User talk:Mad Max/Archive 1

Image:Snail-WA 03.jpg

Hi Mad Max!
Now that this nomination is over, do you mind if I delete your edit? It didn't gain support and is not used anywhere else. Thanks! --Fir0002 09:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've deleted the snail plus the grouper and the self portrait. I didn't delete the clownfish shots as it seems that you edit is preferred over the original (and I agree), so maybe it would be worth replacing the original in the article with yours? Also I didn't delete the old revisions of those other two pics as I'm not sure it's necessary. Is there any particular reason why you want the revision deleted? --Fir0002 00:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the clownfish is okay, but now that I look at it it seems over-saturated. If you want you can edit it or leave it the way it is, it doesn't matter to me. As for the snake map, I had some interesting conversations with Jwinius (talk · contribs) who seems like a snake expert or something. You can read that on my other account before I had my username changed, see User_talk:Every1blowz#Snakebite_morbidity_map. So basically, the newest version of the snake map is far more accurate and the others should probably be removed since they're there for no reason. Or you could leave it, again, it makes no difference to me. My reasoning is that having two or more copies of something seems like a waste. --Mad Max 02:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One angry user

Hello, Mad Max. I'm pretty mad myself. At you. And that's not a good thing, trust me. Whoever accused me of being a sock puppet was in the wrong, and I'm furious. What right do you have to accuse me of being a fake when you can't prove it? Publicly? Online? Now you've given me a bad reputation (that I do not deserve). Perhaps you'd like it if I did the same to you? Because you happen to vote for both of one artist's pictures??? That's absurd! And judgemental! And completely inaccurate! And I'm so aggrivated at both you and a certain Vanderdecken or whatever. I don't appreciate a 14 year old with no life who has nothing to do accusing me of sock puppeting. That infuriates me, and if I could, I would like to have a chat with you face-to-face about slander. I wish I could sue you and all other arrogant unimportant no-lifers! ButterLips

The comments above were left on my userpage by ButterLips (talk · contribs), a suspected sockpuppet active on FPC. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/GarrettRock for more on that story. --Mad Max 00:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:RECrow.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:REGlimmer.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your tagging of your own images

this is confusing. I've seen you've tagged several of your own images as in [1] and [2] for example, as "orphaned fair use images", and they were GFDL licensed, therefore not fair use. Do you just wanted them to be deleted? if so, please list them on my page and I?ll remove them. -- Drini 04:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, I had a little mix up there. They aren't being used anywhere so I guess they should probably be just removed. They're mine. --Mad Max 07:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juana Maria

Hey Max, I've been editing the Juana Maria page you started. Great work, by the way (also, I love your username.) One thing, do you have a source for the quote from the anonymous Sacramento newspaper writer? I can't seem to find it on the web.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Samantha Taggart (ER).jpg

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

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

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 18:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear MM—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers.[ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]