User talk:Baa/Archival Quality/3

This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from the current talk page for the period January to April 2008.

In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form. Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the current talk page.

If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the current talk page page and then add your comments there or preferably link to the section in question within the archives.

↑ Index

Pre-May 2008 manual archives 1 – 2 – 3

2008: J – F – M – A – M – J – J – A – S – O – N – D
2009: J – F – M – A – M – J – J – A – S – O – N – D
2010: J – F – M – A – M – J – J – A – S – O – N – D

Better Idea

Since the page Jimmy Nixon McGarfield was nominated for deletion, I've decided to move Jimmy's bio to the villains' page. I'll let the other wikipedians do the rest.

User: Numbuh 355 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numbuh 355 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give you a better idea, I'll withdraw the AfD nomination and you could blank the page and request speedy deletion using G7 as it's technically correct, how's that? --treelo _talk 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! User: Numbuh 355 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numbuh 355 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jonathan § 00:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lazlo

Lazlo has his own article because information real world information - i.e. about character development (the hows and whys regarding the character creation) - is available. Perhaps Raj and Clam can get their own articles if you judge the information about character development to be sufficient for splitting. Look at what we have for Clam and Raj and see if you think they should be split. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not me who reckons they should but others will inevitably figure they should because they're main characters and if Lazlo has one then they should also. They're wrong though, I think that the Lazlo article is good enough to stand alone from the list given the info you gathered together but that's only what I'd see as stub to near start length without cuts which will happen as some of it are remnants of cruft and there's only half that for either Clam or Raj so no real justification for it. --treelo _talk 02:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that CN press release with the interview also contained character bios! Now I can source statements about personalities. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet job there, nice. Two problems though, the term "Cartoon Network's press kit" comes up 8 times and every time Cartoon Network is mentioned, it's wikilinked even though it's already wikilinked in the lead. Little cleanup should do the trick, remember you do have a reference list at the bottom, no need to mention where the info came from if you cite it correctly. --treelo _talk 23:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foster's Images, My Issues, etc.

Okay, the character images from Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends were supposed to stay in the article, but now they're gone, speedy deleted, from Wikipedia, but they are not gone from Imagination Companions, which is a Foster's Wiki I requested and am administrator of. And I said something about being banned from Never Forgotten. Never Forgotten is a Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends fansite, and I got banned from that site because of pornographic material, which is not allowed there. The site's admin, Cynthia "Sparky" Read, has some friends, like Tina "CGAussie" Fazzalari, the site's graphics coordinator and one of the site's co-admins, and kaytea, one person whose real name I cannot remember, but I do remember her other nicknames (deowithit, scarygreenhamster); kaytea was once my friend, until she turned her back on me and betrayed me, and she posed under the username "someone" in my now defunct fan forum for Foster's. They, all three of them, including Sparky, hate me and are angry at me, but they are fans of the show. I got so ballistic about my ban from that site that I insulted Sparky, called her a bitch, and threatened to put her pets' lives in jeopardy if she wouldn't unban me. I tried many ways to let her unban me, but she didn't, and never will. My parents are currently in contact with Sparky, and she is going to swear me off into court the next time I bother her. But that's not the only problem my parents had to handle. My dad once had a rivalry with an old woman, who thinks that we were causing her so much damage to her property. She even called my dad a bastard at times. I tried to butt in one time, but it was no use. When it was the last straw, my dad swore said old woman off into court, and her sentence was that she was to never bother us again. And now I'm dealing with a crisis here; a crisis which would, may, or might get me banned from Wikipedia. There's got to be some way to prevent that from happening. ~~LDEJRuff~~ (talk) 1:30, 16 January 2008 (EDT)

I don't care, most of your problems were created by you and whilst I have talked to you before I don't really see how your incapability to keep your mouth shut when you are clearly wrong is my issue to solve here. You'll be banned because you broke policy and I'm not going to take pity on you and bail your butt out because you told me all your issues in the past and present, what more can I tell you? You caused this issue, you accept the consequences and learn from them. --treelo _talk 14:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking

Hi again. This is very quick asking, but I just wanted to know. Don't kid me wrong; I'm not asking you to go back and do anything, but I wanted to ask... I'll get to the point. Do you ever go back to the Iggy pages and look at how they're coming along? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did only a few days ago and they're going along fine. You're still doing the whole numbering of every edit on them, still creepy much like the whole parental position you've given yourself but as I know you do it to keep a certain amount of closeness and love for the articles you edit (and actually consider it sweet) I wouldn't consider it ownership like I would if it was someone else. Keep it up Wilhelmina! --treelo _talk 14:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ClayMort

