User:23skidoo/Archive14

Welcome to the Archive! Please do not edit this page.

If you'd like to leave me a comment, a criticism, a question or whatever please Click here.

Archive: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

Tags vs. Icons.

I've left you a reply on my talk page. Look forward to your thoughts. Unschool 03:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Donald Hamilton

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, 23skidoo! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 20:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

Hi!

Thanks for the quick response on Talk:Angelina Jolie. I asked about cumulative gross and criteria for including films because I found that, even when comparing FAs, there is a lack of uniformity among cinema bios. No doubt, the individual's career determines what sort of details the article will have, but issues regarding the lead, notability of movies/roles,etc come up often when discussing Hollywood and Bollywood filmbios. I've compiled a few problems that come up often on this page, I'd appreciate your comments on it.

Apologies if this note seems a little random. I've seen your contributions on several Hollywood pages and you are a far more experienced editor than I am, so I thought I'd pester you for a bit :)

Regards,xC | ☎ 05:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Smiley

BABOON MAN has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Diamond Smugglers

By your logic, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang should be in the category. It's not, and it shouldn't be, because it is not about James Bond. Nor is Diamond Smuggler. It is linked to Ian Fleming through a navtemplate of all of his books. Otto4711 19:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Chitty Chitty Bang Bang could be said to have connections to James Bond because they both have souped up cars in them. "He wrote about diamond smuggling in a Bond book" and "he allegedly co-wrote another story that may have been based on this" doesn't establish a connection to Bond. Otto4711 19:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare Code

Thanks for alerting me of your rationale for reverting my edit. One of the inclusions the IP made was a speculative (and to date, unverifiable) assertion about Tennant's performance as the Doctor, essentially forcing a point of view on the article; it was this I classed as OR. Of the two items of trivia, one (the note of Tennant's involvement with a Harry Potter film) was outside the scope of the article, and redundant in light of the ease with which one can find this info via the link to the article on Tennant; the other was merely (in my view) not noteworthy. Hence, the edits seemed not worth keeping, though I will grant you it was remiss of me not to spot the grammatical correction.

As for your contention that the high presence of "trivia" in the article means one should remove all or none, I'm afraid I'm unsympathetic to this kind of blanket reasoning. Sure, lengthy lists of notes on continuity and cultural references aren't highly desirable in an encyclopedic article, but I'm afraid consensus presently appears against their blanket removal; the best one can do is to take such notes on a case by case basis and judge them in terms of notability and verifiability etc. In other words, I, and many others, try to sort the "good" from the "bad".

It's a dirty job but someone has to do it. Mark H Wilkinson 16:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

University of Saskatchewan

Noted that you made contributions to the U of S article, a new subarticle has been started...University of Saskatchewan Academics which is in progress. Will use its sections for the U of S template, until full college articles are written. Working on a push to get the U of S to A status then to Feature... Invitation if you want to help out... SriMesh | talk 03:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

account

hi, do i have the right to delete this acccount? if i do, i wish to do so. I would appreciate if you could assist asap. thanks. ephix 23:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:ModestyBlaise.jpg

I have tagged Image:ModestyBlaise.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Audrey Hepburn

Template:Audrey Hepburn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: ILLUMINATUS!]

Hi. You were the first one to mention the ILLUMINATUS! comic, so I'm dropping you a note here. My brief foray with Wiki lat year was very educational, and I found you to be one of the most reasonable of the editors. The place seemed to be full of amateurs attempting to prove their pro status by being hard nosed, without investigating the facts first. I have a few things I will return here to finish at some point, but I got depressed about the news of Wilson's impending death, and holed up for a year. My BS tolerance is much less after this. I have erased my name from the ILLUMINATUS! article (let THEM hunt down the comic if they want to know it...), and have posted images used in Bob's Meme-Orial on my myspace account: myspace.com/icarus_23 I'd mentioned this on the Talk Pages of both ILLUMINATUS! and Wilson, but the ILL! one disappeared, DESPITE the avowed policy of Wikipedia NOT to tinker with people's Talk comments. The Wilson one is virtually identical. I'll be dropping this in to the person that added my name, too -- I don't mind it being there, as it was in the 3rd issue, but for some reason I feel it should be more of a mystery....

