Jump to content

User talk:Bovineboy2008/Archives/2011/January

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Last of the american girls

From here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Last-Of-The-American-Girls/dp/B0046AUOGK how can i put a source in that page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.230.66.28 (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Copy this into the entry:
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Last-Of-The-American-Girls/dp/B0046AUOGK |title=Last Of The American Girls |work=Amazon.co.uk |accessdate=January 3, 2011}}</ref>

BOVINEBOY2008 09:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

WP:FILM December 2010 Newsletter

The December 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Grand Prix

Hi, don't forget to WP:FIXDABLINKS for Grand Prix (film). This tool will help. --JaGatalk 18:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Jackal (film)

This one as well. --JaGatalk 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nénette

Wow! I just started that Nénette page yesterday (out of a desire to procrastinate about something else) and I came back today and it is beautiful! Thanks so much. I am glad you got rid of the (documentary) thing. Happy New Year! Saudade7 03:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no problem ;) BOVINEBOY2008 10:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming films

Why is manually adding Category:Upcoming films necessary? It existed before due to the film date template since today is before that release date. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary, but it doesn't hurt anything especially since it does belong to that category. BOVINEBOY2008 12:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the category shows up before you added it manually; see earlier revision. I just think that the manual presence of the category requires us to remember to remove it later. The film date template generates that category when the current date is before the infobox's release date, so the category will disappear once that date gets here. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Very true. So should we just forgo adding any automatically added category? i.e. Category:American films from {{Film US}} and the language category automatically added by the infobox? BOVINEBOY2008 13:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
In the case of country and language, it does not make too much of a difference to me. (Who the heck actually navigates these bloated categories anyway?) They will be there permanently one way or another. I think that the "Upcoming films" one is appropriately temporal and vanishes when the release date passes by. It's a small convenience, especially recalling how in the past we used the banner to "remind" us of a film's new release and to go to the article and update it accordingly. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that all makes sense. My only reservation is that I see a lot of less trafficked film articles that when an ip editor or a new editor tries to change the release date, they will often just remove the template. This removes them from the year cats. We may just have to treat that as water under the bridge though... BOVINEBOY2008 13:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2010

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 3, No. 3 — 4th Quarter, 2010
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2010, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Higdon Follow Up

Hello, just following up on my note to you dated December 25. Now that the holidays are over, I'm hoping that we can resolve this issue.

Thanks, Lawdonpress (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I still stand by the removal. It is true that he has won those awards, but putting them as the (practically) first things in the article is a bit of undue weight and quite potentially a peacock term. I'm not trying to single one individual out, and I will try to reintroduce those awards in a more neutral manner. BOVINEBOY2008 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2

Could you help me find some more information about the upcoming film Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2: Rodrick Rules? I have an infobox up and some cast and plot. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 20:43 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Rusted. I can only seem to find info that the trailer was released: /Film, IMDb News, Entertainment Weekly. If you can find someone who has a The Hollywood Reporter subscription, this may be helpful. Here is another wimpy article (pun completely intended): Variety. That's about all I could find. You might want to pour through WP:FILMRES to try and find others. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. BOVINEBOY2008 07:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the vand reverts to my talk page! I appreciate it! :-D CTJF83 chat 00:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Not only was it vandalism, but I really can't stand idiocy nor intolerance. Keep up the fight! BOVINEBOY2008 10:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! CTJF83 chat 20:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Hahaha!

Completly forgot about the Un Certain Regard section at Cannes last year! I added a few articles last night (Hahaha..., etc). One of them is now listed as one of the 60+ entries for the Foreign Language Oscar. Expect the rest to be added soon-ish. And a happy (belated) 2011 too! Lugnuts (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, it happens. I'm working through some of them for the images. Happy New Year to you as well. BOVINEBOY2008 09:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I have a question for you. You're an expert at getting these film articles started. Do you use a template for the articles? I want to get started on the Palm Springs list which I've collected here and it would really help if I knew how you did it. BOVINEBOY2008 10:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I use the last article I created as a starting point, along with some formulas in Excel to clean up/wikify text, for example, cast lists. Lugnuts (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thai royal and noble titles

I can see delinking boss from Chao Nai as the DAB page does a poor job of explaining what it means to be a boss or bossy, but you could have left the parenthetical (supervisor or leader.) My 'puter recently crashed and lost me my cheatsheet for linking to Wiktionary, or I'd link 'boss' to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boss#Etymology_3 as that closely parallels the Thai phrase.