Thanks for the heads up on ClayMort aka CripsRUs a few weeks ago. CripsRUs was banned for an unacceptable user name, so he is now Numbah7. Sound familiar? (Look up this page.) I have definite proof now that he is also Jungwirthwillkillallrocks, as well as a formerly abusive IP. I suspect he has many other names, as well. Should I start a sockpuppet case against him? He isn't vandalizing and dosen't seem to be bothering anyone. -- Elaich ^talk 14:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really as it feels a bit pre-emptive filing a sockpuppet case now seeing as he hasn't done anything yet. Given his streak as being one hell of an attention whore though I'd say to start building one for when he actually does start up again because you will need it. He really shouldn't have mentioned he was Rhode Island Hero as that pretty much made a confirmation of who he is. Yeah, he's not doing much but given he's the mind that brought us things like "Fight me. Right now. Fight me. Have you EVER BEEN OUT SIDE WIKIPEDIA?? If you have you would know that THE ORIGIONAL RUN IS STILL GOING!!!!!! Oh and WHERE THE HECK DID YOU GET THAT THE ORIGIONAL RUN ENDED!?!? Listen little boy I have benn watchin Cartoon Network before you wuz even born. You are pathetic.". "Are you so mad because you are gay?" and, this is my personal favourite, "Hey GREG! YAH I KNOW ITS YOU!!! You dowg! Yous Doin Good? mail me back" which was left on Jungwirthwillkillallrocks' talkpage it won't take too long before he starts shouting at people. I'd personally would create a subpage at WP:LTA describing him as he's damn persistent and would allow for blocks on sight for the accounts he uses. That's a bit more complex and maybe even unnecessary but it's easier than making yet another sockpuppet case. --treelo _talk 15:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg

Dude. My name isnt ClayMort. It's Greg. I don't know you.Crips r us (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, go away.

External Information

What kinds of external information has to be gathered on a character, and how much, before they are notable enough for an individual article? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it you've read WP:N right? That doesn't say much on external information but usually for a character to be notable enough for an article there has to be a reliable third party source which actually documents the character beyond say a review of the show they're in. Blogs and fansites are out as they're usually POV pieces and biased anyway unless from the people working on the show itself. Who are you looking to get notable info on anyway? --treelo _talk 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, the I.A. characters, if you didn't already guess. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well then I think you're going to be a bit limited on info for any of them which would qualify as a reliable third-party source. Content for IA isn't all that common as you know and creating articles for any of the characters (including Iggy and Jiggers) will be contested on the grounds of notability which if you remember I did warn you about. Good luck anyway with it. --treelo _talk 00:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, are you ever not kidding about the limited amount of information available. I have found some, but I don't think any of it is documented third-party. But whether it takes a hundred years or more, I have a "finny" feeling, as Catfish Stu would say, that they'll eventually get some. More seasons might help it along; why don't we both cross fingers and pray that at least another will be produced? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? I feel that if it doesn't then at least you did some good with the show at least even if you didn't get to make the character articles. --treelo _talk 02:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

uhoh. Sorry I didn't do it on purpose. Hopefully it won't happen again.70.181.24.188 (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Valentine's Day!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Wilhelmina, very nice of you to do that! --treelo _talk 12:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

You have been Quality/3 granted with the rollback permission on the basis of your recent effort on dealing with vandalism. The rollback is a revert tool which can lessens the strains that normal javascripts such as twinkle put on the Wikipedia servers. You will find that you will revert faster through the rollback than through the normal reversion tools such as javascripts and the undo feature, which means that you could save time especially when reverting very large articles such as the George W. Bush page. To use it, simply click the link which should look like [rollback] (which should appear unbolded if you have twinkle installed) on the lastest diff page. The rollback link will also appear on the history page beside the edit summary of the lastest edit. For more information, you may refer to this page, alternatively, you may also find this tutorial on rollback helpful. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 21:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crips r us

