User talk:Flordeneu/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

On the issue with User:MatthewFenton editing your user talk page: I'd suggest just giving up and letting it die, because you won't get through to him. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton. -- PKtm 21:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Hey Question

I just want to know why did you delete the blog section under the external links? Doesn't fit? or what?--Shaq 1k 01:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. External links are selected, relevant pages, not just any Stargate page. Read Wikipedia:External links --Andromeda 01:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

O, Okay I didn't know?, I don't know much Censorship, totally boring

¿?¿?¿?¿?--Andromeda 02:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your list IS worthwhile

The list (songs about friendship) you created is/was up for deletion. I want you to know there is a place for it: http://wikitistics.com . No one will be able to nominate it for deletion because it fits one simple rule: it's a statistic, list, or figure. Good luck with your endeavors! Joe 18:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Actor

Hi please dont edit the infobox unless your prepared to fix any after effects. Your change causes excess white space at articles such as Kate Hewlett and Willa Holland at the begining (confirmed by multiple users including me on IRC) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to show me where i broke it? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: Thank you for fixing the wotespace issue. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Stargate Comics

I notice you put that you created Stargate Comics but looking at the history [1] User:James Foster created the page. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a substub before Andromeda's first edit (see [2]). I'm not sure why this page is on my watchlist, though... I'll remove it, otherwise Andromeda's going to think I'm stalking her... --Tango 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

One cannot make a mistake, can she? Tango, you're not stalking me. Someone else, on the other hand, I'm starting to have my doubts. --Andromeda 19:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is this "someone else" ? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If the shoe fits...--Andromeda 20:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to clarify for me, i dont watch the princess and her step-sister films. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And I don't think it's a coincidence that whatever I go lately, I find you here. --Andromeda 20:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Radcliffe

Okay, at least there was a reason this time ;)

Seriously, though, the reason I included them is: The Play What I Wrote is his first significant stage play, making it notable; December Boys is his first non-Potter feature film since he became world famous. I have not included Equus (another stage play) because any nudity involved is YTBD. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A play has a limited scope. It is not a role most people will know him for. Also December Boys has not been released yet. We don't know how notable this role would be for his career yet. --Andromeda 13:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the first and will defer to the second. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

re: reverting Spirou

you wrote, RV - None of these albums have wikiarticles.

please, they have started to. I'd appeprciate it if you'd leave this one be for a day or two. --Murgh 21:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Then wait until the articles exists before adding links. It's just a big red list otherwise. --Andromeda 21:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

you'll agree it's easier to do them when the links are created. those little pesky french words can be tricky. but it's uncool to do it in this order then? Murgh 00:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wonder Woman literature

Hi, I saw that someone reverted your list of Wonder Woman graphic novels twice, so I created this: Wonder Woman literature. It may get integrated into Cultural impact of Wonder Woman, but at least it's there. —scarecroe 16:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

For adding the spanish names for the spanish version of Legend of Light, I tried so hard to find those names on the internet, but I could not find them, Thank You.Angel,Isaac 14:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

ZPM Speculation

I noticed you edited the ZPM article removing speculation on the source of a ZPM. While I feel perhaps you had merit in some of it, there is dialog in the series explicitly describing it coming from the Tria Ancients. Would you feel amicable to discussing the exact wording of this sentence, so we don't have an edit war? Jordan.Kreiger 22:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Names

I am having a very hard time the original names from the characters of the lenged of light series, and since this series was never released in English is even more difficult to the orginal names. Could you help me?Angel,Isaac 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

John Sheppard

You are still failing to give any reason for removing the line about Sheppard having an aptitude for math, which is a factual bit shown in the series, first of all in Rising. The one time you did put a heading on your edit, it said, "Cite source", which makes no sense because there is and always has been a citation for that line. -- Noneofyourbusiness 16:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

SGA

I've tried explaining this to Avt Tor: Talk:Stargate_SG-1#VP:V thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Editors that don't provide an edit summary tend to look like vandals

I have noticed you commonly don't enter an edit summary as you didn't when you edited JAG (see this edit). This causes me problems. When I patrol for vandalism, I use the summary to make a preliminary decision on whether or not the post is a vandal edit or not. If the summary is present (or at least a section header, the part inside the /* */), I commonly decide the edit is legit and move on.