Agree we need an entry at Chao as to its basic meaning closely paralleling English usage of lord, but I'm at a loss for references or etymology. And there are alternate transliterations such as Čhao and Jao, and confusion with Chinese Zhao, which may also be translated Chao.

Simple Chao refers to a minor king or prince, such as Chao Anouvong, whose father was a higher ranking Phraya Chao before he fell under Siamese sway and had to give up his son as a hostage. (That, BTW, is something I'll soon add to Anuvong's article, with a reference that calls him Čhao Anu.)

Pra Chao means Supreme Being; Pra Chao Yu Hua, His representative on earth; Chao Chiwit, lord of life; chao ban, the person listed first on a household register; chao khong, an everyday term for owner.

As regards usage of phrai in polite society, it is a matter of politeness expressed in the practical application of good manners (which often becomes impractical in times of political ferment, for which Wiki'd search has 516 results but no one article.) --Pawyilee (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't really understand why all those were linked to the dab pages because they didn't seem to be defining or explaining what the link meant. I probably made quite a few errors. BOVINEBOY2008 22:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm reposting some of my remarks to the title talk page, to see if I can get other editors to help. --Pawyilee (talk)
My overworked laptop crashed, but is working now. I appreciate your original contributions on these subjects, and wish you to check out my recent ones to chao, Chao Phraya River, Thai royal and noble titles, JAO and jao. --Pawyilee (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Generał Nil; Generał. Zamach na Gibraltarze

hey thanks for prodding those polish docus, they needed the work. the polish film institute is a good reference. a little thin otherwise. cheerio Slowking4 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A lot of those Polish film dabs have links that don't go anywhere and contain no information. It's good to know that some of them actually have sources to back them up though. BOVINEBOY2008 22:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

re: Question

Hi. I try to look for press releases too, but usually just go with a ref to the film festival site. The Foreign Language Oscar noms has been a good example, with lots of the films having references in the press as well as the list that was published on the Oscar site. Lugnuts (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! BOVINEBOY2008 12:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Alot of the newer films get a good expansion (eg The White Ribbon, Enter the Void) once they're created. Just need that initial ref to start with! Lugnuts (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
True. I'm looking at the Sundance list for this year, but they can't certainly all be notable. Should I just look at a certain part of the list? BOVINEBOY2008 19:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Not too familar with the Sundance fest. I assume they have different sections, and I'd work on their equivalent of in competition films, and other main sections. Lugnuts (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Alright, thanks! Your advice is extremely helpful. BOVINEBOY2008 20:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

?

I was puzzled by your edit summary "?", as I gather you were with my applications of categories to the redirect Mighty Jerome. Categorizing the film redirect in this way is permitted, is it not? The article Harry Jerome was not a documentary film, but Mighty Jerome was. Please correct me if I'm wrong, and in the future, use the edit summary box. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The categories are supposed to reflect what the article is. That is why we don't include categories that aren't supported by the text, correct? So I don't see how a redirect to an article about a person is a film. I don't think there is a specific guideline about this though. BOVINEBOY2008 21:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
But now I stand corrected. Thank you for the guideline. BOVINEBOY2008 21:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Fine, but in the future, please so take the trouble to communicate directly with other editors to discuss things, rather than blanking text and edit warring. This is not the way to go about things. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I did revert myself as soon as you attached this message, but it seemed that you beat me to it. I was not edit warring and I was communicating, and I don't recall ever blanking text, please don't falsely accuse me of such. BOVINEBOY2008 21:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Your edit summary "?" conveyed no useful information as to why all categories had been removed, and is therefore a blanking, as far as I'm concerned. Moreover, you've likely seen me around the project as we both work in similar areas. A message to me would have been appreciated. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
True, I should have sent you a message, I apologize for that. The "?" was there to imply my confusion for your actions, as your summaries consisted of "added Category:xxx using HotCat", which conveys no explanation as to why you did add the categories. But now I understand your motivation. I just don't appreciate the warnings, as pleasant as they were worded. BOVINEBOY2008 21:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Glee

I am new to Wikipedia and added a link that I thought would be helpful to the Glee page. It was not posted for advertising purposes. Trying to figure out why a page on Glee would not find a page with all of the songs from the show listed as useful. Skipisley (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

We already have an article (List of songs in Glee) that has all the songs listed on that website, but in much greater detail. There is no use pointing to an external link if we have an article contain all of that information. BOVINEBOY2008 23:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes

