User:The lorax/Archive 2

Deletion avertion negotiation
"Avertion" probably isn't a word. Anyway. You tried to delete an established article, Mermaid problem, and were promptly contested.

In the event that you're going to pursue this further, please detail your grievances with it first so that I (or you, for that matter) can attempt to address them. I've come to think of AfD as a blunt and inaccurate cudgel that should be wielded with reluctance and is often used with glee. The best outcome here would be not needing to use it.

The fact that the article's topic is deranged does not speak against it. Even the best of editors can be surprised by the availability of valid material on insane subjects. For instance, I need to start an article on pencil chewing. It turns out that there are pencil guards for autistic children, there was a lot of noise about chewing pencils coated with lead paint a few decades back, and there's documentation of associated dental problems and trauma cases with case studies et al. --Kiz o r  08:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Drowning" Polar Bears
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:An_Inconvenient_TruthAndonee (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Andonee

Talk:Sarah Palin
First, let me say I love your username. Second, do not prematurely archive Talk:Sarah Palin again. There is a bot to prevent any drama or arguments over what to archive, when, and why. I have restored the notice you removed, in the hopes that it will remind editors that the article is under probation and that "Very little leeway is allowed" in following the rules. Please excuse that I am adding a templated message to this; I wish it to be clear that this is notification of the probation. This is not meant to be accusatory or hostile; merely ensuring you are aware.

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 11:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Sorry about that, I was a little too bold.--The lorax (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of comment at Talk:Sarah Palin
Am I right to assume that your deletion of my comment this afternoon was accidental? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh! I'm sorry, Simon. I was trying to make the colors on the table lighter and the removal of additional content on the talk page was completely an accident. Sorry about the removal.--The lorax (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Resignation of Sarah Palin
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Resignation of Sarah Palin. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Resignation of Sarah Palin. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Glen Beck
Just wanted to let you know that the recent changes look much better. If you find any sources, I'd like to try and find Beck's comments in response to the Anti-Defamation League criticism. I think another paragraph would be fine similar to your last one, which could include his Obama comment (pending everyone is good with the sources). I'd like to see some simple context placed around Beck's statement for balance. Here is a source for what he was talking about, which amounts to institutional racism, diversity, social justice and reparations. He had been talking about this topic all week. Sorry I haven't been actually helping with the content itself, I've only had time to comment and be a back seat driver. I'll try to get more involved with it this weekend if needed. Morphh  (talk) 3:29, 01 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm half asleep but I gave a shot at including the Obama comment.  Morphh   (talk) 5:35, 01 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Chickenorfish.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Chickenorfish.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. 74.204.40.46 (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File source
Please provide a file source for "File:Clintonkimjongil.jpg". A URL is required, per WP image use policy, to ensure correct licensing. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks for the heads up on that. I supplied one.--The lorax (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Twitter NavBox
You created a new Twitter nav-box template OVER TOP of an existing template that is used on many pages already to link to people's individual twitter feeds. Can you please give it another name or otherwise fix it? A number of pages (like Britney Spears, Banachek) are not rendering properly right now as a result. --Krelnik (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Double checked, there are 150+ existing biography pages that link to individual Twitter feeds that are now broken due to this change. --Krelnik (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, good catch. I reverted this change, sorry for the problem.--The lorax (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick fix! Nicely done. --Krelnik (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Joe2006down.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Joe2006down.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 'file' 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 "File" 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) 07:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Cruiseonoprah.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cruiseonoprah.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. Damiens .rf 21:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Facebook edits
Just wondering if you could clarify the reason for this edit. The summary states unsourced; but there are two refs at the bottom of the material that was removed. I don't necessarily disagree with the removal; just wanting some clarification on it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the section because it was being sourced by unreliable sources; this is a pretty important subject, why are we backing it up with blogs? What is your opinion though?

