User talk:DHowell
Jeopardy
[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- again :) StarM 03:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
GFDL on Jeopardy!
[edit]Yes, that would be case if we were transferring data verbatim from one article to the other, but since that isn't going to happen, and it is merely a summary of anything important which should go to the main article, attribution would move to the person who synthesised the new text. Black Kite 10:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
ResolvedJeopardy! set evolution
[edit]Most of the information about the set changes made to Jeopardy! can be attributed to three books published about the show. Inside Jeopardy! by Harry Eisenberg, The Jeopardy! Book by Alex Trebek/Peter Barsochini(sp?) and This Is Jeopardy! which is the most recent published book. In addition, the show's own broadcast tape recordings can serve as evidence.
In terms of the dimensions of the set, especially the "JEOPARDY!" logo during the neon set era and the monitor measurements can be attributed to a few sources which unfortunately no longer exist. One of them was the old alt.tv.game-shows group. Years ago someone managed to purchase pieces of the original neon set and posted particulars about them at alt.tv.game-shows. I also used to chat with an individual online via Yahoo! Messenger years ago who obtained the "Y" from that set, and gave me the dimensions (including its weight and photos of how it functioned). The three gameboard monitors my high school purchased were from Cat. 1/Row 2, Cat. 3/Row 1, and Cat 3/Row 2. They still had the "Property of Coca-Cola Television/Jeopardy! Productions, Inc. decals on them and the markings which designated their location. I took photos of them for a planned Jeopardy! fansite I was working on but never went live, and the photos were damaged during a flooding event several years ago. As far as the measurements of the gameboard that succeeded it? I'd asked show producers that question when my high school was setting up a mock Jeopardy! tournament because we were building a replica of their set in our auditorium (I was chosen as host, set designer and producer due to my knowledge of the show, and that I possessed the Jeopardy! Book, of which our material came from), and they were happy to oblige. Srosenow 98 (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Now this is the kind of stuff I wish I had seen while the AfD was going on! The books are reliable sources and attribution to them is exactly what we need for this information to stay in Wikipedia. Please see the guideline on citing sources, and you can probably restore a good amount of the material back to the "Jeopardy!" article, if you can find the info in the books again. Cite page numbers if you can. Specific episodes can even be used as sources and cited, as long as you make purely descriptive claims which can be verified by anyone watching the episodes. If you know where those episodes can be independently obtained (for example, from a television museum), then indicate that in the citation.
- Archives of the alt.tv.game-shows group can still be found at Google Groups, for example this search pulls up some of the messages to which you are likely referring. But be aware that Wikipedia editors often reject Usenet posts as sources unless the identity of the poster can be confirmed and is a credible source for the information. If the same information can be found in a published book, magazine, or newspaper, better to use the printed source. Nevertheless, Usenet posts can and have been cited in articles, and are most likely to be accepted when used to fill in uncontroversial details about subjects which are already covered in more reliable sources.
- On the other hand, I doubt we'll be able to use your personal conversations and online chats with the set designers or people who obtained parts of the set, as they wouldn't be considered published reliable sources and can't be independently verified. But I've often been able to use personal knowledge of a subject to improve my search for actual reliable published sources which can be used to back the information. So good luck and happy editing, and don't let the deletionists discourage you! DHowell (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with re-inserting that information into the Jeopardy! article itself is that we end up in the same exact situation that gave birth to the Jeopardy! set evolution article in the first place - that ultimately TPTB will likely deem the article is "too long" and will likely end up with the "set" references being deleted altogether (they've been in the past, who's to say it won't happen again in the future?). I remember writing that information back in 2005 when I was an anon user (had yet to register), and almost immedately the whole section got deleted and was considered as "fancruft" despite the fact that the Bullseye article contained a very large entry in regards to that show's set (as well as various other game show articles here). Also interesting to note (I'm not sure if you've followed that article's history) is that right after it survived its first AfD, a template banner went up citing the need for photos that illustrated the text. The sad point with that? There are, to date, NO free images that exist of any iteration of the Jeopardy! set, only non-free images that either exist in the form of screenshots from Jeopardy! episodes or scans from The Jeopardy! Book and Inside Jeopardy!, both of which are IMNSHO poorly illustrated books when it comes to the set's evolution. Srosenow 98 (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- But the sources are what will make the outcome different this time. "The powers that be" doesn't really exist as a monolithic group. Yes, there is a significant faction of editors who hate fair-use images, and seem to make it their goal to eliminate as many as they can find. And there is another grop of editors who hate "trivia" and make it their goal to eliminate as much as they can find. But there is a bigger and more powerful group of editors who love verifiable information that is attributed to reliable published sources. Citations to reliable sources are your greatest weapon against deletionism. I've personally rescued articles from almost certain deletion, even articles that had already been deleted, by almost nothing more than increasing the amount and quality of cited sources. Go ahead and build up that section, as long as you cite your sources, and if anyone tries to delete, you'll be backed up by the people who like to see those sources. Trust me. If the section gets too big, as long as it's all cited and verifiable information, we might even be able to successfully file a deletion review for the original article to be restored, and maybe even get some of the fair-use