There is a very heated edit war going on on the page. User:Shakzor believes links to Youtube should be included. User:duffbeerforme, following guidelines, is removing the links, but Shakzor persists on reverting. The page got a portection lock, but Shakzor is threatening to continue with the war and IP's are encouraging him to push on with the crusade, as it's aptly called on the aritcle's talk page. Does this count as trolling? Please submit your input and help put this war to an end. Rusted AutoParts (Let's Chat) 20:47 January 13 2011 (UTC)

Victoria Chang's The Little Mermaid

If an IP removes a speedy, there's nothing wrong with restoring it. I think it's only if a good-faith editor and/or admin removes it that you're not allowed to restore it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I did that, but it was removed it again by the same IP. I didn't want to war over it so I went down a different path. BOVINEBOY2008 19:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I Was a Child of Holocaust Survivors

Hi again. I don't see how this article can rightly be described as focusing on the book: Both the book and the film are in the lead; the film has its own independent claim to notability thanks to TIFF; the filmmaker appears much better known than the author. In fact, as it stands now, in stubiest form, there is more on the film than the book. It's not uncommon in articles where a work and its short animated adaptation have not (yet) been split off to share categories in this way. See The Hockey Sweater and The Black Fly Song as examples. The solution would be to start creating and categorizing redirect pages for the short films. I'd have no objection if you wanted to do this (in fact, I'd find it a more than little amusing given the circumstances of our previous discussion ;-) ) but I don't think it's necessary. Best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I don't think I'm going to go out of my way to make redirects, especially because most of them would be variations on the title which I don't think readers are going to search for. But I may be wrong. Would it make sense, then, to focus the article more on the film, as it seems to have more coverage/notability? BOVINEBOY2008 23:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The article needs to be expanded every which way, so anything anyone adds is going to help. In my Googling, it seemed like the film and book were on roughly equal footing, notability-wise. I'd also decided against creating two articles because it seemed to me that, on their own, both were rather borderline. Together, I felt they were a slam-dunk, notability-wise. Philosophically, I'd have a problem making the film the primary focus, because it seems to be such a close adaptation of the book -- but that's just me. I'd have no objection is you wished to rework the stub to focus more on the book, so long as you didn't remove the scant material we have on the book, per WP:PRESERVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay! I don't want to fork the article, so I'll see what I can do on both ends. BOVINEBOY2008 06:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Enthiran

You are wrong - you've merely written a translation! The film released worldwide - yes including London [1], New York [2] and India as Enthiran - The Robot was just the tagline!. You may be confused with the dubbed Hindi version of the film which is known simply as Robot. Your change was very disrespectful - considering the film is arguably the most popular Tamil/Indian film of all time and you did not discuss anything before your change. It WILL be reverted. Universal Hero (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are you removing them I placed them there that way people can see the full episode plus it was spongebob.com not any other website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.191.12 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't link to full episodes on Wikipedia, especially in the middle of the article repeatedly. If you want to add an external link, please put it in the external link section. Spongebob.com is linked in most of the SpongeBob articles already anyway. BOVINEBOY2008 13:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

SpongeBob - Perfect Chemistry

Listen! Leave the title there! Sources are Google Images and Google. -- SpongePappy (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Images are easily faked BOVINEBOY2008 13:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Just flippin' trust me for ONCE! Leave it there till it airs in February! Trust me! -- SpongePappy (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
That is not how Wikipedia works. I suggest you review WP:RS and WP:V. BOVINEBOY2008 15:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, don't come up to me with that nerd talk! I just want that it says there till it airs! -- SpongePappy (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
If you don't want to follow Wiki's policies, I suggest you go contribute elsewhere. Although if you can find a reliable source attaining that content to be true, then cite it and include it. I have no problem with it if you have a reliable source to back it up. BOVINEBOY2008 15:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
nerd talk... Source - Google.ie! -- SpongePappy (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Google is a search engine, not a source. BOVINEBOY2008 15:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
face-palm... The links in the search! -- SpongePappy (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I know how Google works. Give me the web address that you are using for the source. BOVINEBOY2008 15:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

http://spongebobmusic.blogspot.com/2011/01/big-sister-sam-perfect-chemistry.html There? Believe me now! -- SpongePappy (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Blogs are not reliable sources. Clearly, you did not review WP:RS. BOVINEBOY2008 15:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
seriously, do you ALWAYS have to do everything on your own? I already said that I didn't read that rubbish! go find a source yourself then, if your so smart. -- SpongePappy (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not the one interested in including the information. The weight of the burden is on your shoulders. And if you want to continue to contribute, you need to follow policies. BOVINEBOY2008 15:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
oooh... then just wait till it airs next month and you'll be proven wrong! -- SpongePappy (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I never once said the information you have is incorrect. I merely request you back it up. And I have no problem being wrong, although I don't think I can be proven wrong on a stance I never take... BOVINEBOY2008 15:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th