Thought you might like to have a look at this. Any thoughts? GlassCobra 03:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Komod dover? God, that guy's getting lame. Yeah, just erased something pretty similar from my page, obviously Crips r us/Claymort/Greg Jungwirth figures himself as something of a Wikipedia vandalism kingpin of some sort building on our previous incidents with other vandals. Theres a sockpuppetry case open now for our friend Greg so might want to add to that but he's certainly gunning for some form of LTV entry. --treelo _talk 03:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he considers himself to be like that guy on The Sopranos? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, he got you too with all the random garbage you've now got on your talkpage. --treelo _talk 04:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, that was an IP address. I think it was this same one that's reportedly been around for a long time on Wikipedia, requesting that other users pulse-create biography pages on producers, screenwriters, playwrights, etc., of little or no notability. Whenever he is requested of to create his own account so he can do this himself, he always says that he will not register, and has called these requesters "sheeple" in the same contexts. I doubt, therefore, that these are the same user. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, fair enough. Will you take care of adding that diff to the Hero SSP case? That IP added similar comments to other talk pages. GlassCobra 03:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now, if only I could alert a admin to it... --treelo _talk 04:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think Crips r us and Komodo Lover could be the same person? Komodo's denied he's had sockpuppets before and pretended to be multiple people. Seriously, these kids need to find something better to do with their time. DietLimeCola (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, lodge a RFCU for their most recent accounts and see what that draws up though I doubt it'll be much as they're in different geographical areas. --treelo _talk 14:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WQA?

Hi Treelo. A user who has only been on Wiki for a day has filed a WQA report about you. [1] It's looking like a sock to me, and I'm giving you a heads up. Best, DanielEng (talk) 06:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treety

If you remove all the sockpuppet cases, all the talkin behind my back, I will stop. All I want from you is that you stop talking behind my back, and stop talkin trash about me.Greg Jungwirth (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC) What will you lose out of not talkin behind my back? When you'll stop, you won't hear from me. Try it. What can you lose?Greg Jungwirth (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to add a comment to the sockpuppetry case and state your defence, that's not talking behind your back if you've been able to speak for your own actions all this time. The case isn't going away because you've still broken policy but like I said, tell your side of the story at the sockpuppetry case article, not here. --treelo _talk 19:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it's spelled treaty, not treety. DietLimeCola (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting help... as you do

Probably not an issue anyone can help with but figured it'd be worth a shot anyway. Recently a vandal has geared up their attacks by quite a bit on several user's talkpages but in particular mine due to what he calls "talking trash about me behind my back" or in other words creating a SSP case which has incensed him (or at least lit a fire under him) and leads us to now.

The issue at hand here is that the case has been sitting around for a while and call it wanting to get a job done quickly or the strains of having a frequently vandalised talkpage I'd like someone to see and get the case sorted as it's ongoing and only likely to get worse. I'm fairly aware of the admin shortage on the sockpuppet checking front so failing getting someone to check it over could I at least get some help on how to handle this until someone can? It's very hard! --treelo _talk 23:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Jungwirth (talk · contribs) was already blocked indefinitely a few hours ago for vandalism.

When people vandalize your user page, you can post vandalism warnings on their talk pages and then report them to WP:AIV. I think reports there usually get fairly prompt attention. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for getting faster service at SSP, I'd recommend messaging one of the admins who appears to regularly work there. If one of them is online and not busy at the moment, I'm sure they'd be willing to take a look. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

Three blocked from the RFCU case. See my notes there and on the SSP. OK to remind me about SSP Sunday afternoon (US time) if I forget. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my post on DLC's page. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress.

By no means am I asking if this is all it would take for them to deserve individual pages yet (as I know better) but for citations, how would you say the characters are coming along?

BTW, I suddenly noticed that your page is semi-protected. My deepest sympathies for all the vandalism/personal attacks it must have suffered. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, some citations are rubbish at best (the GranolaGirl one for Zoop, not needed and isn't a good source anyway) but otherwise it's fine as you might as well take what you can find. My talkpage is semi-protected because I wanted it semi-protected along with two others I had to request protection for and might have to again once the prot expires. Your concern is nice if a little overblown. --treelo _talk 01:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging pages for G6 deletion

Hello Treelo. I've noticed you've flagged a few pages for speedy deletion under speedy deletion criterion G6. When you tag these pages, it would help the administrators deleting the page to know what to move there. You can find out how to do this by looking here, otherwise the page won't be deleted because we won't know what to do! :) Regards, Rudget . 19:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to blame Twinkle for this, doesn't allow for adding those necessary attributes for G6 deletions. Thanks for the heads up anyway Rudget! treelo _talk 19:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Rudget . 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Powerpuff Girls Characters

So you really put most of the information from the Rowdyruff Boys page on the page of the list of characters on the powerpuff girls? Really? When I look at it, it reminds me of a summary. Here's what's there:

The Rowdyruff Boys: Evil male counterparts of the Powerpuff Girls created by Mojo Jojo from snips, snails and a puppy dog tail (based on the Nursery rhyme entitled "What are Little Boys Made of?") in a prison toilet. They are violent bullies. Although the girls destroyed them in their first appearance (the episode "Rowdyruff Boys"), the boys were later resurrected by Him in the episode "The Boys Are Back in Town" (the title being a possible reference to the Thin Lizzy song). Each boy can be seen as an evil variation on their female counterpart:
- Brick, Blossom's equivalent, is the abrasive, bullying leader who possesses little of Blossom's tactical logic.
- Boomer, Bubbles's equivalent, is a loud-mouthed dimwit, as opposed to Bubbles' naive sweetness.
- Butch, Buttercup's equivalent, is a hyper-aggressive borderline psychotic, exceeding Buttercup in both bloodlust and rage.

