User talk:Herostratus/Archive 2

I will usually respond to your messages on your talk page unless otherwise requested.

Archives
Oct 22, 4004 BC to Jan 1, 2007 AD

SVG

Is it possible to upload SVG files, and have wiki automatically convert it on the fly to png? If so how do I do this, when I tried to upload an SVG it said it was not a recommended format, I did not see a way to force it to go. I noticed in the uploaded files area you have a couple that are .svg.png. --Green-Dragon 06:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedies

Based on your comments at WP:SNO, you may be interested in my remarks in a current discussion on WP:CSD talk, item 35 Problem with templates DGG 21:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your description of Image:Wikipedia goldenbook.jpg

Book and series titles would, AFAIK, be protected by trademark rather than copyright. Neon Merlin 20:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for defending CatDiffuse

Thank you for your defense of CatDiffuse: I had no idea it was up for deletion, and I am amazed at the response it has generated. I invite you to review and participate in WP:∫, to bring order to Wikipedia. Cwolfsheep 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your personal comment

About your line from the thoughts you left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedophobia, particularly,

"Your essay (and this is what it is, not an encyclopedia article) transparently attempts to conflate medical and sociological terminolgy for advocacy purposes. Scholarly journals don't fall for that. Sorry to be harsh, but there it is."

I really do not think it is necessary or appropriate to be condescending or facitious.

I have gone through scholarly review and do know what it takes to be published; I also know how to author a Wikipedia User:Freechild#I have authored entry. I would propose that what is really at play here is your bias against anything scholarly or encyclopedic that addresses young people specifically. You have contested the validity of two actual topics that do have scientific and sociological relevance. Maybe you should read them and actually learn something about what you're ranting against... -Freechild 19:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of article "France Winndance Twine"

Hi, I am just back from a brief vacation and saw the deletion of my article stub on France Wiinddance Twine. I was unable to determine exactly why the article was deleted. I am certainly open to editing and criticism and I am a relatively new user and contributor who is still learning.

I think that this article does not merit deletion because it does meet the notability requirements. Perhaps I have not learned to properly cite references. But if you look on Google Scholar or simply google the name I think that you would find my assertions to be correct.

Let me know if this article is retrievable and what I would need to do to reinstate it.

ThanksCanticle 20:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re France Winddance Twine

Thank you for the quick reply and the opportunity to make changes.

I will of course defer to the wikipedia decisions but I will make an effort to justify my article.

Canticle 03:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of articles related to quackery

I'm a bit puzzled about how the move to project was handled, but I'm no expert on AfD. Currently there is a redirect from article space to project space. I didn't think that was allowed. There are currently about 10 articles that link to this page, which are now redirected through to the WikiProject.

My take on the consensus was actually that delete won but that enough people wanted something like this on a relevant WikiProject for a similar project-list to be considered. I'm not convinced that many folk wanted the article as-it-stands to be moved verbatim to a project.

Colin°^Talk 16:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed this on DRV and asked for an overturn and delete. --Doc^g 18:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list will be fine. It just needs a good clean up. I started the clean up process. Thanks. --QuackGuru 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

France Winddance Twine

Hi; thank you for accomodating my adoptee, user:Canticle in his difficulties with this article. I have given him some guidance, and he may improve it, but we all know that it might not survive. Thanks anyway.--Anthony.bradbury 17:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has spent much time and effort on improving this article. Would you care to review it and decide if you now feel it should survive?--Anthony.bradbury 16:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi once again. I am sorry to bother you about this article, but another editor has decided that it read like a resume (quote) and has deleted a very great deal of the quoted references and publications contained in the text and footnotes. I have reverted his edits, but really do not want to get involved in an edit war, which I can see looming if I am not careful. Could I ask you to review the article once more, which is as you last saw it unless my reversion gets reverted, look at the edit history to judge the value of the other editor's deletions, and make a judgement thereon? I will abide by your view.--Anthony.bradbury 18:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing

Wikipedians are voting to delete based upon WP:BLP concerns? There is absolutely no BLP concerns at all. What is going on? Contact another admin. to halt the votes. This is ridiculous. The voting should start over because the entire article list has been overhauled. This is an unprecedented circumstance. I cleaned house. Thanks and take care. --QuackGuru 16:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

