User talk:GRuban/Archive 1

Karl Josef Weinmair stub
Thanks for making the stub. Good job on finding the info about it. I was having a heck of a time trying to locate anything.--DBEndy 03:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Boot Hill wikilink fix
No worries. Thanks for the fix.--Azathar 03:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Good article
I just wanted to speak up and say good job on the Boot Hill (role-playing game) article. The Bearded One 22:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Adenture
Noticed your edit to Adventure, diff. I know you are probably new, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary so definitions like that don't go on disambiguation pages. There is already a link to wiktionary on that page. Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) has more info about the style of disambigation pages.--Commander Keane 01:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Adventurer
Hiya! I'm sorry for putting that redirect back in. I found that page on my vandal patrols, and I made a snap judgment as to what was going on, and to me it looked as if a vandal was removing a redirect to put in an article, so I just went "Bye bye, vandal edits!" and reverted. Sorry about that! Mo0 [ talk ] 20:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Kathy Lloyd
Hi! I removed the redlink a while back as she isn't particularly notable (nn = lazy shorthand for not notable) in her field. There's quite a few hits on her name as she's a nude model; there's always lots of hits for page 3 girls, porn stars etc because there's so many porn sites with the same content. But I may be wrong - if you think she's notable, by all means start an article. Regards Proto t c 23:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar
Angelbo 04:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons
Hi. I apologise for the length of this post, but I think I'd like to request some assistance. You posted a question on my talk page, regarding my efforts in the Dungeons & Dragons category. I have answered that question, but have since come to my senses regarding the scope of my plans. A few days ago I stumbled onto the Wikipedia pages related to Dungeons & Dragons, and found them .. lacking. They lacked cohesion and content, above all, and while content needn't be my speciality in these matters, creation cohesion seemed feasable. All that was required, I thought, was that someone read every article, and then organise them. I have recategorised a number of articles, making the categorisation of the articles, in my view, much clearer.

What remains is much more daunting, and may require the creation of a WikiProject. I feel that a core of Dungeons & Dragons related articles should be established, covering general concepts such as character classes, armour class and hit points, which should have internally consistent style, and should avoid redirecting internally. Upon this framework, the other articles could be added. Such as articles pertaining to specific monsters in the Dungeons & Dragons worlds, or to specific continents and countries in different campaign settings.

When I started reading, I quickly identified a number of pages that I felt should exist, but were missing. Almost immediately, I found that a number of different articles refered directly to articles for specific character classes, such as cleric. But while the cleric article may mention Dungeons & Dragons, it seems to merely mention the concept, and probably won't grow into a fully detailed article. The creation of a new article seemed warranted. Similarly, the article on Rogue (character class) didn't exist, with most pages refering to the Thief (character class) article instead, which hardly seemed to cover the Dungeons & Dragons Rogue. Again, a new page should be created, but I concluded that it would be best to create articles for all base classes, to set them apart from game classes in Final Fantasy and other role-playing games. The same logic applies to general articles such as Magic-User, divine magic (vs. Arcane magic), which cover anything but relevant topics: They should be found and tagged, and possibly redirected or expanded.

I'll grant you that I haven't given much thought to the actual content of these class articles, mostly because I am not quite sure how much of the game mechanics may be explained through Wikipedia. But creating decent stubs is not a bad thing, I feel.

The more I think about it, the more the need for a forum of some type grows. Perhaps I will set up a WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons. Would you help/join? -- Ec5618 02:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Home and Away
Hi, you have voted in the afd for various Home&Away character articles. I have had a go at combining all the articles in a single article (which I admit still needs a lot of work). You can find it at Current Home and Away characters. I suggest we keep this article are either delete or re-direct the others. What do you think? Thanks, Evil Eye 13:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

RPG WikiProject
Hello, I'm toying with the idea of a WikiProject for roleplaying games. I see that you've edited RPG articles and I thought I should ask you what you think of the idea. Do you think it could be done and would you be interested in helping out? I'm a long-time reader, but I haven't hardly edited anything yet, so I would appreciate any ideas or suggestions you might have. I've talked a bit about it on my blog.

