its either just supposed to look that way, or I may have filled out the template wrong although I believe I was as accurate as possible.
  • I turned the video game section into a single paragraph and added references to game reviews.

If there is anything else, let me know. and thanks for reviewing the article. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 22:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also added your review/checklist to the "comments" section explaining the rating, but it was pointed out to me that it may not be the proper thing to do. If you agree I can just deleted it. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 02:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was one other thing I was wondering if you could help me with. I wanted to add the "Article Milestones" to BG as seen in other articles but I can't get the links to work. Do know how to add it? Bookkeeperoftheoccult 01:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this will lose its GA status and I wonder if we can't strike while the iron is hot and get it back to GA and set it up for FA [1]. Obviously, I know you do good work and your further involvement and input on this would be very handy. (Emperor 19:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for your note. If you disagree with the delisting then feel free to drop a note in here. If there are other dissenting voices then it could avoid delisting and we can get the comics project involved in doing some rapid editing to keep people happy and the article inside the GA-envelope. (Emperor 21:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I never realized BG was your first review. I, for one, thought you were extremely thorough. As for Phil's assesment, i can understand his criticism, but i dont think people realize how hard it is to find information on comics if they are more than a decade old- its nearly impossible. I took me weeks to get as much info as I have now, and I am still currently researching more information. I want to thankyou for your time and effort in assisting me as much as you have so far. Thankyou! Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 07:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed every issue brought up in Phil's review and I've asked the article not lose its GA quality rating- or at the very least, have it renominated. Please take another look at the article now and see if you can add some comments on the WP:GAR. Thankyou! Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll See You in Court

User:The JPS has inserted the wayback machine's archive of the page from June '07, which should be very similar to the version that I had originally linked. I am checking it over now to make sure everything in the article is still supported. Cheers, CP 22:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Book sources are always better than internet sources, not the other way around. I would be far more concerned with internet sources because anyone can write anything and put it on the net. For most books, the information is backed up with good references. This is particularly true if the publisher is reputable. Vanity published books are not reliable. If you are concerned whether the book exists, you can simply do a net search. However, the kind of sources really depends on the article. For a history article, I would fail it if it just used net sources, but a movie article might only have net sources, particularly if it is a new movie. I hope this helps you.Zeus1234 11:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Sidle

I just reviewed the article you nominated. Don't forget to add the GA nominee tag to the article's talk page next time. Zeus1234 21:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work (and all your hard work on this and the Grissom one) - I'll ruun through it later and see what I can do to help. (Emperor 18:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

OK I have had a look through it and it looks damn good and I can't think it is far off now. I have flagged a few minor issues which, while they might not cause problems with the general review, are worth addressing to tighten it up. (Emperor 15:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Well done on getting the Sara Sidle article to GA. I know a lot of people have contributed but it was your enthusiasm and hard work that got it up to standard. (Emperor 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for the Project Grouphug (although considering there are only about half a dozen of us a handshake wouldn't have taken long ;) ). Yes Grissom next and to be honest you virtually have that one up to standard - I'll look in and see if there is anything else I can do before it gets the final stamp of approval. (Emperor 01:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Death of Edgar Allen Poe

Can you please let me know how the GA review turns out on this? - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and congrats

Nice of you to give me a Barnstar. Congrats on the Good Article rating. You did a lot of good work on that article. It looks much, much better than it did. --Bookworm857158367 01:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review

Hello! You had tagged on the WP:GAN page that you were reviewing the Death of Edgar Allan Poe article for Good Review. It's been a few days since then (I get anxious easily) so I wanted to check in. How does it look? --Midnightdreary 14:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


About Batman (1989 film)

I noticed you were set to review the article. Anyway I'm kind of responsible for the greatness of that article. Though it seems that lightbulbinspector did a review without telling anybody. I contacted him to know to contact you. Yell at him or something. This is not your fault, it's his. Thank you for your enthusiasm. So far he has ignored me. Wildroot 11:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Hey can you help out with the promotion of Unnale Unnale to a GA? Cheers Universal Hero 12:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review of Gil Grissom