You ought, I suppose, to be apprised of the existence of this this AN/I thread begun by Radiant! about your conduct relative to PII. FWIW, whilst I think neither of you to have been entirely decorous at the PII talk page, I imagine, as seem to others at AN/I, that Radiant! malapprehends the meaning of your war locution, which I take to have been descriptive rather than as inflammatory or threatening. Cheers, Joe 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments here

sterile, useless, energy-wasting, and frankly often childish contention
sterile and pointless warring
if someone wakes up with a hair across their ass
Some people, I guess, find edit wars and wheel wars exciting or amusing or something
The childish small-mindedness of all this

As a very experienced editor, would it be possible for you to explain how these are consistent with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 14:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality

Are you still a member? NinaOdell | Talk 16:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please click on useless image. Happy New Year from a complete maniac. Nina Odell 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects make your admin life so much easier, it will blow your mind.NinaOdell | Talk 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Lawrence McGuire, Ed.D.

You neglected to complete the AfD nomination for Helen Lawrence McGuire, Ed.D.. Please see the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 21:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Supertramp (album) lyrics

That's cool man. I wasn't sure if it would be a copyright issue or not because anyone can learn lyrics just by listening. But, then again, many people can learn music by listening too and it's still a copyright issue to write a musician's musical notes for public distribution; so I understand. I'm a bit new here, but I won't be doing that anymore. Thanks for the message to clear it up. Peace. J.A.C. 22:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barzin Graphic

Just wondering what the issue was witht he graphic I posted on the Leon Barzin page. TIA, Leon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lbarzin (talk • contribs) 17:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

AfD page

Seems like someone didn't like your removing the tag on Gay icon - check out the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 15 - is it kosher to get rid of the non-nomination (nothing on the article page)? Thanks SkierRMH 09:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback - normally I will fix up the botched AfD, as it can be a bit confusing for a novice; but given the history of prodding & speedying & vandalism there, thought it was someone who just got frustrated and thought they could simply put the {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foo Bar}} template on the AfD page and that would bypass all the processes :) SkierRMH,18:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the introduction post

It was terribly informative. I don't plan to become a huge member in the site, but to every now and then make edits when I see something that I know is wrong, or, perhaps, update articles about my family, and stuff like that. Anyway, thank you very much. Elkrobber 22:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Title Change

Greetings. The article list of our interest has been moved to a new wikiproject page. The new title is called the >>> List of articles related to scientific skepiticism. If you have any suggestions for improvement just let me know. The movement forward will be focusing, direction, and quality info. Sincerely, --QuackGuru 03:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

Sorry, I know I'm new at this, but I don't understand why the pictures that I uploaded on the affogato page were deleted. I can't tell if you deleted them or not, but maybe you can follow the rabbit trail better than I can and figure out why they are no longer there. I did have permission to use them. Thanks for your help. 24.131.241.73 18:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Anigrrl[reply]

Fairness

If you are interested (if not, just ignore this), I would appreciate it if you, as an admin, make sure I conduct things properly on my talk page. I have listed a few conditions which I believe are a good start. Even though Ilena doesn't seem to care to treat me fairly, I want to treat her fairly by giving her an opportunity to document her serious charges and vicious personal attacks, which haven't yet gotten her (or User:Steth, who is every bit as vicious) indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia, as such attacks would have for myself or any other editor who made them. If I don't treat her fairly, please correct me immediately! -- Fyslee 21:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Speedy

Technically, under WP:MUSIC that doesnt' affect this at all. I'll switch it over to AFD though. -- feb^talk 06:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Finn

May I ask why you deleted Veronica Finn. It's a page of a band member of Innosense, and the page has been contested before with a decision to keep. At the very least, can we put it up for AfD? (Or at least contest it for a redirect.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarthogDemon (talk • contribs) 01:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please use the + tab when starting a new conversation on talk pages. Thanks.