images back. DHowell (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with SRosenow that it is a losing battle to try to include more information on the set than is already there. The main article balloons, sections are spun off, and the notability of those sections is challenged, usually by the same editor or group of editors, until they are deleted. Until there is a sitewide policy that families of articles are permissible (I saw this issue raised in a recent sitewide editor poll), we will continue to have the problem. Despite the Jeopardy! set probably being a more familiar landmark to Americans than, say, the Parthenon (I choose it as exemplary because it similarly has had an evolution in appearance and function over the centuries), Wikipedia will time and again rejects its notability and call information about it, regardless of how well-sourced, fancruft. I found the closing admin's remarks illogical and disingenuous. If this was not a cruft issue, then a lack of sourcing for parts of the article is not a justification for deletion of the article, only a justification for removal of unsourced content. Similarly, use of a large number of non-free images is non-sequitur. The images were selected as a bare minimum necessary to illustrate changes in the set; the images could have been combined into an arbitrarily fewer number of image files. Robert K S (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is unfortunate that the editors who would seem most interested in this information and most able to improve the situation are taking such a defeatist attitude. Just because an article or section of an article of mostly un-sourced information continually gets deleted by "fancruft"-haters, doesn't mean that a well-sourced article or section on the same topic will suffer the same fate. Oh, sure, the same people may try to delete the content for the same (bad) reasons, but without the reliable sources very few if any will help you. On the other hand, when information is reliably sourced, people you've probably never encountered before will often come to your defense. Notice that the AfD was originally closed as delete, and only because I brought up potential reliable sources, the admin re-opened the AfD. Note that the final closing admin was convinced to leave the redirect alone and not delete the edit history after I salvaged and merged the sourced content from the edit history. If this is fighting a losing battle how did I manage to achieve these partial victories? If you think the current section in the Jeopardy! article adequately describes the history of the Jeopardy! set, then go ahead and leave it alone. I don't think it does, but I don't currently have the sources with which to improve it. Srosenow 98 does, and I suspect you might, too. DHowell (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with SRosenow that it is a losing battle to try to include more information on the set than is already there. The main article balloons, sections are spun off, and the notability of those sections is challenged, usually by the same editor or group of editors, until they are deleted. Until there is a sitewide policy that families of articles are permissible (I saw this issue raised in a recent sitewide editor poll), we will continue to have the problem. Despite the Jeopardy! set probably being a more familiar landmark to Americans than, say, the Parthenon (I choose it as exemplary because it similarly has had an evolution in appearance and function over the centuries), Wikipedia will time and again rejects its notability and call information about it, regardless of how well-sourced, fancruft. I found the closing admin's remarks illogical and disingenuous. If this was not a cruft issue, then a lack of sourcing for parts of the article is not a justification for deletion of the article, only a justification for removal of unsourced content. Similarly, use of a large number of non-free images is non-sequitur. The images were selected as a bare minimum necessary to illustrate changes in the set; the images could have been combined into an arbitrarily fewer number of image files. Robert K S (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- But the sources are what will make the outcome different this time. "The powers that be" doesn't really exist as a monolithic group. Yes, there is a significant faction of editors who hate fair-use images, and seem to make it their goal to eliminate as many as they can find. And there is another grop of editors who hate "trivia" and make it their goal to eliminate as much as they can find. But there is a bigger and more powerful group of editors who love verifiable information that is attributed to reliable published sources. Citations to reliable sources are your greatest weapon against deletionism. I've personally rescued articles from almost certain deletion, even articles that had already been deleted, by almost nothing more than increasing the amount and quality of cited sources. Go ahead and build up that section, as long as you cite your sources, and if anyone tries to delete, you'll be backed up by the people who like to see those sources. Trust me. If the section gets too big, as long as it's all cited and verifiable information, we might even be able to successfully file a deletion review for the original article to be restored, and maybe even get some of the fair-use images back. DHowell (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with re-inserting that information into the Jeopardy! article itself is that we end up in the same exact situation that gave birth to the Jeopardy! set evolution article in the first place - that ultimately TPTB will likely deem the article is "too long" and will likely end up with the "set" references being deleted altogether (they've been in the past, who's to say it won't happen again in the future?). I remember writing that information back in 2005 when I was an anon user (had yet to register), and almost immedately the whole section got deleted and was considered as "fancruft" despite the fact that the Bullseye article contained a very large entry in regards to that show's set (as well as various other game show articles here). Also interesting to note (I'm not sure if you've followed that article's history) is that right after it survived its first AfD, a template banner went up citing the need for photos that illustrated the text. The sad point with that? There are, to date, NO free images that exist of any iteration of the Jeopardy! set, only non-free images that either exist in the form of screenshots from Jeopardy! episodes or scans from The Jeopardy! Book and Inside Jeopardy!, both of which are IMNSHO poorly illustrated books when it comes to the set's evolution. Srosenow 98 (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
August 1, 2003
