User talk:DustFormsWords/Archive005

This is an archive of posts on my talk page between May 7, 2010 and October 10, 2010. Please do not edit this page or post new messages here.

NOTE: This archive period includes a period when I was inactive on Wikipedia; thus many of the messages below were not read or replied to at the time they were posted.

Barnstar - DYK Medal

 * You've noticed errors in two of my hooks in a few weeks, and looking through the DYKS page, you pick up a lot of inaccuracies. Awesome stuff! --Mkativerata (talk) 04:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks! - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Paula Bauersmith DYK
This discussion relates to a Did You Know? nomination of Paula Bauersmith, which I reviewed.

Hey there! You reviewed my DYK nomination of Paula Bauersmith and raised some issues regarding the sourcing of the hook fact. In case you hadn't already noticed, I just wanted to let you know that I have responded to your concerns and would appreciate you taking a second look. Thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, and approved. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ignace Bourget DYK
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ascension Day DYKs
This conversation relates to a couple of articles proposed to be featured on Did You Know? in connection with the holiday of Ascension Day, during a period in which I was active reviewing DYKs.

Seeing that you are busy reviewing DYK: could you please look at the Holiday section, Ascension Day approaching fast. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done - both were problematic, but at least yours is almost certainly fixable. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit to address the problems in the Session of Christ - since you were angling for a complete rewrite, though, I don't think it will be enough for you. StAnselm (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, basically, I don't understand what the article is about, beyond the concept "Sometimes Christ is referred to as sitting at the right hand of god". The article title "Session of Christ" is insufficiently explained, it's full of deprecated inline external links, it doesn't explain its notability, and it assumes readers have read the Bible and know a fair amount of Christian theology. Anyway, improvements acknowledged at the discussion page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for your work, anyway. I realise I was a bit late in writing and posting the article on the DYK page (it asks for five days notice). So I appreciate your help in resolving this speedily. StAnselm (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To Kurt Huber (or rather the Ascension Oratorio): I shortened to ALT1 as you suggested. For additional sourcing: Huber's performance in the piece is also mentioned in the review ref 6. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"You're either with us or against us" Essay MfD
This relates to a problematic essay that I had objected to on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Since you've been editing it more than anyone else I thought you should be notified: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:You're either with us or against us‎. Equazcion ( talk ) 13:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Laws of Illusion AfD
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Laws of Illusion. 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 Notability and "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/Laws of Illusion. 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) 01:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks I did not notice that the article's name had been changed from/to The Laws of Illusion/Laws of Illusion. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Leszek Jańczuk - Christianity Barnstar
This relates to a Christianity Barnstar I awarded to Leszek Jańczuk for his work in creating articles on obscure biblical documents.

Thank you. Sometimes my articles are written in jargon and difficult to understand them. But what shall I do? E.g.: "And the number of the great chapters according to what is established in the writings of the orthodox is 84 Greek chapters, Coptic 97 lessons, and small 342, in common 270, peculiar 72, and the number of his words 3000. And these are the great Greek chapters." (from Oriental MS 1001). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Craigslist murders proposed speedy deletion
I proposed this category for speedy deletion. My proposal was turned down as below.

Hi there. I just wanted to notify you that I declined to speedy delete Category:Craigslist murders per WP:G10 since the category only uses a term as its name that has been used, reliably sourced, in the articles it contains. As such, it does not solely serve to disparage or threaten craigslist. Please use WP:CFD instead. Regards  So Why  09:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User:The Bushranger - The DYK Medal
This conversation relates to a DYK Medal that I awarded to The Bushranger for his work at Did You Know?

Thank you! :) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 13:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Iceland-Mexico relations AfD
This conversation relates to one of several bilateral relations articles that were up for AfD in this period.

it's just turning into a WP:BATTLE ground! Seems like those with endless time for arguing at all costs want to do anything to save an article. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I still argue delete on the ground that it doesn't need a separate article but even discarding arguments not based in policy there's nothing even close to consensus going on, and I can't see anything that can happen at this stage that could change that. Best to just close it and let everyone turn their attention to other AfDs (or better yet, the huge backlog at DYK). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree this doesn't need a separate article. and also the time spent on constant refuting of arguments could be better spent by keep voters in working on a variety of stubs. LibStar (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

D. Iacobescu DYK
I reviewed User:Dahn's DYK nomination for D. Iacobescu. The following conversation ensued. My comments originally appeared on Dahn's talk page and they have been copied here into appropriate sequence for archival purposes.