When you add new sections to talk pages like you did to create User talk:Jamestown#Don't look like a vandal. Please provide an edit summary when you edit., it would help if you used the + tab rather than simply editing the last conversation. When I saw you posted in User talk:Jamestown#Marguerite Dupree, I thought you were replying to me. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1942 mods nom

You may be interested in the List of Battlefield 1942 mods AFD. Bfelite 15:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FCKGW, closed as keep

Even though you closed it as keep, your rationale was that ýou didn't want to do a merge. I went ahead and been bold.[1]. I genericized several sentences that referred to all VLKs and moved them to a new section that was already a paragraph in that article and trimmed some of the rest. SchmuckyTheCat 16:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smarandache-Wellin number

Can you explain why this is a no consensus close and not a keep? ~ trialsanderrors 23:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I guess partly because I trust David Eppstein, partly because I didn't find that the Keep commentors had really made that strong a case. There was a bit of go-round over the status of MathWorld, PlanetMath, and OEIS, and just generally the notability of the subject. I didn't find that it was proven that these sources and this subject are notable, although they may be. FWIW the raw totals were 8-4 Keep, (plus one Merge), but there were a couple of editors who didn't overtly vote but whose comments can be taken to support a Delete argument, which would make it be 8-6, not an overwhelming difference. Anyway, that was my reasoning. Herostratus 03:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I just moved this to the closed cases at WP:SCI/TC, so I wondered how to summarize the closusre. ~ trialsanderrors 03:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Star back atcha!

		The PAW Project barnstar
		Awarded to User:Herostratus for keeping Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch ticking, and also for designing this slightly alarming template! DanB†DanD 03:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Yershov

When removing the speedy delete tag from Vladimir Yershov, you wrote "I don't know what those numbers mean, but Yershov seems notable enough". Might I suggest that as an administrator, you familiarize yourself with WP:CSD. Specifically, I was listing it under reason A1, "Very short articles providing little or no context", and reason A7, "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.".

You write "Yershov seems notable enough". Mr. Yershov may indeed be notable, but we're not debating the person, we're debating the article. The article doesn't assert the notability of Mr. Yershov beyond just a general statement that "he is noted". There's no indication of what his accomplishments are, or why he would be qualified as notable under Wikipedia guidelines. It falls clearly under A7 of WP:CSD.

I have a hunch that Mr. Yershov may indeed be worthy of a full fledged article on Wikipedia, and in my posting on the user's talk page, I tried to spell out what would be needed. However, the article as it stands now certainly qualifies as speedy delete material, and it really bothered me for you to profess ignorance of WP:CSD while at the same time acting as adminstrator. --adavidw 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, I just wanted to say "Hi". I saw your username come across my watchlist and I just realied I haven't communicated with you in a while. I hope all is well with you. Keep up the great work and please let me know if I can ever be of assistance! Johntex\^talk 06:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the deletions

Thanks for handling my inappropriately tagged user sub-page delete requests. Prolly not a big deal using {{db-author}}, I forgot about {{db-userreq}}. — MrDolomite | Talk 07:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

... for the barnstars you awarded me! That was very kind and thoughtful of you. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Finn

Please consider putting the other 2 articles written about her "band mates" up for AFD as well. Danay Ferrer, and another one. Thanks, Bookishreader45 02:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get SNOW protected again?

I see you re-added the essay tag, per parallelism with WP:PI. I have to say, I think that's a foolish doctrine. WP:SNOW is, empirically, not an essay. WP:PI, empirically, is. There's a difference between essays and guidelines, and it's a quite objective difference of style. One is a description of actual practice; the other is an expression of an opinion. Note in particular, WP:PI takes the form of a "should" statement; WP:SNOW does not. If you wish to re-write WP:PI in accurate and descriptive format, or if you wish to rewrite WP:SNOW as an essay, I wouldn't stop you, but claiming that the two are yoked together, I just can't support. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. So you don't think that refraining from tagging is as policy or guideline is sufficient to show that it's not a policy or guideline? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a compromise. I'm just pretty sure we won't see peace with an essay tag on there, which is why I asked if you were trying to get it reprotected. I won't remove it, but you know as well as I do that an essay tag won't last two days on that page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PI and SNOW