RfD

I noticed that you voted to keep the Wp:an/i and Wp:afd redirects at the Redirects for deletion page. I also voted to keep these redirect pages. I thought that if they were removed, then I would not automatically get to the pages I was looking for if I happened to type all lowercase letters, which would be pretty inconvenient. However, it turns out I was wrong. The software will automatically send someone to the appropriate page, even if they type all lowercase, and even if the redirect pages are deleted. It's just like a redirect, but without the redirect page. Deleting them will remove needless clutter in mainspace searches. With this knowledge, I wonder if you might consider changing your vote to delete. Thanks, and have a good day. Nick Graves 18:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot messages

I've noted your dislike of image messages, and I think there's a way to deal with the ones that come from bots: Template:Bots (or {{Bots}} if you prefer that form). It gives the user various options for allowing/disallowing visits from bots. Hope it's of use. Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

re:Short stories tags

Replying to your message on my talk page: I did add a short-story-collection category, Category:Mystery short story collections, to replace the "Detective short stories" category tag I removed. The reason this is not obvious is that I added it higher up the food chain, at Category:Short story collections by Leslie Charteris; it seemed unnecessarily duplicative to add it to each individual article. I am sorry I didn't make this clearer in the edit history. --Paul A 02:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But are all Charteris's novels in the genre? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, thanks for the response - just checking. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Saskatoon Neighbourhoods

Regarding your comments about the poor quality of some of the articles - I agree completely. I have done a major rewrite on Silverspring and posted my rationale/methods on the neighbourhoods talk page. Have a look and let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drm310 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Article redirected

Hi. I've changed your article on Frankie and Johnny (Elvis Presley album) to a redirect to Frankie and Johnny (1966 film)#Soundtrack because it wasn't a new release, but simply a reissue of an album from a decade earlier which is already discussed in the larger article. 23skidoo 13:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the notice. Salavat 14:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries. When I have time I'm going to do some sorting out of things like the album template and the categories because there are albums that aren't listed that should be, etc. and I can see how a duplicated article can be created (I spotted something similar with the Burning Love album article, which was also doubled up.) I've got a few releases I'd like to add, but I'm waiting till I sort the rest out (unless someone beats me to it). BTW I kept your infobox for Frankie and Johnny and just moved it over, with the image you uploaded. 23skidoo 14:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeh i noticed you moved the infobox. Good luck in sorting, the whole article is pretty messed up. Salavat 14:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved tag

Anyone can add it and the instruction are above on the page - they might not be the most clear in which case do please improve content and layout as you see fit. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Decentralism

Hello, I am hoping you can answer a question for me. I would like to create an article on the political philosophy of Decentralism (as advocated by men like E. F. Schumacher, Leopold Kohr, and Ivan Illich). However, currently, Decentralism redirects to Decentralization. Now, while these concepts are certainly related, the latter articles defines and describes a process, with a concentration on decentralization in business and economics. The article I intend to create is of rather a different sort, more philosophical, though with examples of projects started or inspired by the men I named, as well as others. What I am asking is, what is the policy as to changing decentralism from a redirect to an article of its own? Should I just be bold and start the article, with a disambiguation link at the top: For the process in business and economics, see Decentralization. Would that be enough? Thank you, in advance, for any assistance you can give. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hectomillionaires List/Category

Hi, I saw your AFD for List of hectomillionaires and had a few comments - If you do choose to propose Category:Hectomillionaires for deletion, please consider proposing Category:Billionaires for deletion at the same time. To be included in the latter category the current criteria posted is that "Persons who have a net worth or wealth equal or greater than one billion United States dollars, euros, British pounds or units of a comparably valued currency. Such persons are billionaires." The criteria for Category:Hectomillionaires is exactly the same, but with a lower figure of wealth.

Also, I wanted to seek clarification on your nomination. If List of hectomillionaires was instead broken down by nationality and titled for example List of American people with net worths greater than $100,000,000 million US dollars, would you have concerns about its suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia? The new title would address the arguable neologism aspect of the title, and also deal with the issue of multiple currencies at play. There are comparable articles that use US Dollars as a bench mark, like List of US-dollar billionaires in Germany. Thanks, Kurieeto 22:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Breakaway (Space: 1999)

You made some alterations to this page, removing an unreference section and putting an incorrect part in. I've corrected the part about Simmonds, I've reentered the non-referenced part with a reference, does it satisfy you? Douglasnicol 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictitious films (2nd nomination)

As you participated in the first AfD for this article, I thought you would be interested that it has been nominated once again. SkierRMH 21:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on MacLean

Thanks for your comment regarding B. MacLean :-) I have added MacLean & MacLean on the list of MacLeans.