[edit]I was stunned to see the discussion on this closed as "no consensus, default to keep", since very few people suggested an outright keep, and most would have been satisfied with a merge. I honestly don't think the closing administrator paid attention to any of the comments. Regardless of how you felt on this issue-- delete, merge, keep -- I think that everyone's comments showed that a lot of people care about this issue, and "no consensus" was similar to a snub. I've asked for a review, and invite everyone to give their two cents worth at [1]. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Replied here. DHowell (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Jeopardy! set evolution Part Deux
[edit]There's a template up now @ the main Jeopardy! talk page in re: the Jeopardy! set evolution article facing a 3rd AfD soon. Keep an eye on it (as I am). I've made my comment on it, feel free to leave one also. Srosenow 98 (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Drawn Together episodes
[edit]Hi Dan,
Thank you for such a curteous and comprehensive message. I believe I understand your concern about my reading of the guideline you quoted in the AfD discussion. According to your suggestion, I will be bold and perform the redirects myself, citing the two prior AfD discussions as precedent. I will, of course, review each article before doing so, as some of them may be individually notable. Are there any particular episodes which you feel are individually notable? If my redirects are reverted, I hope I will be successful in stemming debate into discussions about individual articles rather than an unmanageable one about all the episodes. Thanks again for your thoughtful analysis of the situation.
Happy editing,
Neelix (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- [Original message here.]
- At the very least, the first episode "Hot Tub" seems notable as it has been covered by a variety of sources: USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and several more. I realize none of these sources were in the article, but using these sources to make an improved article might inspire anyone who might object to the redirections to improve the other articles similarly if the sources are available. DHowell (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Dan,
- I read the reviews you linked to, and while the Los Angeles Times review seems to be about the show in general rather than the pilot specifically, the other two at least are certainly reliable sources which discuss the pilot. I restored the pilot with a reception section, citing the sources you provided. The article certainly needs a lot of work (particularly since it consists almost entirely of lists rather than paragraphs), but it could turn into a well-written, well-sourced article eventually. I don't believe the same could be said of the other episodes, but if you come across reliable sources for them, feel free to send them along!
Radio history
[edit]Excellent sources, I will add them now. We may have to tinker with the format for historic data. I am still not sure what the best way to display the data will be. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
FYI
[edit]Those areas where you are providing feedback are a bit antiquated and there is more information of which you may/may not be aware. — BQZip01 — talk 01:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I hadn't gotten down there yet, but I'd still like to make my opinion known on certain aspects of the discussion. DHowell (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. That's your call, but I think if you'll read the section I linked, you'll see how much of the discussion above is pretty much irrelevant and is wasting your time. Just glance down and read it and I think you'll see what I mean. — BQZip01 — talk 02:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Have you had a chance to reconsider your !vote? I was wondering because I'd like to close this one down as soon as we can. I think your opinion is certainly valid, but it is a matter of putting the logo in context. If it is copyrighted, then we are always going to have issues with those who side on the "that isn't minimal use" argument. However, if is it a trademark, we can use it at will (as long as it is appropriately used in something associated with the logo). Historical logos can certainly be discussed, but we could also use a historical trademark too. In essence, I think we have some additional options which would expand the number of images being used without using more copyrighted info. I'd like to talk about this because I think a support vote from you would make all the difference in the world. We can certainly consider exceptions for historical logos (perhaps like being used in the first/last season used?), but we need some discussion to craft that. You with me? — BQZip01 — talk 06:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, I'm not saying we should use "BOSTON COLLEGE" to replace the logo. I'm saying that free alternatives exist, it's merely a matter of finding them. — BQZip01 — talk 06:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Have you had a chance to reconsider your !vote? I was wondering because I'd like to close this one down as soon as we can. I think your opinion is certainly valid, but it is a matter of putting the logo in context. If it is copyrighted, then we are always going to have issues with those who side on the "that isn't minimal use" argument. However, if is it a trademark, we can use it at will (as long as it is appropriately used in something associated with the logo). Historical logos can certainly be discussed, but we could also use a historical trademark too. In essence, I think we have some additional options which would expand the number of images being used without using more copyrighted info. I'd like to talk about this because I think a support vote from you would make all the difference in the world. We can certainly consider exceptions for historical logos (perhaps like being used in the first/last season used?), but we need some discussion to craft that. You with me? — BQZip01 — talk 06:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. That's your call, but I think if you'll read the section I linked, you'll see how much of the discussion above is pretty much irrelevant and is wasting your time. Just glance down and read it and I think you'll see what I mean. — BQZip01 — talk 02:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Playboy MarilynMonroe photo.jpg)
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Playboy MarilynMonroe photo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
A centralised discussion which may interest you
[edit]Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of birthday songs
