User talk:Mushroom/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mushroom. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Messenger

Greetings and Salutations: Id like to inform you that you have erroneously deleted the article page Messenger (musical group). Messenger is a Warner /Chappel assigned musical group in CANADA which performs and headlines regularily.They are also SOCAN memebrs as well as ASCAP affiliates, which in laymans terms ,means they are a recognized musical contributor in this country(CANADA). They are currently recording their next cd release and have a proven history with credentials and an independantly released cd available for retail. I recognize that your administrator priveledge allows you to make decisions that can be detrimental to accurate knowledge, but please do your research and make such decisions with a view to WIKEPEDIA as a world class FREE reference and not your own personal biased interpretation of what should be its contents. Thank you for your time and understanding in this matter, and I trust you shall reconsider your delete principle as a much more international responsibility from here on in. Sincerely Thomas Messenger

Sorry about that. I have undeleted the article. Mushroom (Talk) 23:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

External Links and Verifiability

I have a rather complex question about an issue that seems perfectly fine to me. In the article Comparison of one-click hosters there used to exist a column for the links to the website with which the information was derived off of. A user (I don't think it is needed to state names, as the history has it) has deleted the links saying that they are spam. Now, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability as I understand it, the information contained within an article, even if the information contained within the article is 100% true, it must be backed up with a reference or source so other editors can verify that it is indeed the truth.

Now, as I do not wish to get into a rather nasty revert war with this, or any user, I see a few options available to me, although at this point I don't think the other user would like either of them. One would be to reference each individual page, and have the MediaWiki software construct the list of page references within the page. Two is to construct a sources table. According to this, it would seem since this is not intending to promote any specific product or service, then it is acceptable. According to numbers two and three, citing the text or having a references section is the way to go.

However, neither of these options would seem to work as in either there would be external links, and thus I beleive the user would qualify them as spam, and simply revert again. There is a discussion I had with the user, but that can also be viewed from my contributions (again, no finger pointing on my part).

Am I mistaken about how the information within an article can be referenced, and therefore misinterpreting WP:V? As of the current moment, only four of the services within the table have any articles. Would that mean the other entries need to be removed because they are not verifiable if the linking to a commercial service for the purpose of referencing material is qualified as spam? I don't want to unknowingly introduce spam into Wikipedia on the hope that I am doing things correctly by making sure users can verify the information by including the links with which to do so. Any assistance you can lend in regards to this matter would be greatly appreciated, as I am totally unsure how to proceed at this point. --Kyra_~(talk) 12:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of one-click hosters looks more like a list than like an article. If you put a link to a one-click hoster in an article about it, that's perfectly acceptable. But lists should be used to provide links to articles, so they should not contain external links. They should contain only internal links and if possible a small "references" section with links to reliable secondary sources (example: a newspaper article comparing various one-click hosters). External links and references can be put in the specific articles about the hosters. It's true that removing the links will make the article a lot less verifiable, but I think it's the right thing to do. The optimal solution would be to create stubs for all those hosters, making sure that they meet the notability guidelines (WP:WEB and/or WP:COMPANY), and remove the ones that are not notable. Mushroom (Talk) 17:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Death of a President

A few weeks back you removed an external link to a web site I was adding for Death of a President.

Today I was having a look at that page and you've allowed nearly a dozen other external links onto this page. Talk about picking and choosing what you allow on there. Your main argument was that only imdb was allowed on external links and there should be hardly any at all. Having a look at the links now allowed, I would very much doubt many of those are 'notable'. Consistency please otherwise you'll be getting accused of not being impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.198.31 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-25 12:57:22

(Excuse me for butting in here) I can offer an answer: The only link I saw Mushroom remove was a link to a blog. Blogs are not acceptable sources according to the policy at WP:V. I have to say, if I had seen that link before Mushroom did, I would have removed it myself. -Amatulic 20:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Amatulic. That was exactly what I was going to say. Mushroom (Talk) 17:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Valet parking, et al., external links

A while back you promised that you would block User:69.14.61.89 for readding spam links to his various sites, though it's not quite clear to me whether you were including the Valet parking links in that warning. In any case, he's back. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 21:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, I have blocked him for a week. Mushroom (Talk) 21:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What happens if edit history contains copyvio?

