User talk:DaltinWentsworth/Archive 1

requests
Thanks for making those requested game articles! That being said I'd like to give you some advice. When creating a requested article please put in a little more than just a sentence with an infobox. Most of the request are for games and you can find references for them on sites like IGN and GameSpot. Categorization would be good too Please try to include at least 1 URL. While it is appreciated that you made these articles, since there is so little content on them they may be speedily deleted (WP:SPEEDY). Don't let this discourage you from contributing, we all need help in getting started! Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 11:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the newest requests go at the top of the page. Thunderbrand 15:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

TFA
I didn't not fail to assume good faith. However, if you look at the edit you will see you actually reverted the removal of several already selected articles, and that is what I was myself reverting. You were likely editing an old version by mistake, as your re-addition of Half-Life 2 went just fine this time. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of sock puppetry on the Center for Science in the Public Interest page
Allegations of sock puppetry have been made against some of the accounts that have edited the Center for Science in the Public Interest page. I have instigated the wiki process for handling such allegations. See Suspected sock puppets/David Justin. As someone who has contributed to the CSPI page, please add your views to the Comments section. You have up to 10 days to make comments on the allegation. Nunquam Dormio 18:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Aoclogo2.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Aoclogo2.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigDT 04:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis massacre going on
I noticed your edit comment in Outbreak (film). Synopsis length is a long story in WP film project and lately it has been revived again. There are those who want to see just a few sentences and those who'd rather have a more descriptive synopsis. We are working on a proposal for collapsed-collapsible synopsis sections to try to please both sides. We haven't yet brought it to policy level, but we soon will and who knows what will come out of it. If you see any more chopped down synopsis, please, bring them to the attention of WP films Project. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 16:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Target for Tonight on DYK
Hi. I thought that was a really good article that was quite interesting. Thanks for making it!! 58.179.90.254 22:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Get a Mac Music
did you ever find out what it was? if you do thats much appreciated Digital.unicorn

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Cssmenu.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cssmenu.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:10e20logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:10e20logo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Userpie! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

tagging Bakshi salamat qawwal
G'day Userpie,

I noticed you tagged the article that used to be at Bakshi salamat qawwal as "Crazy nonsense and non-salvageable for improvement." Now, I agree that the article really couldn't be improved; the English wasn't crash hot, the article name was miscapitalised, and we are just as well off without it and starting from scratch. However, it wasn't "crazy nonsense", for two reasons: first of all, it made perfect sense (naming people the author thought were influential in Qawwali); secondly, it was a good-faith effort to make an article for Wikipedia, and good-faith efforts almost never ought to be described as "crazy nonsense". We all get a bit frustrated with the torrents of poor articles (and sometimes pure crap) that gets foisted on Wikipedia, and sometimes say things we shouldn't (check my deletion logs for some doozies). The point is to remember that, hey, we shouldn't, so let's try to keep it civil when tagging articles, eh? Try it for a while: you'll find you look, feel, and smell much better. No, really. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 18:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I try to be civil. I honestly could not understand the article. It was way out there for me. Perhaps you should assume good faith with my edits before telling me to be civil? Userpietalk to me! 23:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Look, first of all, you may need to read WP:AGF again before referring others to it. It doesn't mean "assume everybody on Wikipedia is infallible"; it means, "assume the other chap is not actively malicious" (a good rule of thumb: if there are two ways to interpret an action or statement, choose the good one).  I left my friendly little note here because I was assuming good faith on your part: that you have every intention of being a nice, friendly chap but had let your frustration get the better of you (and there's nothing wrong with that; believe me, I've been there too).  Assuming bad faith would have meant deciding that you were only here for the purpose of insulting people, and I would have blocked you (now that would have been out of line!)


 * There's no call to insult good-faith contributors, even if their contributions are poorly-written and you haven't the energy to try to make sense of them. An incivil statement is not magically civil because you had a good excuse for being annoyed.  I note in today's CSD backlog another statement from you, "Article is written more like an poor personal narrative and is hardly an article."  Now, I'm more than happy to delete pages where the author hasn't even attempted to write an encyclopaedia article, but there's no need to describe anything as "crazy nonsense" or a "poor personal narrative".  There's no need.  We need to be careful of the way we treat newbies; if we are unnecessarily harsh, we drive them away and cost ourselves potentially good contributors.  Please be more careful.  Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Mate, you don't have to worry about "redeeming" yourself in mine or anyone else's eyes. Making an ill-tempered comment or two when tagging articles does not make you a bad contributor (if it did, I guess you could count me down as one as well).  It's just something that a good contributor like you should try to avoid when possible.  No worries, everything's jake.  Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 00:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 21:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)