I hope you have a great day! Happy editing! Jameson L. Tai 18:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Book article deletion warnings

the version of my talk page I am responding to

Thank you for the information about the preferred method of notifying the WikiProject about articles in one of the various deletion workstreams. I have updated User:Ceyockey/Notifying_WikiProjects_of_Deletion_Proposals#Culture to reflect this information. Note that I have two 'unknown' items in that table for 'Books' - it would be useful if I could fill those 'unknowns' with information based on the WikiProject preference. The origin of the page I refer to is my personal interest in providing notifications about PROD activities to WikiProjects and gathering information aimed at expanding and clarifying the scope of DelSort (AFD) and that activity's relationship to other WikiProject activities. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed

I fixed it for you, check the image description out now. That is all it needed. — jacĸrм (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's rather confusing, like when I got my first notice from it. As long as you read WP:NFCC#10 carefully, you will see what is missing, as a fair-use rationale was missing from the image in question. The bot is not in error, just being a bit of a perfectionist! — jacĸrм (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I do think it's fair, and you can surely see that? If Wikipedia does not own the image, we must make sure we are saying why we are using it fairly. You are an admin, you should be able to keep up with a simple rule like this! I agree it's confusing and annoying, but once you've just typed a few words on the rationale, it's fine, and you won't be bothered again. — jacĸrм (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

re:Image discussion, continued

I really do agree with you, skidoo. I find it unfair that they change the image rules themselves and then dump the work on the users. Your images even stated which article they are being used fairly in, and just because they do not use the one exact rationale template, they are being deleted without any further consideration. It's a real shame, as anyone who uploads that many images deserves to be thanked and helped for their Wikipedia contribution, and someone should have done something about that. I really do agree with you in a call for a policy change, or more Wikipedia users are going to disappear elsewhere, and tonnes of the images are going to disappear. — jacĸrм (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's because I archived them but moved them back as this was started. And yes, I think that's what people are considering changing, as some people are not aware the policy changed, then they are bombarded with tens of possible image deletion notices. — jacĸrм (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you're still around

Thanks for the messages you've left on my user page recently. Glad to see you're still around - I can still remember the help you gave me when I was getting started here at Wikipedia. As for the 'bots, I know that I could avoid their idiocy by adding the silly "rational" template to all of my images, but I prefer to wait for the stupid message and then do what's needed - gives me something to get insensed about. :-) --RenniePet 23:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hattie Hayridge

I received the photo license along with a batch of others from the same photographer on Flickr...I agree that it's not the most flattering picture, but I haven't come across any better ones with a free license. I guess the decision on whether the photo is used is up to the primary editors on that article. I have to disagree that it's a violation of WP:BLP, unless you can point to some provision in that policy of which I'm not aware - and I do a lot of work with BLP issues in the course of working with article subjects. The photo does not seem to have been altered or manipulated in any way. At least a reader can see what she looks like, so I'd lean toward keeping the photo until we can get a better one. If you'd like to try to track one down, I wrote a sort of tutorial at User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content. Regards - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Erika Hernandez

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Erika Hernandez, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Erika Hernandez. Ejfetters 08:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Torchwood: Captain John

Thanks, I didn't know there was a redirect here. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Captain John

Just to let you know I went ahead and did the merge. No need for discussion on this one since all other guest-star characters on Torchwood are covered in the list article and all the stub had was some unsourced speculation. It was an AFD magnet. 23skidoo (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I was going to do the same thing myself - there was enough consensus. StuartDD _{contributions} 21:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Evil River

D'oh! And there I was hoping that you had edited the article because the book had finally, from out of nowhere, suddenly been published and was in bookstores! Imagine how my Christmas hopes were dashed when I read your message on the Burroughs talk page. Alas... Well, let's see, I'll turn 50 in 2019, so perhaps that will be a good fiftieth birthday present. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is my assumption, as well. Damn, I hope so, anyway. Thanks for your message, and your great work. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Moonraker planned British lunar orbiter

Regarding the Moonraker planned British lunar orbiter/lander, I've added a BBC News article reference to the disambig page. Thanks for pointing it out - since it's in early planning stages there isn't an article about it. Have a good weekend. --J. Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 12:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Image rationales

Please don't be too disheartened about this situation. I have your talk page on my watchlist and will catch any bot messages. (If you like I can archive the template messages after I have fixed the images.) I will fix the "Saint" book covers, and if you give me the name of the other editor who uploaded a lot of book covers, I will watchlist his talk page also. You have uploaded a lot of hard-to-find scans, and it would be a real pity to lose out on your contributions. If you decide to start uploading again, there is a useful template for book cover rationales:

{{ subst:Book rationale | Article name goes here | website goes here | person or company owning the intellectual property goes here }}

All you need to do is fill in the template parameters, and the images won't be tagged. All the best, Bláthnaid 11:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. I don't think that the rules will be unilaterally changed in the future -- but give me a few months and I might change my mind :p Bláthnaid 15:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Content deletion permission given

Effective immediately, any visitor to this talk page may delete any "Image rationale" bot notification at will (specifically any and all messages from Betacommandbot), once they have dealt with the warning. I have no desire to archive them, so they may be deleted once addressed. Thanks. 23skidoo (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of "Even Better Than the Real Thing"

I have nominated "Even Better Than the Real Thing" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Geraldine Chaplin in Casino Royale

The only source is the film itself as it was an uncredited role. If you watch the final sequence of the film you will see her in all the mayhem.