I'm curious about something. After a lengthy discussion in Talk:Master of Business Administration about the inclusion of published rankings of MBA schools in a related article MBA Rankings (with a capital R; there are variants of the title with different capitalization), we agreed that the MBA Rankings article contained a copyright violation because it included rankings from the Financial Times web site, on which the Terms and Conditions page prohibits republishing in any form. So we agreed that the MBA Rankings article should be removed and redirected back to Master of Business Administration (from which it originally derived). This has been done, but the copyvio still exists in the edit history of the MBA Rankings article. Does this matter? -Amatulic 21:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Generally, all copyvio revisions should be deleted. But I'm not sure those rankings can be considered copyvio, since they're just simple lists. Something similar is List of Fortune 500, which is published on the Fortune magazine and copyrighted. But maybe I'm wrong: you'd better ask at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Mushroom (Talk) 00:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

[Barnstar moved to user page]

Hey, this was totally unexpected! It makes my Halloween night 100% nicer, so thank you very very much!! Mushroom (Talk) 04:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing WP:EL while protected.

Can you please explain why you edited WP:EL while it was protected? --Barberio 12:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I edited it because I noticed a sentence was missing, and I remembered it was there before. I may need to cite that particular sentence when I remove linkspam, so I'd like it to be there. I'm not involved in the edit war, and I thought my edit was non-controversial. But if you (or someone else) do not agree with it, I can revert my edit. Mushroom (Talk) 17:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do so. --Barberio 22:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Mushroom (Talk) 01:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Barberio 11:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind reverting the page all the way back to when it was protected? Dmcdevit is refusing to revert his changes. --Barberio 11:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to do that. While I agree that there wasn't enough discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:External links, I don't like to revert other administrators' edits. And I don't think there's a need to do so in this case, since the change is marginal. It will be reverted when the page is unprotected, if there is a consensus against it. Mushroom (Talk) 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics

I see you're removing a bunch of links to song lyrics. What evidence do you have that they are copyright violations? Wahkeenah 03:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Same question as above, what's up with this? Although not allowed on wikipedia, the fair use rational is pretty established for lyric sites, and having a link is pretty benificial to these articles. Let me know what's up... --T-rex 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed here, and fair use is not established for lyric sites. None of those sites are authorized by the copyright holders (just go there and look for their copyright notices), and many of them are profiting from their copyright violations through ads. See this site, the MPA or the BBC for more information. Ideally, all those links should be replaced with links to the lyrics page on the musician/band's official website. Mushroom (Talk) 03:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to cite WP:EL:

A page that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. Sites which fail to provide licensing information or to respond to requests for licensing information should not be used. (Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.).

Mushroom (Talk) 03:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I trust the MPA on this one... --T-rex 03:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course I don't agree with the MPA, but this is not a good reason to violate WP:EL (or the current copyright laws). If readers want to see the lyrics, and we can't link to them, they can still use Google. It's not that difficult. Mushroom (Talk) 04:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I see it more as a reason to change WP:EL then --T-rex 04:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you make a proposal at Wikipedia talk:External links. Mushroom (Talk) 16:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mushroom, I tend to agree that lyrics and links to lyrics sites should be removed from articles; however, it seems excessive to remove them from users' comments on talk pages. In two cases, I had actually been using azlyrics for this quote:

United States Copyright Law provides the copyright owner and/or their representative with the exclusive right to create, reproduce and distribute derivative works based on copyrighted material. Unless you have received permission from the copyright owner or their representative to distribute the lyrics from their songs, you are in violation of the law.
May 2003 - Azlyrics.com Team was contacted by one of the world's largest music print publisher "Hal Leonard Corporation", who exclusively control print rights for more than 6000 of the compositions listed on our website. Publisher demand us to cease and desist from offering these unauthorized lyrics for distribution via our website.
We had no choice but to remove all these lyrics from our site, otherwise AZLyrics.com would be closed.

As you can see, this actually supports your case. Assuming you simply failed to read what I wrote, I reverted both of your changes.

In this case, I didn't revert; however, I would urge you to do so yourself. Talk pages are not part of the encyclopedic content, and don't have to adhere to the same guidelines as articles do.