Compare that to the actual Rowdyruff Boys page, and see how much of a difference there is. I think it is very redundant to delete the page, because Wikipedia is a "GROWING" Encyclopedia, and there's no need to reduce. You can keep the information of the boys and other characters on your list of characters in the Powerpuff Girls page. But if someone wants to know more about a character, they click on the name of the character on top of the brief description, and get transfered to the page dedicated to the character. That sure helps Wikipedia! I hope you understand! WiiDS (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content issues you can discuss at the article talkpage and should do so in future, I'm feeling nice though so will address your concerns here. The content of the RRB article is mainly trivia, nonsense and wouldn't justify an article in a properly edited state, that which is content could be copied into the RRB section and the rest could be deleted. This isn't about reduction and whilst Wikipedia is growing it doesn't mean anything and everything can be given an article because someone thinks it should have one. I'm sticking to the policies regarding notability and given consensus about character articles. --treelo _talk 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. I'll use the discussion page from now on, but since this discussion is happening now, I would like to continue to address something else. Sure, there's some trivia and nonsense. But we can kock that all out though. Just make it as clean as possible. On top of that, I don't think other characters in the show will have much of a problem of vandalism as much as the RRB, but I think that a popular show (Or ex-popular, if anything) deserves a page for each major character. And I'll try my best to keep the RRB as clean as possible. Hey, maybe we can get Wikipedia honours or something like that? Anyway, I just think that alot of work has been done to the page, and I think with a few modifications, things will work out. WiiDS (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some? Most of it is trivia and nonsense and if you cut that out you've still got nothing to justify an article. Popularity or otherwise to me doesn't immediately mean all their mains need articles and yes, I know a lot of other shows do have main character articles but they're sourced fairly well and we've tried in the past to get good sources for a lot of PPG subjects and found little. I get the feeling that the RRB are your favourite characters and want due respect given in the form of an article, I won't give them that because if you do everyone will want an article even if they can't actually fill it with encyclopaedic information and that'll easily make vandalism worse. It's part vandalism issue, part cruft tracking and part notability issue as to why the RRB and various other characters got redirected, being more centralised allow for better control.

Each character at one point did have an article and most of them was deleted because of vandalism, concerns of notability and sourcing along with generous amounts of random lists and original research to pad them out. I'm not having a repeat of that as it's occurred before with other shows I patrol so want to maintain a reasonable quality even if it means they only get a couple of paragraphs on a character list. You keep the RRB section clean if that's your area and that'll be fine, just don't make it bigger than necessary. treelo _talk 12:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I'll do my best. I won't let you down! If I ever do (which won't happen), then by all means, delete it. Thank you! :) WiiDS (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, you just did! Really, I didn't say specifically "recreate the article" and never implied it either. What I did say though was "Don't recreate the article as it's not worth it, get what you think is useful and put it in the section on the character list". I'm not out to crush your ambition as others have reckoned before but it truly is an issue of content, not of personality so it's not you which is the problem.