Hi there. I was just making my way across Wikipedia and stumbled into the tempest over at Wikipedia talk:Process is important and/or Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause. From what I gather, you're one of the principle parties involved in the discussion/debate/dispute/whatever. As a neutral party who is new to the discussion, I'm wondering if perhaps I can offer an outsider's take. To that end, would you care to tell me your take on things? If you'd rather not, I understand. I just figure a fresh perspective might help. Regards. —DragonHawk (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please vote

[2] - Kittybrewster 14:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Herostratus_defcon_draft_1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Herostratus_defcon_draft_1.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. MECU≈talk 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks And Question

Thanks for putting up Veronica Finn for AfD, though I have an inquiry. I was debating whether or not that real-estate site would classify as her "home page" or not, and if so it would be an okay link. I had asked 3 admins on it and they were all iffy about it. If I come across something like this again is there a place where I can bring it up other than the talk page? (As the message on the article's talk page had been ignored in this case.) -WarthogDemon 04:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Abigail brittney hensel twins.jpg

Please undelete and place in Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion so other people can talk about it. I am asking because I only have 1,000 edits and lack the authority to undelete the pic so people can look at it for deletion review.

Judging from the discussions of this matter on the article's talk page, I think you will find that every, or almost every, editor who has worked on that article will support non-deletion, if they are given the opportunity to express an opinion.

Note that one would think there should be no problem with this, as the deletion is not urgent (e.g., trademark violation, a fake, vandalism, etc).

My concern is that the picture is such an obviously cannonical case of a legitimate fair-use image that I can only conject that it may have spuriously triggered a neural path which properly responds to quashing child pornography -- a mission you state are on -- and you unintentionally and subconsciously and with the best of intent confused a superficially similar but innocent medical drawing from Life magazine.

Your objections to this being a fair-use image are:

Although Life magazine no longer exists, the Time-Warner corporation certainly does, and holds the copyright.

that someone holds a copyright is part of the DEFINITION of a fair-use image

This is, in my opinion, too much information for a fair use image. Fair use text may be quoted in small amounts to help illustrate, but may not be copied in in paragraph-size blocks to help create the substance of the article.

this is not text, it is an image. If it were a large block of "lifted" text, I would agree. But it is only an illustration.

"But", you say,

this image doesn't just illustrate, but forms a significant part of the substance to the article.

Literally all information in the image appears in text form in the article, to the left of the image. All the diagram does is provide a visual presentation of information which is present but difficult, though not impossible, to visualize without the image. It is this fact which is so obvious that it makes me and other editors of that article wonder why you -- clearly honest and well-intentioned -- would fail to see it.

It would be very difficult to replace this with a free image, but not utterly impossible.

no, it is quite impossible, absent drawing one yourself. The hensel family is private and protective of their daughters and have provided this type of access on exactly four occasions: the oprah winfrey show in 1996, time/life in 1998 (which produced the diagram in question), and advanced medical productions in 2003 and 2006 (who made two videos for TLC). Additionally, I have collected what I believe to be every image of the hensel twins that exists on the internet -- and there are 122 of them -- and none except the one in question are medical diagrams. If such a diagram existed it would certainly appear on one of the several Hensel-twins "fan" sites.

If you elect not to undelete permanently based on the above information, then I respectfully request that you undelete temporarily so that others may take part in a consensual forum, as is the wiki way.

Please put reply on my talk page.

Thanx,
Sys Hax
07:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eur 20041214 tues3art.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Eur 20041214 tues3art.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nardman1 11:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Larry D. Alexander Article