Tovojolo (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Two references

Here's a reference for Geraldine Chaplin in Casino Royale, [1]

You can see a photo of Geraldine Chaplin with Richard Talmadge as Keystone Kops in Casino Royale here

[2]

Geraldine Chaplin does not wear a moustache and is clearly identifiable in the photo.

That's two references for Geraldine Chaplin in Casino Royale.

Tovojolo (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Burroughs edits

First, I want to say that you were right to revert my edit of the other day, regarding U2's "Last Night On Earth" video, and Burroughs' appearance in same. I got carried away, deleting the whole paragraph along with the dubious reference. But, would it not make more sense for that paragraph to be moved to the "appearances in film..." section?

Second, as far as bands named after Burroughs' works, this Canadian band does not even seem notable enough to merit being mentioned, even if a reference can be found that indicates the source of their name. Dead Fingers Talk is a Burroughs piece, but their name is kind of a stretch from that, anyway... Just a thought. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: One for you

I've fixed the image. It just needed the article name and a note about replaceability. The templates are not mandatory, but are useful so that any important information is not left out. You got a few more bot messages about missing rationales, so I've fixed those also. Regards, Bláthnaid 10:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot tags the images that lack any type of rationale or that have a rationale but don't include the article name. He doesn't tag because of lack of templates. From what I've seen, a lot of the hand-written rationales get tagged because they don't have the name of the article in the rationale (eg this almost perfect rationale). A lot of editors hand-write great rationales but leave out the article name, which takes only a moment to fix. The template is useful because it has a warning notice if you miss any important information. A problem with some old rationale templates from last year is that they did not have an "article name" parameter, and images with the old templates have also gotten tagged for deletion! It's all a bit of a mess really :P Bláthnaid 19:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [3]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Words of Advice: William S. Burroughs On the Road

When, or if, you have a moment, can you take a look at this article, and make some suggestions for its improvement? I cannot claim responsibility for the article, but its creator asked for my advice, and I made some edits, but it could certainly use another pair of eyes. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Saint book images

Lots of tagged images are appearing in my watchlist! A list would be great, thank you. Bláthnaid 19:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added rationales to all the images listed on this page today, apart from Image:Starlog.jpg -- there needs to be some more discussion about that particular edition of that magazine in Space: 1999 to justify use of the image. Bláthnaid 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pigs over 1000 pounds

I've proposed a solution you might agree with. The Transhumanist (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD

You would be looking for this discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 16. The TfD is at the bottom. Honestly, the debate was kind of confusing, so if you could provide some clarifying evidence (evidence that the Fred Astaire template should have been part of the no consensus to delete group) I would be happy to undelete. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Solace

I found out last night. I had heard they were trying to use something Fleming related. This is probably the one time where that title actually works so it's probably best they went with it. K1Bond007 (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for the references tip - i'll try to do it brian Bmeyette (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

List of unmade Doctor Who serials

Thanks and congratulations to you for all your work getting List of unmade Doctor Who serials to Featured List status! Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

New biography on Michael Dunn

Hello, 23skidoo. I have just spent days writing, entering, and perfecting my first Wiki article, a comprehensive biography on the late dwarf actor Michael Dunn. I noticed you had left a message on the discussion page of the previously posted biography (which had become very corrupted with myths and inaccuracies, even to the point of someone denying that Dunn was a dwarf) regarding a filmography. I assembled and formatted into a table a list of Dunn's TV appearances, with source reference, but don't know if it's necessary to post an exhaustive list of his movies. Some notable ones are mentioned in the text, and there is a link to his filmography at IMDB. Unfortunately IMDB tends to be inaccurate (as shown by the bio posted there), and I don't know a primary direct source for a list of Dunn's movies. Can you please advise how to handle this?Meticuliz (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Film stuff

Just wanted to let you know, I replied to your comment on my talk page. By the way, in the future, if you could use {{Film}} instead of {{FilmsWikiProject}}, I'd be very grateful. Although the latter one automatically redirects to the former, it has been deprecated, and we're trying to phase out its usage as task force tagging slowly occurs over the next year or so. Knowing that it's not being added to new articles would put me greatly at ease. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Dunn bio and image

23skiddo, thanks for your comments on my talk page. I don't see a second bot tag on the photo. I took care of the first one the other day, and the image is now tagged "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published in the United States without copyright notice prior to 1978, which causes the work to be irrevocably in the Public Domain. See Copyright." I don't think that can be in dispute, since the photo was obviously taken while Dunn was alive, was made available on the occasion of his death, and he died in 1973.