Thanks for taking this task upon yourself, but please keep in mind that this issue is shadowy, not at all black-and-white. Λυδ α cιτγ 01:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually read what you wrote (I even visited the site and read the paragraph you quoted), and I decided to remove the link anyway, because I think those sites should not get any traffic from Wikipedia. I agree that in this case the removal was not justified, since you were linking to a non-copyvio page, but I won't revert my edits to other talk pages. As WP:EL says, "knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States". I know that WP:EL doesn't apply to talk pages, but if someone added copyvio content to a talk page, I would remove it. Why should it be different for links? Mushroom (Talk) 01:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: I apologize for editing your comments, I won't do that again. Mushroom (Talk) 01:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the relevant portion of WP:EL does apply. I wonder, though, about whether comments on talk pages are really driving much traffic towards lyric sites, or whether most people who would follow a link will go to these sites anyway through Google. It's also possible that the [link to copyvio website removed] notices are themselves making people curious about what the removed websites were. But if you think it'll help stop copyvio, I have no problem with removing links on talk pages. Λυδ α cιτγ 03:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know if that will stop copyvio, but I think it's better than nothing. Mushroom (Talk) 08:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

San Diego

I left a comment on the San Diego talk page asking if anyone thought that protection was necessary for the article due to the constant vandalism for the Anchorman quote. I have not received any responses on the talk page, so I'm jumping over to you. Since you are an administrator, I figure you would know if it would be best to protect the page. If you think it is in the best interest of the page, can you please protect it? Please respond on my talk page if not. Thanks. --Nehrams2020 02:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have semi-protected it. Mushroom (Talk) 02:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, again. This will save a lot of unnecessary edits, since it happens so often. --Nehrams2020 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Mushroom (Talk) 02:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thedrunkendialer.com

I am wondering of this site could be considered an internet phenomena or not. I know it is rather popular and extremely humorous. It features a guy who holds a weekly contest offering $100 via PayPal to the individual who leaves him he best Drunk dialing message on his voicemail.

I did not add this site to this article yet for fear that people would think I am self-promoting. I have no affiliation with the site and can’t find any direct marketing used to purchase products. I just think it is very funny and well known around my area.

I look forward to some objective input before I add, or do not add this site to the list. Take a look for yourself, you be the judge…

Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam. (Would this apply?)

http://www.thedrunkendialer.com/drunk-dialer.html

Thanks, 69.167.102.181

P.S. I posted the same message on User_talk:Wavy_G for more opinions. Look forward to hearing from you...

Since you are not affiliated with the site, I don't think it could be considered spam, but you should make sure that the site meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for internet content before adding it. Mushroom (Talk) 07:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Fan sites

Why are you removing links to fansites and unofficial sites of different bands? A band such as Ash, fully endorses fan sites and I'm sure would not like to see you remove these links. What gives you the right to remove these links?

I'm removing those links that are in the Links normally to be avoided section in Wikipedia's external links guidelines. The guidelines also state:

If there are many fansites for the topic covered by the article, then providing a link to one major fansite (and marking the link as such) may be appropriate.

However, fan sites often violate "links normally to be avoided" number 1:

A page that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

or number 4:

A page that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. Sites which fail to provide licensing information or to respond to requests for licensing information should not be used.

(when they contain lyrics, photos, music, etc. without the band's authorization). Mushroom (Talk) 14:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Response: But Mushroom you are wrong. First off... the ONE major fansite should be www.walking-barefoot.com. So, why remove the link to this very valuable and accurate site?

Secondly, the Ash Files (www.ashfiles.com) is maintained by the band themselves...thus there are no copyright violations there. Why exactly did you remove the link to that site?

As far as the others, they are endorsed by the band. The demo lyrics site (http://fireska.sitesled.com/ash) has had contribution (offical lyric sheets) by the band themselves and does not contain any inaccurate information about the demo tapes, although the text lyrics are being updated... its just unreleased and uncopyrighted demos for goodness sake

The Italian Ash site is the ONLY one that you have legitamatly removed according to Wikipedia's guidelines.

How about you contact the band (they can be contacted on their MySpace) before removing those links and do some research before jumping to false conclusions?

I apologize. I think the external links section is okay now (all official sites and one fansite). Mushroom (Talk) 08:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

'External links' banner you added to RSS (file format)

Hello Mushroom, what's up with this banner? I did not notice any suggestions from you on the Talk page. Some of us have been riding the spam links pretty hard lately, and we have a 'Discuss links here' section on the Talk page as recommended by WP:WPSPAM. I admit that I enjoyed your deletion of that one link you removed. The Specifications and the History sections seem appropriately linked. There are also two Tutorials that I haven't closely studied, but appear legitimate. Can you suggest other links that you believe should not make the cut? EdJohnston 21:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I should have examined the links better before adding the tag, most of them are ok. I would remove:

The RSS History (Dmitry Baranov) link, since the linked page contains just a short paragraph.
The GeoRSS link, since there is no reference to it in the article.