I'll be clear on this, what is noteworthy in that article is that they existed and came back, nothing else in truth. The rest is stretching for additional info when it's not required and that's what gets me about it, no rewrite you or anyone else could give this could make it any better than what exists right now in the main character list because the info and I do mean real, sourced, out of universe info isn't there. It wasn't there for anyone else and it isn't there for RRB either. The chunk about RRB in the char list is actually badly written but can be fixed as it's only supposed to be a summary, not a long list of things about them no matter how minor. Bottom line here is they're not notable out of universe and what you can write on them without going off into fanboi masturbation territory as nearly every line of that is now is minimal. No article. --treelo _talk 23:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Even though I tried to fix it up before I saw this message, I understand. I thought that things like the episode count and stuff like that would be importiant. If you want to check the new page do so, but I know it's redundant now. By the way, you said "without going off into fanboi masturbation territory". Ya... well I'm not like that at all, and I'm not a fanboy. Sure, they are my favorite characters in the PPG, but they are in no way my life. No way. I'm a Nintendo fan, that company has a bigger impact on my life than this show. And I do have a life. I just wanted to clarify that. Thanks! :) WiiDS (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you fixing it, thing is is that it's beyond a quick spruce up. Did respond to your input to the minor PPG character list merge suggestion, go take a look. Nothing I have said to you has been a personal insult or intended to be so, that article is fanboi masturbation, no two ways about it! Keep editing the other articles, not going to stop you there as long as it's good input and I have to say I've appreciated the way you've been kind and understanding to me which doesn't happen as often as it should when it comes to this sort of thing, thanks. I'm going to edit this down and copy it to the RRB talkpage so people understand what's going on. --treelo _talk 00:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot dude! Wait, or you a guy or a girl? Just wanted to know. Anyway, were all here just to help Wikipedia grow. That's our main goal! WiiDS (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd n Eddy

Someone put the original run date to present. I would fix it my self, but I cant. I tried to contact Elaich because I thought he had a big deal with the original run, but I dont think my comment got through. Please help. PS, Im not trying to sound like a whiny bastard, but I cant do anythingThe Legend of G (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, done. --treelo _talk 02:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get this.

Here I am again. What I'm asking this time is: You said that the characters in Iggy Arbuckle have to have a lot of external information given on them. But characters from The Nanny, such as Fran Fine, Maxwell Sheffield, C.C. Babcock, or Brighton Sheffield hardly have any external info given, if any. Yet they still get individual pages. Now, is it that these articles are apt to get redirected eventually? Or is it alright for the Iggy characters to have their pages now? Or is there some other factor which I don't see? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question and I'm not entirely certain why that is. Some shows do have separate principal character articles but they're generally unnecessary as in this case there's very little content there a list couldn't handle. As for Iggy, the other factor as well as the issues that The Nanny characters have is one of justifiability and I could see it easy to delete them for reasons of being characters of no note. --treelo _talk 13:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Profesor Utonium.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Profesor Utonium.png. 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Treelo! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Ale_Jrb ^talk 15:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble with a drive-by tagger

On the page Big Jack Armstrong, User:Rtphokie has insisted on tagging a simple list of stations worked at as {{Prose}}. He is misinterpreting policy, which states that "lists of links" be expanded to prose. This is not a list of links: it is merely the DJ's resume over the years. The article is about the DJ, not the stations. Notable stations have already been addressed inside the article. What would you suggest that I do? -- Elaich ^talk 03:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of the list if all the notable stations have been listed. It reads like a list for the sake of having a list and doesn't add anything of value to the article, Wiki isn't somewhere for every single location of employment on someone's resume, even that of dead people. Not entirely certain why a user of their standing seems to be pushing for this. treelo _talk 13:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got My Eyes Peeled

A sock army wanted to attack your talk page...but no worries, I got my eyes peeled ;). Give me a holler if the ruffians become too much to handle and you need page protection...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, figure this'd be something unique but no, this happens every so often. Doubt I'll be needing any page protecting just yet but I'll call if help is required. treelo _talk 22:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf?

What the hell r u talking about? I didn't edit anything. R u looking for trouble or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TK(film) (talk • contribs) 12:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did, you took an older version of Yngvarr's talkpage just in order to go and tell him you're pissed at him for not allowing your "film" an article for failing to actually establish notability. That was unnecessary so I warned you for it, I'm not looking for trouble but if you bring it to me I will respond in kind. --treelo _talk 15:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what do you think this means?

[2] I was checking around for any more external info I could find for the Iggy Arbuckle show, and I found this link on the google news search-drive. It's not on Teletoon, but do you think it could mean a new season? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe but it could in all probability be all-new in the context of the remainder of the first season if they only played out the first 13 for instance. I'd personally get any info like that from Teletoon themselves than what's occuring for anyone else as it's unlikely that they'd know about a second season before the producers would. --treelo _talk 09:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Warthog

She called herself Geraldine Shannon Warthog in the recent episode of the cartoon. Why did you revert it to Winifred. It's not Winifred. Bokan (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put it down to two things, Winifred as her first name has been there for a long time now so changing it without any citation to prove it seems a bit suspect. If you know it's been said recently then put it back in with a ref, it's no big deal. --treelo _talk 10:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network

I have started a discussion about the name of this article on Talk:Cartoon Network (US)#Requested move. Your opinion would be appreciated. ... discospinster _talk 21:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I jumped the gun there, ignore me for now! --treelo _talk 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]