I am relieved not to have to make a table of his entire filmography! Is there a proper term to designate "TV-ography"?Meticuliz (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply at my page. So, what about the fact that the point of a press kit photo is to allow wide distribution and reproduction of the person's face, for publicity?Meticuliz (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply about press photos. How frustrating! Can you recommend whom I should contact to try to get permission? Columbia Studios is now owned by Sony, and I've been searching the Sony website without success to try to find where to write for permission to post an old Columbia press photo. On a second topic, do you have the expertise and willingness to be able to edit the template for the infobox, category "actor," in order to include the parameter "cause of death"? I have used a general "person" infobox but would like to make use of the "awards" parameters in the "actor" subcategory. (If I'm not using correct vocabulary to describe this, please advise.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meticuliz (talk • contribs) 17:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much!Meticuliz (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jade de Guzman

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jade de Guzman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jade de Guzman. Thank you. Starczamora (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Book image

Hi. I looked at that image while I was working through a list of disputed book cover images. I didn't add a rationale because there is another book cover in the article. I've fixed all the fixable book covers from the last bout of mass-tagging, and the rest were deleted today. All the Saint book covers that were tagged have been fixed. Regards, Bláthnaid 19:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. If you come across more tagged images, you can let me know about them. Bláthnaid 19:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:British books

I have failed to find any unambiguious statement that books cats are for non-fiction only, though it does seem to be the case. But novels and story collections are better categorized under subcategories (such as Category:British novels and Category:British short stories) rather then in the parent one - this is very much in line with general approach to categorization. Please note that Category:Short story collections by Leslie Charteris and Category:Novels by Leslie Charteris are already subcats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Merrivale (talk • contribs) 00:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

ouch

Trust me, you're not the only one the bot did that too. If you want, I can keep deleting the bot's notifications for you. I'm on Wikipedia a lot. Enigma (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, March was the date for Wikipedia to be something-compliant. I was reading about that. I'm trying to get support for a proposal to get the bot temporarily blocked until its owner agrees to address the problems. I actually did post one at the Village Pump, but it got deleted. Enigma (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

editing rates

Just saw your message on the rights-bot page, and while this isn't really encyclopedic: what do you charge $75 an hour for editing? My rates might be way too low ... --Paularblaster (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. That's very helpful. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Help

Hi 23skidoo, apologies for not replying sooner. I haven't had any spare time for Wikipedia this week. I'll add rationales to the book covers, as I have done before. I hope the notices don't put you off editing. Bláthnaid 11:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have been using FURME to add rationales. It's really helpful. Bláthnaid 14:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Simon Templar

Vendetta for the Saint‎ is all fixed up pic-wise now... got the other two as well... SkierRMH (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

		The Special Barnstar
		A barnstar to break the tedium of being spammed by Betacommandbot for all the images added under policy-as-was but not compliant with policy-as-is. Paularblaster 10:11, February 25, 2008

Rights on Wikipedia

I note that you seem to be under the mistaken impression that you have constitutionally guaranteed rights on Wikipedia. You do not. Please see Wikipedia:Free speech. I'm sorry you disagree with the decision at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin, but it is the community's decision. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nobody's suggesting you be permabanned, least of all me. I'm just noting your misperception on what you perceive to be your rights. The Wikimedia Foundation is subject to United States Law. That doesn't mean utilizers of the service have free speech rights on the project. They don't. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Comics Guaranty LLC

Hello 23skidoo. I've finally whittled down the criticism section of the Comics Guaranty LLC article to what I think is reasonably fair and, importantly, supported by verifiable sources. However, given that it's been a source of controversy, I want to make sure that other people take a look at it. My opinion should not be the determining factor in the article's composition. To that end, I've sought peer review from the Comics Wikiproject and posted an RfC in the arts category, but as near as I can tell, no one's looked at it. You've taken an interest in this article before, so would you mind taking a look at the current version? Thanks, GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look! As far as the message boards go, I think in this case since the boards are owned by the company, posts made by its employees can be reasonably assumed to be "official", if not unbiased. However, I don't think it's appropriate to repeat complaints made by the other posters as many of these people are anonymous and their claims unverifiable. Regarding the RfC, I added it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature and media. However, I didn't make a separate talk page for this; I merely added an RfC section to the article's talk page. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's probably not controversial to say that there is controversy regarding CGC's role in the market. IIRC, the Wall Street Journal article says as much. But, if necessary, I don't think anyone would object to using the message boards as a source to back this up. However, several threads were being used as sources for more specific (but unverifiable) accusations. I think that the lack of peer review is probably the biggest stumbling block to Wikipedia lending more credence to message boards/forums. Your point is well-taken, however. Hopefully, wiser editors than I are already discussing what to do in situations where important information on a subject is only available from a non-traditional source such as a message board. Thanks again, GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Burroughs

Do you really think we need all those variations of Burroughs' name in the lede? And in bold, to boot? I think it should say, simply, generally known as William S. Burroughs and be done. Thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I spotted the "late '80s" bit too, and wondered where that came from... I do not know when that showed up, but I only just noticed it today. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

help/arbitration/information

Hey 23skidoo, it's Seven of eleven from the BBS. I'm a little lost here and I wrote down 'list of administrators' in the search bar and yours was at the top of the list so I'll take that as a sign. I know the vague generalities of the wiki but don't know the nitty gritty and I just post usually to add basic info or correct something. But I digress.