However, if no edit summary is available, I typically resort to loading the diff for the edit. This takes time. For that reason, if your edits are all valid, I ask that you provide edit summaries. For more on how to enter an edit summary, please read Help:Edit summary.

Incidentally, it is not just me that appreciate having edit summaries. When you omit your summary, you may be telling various bots that you are vandalizing pages. For this reason, please consider providing that summary. It is very important. You can enter that summary via the edit summary box on edit pages (as shown below).

The edit summary appears in black italics in the following places:

• Page history - list of changes to the page you edited
• User contributions - list of all your edits
• Watchlist* - list of recent changes to watched pages (logged-in users only)
• diff page - shows the difference between two edits
• Recent changes - list of all recent edits
• Wikipedia IRC channels - real time list of all edits
• Related changes - list of recent changes to pages linked to the page you edited
• List of new pages: shows the edit summary of the creation.

* Use the enhanced watchlist to see all recent changes in the watched pages, not just the last change in each page.

Will (Talk - contribs) 23:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:DC Comics Tempest.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

population stats

Hi Andromeda! I noticed your recent correction of data in the Barcelona article. Are there any references for the new 1.673.000 million inhabitants figure. I´m updating the EU article and need sources. Thank you in advance. all the best Lear 21 12:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Panorámica de Barcelona

¿No te das cuenta que poner la imagen panorámica de Barcelona justo encima de la photo gallery (que por cierto la mayoría de fotos las puse yo) es redundante y prodeuce hartazgo de imágenes?

La panorámica o se pone arriba o se quita, sino queda redundante. --83.50.183.172 21:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Personalmente la quitaría, pero no me dejan, así que la pongo donde molesta menos --Andromeda 07:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Star Trek Archer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Star Trek Archer.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bob 07:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:George eads.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:George eads.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bob 16:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Star Trek Archer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Star Trek Archer.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 20:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Star Trek Archer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Star Trek Archer.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bob 22:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:George eads.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:George eads.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 21:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:DC Comics Tempest.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Erika Ortiz Rocasolano

Podeu eliminar l'article de l'Erika Ortiz Rocasolano després d'una votació. Proposa-la i que es voti.

Era coneguda coneguda a certs llocs com artista, va saltar als mitjans de comunicació i aquí tenen articles de persones que han fet molt menys.

Gaudio 07:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Pues nada, se te tiene que poner esto, si quieres quitar el artículo, puedes proponerlo para la supresión, no borrarlo directamente. Gaudio 08:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

El tema estaba perfectamente claro hasta que tu te metiste por medio. La gente habia decidido que no cumplía las normas. Por favor, deja de meterte donde no te llaman. --Andromeda 16:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

¿Ah sí? ¿Dónde está la discusión o la votación?. Lo único que habéis hecho es ir borrando y editando el artículo, nada más. Esto no es sólo la wikipedia de un@s poc@s, sino d tod@s, tengo todo el derecho a meterme, t pese o no. Creo que cuanto menos deberías ponerlo a votación como se ha hecho en la wikipedia en castellano por deferencia a las personas que se molestaron en escribirlo. Gaudio 17:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Mira la talk page, quieres? --Andromeda 17:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

ESO NO ES UNA VOTACIÓN, NO TIENES NINGUNA CONSIDERACIÓN POR EL TRABAJO DE L@S DEMÁS, ¿D DÓNDE HABÍAS SALIDO? D LAS WIKIPEDIAS EN CASTELLANO Y EN CATALÁN, LAS PEORES WIKIPEDIAS. Gaudio 17:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Por cierto, ya sabes que has incumplido la norma de Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, verdad? --Andromeda 17:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

¿Y tú qué? Tú no has hecho nada malo, el que quieras imponer tu voluntad y no considerar la opinión de los demás, t la trae al pairo. Gaudio 17:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Es curioso que digas eso cuando es precisamente lo que tu estas haciendo: imponer tu voluntad en un articulo sobre el cual ya se había llegado a un acuerdo. --Andromeda 19:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Por favor, ni me hagas reír ni te hagas el listo. No tenéis respeto por las opiniones ni por el trabajo de nadie. Ya te he puesto la votación, si tanto interés tenéis a borrar el artículo, podéis poner lo que queráis. De todas formas, eso de la redirección a mí no me acaba de convencer mucho, pero quizá sea lo más adecuado. Lo digo porque también existe el artículo de la otra hermana. No sé, Suri Cruise redirige a Katie Holmes, por ejemplo, pero tb sería la hija de Tom Cruise. Gaudio 08:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

El artículo de la otra hermana redirige al artículo de la princesa Letizia. Y el que no tiene respeto alguno eres tu. --Andromeda 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Pots tallar i pegar la plantilla d'eliminació amb els articles que vulguis esborrar.

