User talk:Emilblonsky

Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke[edit]

Hi. The fact that other couples may or may not have their own articles isn't a sufficient reason to have one for these two - please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The article still has to meet the same standards for notability as every other article. Since there appears nothing about the 'couple' that isn't covered by their own articles, I don't believe that any notability is established. CultureDrone (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you create this article, when it is a copy of what I wrote in the Todd Manning article? I will be nominating this article for deletion. Flyer22 (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am beyond angry that you created this article by literally copying all of my hard work about this subject and pasting it into this new article. Furthermore, it is clear that this article was only created so that Todd and Marty could have a couple article, like popular couples or supercouples. You did not even include the rest of the bad regarding this couple, such as people considering the sex Todd and Amnesiac Marty had to be the second rape of Marty. Although...it could be that you felt that you were "holding back" by not copying and pasting everything about this from the Todd Manning article, or that you just have not yet thought to update it with my work again.

Right now, I am about to redirect it. If you fighs me on this, I will nominate it for deletion. We do not need this article when the Todd Manning article relays all of this. And, no, I am not about to cut all of this out of the Todd Manning article just so this article can exist. 04:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your efforts, but this article is a redundant cut-and-paste from Todd Manning, and is not necessary. "Couple" articles are highly-debated as it is, but we both know these two characters are not a "couple" in a conventional sense, and no third-party sources have represented them as such. While I appreciate your obvious interest in Todd and Marty (and the storyline intrigues me as well), this article presents nothing to Wikipedia that does not already exist in a more appropriate form. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 05:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Ultimatehela.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ultimatehela.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Tarty.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Tarty.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Gallagher[edit]

I appreciate your effort to make sure that the Maggie Gallagher article was correctly placed. However, the Wikipedia standard is that articles should use the name that the person is most commony known by; while Maggie Gallagher may not be her legal name, it is the name her articles appear on, it's how she identifies herself in connection with her activism. As such, I've had the page restored to Maggie Gallagher, with a forward to that site from the other name. - Nat Gertler (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]