Herostratus this is user Charles Dillion. I'm writing you regarding the deletion of the "Larry D. Alexander" article. You left me a message asking me to satisfy several "citation needed" requests after you had editted the article. I took the time to supply verifications through newspapers, art publications, and the Library of Congress, as well as two universities who house Alexander's work. I uploaded about a dozen newspaper articles on Alexander that talk about his many exploits. They included articles on "The Clinton Family Portrait", permanent collection at the Southeast Arkansas Art Center, Art presented to Universities, various art exhibits nationwide, lines of greeting cards registered at the library of congress (including copyright numbers) etc. I included this information in the "what links here" in the toolbox. And as far as LuLu Press, who distributes two of his books,they are not listed as a vanity publisher even on Wikipedia's list of vanity publishers. I also went on line and found his books at all the major book retailers and wholesalers worldwide. Most of them, including Barnes and Noble, Amazon, Books-a-Million, customer bases gives his books "Five Star Reveiws". Go on line and check it out for yourself. This artist and writer is very notable! In fact he is more notable than a lot of articles already carried on wikipedia. In all fairness, please return this article. Pleasse respond. 31 January 2007 User:Charles Dillion

P.S.One more things about deleted article Larry D. Alexander.The creator of this article claims its notablity by providing information that he's probably taken from newspaper, online and universities. If he (instead of other user) was mentioning some existing biographical articles (instead of newspaper, online and universities) as a proof of his article notablity then would this article have been existed? Or was it likely to be deleted?? is there no value of mentioning informations that come from outside of the wikipedia? Then is it necessary to mention only existing article in wikipedia for saving a particular article from deletion process? Or also it doesn't have any value like information comes from outside of the wikipedia??

Frome above sections, same question comes again, the creator's (of the article) not getting the priority for his comments. It means he has to wait for other users respond (whether his aricle likely to be deleted or not). Why this happens?

Actually, I want to be clear about these matters.

Notablity

I noticed you put tag on Dept. of Pharmacy, Jahangirnagar University. But I found lot of universities who have individual faculty related article. Then why this article will be deleted or (it doesn't have valuable information)??? How faculties/departments cannot be notable??? Take a look on Faculty of Business Studies, University of Dhaka, Faculty of Biological Science, University of Dhaka and also on University of Edinburgh#Colleges and Schools as they have individual articles. Are they likely to be deleted??? Shouldn't this article Dept. of Pharmacy, Jahangirnagar University be merged on Jahangirnagar University??? Thank you. Give me proper feedback. Thank you NAHID 13:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Herostratus, I've some questions regarding on deletion process.These might be silly questions:

suppose, I'm the creator of above article Dept. of Pharmacy, Jahangirnagar University (Though it was needed some editing and it's been edited) and the article's been tagged (prod/afd). Then If I notify you about its notablity, would you then remove the tag as per contest.'Coz most of the time the creator (of the article) doesn't get the priority and he has to wait for other users comment (whether it'll be kept or deleted).
Can any user remove deletion template from his article by providing information/raising its importance without notifying admin/user (esp.who's tagged the article). In {prod} template, a statement is ,Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion. I'm confused whether the user can remove the deletion template from his article or not.
Is it considered to be vandalism, if an user remove the deletion template from his article by providing its notablity? or what if he doesn't provide its importance. Then will it be vandalism?
Some users claim removing deletion template from an image is considered to be vandalism. Are they right? Then what about removing template from an article?

Can you please clarify these to me? Thank You NAHID 09:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I understand about the prod template. But has the creator right to remove that prod template from his own article by providing sufficient information? I think I left you a message about Larry D. Alexander Article(I don't quite understand why it's been deleted, 'coz the creator raised it's notablity with lot of informations on your talk page). Actually my point was the creator's comment regarding on his article. Sometimes creator raises his own articles notablity with lot of informations but unfortunatly their comments doesn't get value. It means their articles notablity aren't matching with wp:policy, right. Or is it just depending on other user's comments?? Can you please expand it bit more. Again Thanks for your explanation . NAHID 12:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what about image tagging license. Especially this message "I have already warned you about this once. Removing "replaceable fair use" tags is vandalism. If you continue to do it, you will be blocked. By all means, dispute the tags if you feel they're misapplied, but you must follow proper procedures" I found it an user's talk page and the notifyer was also an user. You said it's not ok to remove speedy deletion tag. It means removing these types of tag is regarded to be vandalism, right . Or was it just an user's comment? If anyone taged an image dishonestly then can the user has the right to remove that tag? Or he need to participate in contest for removing that tag?
One more thing, I noticed an image's been tagged by {nrd} that doesn't have any fair use rational, but the uploader trying to remove the tag without providing any rational (he already removed the tag once). Is his work's being regarded to be vandalism? (I think it's, but bit confused whether they fall in wikipedia policy or not) I didn't find any topic (WP:Policy) that deals with above matters. Thank You NAHID 08:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Baden Powell