I don't want to start anything without following through, and I want to avoid starting something I can't finish. But a WikiProject would be a good way to coordinate efforts, and it would be easier to attract more people to improve RPG articles, don't you think? Jonas Karlsson 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And now I've started it, after getting enough people interested. It's over here: WikiProject_Role-playing_games. The project page is still a mess, but we'll get it up and running soon. Jonas Karlsson 12:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Marcelle Karp
Great job on the Marcelle Karp article! Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The Feminists
Thanks for your work on The Feminists, but it probably isn't the best choice to add an expansion request for to the Systematic Bias template. There just isn't more stuff on Google about them - I looked fairly extensively. The article is incomplete, but without off-web research, it's going to stay that way. I suspect there are more productive articles to expand to add to the CSB template. GRuban 16:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Do I understand you to be saying that CSB should only look into topics that are already well-covered on the Web? As one of the people who started CSB, I can say without qualification that one of the main goals of the project was to improve coverage in areas that are not well-covered on the web. That is precisely one of Wikipedia's systemic biases: if something is not already on the Web someplace, it tends to slip through our cracks. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (suitably humbled and abashed) Well, um, no, your excellency, sir. This unworthy one was merely daring to suggest that other articles that are at least somewhat more covered on the Web might be more productive, in the sense that if we added them to the template, they would actually get expanded, while The Feminists, no matter how worthy, would quite possibly stay more or less the size it was until Ti-Grace Atkinson joined the Eagle Forum. But please forgive my presumption as youthful inexperience, your plenipotentiaryness, and I shall not speak of it again. Jmabel is always right. I will work harder. (pounds head on floor repeatedly, and backs away on his knees) GRuban 13:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to ask you to apologize for the tone of that, but I am going to say that if you continue to address me in that tone, expect to make an enemy. I don't know about you, but probably a third of what I do is from print, and I doubt that I'm the only Wikipedian who still knows how to read a book. If you want to remove that particular request of mine from the template, fine. But if you want to argue that Wikipedia can become a first-rate general reference while writing only on topics that are already well-covered online, I think you are dead wrong. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi GRuban, I just wanted to drop you a line after seeing yet again CSB request that you've filled. It's appreciated. Cheers, BanyanTree 15:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the appreciation! It's, umm ... appreciated! GRuban 17:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Awzal
Thanks for giving Muhammad Awzal a start! I think I put his name on the CSB request list somewhere in November or December and quite frankly I didn't expect something to come from it, at least not that soon. It's really great to see WP:CSB work! Keep it up, &mdash; mark &#9998; 20:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thanks! Unfortunately, I couldn't find much more about Muhammad Awzal than what I wrote, so someone else will have to do the expansion. GRuban 21:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you'd better try to ask for a help in Translation_into_English. Vermondo 09:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I did. Looks like there are a number of Italian->English requests pending there, though, so it might take a while. I hope I'm not reduced to using the Google translation to work from. GRuban 12:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Mao Zedong
Hi, could you possibly re-edit the page? You still have one try left before you hit the 3Rs rule. It would also add support to our case against that guy if he reverts again. John Smith&#39;s 19:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * All righty. GRuban 19:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Alexa Dixon
Thank you for working on the aged requests page. There are a number of requests that probably don't actually deserve articles, such as Alexa Dixon. To keep them from being relisted the important thing is to remove them from the main request page, because it is from those pages that the list is regenerated each month. - SimonP 14:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Casca Rufio Longinius
Sure, no problems. On review of the page, it actually seems quite reasonable. At the time that I tagged it, it was somewhat confusing, and I didn't understand the apparent signifigance of the character. None the less you have made a good job of the article. Thanks for the great contribution. Bobby1011 00:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