The problem is found here: [[4]]

There was a Simpsons episode tonight that was a homage to the excellent movie The Departed. The long and short of is that I wanted to put in an explanation for the final line of the episode which is confusing to someone who hasn't seen the movie but others do not. I was accused of trying to vandalize and insert lies in the article, I erroneously accused a guy of being a dual, they deleted my sourced statement while keeping similiar unsourced statements, claimed that I was getting banned on my talk page, there were tons of reverts on both sides, the article has been locked so I can't edit, lot's of arguing and going around in circles.

The point is, I'm guessing you have a way, way, way better understanding of the Wiki and wiki-fu than I or even the people with whom I'm arguing have so could you tell me (and them) if I stepped over the bounds, if they did and what we can do to rectify this problem?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.222.140 (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Junkieace.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Junkieace.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the issue by taking this book cover out of William S. Burroughs. By the way 23skidoo, did you scan this book cover? You usually say so on the image description page, but didn't here. Bláthnaid 19:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How cool -- a book that cost 35c is now worth $500. I thought I'd ask, since it didn't look like a scan. Regards, Bláthnaid 20:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a good example of a valuable non-free image. :-) Bláthnaid 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Castle

There is an image of a German translation of the book in the middle of the article. I don't think that the article can support more than one non-free image. If you prefer the deleted cover, I could ask the deleting admin to undelete the English-language cover, and the German one could be deleted instead? Bláthnaid 19:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

re william burroughs etc

there is an issue re the changing names from William Burroughs to William S. Burroughs it did occcur as part of contractual and managment issues and in his earlier career ie before the mid eighties he was William Burroughs without the "S". that is an important issue and distinction rather than the anomoly your reverts suggest. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

see my comment on burroughs talk re image thiefing by bots Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the message but the S is a modern in innovation . ie not used 40s 50s 60s 70s hmm Opiumjones 23 (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: your "List of incomplete Doctor Who serials" edit

I read your opening statement about your level of activity, but that was a year ago and this was just yesterday, so here goes. I just found your edit to the intro of the article List of incomplete Doctor Who serials, and noticed one inconsistency, in the statement "...in the case of episodes produced between 1970-73 - are complete but currenly [sic] in a format different from the original broadcast." No, this is not about the spelling typo; I wouldn't need to check with you before fixing that, of course. Since you end the range in 1973 but Invasion of the Dinosaurs aired in 1974, you seem to mean "produced" literally, but you begin it in 1970, while much of the production of most affected episodes aired that year was in 1969. Should we change "produced" to "aired" and "73" to "74", or what? It is your edit, and I am an American while this is a British programme, so I ask instead of making changes to my own way of thinking. Ted Watson (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and I understood exactly what your point was there; didn't mean to suggest at all that it wasn't clear. Ted Watson (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bill Haley

It was no problem. I'm just trying to do my part to suppress vandalism on Wikipedia. Illinois2011 | Talk 01:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Err, there wasn't enough vandalism to merit semi-protection. Only two IP addresses vandalized today, and before that there was minimal editing. I suggest you remove the protection, block this fellow, and give the other IP a {{uw-vandalism2}}. Cheers, · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I was wrong to suggest a block: the IP heeded the warning and stopped vandalizing. ;) IMO, there was minimal vandalism, and certainly not enough to warrant semi-protection (I would have declined, were this on RFPP, as ":{{RFPP|nact}} ~~~~", in fact), but it's your protection button, and it's only for a couple of days, so I'll drop the issue. · AndonicO ^Hail! 02:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Modesty Blaise reprints

Hi,

You had asked me about the first series of Titan reprints. There are indeed eight of them. I had them and sold them once I realized I had everything in other reprints.