I've placed the article on GA Hold pending resolution of some minor issues, which I've detailed on the talk page. I'll be happy to complete the review at your convenience if you finish your changes prior to the seven day period. Just let me know, OK? Have a wiki day! Mmoyer 02:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-review complete and GA awarded! Good job! Mmoyer 01:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. (Emperor 02:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Susannah Constantine GA

Thank you so much for your review of Susannah Constantine, it's much appreciated. I've managed to get some screenshots of Susannah on her shows, but I can find any useable pictures which are promoting her books etc. Trinny & Susannah have a new show coming out so I'll keep my eyes open for billboard posters etc so I can take a picture. My next move will probably be to try and promote the Trinny Woodall article. Many thanks. Eagle Owl 12:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the promotion. That magazine picture would be great if you could dig it out, but if you can't find it, it doesn't matter. Many thanks again. Eagle Owl 15:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Stahl

I've just expanded his entry with CSI material. As his episodes are controversial it should (and already has) helped with the reception section for the episodes (always handy to help with notability) but the sources I dug up when I was looking at the Heather/Grissom relationship could be used to help make the Lady Heather a much more solid entry, I am unsure if it can become FA status (although I suppose there is no reason a recurring character can't be - there are probably as many sources for her as there are for Greg, say). Anyway just a few thoughts that emerged from a recent edit. (Emperor 19:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As far as I can tell Jerry Stahl is the creator of Lady Heather [2] although I haven't found much on the inspiration as Stahl doesn't seem the most talkative of creators. It might be an interview with Melinda Clarke could turn up some information so I'll have a dig on that front. It may also be that the DVD commentary turns up some information too. The extracts from the TV Guide (quoted on the CSI Files link I give in the Lady Heather entry). The advantage of her is that it is quite tightly defined but enough angles and information to produce a solid entry. (Emperor 01:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Yes I thought removing those references was odd as I'm sure we had to add some of them back in to clarify some points and I think a good polish and a few more references should do the trick. I think the area to push might be things like Grissom's real world impact (if possible - more interviews possibly?) as I think they are both pretty solid. There are also other books on CSI [3] and I think it'd be handy to find someone with a copy of each and then strip mine them for information. The new CSI magazine might provide some extra information too. [4] Anyway just looking at angles we can exploit to squeeze the last bits of information out ;) (Emperor 13:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Lance Bass

Thanks for your review on the article. I expanded the introduction to include information on Bass's acting and producing career. I hope it's not too long; as I've tried to make the summary as brief as possible. Anyway, thanks again! --MgCupcake 03:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the promotion! --MgCupcake 19:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I had missed that one. Thought I had checked them all. Clearly not.... Mangwanani 13:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSI: FA

I think they are potential FA material as they stand, depending on the reviewer (and yes being asked to remove references made me raise an eyebrow or two). I can't see much that could be improved and the way forward is to squeeze various information sources and see if any little gems drop out. That said what you often find are people saying the same things different ways and there is clearly a finite amount of information (especially if you want to avoid trivia) and they are both up close to that limit. I'd suggest having a look over them both and nominating them for FA - even if they fail it'll let us know what needs addressing. (Emperor 15:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

OK - I'll nominate Grissom. (Emperor 15:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I see you have nominated Sara Sidle. What I'll do is keep an eye on that and see if there is anything that come sup there which could help Grissom (or make it obvious it needs more work) and go from there. (Emperor 16:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Objects in the Rear View Mirror May Appear Closer Than They Are

Thank you for reviewing this article a few weeks ago for GA. However, an anon insists that it contains original research. The first third party found that it was within our acceptable standards, and, as GA reviewer, you didn't highlight any problems. I'm quite confident that the article is acceptable: would you be able to confirm and comment on the talk page, please? The JPStalk to me 21:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:JorjaFoxVegAd.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:JorjaFoxVegAd.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Image:JorjaFoxVegAd.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bloodzombie 17:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: PETA