File:Verre de whisky.jpg
Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Defaultsort

What does defaultsort do at Season of the Witch (2011 film)? I'm familiar with its use when a film title starts with an article (e.g., "the"). Reviewing WP:SORTKEY, I'm trying to understand how it applies here. Does it have to do with exact capitalization? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what it deals with. Wikipedia sorts in categories by AaBbCc... so that words that start with capital letters are sorted before the same small letters. In WP:SORTKEY, it says "By convention, the first letter of each word in a sort key is capitalized, and other letters are lower case." BOVINEBOY2008 12:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
My reading is that title case is the approach for when one chooses to use a sort key. Like if the film was The Season of the Witch, we would have a sort key that was formatted "Season Of The Witch, The", right? But that's considered after the decision to use a sort key. The title case writing does not seem related to the reason for the use of the sort key. Unless I'm missing something? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Normally, the sort key isn't needed, and I'm failing right now to find a real example where it would matter. But consider we had two films Second to Die and Second Thoughts. Without a sort key, the category would list Second Thoughts first, as "T" comes before "t", even though it Second to Die should be listed first, as "Th" comes before "To". There are actually very few instances of this happening, though its a better safe than sorry approach. BOVINEBOY2008 12:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Does not sound like something I will worry too much about, except in cases of "The" and such. Thanks for the feedback! Erik (talk | contribs) 12:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem! BOVINEBOY2008 12:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

User:Baylorgoalie/Way_of_the_Puck

Hi there! Thank you for correcting my links on my draft.. my mistake! I was going to ask if you had noticed anything else wrong with the draft, or if you could take a look at it (User:Baylorgoalie/Way_of_the_Puck) to see if it would be acceptable as a Wikipedia entry for the air hockey documentary, "Way of the Puck". Please let me know if you have any questions or if there is more that I can do on my end to make the page "Wiki-ready". I'm trying to follow the procedures and have the page done correctly, but I'm new at all of this, so any guidance would be very appreciated. Thanks! Baylorgoalie (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure! It looks like your article on Way of the Puck is off to a good start. You really should see if you can find anything about the development/filming of it, that is really where articles can develop the best. Your reception section is too much of a quote farm, try reworking it into prose, summarizing what reviews have had to say that's common. Usually a good approach is to do a paragraph to write about the positives and another for the negatives. Another section you should investigate is a release section. See when the film was released and what the circumstances were. What format was it released to: direct-to-video, theatrical, television, etc? That should get you started, but if you want a good guide, MOS:FILM is used as a general manual of style for films (even though it tends to cater to non-documentaries) and WP:NF will give you a good idea whether it should enter the main space. BOVINEBOY2008 20:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree

It won't come as a suprise for you, but agree with this last edit. :) Debresser (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think that is the right link. BOVINEBOY2008 17:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Fixed now.
Well I figured if we are going to ignore guidelines that fully apply, we might as well be full and complete in it. BOVINEBOY2008 17:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if that comes off a little abrasive. I still don't see the purpose of it being there. BOVINEBOY2008 17:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd care to explain to me in simple words why you think the DAB notices are not needed. I really fail to understand that. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure. In order to get to The Firm (1993 film), one would need to click on a link, go from the disambiguation page The Firm, or type that exact entry into the search bar (the only redirect is from The Firm (movie), which probably should be redirected to the dab page). Now if one were to approach using the third approach, they already know exactly which film they are talking about (and have some understanding of how Wikipedia names things). The first, coming from another article through a link, should have ample explanation surrounding the link to make it clear to which film it is referring. And the second also has enough explanation, the 1993 film. I don't how anyone is going to click on the one saying (1993 film) even though they want (1988 television film) listed directly above it. BOVINEBOY2008 17:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
In this case it is likely that a reader might not know precisely which of the films is the one he is looking for. Which is why I would refer either to Firm (disambiguation) like in The Firm (hip hop group) or to those two other films as you have done. Debresser (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
But I'm saying a reader isn't even going to get to this article without knowing which film it is referring to, or there is the magic of the back button. BOVINEBOY2008 20:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Quite to the contrary. A reader who has heard the title "The Firm", but doesn't know the year, or whether it is a film or a series e.g., is very likely to come here. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
They are likely to go to The Firm (or The Firm (film) which goes to the former). From there they decide one, if its wrong they go back and choose another. There doesn't need to be a hat. BOVINEBOY2008 20:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Or perhaps the disambiguation page needs to be more clear. BOVINEBOY2008 20:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that that is likely. But not likely enough. And don't forget that people might end up in Wikipedia not through Wikipedia's search but from some exterior search engine also. In which case there is no telling where the end up. Anyway, after all a hatnote is not that invasive, and IMHO it is better to err on the side of having one too much. Debresser (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
So by that logic every article should have a hat pointing to a disambiguation page or similar? We can't be responsible for other search engines flaws. BOVINEBOY2008 12:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Film categories