More Liberty Dollar
After further research and reflection, I've come to believe that the Liberty Dollar entry should be merged with "Private currency" or "Community money" and redirected accordingly. This merge would help put this controversial topic into a broader context it desperately needs. Thank you for your participation. BrianGCrawfordMA 18:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Java/RMS
If you want to say "RMS doesn't program in Java," that's fine. The nonsequiteur and unfunny joke about the island of Java is nonencyclopedic. It doesn't particularly matter to me whether RMS put it there or not -- his puns are just as inappropriate in an encyclopedia as everyone else's (except, of course, for those in the pun article. :-) Nandesuka 06:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Psionics (role-playing game_s_)
Please, join me at Talk:Psionics (role-playing game) and help me to understand this page move. -Harmil 21:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * : I'm going to be bold and move it back. The article is about Psi in all RPGs, not in one RPG, and most of Category:Role-playing game terms uses the plural. This is my one "revert", I won't continue a revert war without discussion, but I think this was just a well-meaning mistake by the mover. GRuban 22:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm really sorry. I had thought you were the person who moved the page. Thanks for moving it back, and sorry for pestering you. -Harmil 22:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad Awzal
Thank you four your appreciation of the article I wrote on it.wiki. Unfortunately in this moment I'm quite busy and have no time to translate it into English. Anyway, I wrote a call for translators in the talk page of it.wiki and I hope you'll find someone who can help. Later on, I'll look at the English page, and if the work is not yet done, I'll consider translating the page myself. Good luck --Vermondo 16:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism to my page
Hi there, thanks for sticking up for me. I have a very short memory. Have we met before? Cheers. PizzaMargherita 13:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * HI ja'! -- GRuban 13:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, I told you I have a short memory :D........ By the way, have we met before? PizzaMargherita 14:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Austin Purfleet hoax
Hi George. I've rolled back and reverted all their edits apart from the creation of the Tromlitz article. It was mostly manual work, but I think it needed doing! User:81.6.228.171 is also part of this nonsense, as is User:Chrisman66, although the latter has yet to do anything other than comment at the deletion page and create his own user page. Presumably these are all sock puppets of a single person with two much time on their hands. I've given them warnings (other than User:Chrisman66) that they'll be blocked if they carry on. Keep your eyes peeled! CLW 17:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And a splendid tale, was Purfleet's. Will it be archived anywhere, or lost forever? I might write the book one day. --JamesMcFurlong 22:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

charities accused of ties to terrorism
I left a note for the guy who moved charities accused of ties to terrorism to charities accused of ties to  terrorism.

I blame him for the loss of the article's talk page. -- Geo Swan 13:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the vote of confidence. -- Geo Swan 20:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Appreciation
I appreciated your comments regarding La Convivencia on my user talk page. I'm thinking it might be nice to start an Esperanza type of editor base called La Convivencia to really hit home the need for such a spirit. Netscott 20:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan
You expressed interest in Requests for comment/Geo Swan, and I think your view would be helpful since you edited Charities accused of ties to terrorism. KI 21:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, my. I hope my asking to be notified if there was an RFC didn't bring it into being. I commented, but I'm not at all sure it was what you had in mind. Please, de-escalate, sheathe your weapons, return your bombers to the launch bays. It's over. Please. Go edit Chad articles, I've read some you've written, they're quite well done, and as a WP:CSD member, I'm quite happy that someone is editing them, we need more articles on the third world. But please stop the litigation, it's simply not constructive. You want GS to leave you alone? I'm sure he will, as your RFA expires today. Done. No more. Please. -- GRuban 21:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and an apology
Thanks for your help. I appreciate your attempts to remain neutral and talk sense to KI and I.

Yes, you were correct that, barring a last minute flood of supporters, KI's candidacy was almost certain to fail. But I reached different conclusions about whether there was reason to keep trying to state my concerns over their candidacy.

You were absolutely correct that I planned to stop talking about my concern about KI when his candidacy came to an end.