Where on their web site do they state that? I could not find it. If they do, that's fine, but we need to be able to verify it. If it is copyrighted, it would need a strong fair use rationale. Normally, fair use images of living persons are not allowed because it is possible to find a free image. The only fair use case would be if the image was critically discussed in the article, which it is not. Hope this helps! --Bloodzombie 17:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Kerr

Hi,

Not all of the points have been done. Are you saying you'd pass it as it is ?

Tovojolo 20:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Kerr

I've nominated Deborah Kerr.

Please review it.

Tovojolo 21:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Desperate Housewives

Thanks. WikiThanks.
Thanks. WikiThanks.

Thanks. WikiThanks.

Thank you for reminding me, to fail the article. I was giving time for the editors to get some sources, yet i see there is no significant change in sources, so I have failed it. Lex94 Talk Contributions Guest Book 20:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

RfA for Canadian Paul

Four years ago this day, a foreigner was voted by the community to serve a land that he loved. Today, a new foreigner humbly accepts the charge and support of serving a community that he loves. Hopefully, he won't disappoint.


Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (47/0/1). The trust bestowed upon me by the community is one of the most touching honours that I have ever received, and I vow not to let you down. Whether you have suggestions for ways in which I could improve, a request for assistance or just need someone to listen, my talk page and my email are always open. I pledge to do what I can to help this project, in the words of a man who needs no introduction, "make the internet not suck." A special thank you goes out to Tim Vickers for nominating me. Cheers, CP 22:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAR

You're right; I didn't take the appropriate steps. The issues should be fixed now, and my concerns have been posed. I'm accustomed to the GAC process and not the GAR process. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAC

Is there any real reason you autofailed everything, other than "ZOMG TEH ANON"? Chris Chaucer (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you talking about? -Yamanbaiia (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
all of my articles i was trying to get on the road to improvement
I'm not a mind reader, are you 172.194.181.36? If you are then see here, and yes, i removed them because they were nominated by an anon (you?). Also, if you want to nominate so many articles for GA, please consider helping out and reviewing some articles yourself. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Deborah Kerr

Thank you for the assessment !

Tovojolo (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Santa Text On Cameron Article

Hey. I have to apologise for the santa text insertion within the article on John Key. If you read my latest blog post at www.tapedapplase.blogpot.com things will become much clearer. Your swift resoonse to the "vandalism" is deeply reassuring.

Sorry again for any inconveniance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taped Applause (talk • contribs) 02:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving

A little late but...

User:Alex Roggio/Thanksgiving 01:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Thanks for the clearing up the confusion over the flagicons. I appreciate that. Have a good one... --Candy156sweet (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Doherty

This can be as civil as people want it to be. There is no question that having a complete separate article documenting every single time Mr. Doherty has ever been mentioned in a tabloid is absolutely unacceptable. It's undue weight and it's unencyclopedic. We are writing an encyclopedic biography, not a scandal compendium. We are doing no harm by blanking the content, but allowing the history to remain so that suitable sections can be merged back into the main article to allow for a comprehensive and fair portrayal of Mr. Doherty's life. FCYTravis (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arbcom

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but your comments were completely absurd, and would be libelous offline. Insinuating that someone has an interest in fucking dogs is not okay, ever. I thought you of all people would know that someone's wiki activities often as not have zip to do with their real world interests. Who cares if FT2 has edited zoophilia and labrador retriever? How does it have any bearing on whether they can do a good job as an arbitrator? Comments like the ones you made at FT2's election bid make me wonder...who's next? Will you be opposing my RFA six months from now because I edited anal sex? Oppose votes based on the rationale you provided is the same kind of unjustified paranoia that brought down Durova. VanTucky talk 23:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Doherty prostitution