[edit]Actually, the majority of the delete "votes" were based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY, so I feel my closure was appropriate. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I remain confident that my closure was accurate, so feel free to take it to DRV if you feel it's necessary. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Final version
[edit]As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — talk 21:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Input on AfD
[edit]I would be curious to get your input on this article for deletion: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Too_Beautiful_to_Live —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notabilitypatrol (talk • contribs) 10:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the whole Article Discussion pages work so I thought I might leave you a message notifying you I have responded to you on the Today Show's talk page. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
List of TV affilliates
[edit]Nice work there. This is the most useful article yet about American TV stations. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I still give it about a 50/50 shot at surviving the AfD, depending on any further comments made, and which admin decides to close it. DHowell (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Update: The AfD closed as keep. Thank you again. DHowell (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- It wouldn't have been a keep if you hadn't done the revisions. I'll try to contribute to the list-- thanks for making it sortable, something I don't know how to do. I hope this can be a lesson for the "it can't be done!" people. Not to mention the ones who can't understand the why people would refer to a comparative table (you know the type, "why do we need a list of state capitals? Wouldn't it be easier to look at the 50 different articles about the states?"). Mandsford (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Userfied
[edit]Let me know when you are done and I will delete those. Cirt (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, your edit has been reverted, but unfortunately there was some disruption on the page from another editor, so your changes were not really considered. I'd recommend proposing them on the talkpage and seeing what people think. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello You previously voted on a deletion debation for this article some time ago. The result of that AFD was no consensus, and the article had now been re-nominated for deletion. Just drawing your attention to this fact, should you consider to join in the debate again. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 16:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have restored your additions to the article in question and have added some interesting material about the Star Wars Timeline Gold which you may like to check. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
A deletion review discussion you may wish to contribute to.
[edit]Hi. I've listed two deleted articles at Wikipedia:Deletion_review, following the discussion on "lists of unusual things" which took place earlier in the year. As a contributor to that discussion, you might be interested in expressing an opinion on whether the two deleted articles should be restored. SP-KP (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm helping in the review of all of the AFD discussions where the recently uncovered sockpuppets took part, such as this one. For what it's worth: Neither Google Books nor Amazon show page 12 of that book in my part of the world. I discovered, in AFD discussions some years ago, that Google Books doesn't show the same thing to everyone around the world. It actually shows less to me than it does to quite a lot of other people. Uncle G (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, I had no idea. Maybe it has to do with fair use law being more lenient in the U.S. than in other parts of the world. But Mr. Sockpuppet said he had the book and still claimed my quote was just a "Google blurb", until one of the other socks chimed in and apparently found the quote but still claimed it didn't support what I was saying... I sure wish I had known at the time that I was arguing with a rabid Led Zeppelin fan using sockpuppetry to push his POV. DHowell (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- What Google Books shows at that URL when I view it is the publisher's blurb for the book. So that's possibly what the sockpuppetteer saw, and thought you were pointing to. The "as I understand it" from the other sockpuppet is clearly based upon the snippet that Google Books presents in its search results. So, yes, there is a basis for suspicion that the sockpuppeteer didn't actually possess the book as claimed. Xe wouldn't be the first LZ fan to dispute the heavy metal classification, either. Uncle G (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- If a reliable source were cited which said Led Zep wasn't heavy metal, I would of course have no problem with Wikipedia saying that the classification is disputed. I hadn't found such a source however. At best we have Plant saying it's unfair to typecast the band as heavy metal, which still doesn't really dispute the classification. (For example, it would be "unfair to typecast" Kid Rock into any genre, but it doesn't mean we can't classify him into several.) DHowell (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- What Google Books shows at that URL when I view it is the publisher's blurb for the book. So that's possibly what the sockpuppetteer saw, and thought you were pointing to. The "as I understand it" from the other sockpuppet is clearly based upon the snippet that Google Books presents in its search results. So, yes, there is a basis for suspicion that the sockpuppeteer didn't actually possess the book as claimed. Xe wouldn't be the first LZ fan to dispute the heavy metal classification, either. Uncle G (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Notability guideline