Hi Bovineboy2008, I was curious about this edit. Is there a reason to add categories that are automatically added by the infobox? (eg. "English-language films"). Not a problem, just wondering... --BelovedFreak 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh... there is not really anything wrong about it. It kind of works as a safety net when an editor unknowingly links the language, or removes one of the templates in the country and date templates, as that would remove the category. BOVINEBOY2008 15:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, good point. I'd only just recently noticed that the infobox automatically put articles in categories (or maybe it was recently implemented, I don't know), so I'll just keep going as usual! Thanks for the quick response. --BelovedFreak 15:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Orphaned non-free image File:Hobo with a Shotgun.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Katy Perry

You removed an images section that I created (with a link to my free to use flickr picures of Katy Perry). I disagree that it was not relevent, she is a media personality and pictures of here are key to that image. She is one of the most searched fro images on the net and over 35,000 people have clicked through to see my pics of her in high resolution. As this is a resource site for people interested in Katy then I think my section was very relevant. I do not want to get into a do/redo war so I leave it to you to reinstate, here is link http://www.flickr.com/photos/steve-sayers/sets/72157621794068464/ Stevenxlead (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You may not promote your own content. Sorry! BOVINEBOY2008 14:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

We were editing at the same time there! I was about to say that my images are free to use for wikepedia and that my flickr stream is amateur, I am not intending to self promote, how else do I (or any one else) get pictures used without linking to them, even uploaded shots have author links.Stevenxlead (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with that sort of image when it comes to policy. You could possibly talk to the contributors who uploaded the images already on the image for help. BOVINEBOY2008 14:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I followed your link above to self promote which went to COI, I do not think I was in a COI position at all. I also thought that content/edits/additions were not removed without some dialogue? perhaps I have this wrong? Look, they are good free images of KP that I know people like, the site contributors did not object and indeed were looking for better photographs! Put it back (as you say you are not sure re images) and lets see what happens. Steve. (I am a bit new at this but honestly believe I made a good and relevant contribution (and I get nothing from use of my shots)Stevenxlead (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. If your addition is challenged, you need to convince the community to restore, not the wait-and-see method. Also, social networking sites, like Flickr, are not allowed per WP:ELNO #10, and you should also read WP:EL#AD. It might not be your intention to self-promote or advertise, but that is effectively what it is doing. BOVINEBOY2008 14:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

SpongeBob The Great Patty Caper

!!!!! I told you this DVD will come!!! You could've believed me, but no!! Our little Smarty-Ass knows EVERYTHING better!!! -- SpongePappy (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. And don't dare come up to me in a minute and start this nerd talk all over again!

Please stay civil. You just need to provide sources. That's all I'm saying. BOVINEBOY2008 13:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Negociation - We'll be friends and act like this never happened, or if you still don't stop I'll continue. -- SpongePappy (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would gladly work with you. You do need to follow guidelines and policies, though, or else I will get an administrator to assess the issues. BOVINEBOY2008 13:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And I thought you were an Administrator^^ Fine, I'll stop. -- SpongePappy (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Say, if you have time, could you come here? This is a SpongeBob Chat. I'd like to explain some things with you there. -- SpongePappy (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really that interested in social networking with people I don't know. Really, if you have something to discuss with me, do it here. BOVINEBOY2008 13:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bovineboy2008/Archives/2011/January&oldid=1147994865"