Pero aquí hay artículos hasta cierto punto bastante absurdos, lo mismo te hartas. Supongo que el que estén artículos irrelevantes no es importante si están los artículos que tienen que estar. Puedes ver en mi página alemana que eliminaron artículos como el de Ariel Rot, alegaron que no era famoso, que la famosa era su hermana. Allí como habéis hecho ahora, la votación brillaba por su ausencia, una persona quiso eliminarlo y otra lo secundó y ya. Gaudio 22:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Time to review

Your incivil behaviour on Wikipedia has been begging for criticism for quite some time now, and I need to state and share what I've witnessed before my incentive to participate in the project is ruined. Your tendency to bully over certain articles you've laid claim to (read WP:OWN) and revert for the sheer act of manifesting your will (typically lacking in insight or consideration, but not in self-righteousness) has led you to establish your own stealthy domain of WP:POINT. For my own part I've noticed you violate WP:3R 3 times, and I'm not even interested in you, so how you dodge this, is impressive. As for our own current conflict, you're right in one respect, that it doesn't matter. My stylistic choice which remained until you noticed it didn't please you, makes for no better or worse article, but the principle of your dominating and anti-collaborative editing attitude is hard to swalllow in the long run, which led to this brief period of resistance. Again, I'll leave your limited whim as the final edit since you've effectively demonstrated that there is no way of dealing with you unless one descends to your level. I doubt you'll take any cause for introspection out of this note, but I'll still suggest: look into it. MURGH ^disc. 16:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if someone thinks he owns the article, that's you. You have demonstrated that's impossible to deal with you, insisting in adding a complete USELESS tag that only made the page harder to edit. I have not touched your content, since it seems you know more about the Spirou magazine that me. However, the < small > tag you were adding has no use, it does NOTHING. It's not an stylistic choice, it's an absurd choice. I've only retired it to make the source text easier to understand and edit for the people who comes after you. --Andromeda 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Approved Text

Hi Andromeda. Thanks for your recent edits to the Vincent D'Onofrio article, especially the clean up of the citations/reference text. I did, however, remove two of your other edits to the article. Both myself and Shell Kinney have been keeping tabs on the page due to repeated vandalism over the past couple of months, which is the only reason I even spotted the changes. I removed the spouse text from the info box, as it is not relevant to an article that focuses on career achievement. (Additionally, D'Onofrio and Greta Scacchi were never legally married.) The other change I made was in the first paragraph of the Personal Life text. You will note on the edit page that the paragraph was provided in its entirety by a representative of D'Onofrio and his wife. To keep the text "as approved" I removed the reference to van der Donk's profession. It is not integral to the information and was left out by the spokesperson. The spokesperson provided the paragraph directly to WT:OTRS and their identity was validated as authentic. As a show of good faith (since they considered Wikipedia a valuable/credible enough resource to contact with corrected info) I think we should leave the text as provided. TrishGow 22:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not agree with the spouse field. It is in the template for something and I've had enough discussions in the template page about it. All biographies templates have them and I think they're useful. Also, I have my reservations about your last note, since Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia and not a press release. We should add any information that we now is correct, regardless if the person's PR team want them listed of not. --Andromeda 13:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - I don't disagree with the completion of the spouse field, especially since you explained the existence of it in the biography template. I appreciate the education - I'm somewhat new to editing here. Further, I fully understand your reservations about the "approved text" - it was only due to repeated, intentional vandalism that the situation occurred in the first place. As to your assertion, though, re: adding "any information we know is correct" - my personal opinion is a spouse's occupation (or former occupation, as in this case) is irrelevant if they aren't themselves an object of a Wikipedia article. I know we could debate this issue but I appreciate that you expressed your disagreement with me in such a friendly and thoughtful manner. I wish everyone were as logical in their arguments as you. TrishGow 16:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Zatch Bell! characters