Hi! I have reviewed your DYK nomination for D. Iacobescu, and identified several problems. Please visit the nomination discussion for a full explanation, and if you feel you have addressed my concerns feel free to leave a message on my talk page inviting me to reassess the nomination. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC) You know, if you'd just spend as much time improving the article or the hook as you've spent improving your argument at DYK, the nomination would probably be approved by now. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply same place. Best, Dahn (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have replied to your rebuttal (still not approved). It's not personal, it's just my understanding of the DYK rules. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I never for a moment took it personally, but I still find it absurd: your last reply is pedantic about rules I am already familiar with, and misses the point - every bit of the hook is cited, and in several places, but you probably expect it to read a certain way. Note what I'm saying here: it is cited in several places doesn't even mean "you put the facts together from several citations" (which would still not be against any rule for hooks) - this is what you were answering to when you called WP:SYNTH; what it means is that "they are in any case cited, and that you don't have to look in just one place to find those citations. In short: the same source (Vianu) basically states that he died shortly after finishing high school, due to tuberculosis, and explictly mentions poems of his where illness and the expectation of death were the subject (he states this in several ways, over several pages, and I have quoted him with all these facts individually - because there was no other way); Călinescu does not mention high school (but gives the birth and death date, if there was ever any doubt), he mentions tuberculosis, he mentions poems being written with and about tuberculosis (only he cites different poems from those that caught Vianu's eye); virtually all sources (Vianu and Călinescu included) mention that he was a Symbolist, and incidentally (I was not relying my point on that!) this is common knowledge in Romania. I have not quoted these statements in all their explicitness, because the result would have been very unappealing and the most cited facts would have also been the most obvious ("was a Symbolist poet[1][2][3][4][5][6]"). If you look over the article and follow all these elements together, you will perhaps see my point and revisit your "WP:OR" claim. Dahn (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read your message on my talk page and interpreted it as "Thank you for taking the time to review my DYK nomination, which until you visited it had languished in the queue for two weeks. I disagree with your opinion but nevertheless I appreciate the time you have spent arriving at it." With that in mind, I don't intend to revisit this nomination.  My opinion stands and you're welcome to try and convince another editor to disagree with it. Congratulations on a good article, whether or not you manage to surmount the technicalities of DYK. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "I have read your message on my talk page and interpreted it as [something I have never said.]" I must confess I'm powerless when it comes to this type of sophistry. Have a good day. Dahn (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, DustFormsWords, I'm standing up for a principle: the principle of not directing articles and hooks which already fit DYK requirements around the lowest common denominator of DYK pretension. The hook is well cited, and I'm spending so much time explaining it now because I don't want this kind of mentality ("it's not cited if it's not exactly like in the hook") to take over - simply because I have seen it leading to poor, purely DYK-utilitarian, editing. Incidentally, you are contradicting yourself, since you elsewhere stated that the article itself doesn't need improving. And, in general, as much as I respect you as a fellow editor, how I choose to spend my editing time is really none of your business. That said: I see you have also been claiming that I responded to your posts with "abuse", which is a serious accusation, suggesting that I went around insulting you; you also claimed that I shouldn't explain a subtle point over "pages", because you won't read them - which is simply demeaning. This entire circular argument you're building here is that, no matter what, you are right to state your objections, that you cannot be wrong, that the only move you will comprehend and tolerate is if I go and do exactly what you suggest I should be doing (if I explain, you don't read, and even suggest my writing is beyond comprehension; if I object, you call "abuse"; if I don't do it, you come back advising me on how it's best I do it). It's a style of interaction I cannot possibly take seriously, because I assume we're equals here. Dahn (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reviewing articles at DYK is on a volunteer basis. When I spend my time to review a nomination, you're certainly not obliged to agree with me, but it would be polite to acknowledge that I don't owe you anything, avoid words like "absurd" in replying to me, and acknowledge that I am doing my best to help you create a hook that meets the community-agreed DYK rules, which state the hook must include a definite fact that "must be mentioned in the article" - not "must be able to be extrapolated from the article".  I think we can both agree that building good articles is more productive than arguing on DYK, so next time you get a hook knocked back can I suggest you just go make a better article?  You get the same result at the end of the day as you will from arguing the point, you don't end up offending people who are just trying to help you get your hook featured, and the article ends up clearer, more detailed, or more readable.  Materialscientist has okayed your hook now - which I don't agree with, but I don't have to - so take this all as lessons learned for next time. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm not being clear: the facts are mentioned in the article, unless we fall on that level of absurdity where it has to be mentioned "exactly so" in the article. That would be an absurdity, and I stand by my comment, simply because I'm not of the school that reads "comment on content, not contributor" as "comment on content, not on comments". You may feel offended by that, but accepting that line of reasoning as something I need to take into account opens the way for irrationality - to call an insult, there needs to be more than one person feeling insulted (you may be insulted by the phrase "the sky is blue", but that does not make it an insult). You are, for all I can tell, a reasonable person - but that particular comment was not reasonable, and neither were several you have made since. Your argument about how reviewing is volunteer work (and editing isn't?) again veers into the absurd, because it again tells me that, no matter what, the end result is that the reviewed goes and does your bidding - there simply is no way that you'd be wrong, not even after a third-party users agrees you are wrong. And this is supposed to be a lesson for me, no less. You also keep repeating that there is a problem with the article, in readability and so on - there may well be (my English is, alas, imperfect), but how does that relate to anything all of a sudden? You never brought such issues up for discussion during the course of our encounter, so let me call that bluff. I thank Materialscientist for approving the hook, but there is a minor correction I would make, ideally, in his rationale: the hook is actually cited, all things considered (one may be excused to have missed that in the text, and I'm not as narcissistic as to assume people have read all of the part of the comment where I detail how and where). This is just to say that it was not approved as an exception. Now, in theory, it may turn out that the article/hook has a real problem that I need to fix, and I'm open to any constructive criticism, but your objection, that particular objection, simply wasn't valid. Dahn (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Read WP:OR: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If a source says he went to high school, and another source says he died at age 19, it is an impermissible synthesis to say "he died shortly after going to high school" unless you can find a source that explicitly states that. (For example, he might have been a child prodigy who finished high school at age 15.) If you think WP:OR means something different, that's great, but take it up at the WP:OR talk page; don't give me grief for a literal application of community-agreed policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Except it is not "another source", it is the same source. It is just not all in the same place in the article itself, though the entire account covers a relatively small number of paragraphs in the source. (Guess you didn't bother reading this in my last three posts or so.) 2) Even if, for argument's sake, he'd have finished school at fifteen, it was still a short time under an only slightly looser definition. The chronological issue is somewhat ambiguous in the source, but the context there clarifies that he was just out of high school when he died. Nothing short of plagiarizing the sources could have possibly included all those details in the order you seem to suggest, and excuse me (and all other unfortunates who may fall into these loopholes you create) for not having realized in advance that one could have that literalist an objection to a hook. Also excuse me for not wanting to dumb down the citations for the sake of such literalism. 3) We both work with the same definition of WP:OR, but your entire invocation of it here is a case of pedantry and an ignoratio elenchi. Now, are we done? Dahn (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Jon Whitmore DYK
This conversation relates to the nomination of Jon Whitmore for DYK, which I reviewed.