   Are there more reliable sources to replace these with?--The lorax (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those links don't appear to be blogs, although they may be news stories posted via a blogging back-engine. There is a difference.  And the computerworld.com and thetechherald.com appear to be reliable sources.  Personally, I think the section was longer than justified and gave too much weight to the issue; but to me, the better solution would be to summarize the original text to a smaller section, leave the existing refs, and perhaps add a refimprove tag. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added back a truncated part of what I removed originally and found the original reference.--The lorax (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Thrillertitlecard.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Thrillertitlecard.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Trendypopup.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Trendypopup.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thriller title card
Hi there, you thought there was a problem with. Title cards appear to fall under acceptable fair use via Fair_use.--The lorax (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From that very page: "Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content." I am of the opinion that this image does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines, specifically WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Van Jones
so i guess your van jones' bitch?
 * Haha, nah, I'm just trying to keep his page NPOV despite the wall-to-wall sliming he has been receiving from Glenn Beck and others lately.--The lorax (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Per your request: "Van Jones advocates conservation and regulation as a way of encouraging environmental justice and opposing Environmental racism. For instance in January 2008, from an “EON Deep Democracy Interview Series: Green Jobs Not Jails - The Third Wave of Environmentalism” Van Jones said: "First of all, we began to realize that we’re entering into a third wave of environmentalism in the United States. The first wave is sort of the Teddy Roosevelt, conservation era which had its day and then, in 1963, Rachel Carson writes a book, “Silent Spring”, and she’s talking about “toxics”, and the environment and that really kind of opens up a whole new wave. So its no longer just conservation but it’s conservation, plus regulation, trying to regulate the “bad”, and that wave kind of continued to be developed and got kind of a 2.5 upgrade because of the environmental justice community who said “what a minute, you’re regulating but you’re not regulating “equally”, the white polluters and white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities, because they don’t have a racial justice frame.” I think it is long enough that it cannot be taken out of context, it links to more information, if they want to learn about his beliefs, and what they are. I know that Harvard president advocated economic priorities in making decisions about the environment... which I think is self evident, that those societies with the most amount of money have more responsibility and ability to improve the environment... but that is my point of view... so I disagree that it is racial, but is economic, but I don't think my point of views can be seen from what I wrote... 99.142.50.33 (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Oprahsfirsttweet.png
Thank you for uploading File:Oprahsfirsttweet.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Oprahsfirsttweet.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Oprahsfirsttweet.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Oprahsfirsttweet.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Oprahsfirsttweet.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Trendypopup.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Trendypopup.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Julia Butterfly Hill peer review
The bot should list Julia Butterfly Hill at peer review within an hour of starting the PR request. Please do not manually add listings to the PR page as it could mess up the bot. I have removed your listing there for now (but the bot should relist it properly soon). Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I wasn't sure why it wasn't showing up; sorry about that.--The lorax (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is no problem, just wanted to let you know. I checked and it is listed there now, so all's well. Take care, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Majora v Drawn Some
hi - drawnsome is perking up again. he really likes to delete stuff. i think the image of the dog can be justified by numerous tv and journalistic accounts of the dog leading her to river through garbage dump. so much so that Bark Magazine is putting the dog (xena), and Majora (1st human on the cover of that mag in its 12 yr history!) in their January issue.

but more importantly - i really should keep a hands off policy, but y'all need to watch this jerk, especially as things heat up around Majora re: van jones, green jobs, etc

so sorry this is how one has to spend their time these days, but thanks in advance for allowing some truth to flourish !

File source problem with File:Mtvmoon.png
Thanks for uploading File:Mtvmoon.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image
Hi, File:Liebermanbushkiss.gif is nominated for deletion. Regards Hekerui (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth
I will be reviewing An Inconvenient Truth. Follow my comments at Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/GA2. Please make a note below my comment lines if you have addressed a concern or have a question. As concerns are addressed, I will strike them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I said I will strike them when I feel they have been addressed. Do not strike them yourself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that; thank you for taking up the review.--The lorax (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Peeweeescapes.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Peeweeescapes.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. ÷seresin 03:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Original-facebook.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Original-facebook.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. ww2censor (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Beatlesyellowsubmarinetrailer.jpg
The trailer contains a copyright notice at the end, the version I watched on youtube has (3:26-3:28). The license selection "it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice" seems wrong. --Martin H. (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is not answered, so how to proceede? --Martin H. (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This image is featured on one of the trailers from the movie; unless I'm mistaken and that was the trailer.--The lorax (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I linked it to youtube above, thats the trailer (in a bad quality version) and the trailer was published with a copyright notice. The licene you selected says: This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice - that information is wrong, correct it. --Martin H. (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also the information you linked, http://www.creativeclearance.com/guidelines.html#D2, says: The trailer issue falls into the first way.  Most of the trailers prior to 1976 were created as new works, which contained new material (such as" Coming Soon" etc.) as well as scenes from the films they were advertising.   The trailers did not contain copyright notices [...] That material, since it did not contain a copyright notice, would also fall into the public domain. This trailer HAS a copyright notice, so it not falls into the public domain per this reason. --Martin H. (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, well you're right. The copyright notice is quick but it's definitely there unfortunately and I will demote this to fair use.--The lorax (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contributing this excellent image to Wikipedia. As it's now been relicensed as fair use, it needs specific fair use rationales for each article it appears in. As you may well know, it will be deleted otherwise. DocKino (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Cryingafterlipsync.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cryingafterlipsync.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. — ξ xplicit  14:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

John Hughes (filmmaker)
Your move request was moved from "uncontroversial" to contested, so a discussion has been started on the talk page. You didn't put a rationale, so I'm letting you know in case you want to. ToTheBatmobile! (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ferris Bueller plot
The plot for FBDO is fine - yes, it is not told in exact script order, but in a sufficient manner to briefly summarize the plot, as per an encyclopedic standard. Going into any more detail than what's already there is unnecessary. --M ASEM (t) 04:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright cool, just making sure it's up to GA quality.--The lorax (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token d22b9050f592c9e773b02fb6a2604356
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Re: Could you do a spoken word article for An Inconvenient Truth?
Thanks! Sure, I'd be glad to record An Inconvenient Truth. I'll get started on it a week from now, once finals are over.  Sophus Bie  (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. Wow, finals already??--The lorax (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lizziemcguireintro.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Lizziemcguireintro.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dewinedoctoredad.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Dewinedoctoredad.png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Are you asking me to do a WP:PR for Ferris Bueller's Day Off or to be the WP:GAC reviewer?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you be the WP:GAC reviewer?--The lorax (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD
Please check out: Articles for deletion/Series of tubes (3rd nomination). Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)