I haven't read the biography, but the source in the article uses the word "gay" and does not mention a female clientele. Until such a claim is sourced, I don't think you have grounds to keep opposing the descriptive word. -- AvatarMN (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying he couldn't be called a rock singer unless he'd said he never sang jazz. Just because he wouldn't have turned women down doesn't mean any ever solicited him. The source uses the word gay, and you're speculating based on what he didn't say rather than what he said, and using that to go against the source. Plus, you outrageously called the word vandalism, which tells me what your real problem is. -- AvatarMN (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see people calling edits with homosexual topics "vandalism" all of the time, so seeing my clearly good faith edit (sourced and everything for god's sake) marked "identified as vandalism" really pissed me off. Glad to know you're not a homophobe, but you're still really, really wrong. There hasn't been "nothing" said about his clients. The source details him speaking about them, and only about male ones. If there's a source for him having female clients, then you'd have a case. I'm not saying there isn't a source and that he didn't have female clients, I don't know that, but the source uses the word "gay" and quotes him talking about male clients and not female ones, so I maintain you've got no grounds whatsoever to oppose me on this. -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it to the Doherty article talk page now. -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to WikiProject Musical Theatre!

Thank you for adding your name to our project membership list! Our goal is to make Wikipedia the foremost compendium of musical theatre to be found on the internet: hope you're up to the challenge! As a project member, you might like to add the project membership userbox to your user page, and maybe introduce yourself on our talk page.

If you haven't done so already, please add our main project page to your watchlist and perhaps browse our page of useful templates. When you have a moment, please take some time to review the article structure for musicals, which, after months of collaboration, consensus has decided as the best structure for articles on musicals. If you're curious about where to start, we've gathered a few suggestions in the Project to do list and in our tasklist.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the project talk page or on my talk page. Again, welcome and happy editing!

—  MusicMaker5376 23:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I was gonna run over to your talk page and be all like "Welcome to WikiProject Musical Theatre" but I see MusicMaker has already beaten me to it and has a fancy new template too! Ahh well! Welcome to the team! --omtay38 06:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for the compliment! Regards, All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Lynn Spears vandalism?

Dear Yamanbaiia,

I commend your decision to remove the addition of unsourced statement. However, are you sure that it was vandalism?

Regards,

Kushalt 01:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its perfectly OK. Thank you for answering. --Kushalt 02:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I never minded the revert.

Hello there.

I know, it seems like I am some rampant vandal, like most are (Ironically, I bust vandals at school).

However, I do have my reasons.

I won't vandalize the jamie Lynn Spears article again. I just wanted to send a message across about how bad the people of this generation are ending up. Drugs, sex, the big enchilada are all included int his generation. I should know...

I have to deal with these total idiots like these at school all the time.


I became cynical on the inside since Middle school.

I have strong views on the future. I consider myself a futurist. I like to make up new technologys, but I also predict possible landslides caused by these total idiots.

I am bored on MSN, no one is on, I guess I would like someone to chat with, my MSN is balakr821@gmail.com. Wikipedians are perhaps some of the most intelligent people on the internet.

 OMGWTFBBQ  BLAH  01:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.

Yea, I guess ill do Uncyclopedia and just make the hugest epic fail article there!

Thanks! I forgot about that place (oh,a nd Encyclopedia Dramatica sux lol).

 OMGWTFBBQ  BLAH  02:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Depp

Just wanted to drop a note to remind you that when you replace a source in an article, to ensure that it is not a multiple citation. When you updated the sources for Depp's residences, you removed a citation that was linked to another point in the article. I replaced the citation removed, just wanted you to know. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Great success!
Thank you for supporting my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 53-3-2. Special thanks goes to Shalom for both the suggestion and the nomination. I'm honored by the trust that the community has shown in me, and will do my very best as an administrator. Thanks again! faithless (speak) 08:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]