I've responded to your three objections to my May 18 DYK nomination of the Jon Whitmore article. Please look them over. Thanks! Dwalls (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of the Hebrews DYK
This conversation relates to the nomination of Gospel of the Hebrews for DYK, which I reviewed.

I responded to your tough comments. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Émilie Gamelin DYK
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Eulalie Durocher DYK
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Demo album AfDs
This relates to the AfD nominations of a number of demo albums by Justin (koavf). I requested that Justin be more explicit in his reasons for nominating these albums, to enhance the AfD debate.

Thanks After the ~100 that I already nominated for deletion and which were deleted, I figured that I wouldn't have anymore, but they keep on popping up intermittently. Thanks for the reminder. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Montreal images
While working on articles about several prominent Canadian nuns, I asked if anyone was able to direct me to useful pictures of Montreal from the turn of the century.

hey dustformswords, anything from the archives of Ontario thats over 70 years old is public domain and great for wikipedia. lots of good stuff there. hope this helps keyword search 'montreal' cheers Spencerk (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ahh! good eyes. thanks, good luck with your search Spencerk (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarrie Isaacs & Aboriginal Provisional Government DYKs
This relates to a pair of DYKs I objected to on the basis of a misleading hook.

Hi -- I've restored the DYK for Clarrie Isaacs & Aboriginal Provisional Government to the discussion page per concerns of the original nominator about the revised, joint hook. As you were the one, I think, to object to the original hook wording, it would be most useful if you could weigh in to the new discussion. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Marie-Rosalie Cadron-Jetté Good Article nomination
The article Marie-Rosalie Cadron-Jetté you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marie-Rosalie Cadron-Jetté for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Pyrotec (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

KidStart deletion review
As someone who had an involvement in the 2nd AfD for the above article, I thought you might be interested in commenting at Deletion review --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Fictional history of Spider-Man
The following relate to Fictional history of Spider-Man, which I had previously participated in an AfD for.