Hey, I stonrgly agree that thses smear campaigns should stop and I thought your rationale was very good. I voted delete as per nom and added some stuff that said that even in the article it is ccepted he never engaged in any activities of that sort and supported flogging for those who did. As a former chief scout I was extremely dissappointed to see this. TotallyTempo 16:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That brought me to your WP, I have now tagged Talk:Lolicon, Category talk:Murdered children, Talk:Oakland County Child Killer, Talk:National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and Talk:Child Pornography: Model Legislation & Global Review, don't know if that's what you had in mind. Chris 03:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not mean to tag ones you have qualms with, go ahead and untag them. Most similar tags stay on if a project is related, but I do not want to step on any toes. Also, I would not have caught that about Anna Nicole Smith, thanks, Chris 22:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What am i doing wrong?

I have had it with this! now i ask you, What am i doing wrong? I am trying to be on topic. I set up a new topic. FIRST: I edit saikano & someone removes it 2 times,then I set up a disussion in Anime talk about america anime? someone removes that both were on wikitopic! Now this! Please explain why all were removed when 2 out of 3 were on topic!--saikano 18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nouveau Classical Evolution

I added a AfD tag for this article and for the related Scott Waddell, both of which are being removed by the same editor. Freshacconci 15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note

FYI, you may wish to participate in this discussion. --El on ka 21:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

NAHID has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:User:Templateuser/Smile}}, {{subst:User:Templateuser/Smile2}} or {{subst:User:Templateuser/Smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Fair-use

Please do not remove the "no rationale" tag until you have provided a detailed fair-use rationale, as required. Thanks. --Yamla 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you

Got some time to waste? Check this out: it's the caveman from those Geico commercials and I couldn't resist sharing it. http://www.cavemanscrib.com/ --DanielCD 20:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Superhero team cats

I agree with what you say, about classifying members of superhero teams in corresponding categories. It seems that someone wants to reduce the amount of "cruft" (if you excuse the overused word) that appears in the encyclopedia. --JB Adder | Talk 23:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (P.S. I've voted on the latest two that have come up. I'm voting keep, I hope they do.)[reply]

Tree House Records

Thanks for your additions to their talk page. I was a bit too hard on them, I suspect. Michaelbusch 05:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PAW user box

Is this going to cause problems in template space? --Monotonehell 07:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the star thing

you are right i had no right to award myself for, the weeks to months i spent researching unknow info on saikano and it setting. i hope i did not do something against wikipedia rules. if so i am sorry but i did not know. so for that im sorry.--Lolicon(Anti Child Porn)Saikano 18:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mgmbill

Your proposal for deletion has been removed (not by me). Please revisit the article to determine if you want to place some other sort of deletion tag on the article. --Walter Görlitz 19:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Alan Smithee

Hey! great protection you beat me to it. The local radio show, Tommy & Rumble, launched an attack on this page this morning encouraging editors to deface the page. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! No wonder I sam "FM99" added so many times. -- Ryan ^{I'm Back!} 13:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Smithee

Thanks for protecting that page, but maybe you should add the protected tag? Thanks again. -- Ryan ^{I'm Back!} 13:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for uploading photographs

I caught your mention of the page at Village Pump. Having had the (dis)pleasure of running the gauntlet by way of uploading photographs myself, I could well empathise with many of your sardonic comments. Funny as hell, I loved it. :) Ekantik ^talk 00:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rationales

Edits such as this one are inappropriate. Please check out the license text again. It specifically states that a detailed fair-use rationale must be provided; the license alone is not sufficient. Rationales are a mandatory part of our WP:FU fair-use policy. Now, I understand that you are acting in good faith, but any fair-use image without the mandatory information (source identifying copyright holder, accurate license, detailed rationale for each use of the image on the Wikipedia) needs to be tagged and deleted. --Yamla 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]