You can see a list at this fan's page: http://www.cs.umu.se/~kenth/Modesty/mbus.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smrubin (talk • contribs) 02:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - 1st Coordinators Election

An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Shirley Bassey

Regarding this AfD, I have removed the duplicate content from the Shirley Bassey page. The discography page seems more complete than what was at Shirley Bassey anyway, and given the discography's length, I think it should stay separate. Please reconsider your !vote in the AfD. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Never mind, the nom closed it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Nomination for Deletion

I didn't propose the first one, I just tried to submit one and the old one popped up. The Wiki system is kind of confusing and a little clunky at times. And I didn't cut and paste that, Wiki system automatically threw that up when I tried to do it the way the (I thought) you were supposed to. I'd just as soon not use anyone else's stuff to make my own case. KeeperOTD (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon's comment in Burroughs

I was just about to delete that myself, but you beat me to it. I hesitated for a moment, and you were faster on the draw. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

hey

I guess you won't have to lock your talk page, eh? Enigma ^msg! 01:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Check its contributions. It was shut down and replaced with a different bot. It's also one of two active ArbCom cases. Enigma ^msg! 15:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction. Apparently it's still running, despite what is going on. I'm confused, but I don't think it's going to be allowed to spam talk pages anymore, at the very least. I am surprised Beta is still being allowed to unilaterally run his bot, considering the amount of abuse we've seen over the past few months. Enigma ^msg! 20:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Without Warning

I just think I know what I'm trying to do here; IMDB lists 10+ films and movies with that name, plus there are several songs, so I think the main entry should be the disambiguation. -- 790 (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Unnecessary reversion

I apologize for the revert, it was in error. I did not read the contribution closely enough and thought it was something else. ffm 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Low C

You may want to rethink your Low C AFD opinion after what I just wrote.Nrswanson (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Noble House miniseries article

Hi, I remember your work from the Shōgun (novel) page, and I was hoping you could come help me out with the Noble House (TV series) article. I've added the infobox, but I'm not very good at this whole editing thing. If you could, that'd be great. Thanks! LonelyPker (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Could you please check this image page?

I think that the image is fine as it is, since you have the number of the OTRS ticket on the image description page. There are images with the same attribution license on Commons. You lucky admins have access to single-user login now, so you could actually move the image over to Commons if you so wish. It is best not to use any non-free license when the image is free. I've come across some very old books whose covers are in the public domain mistakenly tagged with {{Non-free book cover}}, which were then tagged for deletion for lacking rationales. That was one of the reasons I was concerned about the images tagged for deletion. All the best, Bláthnaid 21:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Just to say hello. --Bhadani (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Does "Escape" actually exist?

I added the part about the "condensed version" called "Escape" a few years ago. My information was based upon an Amazon listing and a couple of other references. However, despite my best efforts, I have been unable to obtain or even physically see a copy of this alleged book. Can anyone confirm that it actually exists? The possibility exists that it might have been planned for release at some point but never actually got out (for a similar situtation, see William Burroughs' "Evil River"). 23skidoo (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should ask. I went a month ago to the library to see if I can Interlibrary Loan it. There's like three libraries in the United States that have it, mine is in the works but I probably won't see it before I get to Japan. If you can get it through Amazon or Alibris, snap it up, it's probably a rare single run. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Midtown Plaza Saskatoon - Royal Trust - concrete slab

Until just a few months ago, I was the Administrative assistant at Midtown Plaza for 15 years. I worked for Oxford as well as CF. Several of the staff have worked there for over 20 years. I can guarantee you that if you heard anything about someone dying at the Royal Trust from the concrete slab, it was erroneous information. We kept a very detailed file on the incident in the office, and at the time of my editing your information I referred to that file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.24.73 (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Justin Skinner (footballer born 1972)

I note your various moves for the above article, including the suggested Justin Skinner (football player). On the talk page you say "I still believe there is a more correct way of handling this" and your reasons for the move stated "moved to properly formatted name under Wikipedia style". Can I refer you to the list of footballers at Category:English footballers. As you can see, the DaB "footballer born 19XX" is rather common. I can't see any where the phrase "football player" is used, although I haven't checked all 6000+. I hope this aids your research.. Best wishes. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of courtesy, I should tell you that I have posted your response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Justin Skinner as this is clearly of considerable importance to the members of WP:FOOTBALL. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello 23skidoo. I have to say that it was good to see your name on my watchlist again (your cleanup of the edit on The Avengers page). I know from your talk page that you are doing less editing here. I am also finding the censorious attitude toward fiction pages in general and TV show pages in particular quite frustrating. If, and when, you get a chance would you let me know what other wiki's you are editing on that have more freedom in these areas. I would like to check them out. Thank you for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 12:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply and best of luck to you on wikis and off. MarnetteD | Talk 17:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Leo J. Meyer

Uh, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo J. Meyer (2nd nomination), you wrote: Delete as recreation of article deleted via AFD 2 months ago. If there is dispute over this decision, I recommend interested parties follow the Deletion Review process. 23skidoo (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC). However, the deletion was overwhelmingly overturned at DRV last month at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 3, so I am not sure what you are referring to. MrPrada (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Humour Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		"It's like the place is run by George Orwell" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of some notable dancers Roleplayer (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Donna Noble

Dear Administrator (and yes, I do know that you're one already, and I also know that it's no big deal):

My warning was from a series of warnings - {{uw-nor1}}, {{uw-nor2}}, {{uw-nor3}} - and I only chose to give you the third-level since the IP page was covered in previous warnings. Out of interest, why did you add your own personal analysis of Donna's character to the page? Yours, Humble Non-Administrator (yet) —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• My question was about the content and I'd be interested to hear your views.
• If you edit from an IP with numerous warnings, you risk being given a greater warning. That is why there is a series, going from uw-nor1 onwards. The IP was due a level-three warning and I gave him one. If you have further issues with this, please take it to WP:ANI, I can't be bothered to continue this conversation. Thanks. —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion?