Soliciting your input
Hi. There's an attempt to bring the History of Spider-Man article, which needs enormous work, up to encyclopedic standards. You were among the editors in the deletion discussion, and it'd be good to get your input on, and edits to, the work-in-progress at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Call for comments

 * Following a month-long process of multiple editors to have "Fictional history of Spider-Man" conform to Manual of Style (writing about fiction), one editor has objected and wishes for the article, which has been the subject of three deletion discussions, to remain as is.


 * Alternately, the proposed new version appears at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox.


 * Your input, as an editor involved in the deletion discussion, is invited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD
Other than "an AfD", I don't remember what this comment relates to.

Please read the thread closely. Regents Park (mistakenly, I assume) inserted his comment in the middle of an already existing discussion between me and another editor. It now looks (incorrectly) as if I am responding to him when, in fact, I am not. Can you fix this? Otherwise, later readers will be confused. David.Kane (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ketab Sara Co. AfD
Thanks for reversing your vote, and a note. Most of (6 out of the 8) added references are given to Internationally distributed Iranian newspaper or magazines in English--hence easily verifiable.

Best, Brotons (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/173.52.182.160
Fyi.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors - July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can to get it down to a manageable number. We've ambitiously set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog this month. In order to do that, we're going to need more participants. Is there anyone that you can invite or ask to participate with you? If so, we're offering an award to the person who brings in the most referrals. Just notify ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! or  Diannaa  TALK of who your referrals are. Once again, thanks for your support!  Diannaa  TALK 02:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:JClemens - RFC discussion
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/Jclemens. talk 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Cryptid Hunters AfD
This conversation relates to a group AfD nomination of Cryptid Hunters and Tentacles (novel), in which I participated and initially voted Delete.

I plan on saving Tentacles (novel) tomorrow. It should be notable by NBooks criteria 5 in that the author has a body of work that is notable. Four of his books exist on Wikipedia, he has an article here too. And, several of the refs I found tonight can be used for the Tentacles. moreno oso (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please feel free to let me know when you have the sources in either the article or the AfD and I'll return and reconsider my vote. Nice work on Cryptid Hunters, by the way. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually built my first category today for his books. I started with Tentacles and had to leave for awhile. DreamFocus moved in and gave me all the ammo I needed to play Elmer Fudd in shooting a pegged Daffy Duck. Even I can't miss at the range DreamFocus left me. moreno oso (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Please see this DIFF and the edits to Tentacles showing that it is on multiple reading lists. moreno oso (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing your vote in the AFD. moreno oso (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Images for Deletion - An odd edit
Why did you make this edit?--Rockfang (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit was intended to be me making an argument in a deletion discussion - but I somehow appear to have simultaneously reverted the rest of the page to an earlier version. I have no idea how I managed that and please take my apologies. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal. It appears to have been fixed.--Rockfang (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Unomi
I can no longer recall what this conversation was about, sorry. Thank you. - Unomi (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Tim Bruxner
This conversation relates to a dispute about what the Tim Bruxner article should be called, in which I participated.

I'd just like to say thanks for your unflagging assumption of good faith on all fronts, and for generally keeping a cool head on the whole Tim Bruxner issue (not to mention fixing up after some of my clumsier edits). Sorry if I came across as a bit sharp. I've been on the end of some pretty awful AOBF lately, so your attitude was a refreshing change. I'm glad the whole thing's worked out well for everyone involved - and hey, we got an article out of it! A quick glance at your edit history suggests that this isn't your normal area, so thanks for helping out. Frickeg (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you also for your intelligent arguments backed by reference to policy.  It's clear everyone here wants to make a better Wikipedia and that no one involved is malicious or driven by a particular POV, and given that Wikipedia's gone without an article on the guy so long I doubt the world's going to fall down if it's subpar or under the wrong name.  We can take the time to gradually improve the article and I suspect by the time it's B-class the right answer might be immediately obvious to everyone (I'm coming around to your idea that it should be Tim, although I still say James isn't wrong).  I just got involved because I watch Rebecca's talk page as she's someone who's (normally) both intelligent and friendly and from the same geographical area as myself and it seemed odd to see her in an edit war. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:CITEVIDEO/WP:VIDEOLINK
You've been quoted as an authority on using video as a reference on the talk pages of WP:CITEVIDEO and WP:VIDEOLINK, two proposals involving use of video on Wikipedia. Just FYI. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors - July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. Enjoy! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Image deletions
The following images, uploaded by me, were all removed from the article Gregory Weir by an overzealous editor while I was on Wikibreak, and then subsequently deleted as being orphaned. As a result, a large amount of work in creating and uploading these was completely wasted. Sigh.