Mushroom (Talk) 08:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Why remove the DizzyFIX link?

Hi, I am a patient with BPPV and I have used the link to the dizzyfix off the BPPV page. I wanted to talk to my doctor about the device but couldn't find the link until I saw that you removed it.

why did you remove it? Is it that you are concerned about advertising on Wikipedia? Although the dizzyfix is a product the dizzyfix page is very informative about the disease. I think it is a good link. The product has also been developed by physicians at a university and seems quite reputable. From my reading about the rules of posting on Wikipedia external links are for the purpose of linking to further information rather than duplicating it. Also I have read that commercial links are ok so long as the information is accurate and not entirely biased. The refences on the dizzyfix page are all from peer revied journals so I can only assume that it is a reasonable product.

In any case, I found it useful and maybe others would too. I think it should stay.

Dizzy in Canada

Wikipedia's external links guidelines are clear about this: the site "primarily exists to sell products or services". So it cannot be kept. Mushroom (Talk) 16:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about the GFDL

Some time ago as part of the userbox migration, I transfered {{User:KyraVixen/Userboxes/Pancakes}} to my userspace at {{User:KyraVixen/Userboxes/Pancakes}}, and just recently finalized the final two transclusions to userspace. The problem is this: someone (I don't like to point fingers) moved the userbox back to Template space, then copied the code from the restored {{User:KyraVixen/Userboxes/Pancakes}} back into the (redirect?) page that was created when the page move was reverted, breaking the page history. At this point, I am hesitant to tag the Template space copy with a WP:CSD#G6 tag, as my understanding of the GFDL is that all revisions of a page must be kept together, hence the page move feature which preserves the history. And as users cannot undo a move is the redirect page has been subseqently edited (using WP:MOVE#Undoing_a_move as a reference for that point) I and wondering if the Template copy should be kept until the histories can be merged by an admin, or just deleted. Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated. Kyra_~(talk) 18:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The template copy shouldn't be deleted without a history merge. While WP:GUS isn't policy, the majority of Wikipedians (including Jimbo) seems to favor the userbox migration, so I don't understand why Ian13 opposes the move to user space in this case. Maybe you should discuss this issue with him first, and try to find an agreement. If you want to request the history merge, you can do so at WP:SPLICE. I would do it myself but I have decided to take a long wikibreak. Mushroom (Talk) 13:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit at Red Digital Cinema Camera Company

Hi, you edited this: [1]. Some of those links are really valuable: The company does something no other company of its size has ever done: it involves the community into its development process, always asks "what dou you think" etc. And this extraordinary process happens at dvxuser.com, one of the links that you deleted. That's why I disagree with your edit and I think we must put it back. What do you say? Peter S. 13:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links says that Wikipedia articles shouldn't contain links to forums. I think the link could be kept iff the forum is considered "official" by the company itself. Mushroom (Talk) 13:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Richards

An American actor named Michael Richards recently made some racist remarks, to no ones surprise his page is being vandalized fairly frequently. Some people have asked that an admin at least take a look at it and you're the only on I know. Thanks. - Schrandit 17:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The page has recently been semi-protected by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Hopefully the vandalism will stop. Mushroom (Talk) 13:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Proxy server

Hi, sorry for my shameful behaviour in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_server but i was just trying to help people by letting them know about my proxy site, well i guess wikipedia is for that purpose only to help people. Since my site is related to proxy i had added my link there except that you wont find my site link anywhere on wikipedia.

It would be really helpful for your users and my site if you could add my proxy site to your Proxy Server page.

here is the code i would like to add

Bypasser.Info Free Web-based Proxy service and Proxy List to bypass internet censorship and firewall

kind Regards, Flavian

There is no valid reason for adding a link to your site on the Proxy server article, especially considering that there is a comment there that says:

Please DO NOT add links to sites that list open proxies or web-based proxy service. We already have DMOZ links for that. Thank you.

There are countless free proxy sites, and Wikipedia is not a link directory, so the two links to dmoz (which is an open directory of links) are enough. Furthermore, the addition of links to a site "that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for" is forbidden. I suggest that you read Wikipedia's external link guidelines before adding any more links. Mushroom (Talk) 21:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

mushroom functions.

Does a mushroom move at all (roots) and what gases does it exchange?