Should this be deleted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_SRS/Secret_Page --What does this button do? (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:TreasuryTag

I see he jumped to conclusions on you too. Oh well, at least he didn't open a fivolous sockpuppetry case against you. He has no understanding of how IPs work versus IDs and the ironic thing is that if you go back to his earliest edits (including ones under his IP which I cannot divuldge) you can see several disruptive edits involving odd legal threrats. I hope nobody is ever considering making him an administrator, it would be a disaster. --Dr who1975 (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not "jump to conclusions", I added an appropriate warning for breaking a Wiki policy (which I guessed an admin wouldn't have done!!), given the number of warnings existing on the admin's IP's talkpage. I do understand how IPs work and I'd appreciate it if you stopped stalking and badmouthing me at every oppurtunity, DW75. —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Here we go again

The standards have not changed! STBotI usually works well, it appeared to have some glitches when it incorrectly tagged your image. I didn't add the fancy rationale, it belongs to another editor. Bláthnaid 12:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help. Bláthnaid 13:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

James Bond novel images

Aren't they excessive fair use that don't add significantly to the articles? User:Gamaliel has put many of them. Ultra! 18:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

pretty random but...

Can you add "Gallon Man Day" to the list of holidays tomorrow? It's for math class. I get extra credit if I manage to get it on wikipedia.

Spockezri (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To slab or not to slab

Referencing our old conversation about slabbing worthless comics, I thought you might be amused by this. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

FPC I'd Like Help With

I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind going to Portal:James Bond. I'd really appreciate any criticisms or support that you could provide for this Featured portal candidate. Thanks. Ultra! 14:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 23, 2004

Hi 23 - the March 23 article is covered by a larger discussion that's been going on at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removal of many individual date articles. Thought you might like to have a look at that before the AfD discussion goes any further. Grutness...wha? 02:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Saskatoon Neighborhoods

Made more comments at Talk:List of neighbourhoods in Saskatoon, would you wish to reply with your two cents as well? Thank you. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters (2nd nomination)

Could you please review your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters (2nd nomination). I replied to your Keep "vote", but you have not responded. Keep in mind that the article has no secondary sources, so it cannot satisfy certain policies. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 11:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

He changed his name from Vikrant Phadkay to Ultraviolet scissor flame, he has been blocked twice as a vandal for being a page blanker [Phadkay]. He also failed spectacularly when he tried to be a Wikipedia Admin Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vikrant Phadkay. He is also a master sock puppeteer, Paerduug, [5] and then when he realised he had given himself away, he tried to cover it up [6] 81.130.223.198 81.130.223.198 (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

IMDb is the Devil's database

I removed the IMDb link because it was already in the infobox. There's a guideline recommending it somewhere, even if I can't seem to find it again. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Quantum book

I feel we should wait for the release, as stated on the project talk. Also could you reply to my concern there overnovel images? These novels are frequently neglected. And two sections above, an IP wants to battle. ANI told me to spare him because his attacking messages stopped. Is this right? Ultra! 13:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Andreasegde, whom you blocked once for attacks, continues to do so.[7] This discussion at ANI has gone in vain (on the pretext that he is a very established editor) but he doesnt stop attacking and I doubt if he will. Please help. Ultra! 15:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Eleanor Powell

Template:Eleanor Powell has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Lugnuts (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

RATC - US & UK charts in 1954

• US Top 23 - UK Top 17 1954 (US R&B #3 in 1955) Surfrider1962 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability of places

Re your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigger Head Island (Queensland), is there a guideline for notability of places? I looked but failed to find anything suggesting that places were (or weren't) inherently notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of neighbourhoods in Saskatoon

Thanks for picking up my missed signature on my previous post, as well as your comments on the guidelines I wrote. Hopefully it will prevent the articles from looking junky and vulnerable to AfD. Drm310 (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Queen of Bollywood

Hi. I have revamped the article, and I think it's now a credible stub. Please take another look at the article, and see if your opinion has changed. Best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

War on the UFO article, Talk page

Got a literal WAR going on here. 65.173.105.243 (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)