Orphaned non-free image File:Silent Conversation (videogame) screenshot.PNG
 Thanks for uploading File:Silent Conversation (videogame) screenshot.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 not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive 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 your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Majesty of Colors (videogame) screenshot.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:The Majesty of Colors (videogame) screenshot.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 not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive 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 your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:How to Raise a Dragon (videogame) screenshot.PNG
 Thanks for uploading File:How to Raise a Dragon (videogame) screenshot.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 not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive 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 your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Mold Fairy (screenshot).PNG
 Thanks for uploading File:The Mold Fairy (screenshot).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 not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive 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 your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Exploit (video game) screenshot.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:Exploit (video game) screenshot.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 not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive 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 your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Necropolis (Flash game) screenshot.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:Necropolis (Flash game) screenshot.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 not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive 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 your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sugarcore (video game) screenshot.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:Sugarcore (video game) screenshot.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 not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive 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 your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bars of Black and White screenshot.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Bars of Black and White screenshot.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 not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive 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 your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors - July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive - Reminder
Hi! This message is just a friendly reminder that you signed up to participate in the GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive. I noticed that you haven't logged a single copy edit yet. We'd love to see you participate! The drive runs three more weeks so there's still plenty of time to earn barnstars. Thanks! -- Diannaa (Talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

James Baar AfD
This is just to inform you that this article, which you prodded over a notability concern, has been recreated and is now at AfD. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 15:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

Robert Kotick
The article Robert Kotick was semi-protected and subject to pending changes. I am listed as an interested party with reviewer rights at its talk page. This request came in while I was on Wikibreak and I was therefore unable to respond to it.

This is on semi-protect, please add to summary of professional life section.

Kotick’s Professional Life Robert A. Kotick (born 1963) 1, also known as Bobby Kotick, is the CEO, president, and a director of Activision Blizzard, the leading global online PC and console games publisher in the world best known for mega titles Guitar Hero , Call of Duty and World of Warcraft. Kotick began his career in 1983 while he was still in college at the University of Michigan, 2,3 when he began creating software for the Apple II with financial backing from Steve Wynn. 4 Kotick credits Steve Jobs for advising him to drop out of college to pursue his entrepreneurial interests in the software business. 5 In 1987, he tried to acquire Commodore, the computer company. He planned to remove the keyboard and disk drive from the Amiga 500 and turn it into the first 16 bit videogame system. He was unsuccessful in pursuading Commodore’s then Chairman Irving Gould to sell control of the company. 2,3 He subsequently purchased a controlling stake in Leisure Concepts, Inc., Nintendo’s licensing agent 3, which was renamed4Kids Entertainment. 1 Kotick served as CEO of Leisure Concepts, Inc. Prior to becoming CEO of Activision.Nintendo then steered him to Activision. In December 1990, Kotick and his partner Brian Kelly, bought a 25% stake in Activision, which at the time was a nearly bankrupt company called Mediagenic, 2,3 and became CEO in February 1991. 1,6 Kotick also served as a founder of International Consumer Technologies and president from 1986 to January 1995. In 1995, International Consumer Technologies became a wholly owned subsidiary of Activision. 6

References 1.	 ^ a b c d "Robert A. Kotick Profile". Forbes.com. Forbes. http://people.forbes.com/profile/robert-a-kotick/1126. Retrieved 2010-06-21. 2.	“DICE 2010: Kotick Talks Passion For Industry, Debuts Indie Contest.” Gamasutra.com. By Simon Carless. February 18, 2010. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/27299/DICE_2010_Kotick_Talks_Passion_For_Industry_Debuts_Indie_Contest.php 3.	“Kotick changes the game at Activision Blizzard” Marketwatch.com By Dan Gallagher. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bobby-kotick-changes-game-activision 4.	“A Delightful Chat With the Most Hated Man in Video Games” Kotaku.com By Brian Crecente - http://kotaku.com/5559201/a-delightful-chat-with-the-most-hated-man-in-video-games 5.	 “Activision CEO: Steve Jobs Convinced Me to Quit College.” Wall Street Journal. By Yukari Iwatani Kane. June14, 2010. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509404575301231400042578.html?KEYWORDS=kotick 6.	 ^ a b "CEO BIO: Robert A. Kotick". Businessweek.com. Business Week. http://www.businessweek.com/it100/2005/executive/ATVI.htm. Retrieved 2008-09-27.

(Harken2010 (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

Secret Pages 2 MfD
Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 7, you may be interested in Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)