THNX, dan

Mushroom is currently on wikibreak. But you do understand that his name is Mushroom; he isn't actually a mushroom. He does move, I'm pretty sure, though I can't comment on what gases he exchanges. [I hope you don't mind my responding, Mushroom, and hope you're doing well.] Chick Bowen 02:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do move! (a bit slowly, though). Thanks for responding. I'm fine: I have just decided to take some time off, but I think I will be back sooner or later :) Mushroom (Talk) 22:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mushroom, I too would like to know if mushrooms, such as yourself, exchange gasses. I've heard they don't exchange CO₂, but maybe mushrooms enjoy another gas like nitrogen or something. Most mushrooms can't move (besides growing) by their own means, can they? Surely you are one of the types of mushrooms that can move though, right? Please come back to Wikiland soon! Hope you had fun on vacation. Can't wait for your response. Talk to you later. Jecowa 02:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I like helium, it gives you a funny voice! Mushroom (Talk) 22:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Mario Party 8

Dear Mushroom, someone has been vandalising the characters section of Mario Party 8. They put a picture of Bob Barker on the characters section and put him on the list of unlockable characters. Please do something. Also, can you tell me what to do when I encounter vandalism so I won't always need to contact you each time I find vandalism. Henchman 2000

Now I have found someone has deleted the entire characters section of the page. Henchman 2000

Sorry for not answering, but I was (and still am) on a long wikibreak. Mushroom (Talk) 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's OK. The vandalism has alreadt been reverted. Henchman 2000 19:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that :) Mushroom (Talk) 04:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Message

I have no clue why you messaged me on here. I put a truthful statement about a comic who is proud of his weight. This is not "vandalizism" as I believe you referred to it.

Have a nice day.

Sorry for not answering, but I was (and still am) on a long wikibreak. Mushroom (Talk) 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mitch Hedberg Article

Why did you remove the fan link from the Mitch Hedberg article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timneu22 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 30 December 2006

I deleted it because it was a violation of the external links guidelines, links to avoid, number 13. Furthermore, the site appears to be offline. Mushroom (Talk) 08:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:SIA Cargo Logo.gif

Hi!

You deleted Image:SIA Cargo Logo.gif as an orphaned image (log). It turns out that the image was orphaned after a change to the infobox where it was used (diff). I was wondering if it is possible to restore it? I am updating the article on Singapore Airlines Cargo and restoring it would save me the trouble of finding a new image of the logo and uploading it. --Oden 20:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I tried to restore it but it didn't work because the image was deleted about a year ago, back when image deletions were permanent. I think the image should be this one. Mushroom (Talk) 14:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded the image again and it looks good. Thanks for all your help! --Oden 18:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

:-)

¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.}

Happy editing!!!--¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 02:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!! :) Mushroom (Talk) 17:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Uploading

I want to upload a screenshot from an anime series, but I'm confused about the polocies and such...obviously, I didn't make the screenshot, but...I'm in doubt. Lightwing1988 01:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have answered on your talk page. Mushroom (Talk) 02:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

re Full Metal Fest

Huh? An annual festival that hasn't happened yet? LessHeard vanU 21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted it. If it becomes notable enough I will undelete it. Mushroom (Talk) 00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I had no problem with the noteworthiness as such, just the language. It is 'your' article. LessHeard vanU 13:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wacken Open Air

Thanks for fixing the infobox link. I was having a bit of trouble with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.142.0 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 26 January 2007

You're welcome, glad to help :) Mushroom (Talk) 00:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the best template for delete of nonsense/vandalism redirects ?

Ciao, saw you deleted that "MCFACE" redirect which was obvious nonsense. I'm not an admin but if I see such a redirect which is obviously vandalism what's the best template for me to add so it gets picked up for speedly delete by an admin ? Ttiotsw 02:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ciao. You can use {{db-vandalism}}: it is a general template that can be applied to any page, including redirects. If you prefer to use a redirect-specific template, there is {{db-redirtypo}} which is for redirects from implausible typos. Mushroom (Talk) 02:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about your talk page header

Would you mind if I make use of the code in your header on my own talk page? It's more organized than what I have right now, and I find it a rather good idea to keep all that code on a separate page and just transclude it onto the talk page itself I hope you have a most wonderful day, and happy editing. Kyra_~(talk) 06:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course not! Feel free to use it :) Mushroom (Talk) 14:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

One Tree Hill

Hey! Could you check out the pictures being used on One Tree Hill (TV series) and tell me whether or not they're fair use? Thanks, godgoddingham ³³³ 14:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Jkelly's message on your talk page. Mushroom (Talk) 17:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)