[edit]Just for the record, there is language in the notability guideline about self-publicity. It's specifically mentioned as being not "independent of the subject," which is as necessary to establish notability as "significant coverage." Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 03:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I had put "self-publicity" in scare quotes because, unless it is paid advertising, when publicity is published by an independent reliable source, it is not "self-publicity" in any sense of the word. I was being somewhat sarcastic, but I guess that wasn't clear. The articles I cited are certainly not "works produced by those affiliated with the subject". DHowell (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- As I understand it, self-publicity is when one publicizes oneself. If that is the case, then the articles are self-publicity in every sense of the word. And while it is true that the sources did not have to publish it, just because they did does not automatically make it encyclopedic. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 15:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- When one publicizes oneself, it is self-publicity; but when it is picked up by newspapers, it becomes plain "publicity". Or do you think the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and The New York Times are somehow affiliated with the creators, producers, developers, or puppeteers of Avenue Q? Read the guideline, only "works produced by those affiliated with the subject" are "self-publicity". And it is not just a "short burst of news coverage", which is what the guideline paragraph you linked to says. Rod was covered by Orange County and Long Beach Blade magazine as recently as this month. He also appeared on Hollywood Squares, as covered in Playbill, many months before the 2004 RNC. DHowell (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- As I understand it, self-publicity is when one publicizes oneself. If that is the case, then the articles are self-publicity in every sense of the word. And while it is true that the sources did not have to publish it, just because they did does not automatically make it encyclopedic. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 15:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Formal Mediation for Sports Logos
[edit]As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
A lifeboat of reason
[edit]You provide a refreshing dose of reason when emotionalism and irrationality are otherwise prevailing. I'd be curious if you have anything to contribute about this issue. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Born2cycle (talk) has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
Since you suggested a truce between Dbratland and me, and I accepted, but then I went and compiled in the RfC the history of personal attacks he lodged against me, I feel I owe you an explanation. I don't know how this RfC might be used in the future, but I feel the need to defend myself, including showing that I wasn't the one violating WP guidelines and policy. I hope that is understandable.
I remembered a couple of instances of personal attack, and so decided to find them and list them, but, frankly, the resulting compilation was surprising to me. I think that AGF and NPA are core policies, even more important than Verifiability, and are not to be taken lightly. I hope you're not disappointed. I really do appreciate everything you've done, and will continue to work towards achieving a truce. I sincerely hope this compilation serves as a valuable lesson. He could even thank me for it, but I'm not holding my breath. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Request for mediation not accepted
[edit]
|
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos.
|
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
Orphaned non-free media (File:KWCA 5.jpg)
[edit] Thanks for uploading File:KWCA 5.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)
[edit]| The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Content | |||||
Chronology of Star Wars
[edit]An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for the new discussion.--chaser (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
| ||||
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
Content
Please comment
[edit]Please comment here. MisterE2123Five3 (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of American Broadcasting Company logos
[edit]
I have nominated American Broadcasting Company logos, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Broadcasting Company logos (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of American Broadcasting Company logos
[edit]I have nominated American Broadcasting Company logos, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Broadcasting Company logos (3rd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 23:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The article Frosty, Heidi & Frank has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Tagged as having no sources for more than two years; recent BLP problems - article causes more trouble than it is worth - likely self-promotional?
While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Frosty, Heidi & Frank
[edit]I have nominated Frosty, Heidi & Frank, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frosty, Heidi & Frank. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:KISS957.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:KISS957.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 in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Template:Reqfreephoto has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of American Broadcasting Company logos for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Broadcasting Company logos 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/American Broadcasting Company logos (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:KJLA 57.jpg)
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:KJLA 57.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Template:Reqfreephotoin has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:FEI.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:FEI.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
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) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darrers 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/Darrers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, DHowell. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, DHowell. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Radiolist start
[edit]
Template:Radiolist start has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TheImaCow (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Fox Television Center for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox Television Center 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.
DocFreeman24 (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Radiolist AM
[edit]Template:Radiolist AM has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. This also applies for Template:Radiolist FM. Remagoxer (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of E! Entertainment Radio for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E! Entertainment Radio 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 until the discussion has finished.
Let'srun (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:KVMD 23.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:KVMD 23.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) 18:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
