User talk:Thekoyaanisqatsi

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Portal Logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Portal Logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the suggestion on PlayStation 3 (if you look at its FAC, I did miss quite a bit as far as cites go). This is just something I noticed, and it doesn't mean its ok, but Wii is a featured article without that statement (seventh generation of video game consoles) being sourced. Also, I'm pretty sure that the custom of referring to the present video games generation as the "seventh generation" actually originiated with Wikipedia because we needed a name for this gen. After the "32/64 bit era" (PlayStation and Nintendo 64) and the "128 bit era" (PlayStation 2, GameCube, and Xbox), no one knew what to call the present generation (we couldn't do "256 bit era" because that's kind of not true...). I believe "seventh generation" was decided on because of the layout of the History of video games article. If you think we do need a source for that statement, please let me know on my talk page and I'll try to find a cite. Again, thanks for playing the devil's advocate. We do always need one of those. ;-) Thingg^⊕⊗ 17:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not 100% positive that here is where that term originated, though I'm about 95% sure. Also, I have seen other websites refer to the present generation as the "seventh generation", so if it becomes a problem, I could probably find another website to back up that claim. Also, the Wii is a Featured Article without having that statement cited, so I don't think it will be a problem. Oh, yeah, and I don't think Wikipedia would qualify as a reliable source. (Ironic yes, but true, I mean, we're proof that anyone can edit it.) Again, thanks for voicing potential objections. If you'd like to vote in PlayStation 3's FAC, click here. Regards. Thingg^⊕⊗ 14:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Portal Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Portal Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Episode 2 logo from Steam.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Episode 2 logo from Steam.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Episode 2 logo from Steam.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Episode 2 logo from Steam.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. --Geniac (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

iPod classic

Please do not change the article against established consensus. There is a source from which we made the decision to refer to all 1.8" HDD-based iPods as "iPod classic", which you can find a link to in the talkpage. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Generations

Just dropping you a note pointing you this way. H.G. 11:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to John McCain. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Comandante {Talk} 20:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding History of video game consoles (fifth generation), you may nominate such a page for deletion but it is not Wikipedia policy to blank the entire contents of any page. It is actually viewed as vandalism. So if you contest any part of it, please follow the procedures and use the talk page to begin a discussion. Many thanks. Evlekis (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Halo 3

You are continually adding misinformation. The current language doesn't suggest that Halo 3 is the only game that can be scaled in resolution; additionally, you are adding POV language that cannot be sourced to the citation and is thus erroneous. Please desist. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nazism

• Nazism

From your comments in the edit summary it appears as if you don't have a clue about this topic, and with saying "who cares" I was actually offering you an easy way out. That "the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right" is sourced to several reputable history books, and there is no reason to remove that information. And furthermore, let me inform you about important policy, which you have already broken:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. If you make another revert at the article Nazism, it is quite likely that you will get banned. Please take notice of this. Zara1709 (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Swoopo

Please don't add unsourced opinion to the aritcle. Everything you add needs a source and a citation and it is require that the article is written from a neutral POV. --neon white talk 08:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A reliable source that is not wikipedia. We have at least two sources that categorically say that this site is not gambling and none that say it is. Therefore the POV you are adding is your own and is original research. --neon white talk 15:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

worst ever

In what way? In europe in the uk, in local election ...worst ever what? the comment is loaded and doesn't explain itself at all.For example the tories won with 25 percent of the votes, only 33 percent of the possible voters voted and this means that only 8 out of every 100 voters voted for the conservative party. 92 people out of every 100 did not vote for the tories and they won. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

You did still not explain. In what way worst ever? I get the feeling you don.t know, and according to what figures? I imagine you could also say that the tory figures are the worst ever. It's a falsehood and the press are already calling the results poor as I inserted. The worst ever comment you are insisting on inserting does not belong in the lede and if you insert it elsewhere it should be explained exactly.[[1]] have a look at the results, there are plenty for poor. Actually the results were good for labour. The conservative vote in this counrty is still weak and in the circumstances you would expect it to be far higher. That is why there is a conserted effort by the right wing press to attempt to get rid of brown, because if next may come the election there is a good sign of recovery the people will recognise that under policies of the tories the recession would be deep and strong and will vote labour back into power. So I would say poor was strong enough, worst ever is a bit strong. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

This revert war over the lede of brown is only going to end in tears, it is silly and I for one am tired of it, let us try to find a compromise...why do you insist on adding all these cites? what is it that you are trying to do? In what way do you think your edit is beneficial to the article? (Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

Recently over the last two or three weeks you seem to be just coming here only pushing your edits on the brown article? You are not having any discussion about it at all, you have no comments on the brown talk page and you fail to reply to my comment here.. I can only suggest a little more discussion from you would go a long way. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

The right place for comparative analysis of the 2009 election results is in the relevant section, so I have moved your "worst since WW2" there. More generally, I have noted that you have made several edits to the lead section, including restoration of material deleted by other editors, but contributed nothing to the talk page. Please allow me to suggest that you read WP:BRD. I appreciate your implicit apology for directing the word "idiot" at other editors in an edit summary, but you should still go to WP:CIV also. Cheers. Viewfinder (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Gordon Brown. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please do not refer to other editors in the edit summary as idiots Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Boiling Point (2021 film) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Boiling Point (2021 film), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of \"Draft:\" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the \"Submit your draft for review!\" button at the top of the page. BOVINEBOY2008 09:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Boiling Point 2021.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Boiling Point 2021.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)