User talk:Roofus

Userbox

I note your reaction to the loss of the anti-gender-neutral language userbox - Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Grammar.

Do you intend to list it at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates? Avalon 05:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sunday2.jpg

Hey, Roofus. I've removed Image:Sunday2.jpg from the Nintendo Entertainment System article, because I'm concerned that it was a little excessive to include two images from Wisdom Tree games in the article, and my feeling that the existing image (Image:Bible adventures.jpg) added more to the content of the article: the title screen is relatively mundane, but the cartridge itself is of a unique design. If you want to dispute my reasoning, I'm willing to be swayed :). As an aside, if you are responsible for capturing the image, could I ask you to consider recapturing it in PNG format? Generally speaking, NES screenshots look and compress better in PNG format than in JPEG format. If you don't know what I'm talking about, it's not really a big deal. – Seancdaug 06:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:California map showing San Bernadino County.png

Thanks for uploading Image:California map showing San Bernadino County.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Bernardino County, California

My guess is that your browser can not handle Bulgarian unicode fonts, because your edit [1] to San Bernardino County, California turned the Bulgarian interwiki link into all question marks.

As a side note, considering where you live, you may be interested in the California WikiProject (there is also a Southern California WikiProject). ^Blank ^Verse 10:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prison Break template

Hi. I reverted your change to the template for the reason I've provided in Template talk:Prison Break. Regards, Ladida 02:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

zomg

how many of us wikipedians have used these cabrillo computers? Rampart 20:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Max Cola

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Max Cola, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at Talk:Max Cola. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for Safeway Select Cola. NickelShoe (Talk) 06:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Surf City"

True, Santa Cruz isn't allowed to call itself Surf City any longer, however that doesn't mean that people have stopped referring to Santa Cruz as Surf City. Wikipedia is a resource that reflects the people, not a marketing tool for any organization, and therefore the nickname for Santa Cruz should remain as Surf City in wikipedia, perhaps with a note that the name has been contested. Once people stop referring to Santa Cruz as Surf City, it will be appropriate to remove the nickname from the page... —X S G 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell's Soup Cans

The image appears to have been uploaded under fair use guidelines. What is the issue? thanks.—Gaff ^ταλκ 01:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the fair use guidelines (which you referenced) this image is useable:

This image is of a drawing, painting, print, or other two-dimensional work of art, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the artist who produced the image, the person who commissioned the work, or the heirs thereof. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of works of art
for critical commentary on the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information.

Please sort this out, as this is the featured article. thanks—Gaff ^ταλκ 01:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was dealt with here, though you have to dig through the history a bit. Please do more research before removing every single image next time, particularly on a main page featured article about an artwork. --Wafulz 01:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to both William Monahan and Campbell's Soup Cans removed copyrighted images from TFA's. There had already been discussion at FAC in both of these cases in which there appeared to be agreement that the images met WP:NONFREE. If you intend to remove copyrighted images like this in the future, I would recommend starting new discussion at the talk page. ShadowHalo 03:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Driving on the left or right

Please don't try to change UK English to U.S. English spelling; see WP:ENGVAR for details. Thanks. --John 06:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Waterboarding

Roofus, I noticed your participation on the Talk:Waterboarding page and would like to invite you to continue participating, so that we can make this a Good Article. There is a current proposal for a lead that needs consensus. Others are trying to lobby in favor of working on the body of the article and leaving the lead alone. I would appreciate your input on this issues. Thanks. Neutral Good (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add pointless comments to AfD debates

...such as this or this. Thank you. — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Followthategg.png

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Surferstatue.jpg

File:Surferstatue.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Surferstatue.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Surferstatue.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Screenshot-1318632299047.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Screenshot-1318632299047.png. 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. Skier Dude (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Uh-Oh! (film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Uh-Oh! (film) 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/Uh-Oh! (film) 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. SL93 (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Telegraphspam.png

The file File:Telegraphspam.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused with no apparent encyclopedic use

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. matt br 11:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]