There's a comment just above the "Eliminated Mamodos" section that reads "Do not add information on who burned the spellbooks without discussing it on the talk page first". Since you've failed to do that, I reverted your change. For the record, most people are against adding more trivial information to this already cluttered article. If the book is burned by a main character it is listed in their page. JuJube 01:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, that's not how it works. You talk it out on the talk page, reach consensus, and only when that happens do you re-add the information. It's not like you're the first person to try to add this. It's been removed every time. JuJube 00:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter Grodin Page

You are merging a page into Tau'ri characters on Atlantis when two other users disagree (Namely myself and User:RodneyMckay, continuing to blank the page and revert a previous one is considered vandalism if you DO NOT start a merge vote for a controversial page as described under WP:Merge. If you continue to do so, i will be forced to bring the situation to the attention of the administrators. - Count23 23:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Taking into account you started this by separating him without asking before, you are in no position to point me to anyone. The characters page was agreed upon a long time ago to prevent more AFD and that characters' role was pretty minor. He doesn't deserve a page of his own. You are only creating unnecessary pages. --Andromeda 23:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit War with Count23

Cool the guns please. What is the issue that you are warring about? There are better ways to resolve it. The Evil Clown 23:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem, they have. The page was agreed upon some time ago, when several character pages where targeted with AFD. Only two users are insisting in giving a page to a character whose role in the series was pretty minor, instead of the Characters page agreed upon, so allowing for more AFD. --Andromeda 23:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Princess Irene of Greece and Denmark

Your comments about Princess Irene's personal life include Weasel words ("it is believed", "it is said") and are and completely undocumented or referenced. Moreover, such information is within the realm of pulp sensationalism and not encyclopedia-worthy. Rastapopoulos 07:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter Grodin

Since you arbitrarily took it upon yourself to merge this page with insufficient approval votes to the main page, would you consider actually reviewing the original page and updating his profile on the Tau'ri characters on Stargate Atlantis page to actually reflect the additions made to the page since it was created. You may be surprised but there was nearly 3 paragraphs of additional information in it. - Count23 09:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Stargate book cover

Hi, I've been editing Martha Wells and I noticed that the book cover Image:SGA_Reliquary.jpg, which you uploaded, doesn't have a Wikipedia:Fair_use rationale on the image page. I was hoping you would add one. There's an example of a book cover rationale at Image:Checkmate_by_Malorie_Blackman.jpg. If you add the rationale then I can add the other fair use metadata to the three pages the image is used on and it's less likely to be deleted. :-) Random Passer-by (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Current policy says the rationale must be added by the user who uploaded the image. I find the legal aspects of fair use scary too. I wrote one really good fair use rationale for the first book cover I uploaded and I've used the same rationale for every book cover I've uploaded. Don't worry if you don't feel you can't do it. I understand. The image isn't threatened with deletion now. I was only thinking of the future. :-) Random Passer-by (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Star_Trek_Archer.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Star_Trek_Archer.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 15:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR Violation

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Robert Duncan McNeill. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

Hi there: I can see that you've been reverting Dcs47 for several days now. Even though this isn't technically a 3RR violation, it's still edit warring and is against the spirit of the rule. If it continues, it's likely you will be blocked by an administrator to stop the edit war. I recommend going to the talk page to make your case. If you can't agree with Dcs47, consider dispute resolution. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Whole New World international section

I want to avoid an edit war overA Whole New World‎; I asked for some kind of justification on the talk page why the international section should be in the article. An edit summary stating your opinion that it's "perfectly valid" isn't a persuasive argument. First, can you explain why if, as the section intro states, "most Disney's songs" are tranlated in this manner, these translations notable? Second, in particular, how is the, oh... let's say.. the Hungarian version and performaers in any way notable or interesting particularly in the English Wikipedia? That section is nothing but trivia, and adds no substantive value to the article. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Tv3 logo2005.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tv3 logo2005.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 12:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:The Sentinel cast.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:The Sentinel cast.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 06:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Stargate Atlantis Kavanagh.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Stargate Atlantis Kavanagh.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 07:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)