So, that apology. Later, on April 7th, I realized that although I remembered important talk page exchanges -- they had happened on my personal talk page. I was almost certainly completely mistaken about that

I was in the midst of acknowledging that mistake, when I was shocked to see he had filed a complaint against me on the Administrator's noticeboard. After two notes on their talk page, which I still consider were civil, triggered that unexpected escalation, it didn't feel safe to do what what I should have done -- acknowledged the mistake as early as I discovered it. I overlooked how the acknowledgement might concern you. Sorry. -- Geo Swan 01:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:CarolynLilipaly.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:CarolynLilipaly.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Your article, Lavastorm, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 09:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Engaruka
Thanks for creating Engaruka (now almost a year ago). I came across it while editing Sonjo language. Your work for WP:CSB is appreciated! &mdash; mark &#9998; 14:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BootHill.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:BootHill.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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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. ShakespeareFan00 13:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Image prior to policy... ShakespeareFan00 14:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Pigasus Awards
Wanted to let you know I nominated the Article for Deletion, since I see you created it. Horrorshowj 00:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:BeverleyTurner.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BeverleyTurner.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image 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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 09:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Casca01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Casca01.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 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 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 after seven 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 00:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Don Kingsborough.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Don Kingsborough.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 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 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) 06:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:JusticeInc.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JusticeInc.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 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 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) 14:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WorldsofWonder.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:WorldsofWonder.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 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 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) 09:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wow logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Wow 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 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 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) 10:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Don Kingsborough.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Don Kingsborough.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) 06:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Non-free promotional discussion
Hello, GRuban. Since you recently contributed to the lively deletion discussion for Template:Non-free promotional, I thought I'd let you know that I've continued the discussion about this template at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. The result of the deletion discussion was to keep the template, but there are still some questions about whether the current template serves a useful purpose and how to prevent its misapplication. Please contribute to the discussion if you are interested. —Bkell (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TrailOfTheGoldSpike.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:TrailOfTheGoldSpike.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 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 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) 02:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hitler's War Metagaming.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hitler's War Metagaming.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 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 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) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lands of Mystery.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lands of Mystery.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 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 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) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SteveLong.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SteveLong.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 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 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) 05:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:CatherineMcCord.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:CatherineMcCord.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. Rossrs (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ToniFrissell.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:ToniFrissell.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Anrie (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wallace_tahnezh.jpg
I have tagged Image:Wallace_tahnezh.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Use rationale examples. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Kelly hi! 23:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Lisa_Fugard.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lisa_Fugard.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. Rettetast (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Yet another barnstar!
Many thanks! Much appreciated. :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "academy award winning" from film article leads

 * Per WP:PEACOCK. Let the article show the reader, don't tell the reader. Also fringes on POV violation, showing an American bias. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. Then I think you have it wrong. Read the example in that very page:

Peacock term:

* Brazil has a vigorous economy.

Better:

* According to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, Brazil has the ninth largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity (PPP)

We're not writing "The Godfather is a great movie". We're writing "The Godfather won the Academy Award". I think that's exactly what "show don't tell". I also don't agree that it shows an American bias - if we were writing about a movie that won a notable French Award, that would be equally appropriate to write in the lead. --GRuban (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There probably needs to be a discussion about this then. I know for a fact I'm not the only one taking this view.  See this and this. While I understand it's of the utmost importance to properly portray the obvious importance of a film that was won an Oscar, the term "award-winning" doesn't seem the least bit necessary, if the awards are properly established elsewhere in the article.  And I know it isn't a valid argument but probably 50% of the pages I looked at (Best Picture Winners) did not contain the 'award-winning' note in the introductory line.  You're obviously approaching this from a good faith stance, and know your Wiki-policy, so I'd be interested to hear how to move forward. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to discuss the general case - do you have any suggestions as to where? But for the specific case, you'll notice in the article edits you link to, the Academy Award is mentioned in more detail later in the lead, and the second comment says as much. In The Godfather, you took out the only mention of the Academy Award in the lead. If you want to move it to a later sentence with more detail, that seems more reasonable. --GRuban (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a sentence about the 3 Oscars in the intro. I will look for the proper place to ask for clarification regarding the issue at large. Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this. Looks like there is a direct MoS reference.  I understand what Jim Dunning is saying.  I went back through the edits I made, and I think I've come to a good compromise.  The issue is with having 'award-winning' or 'Academy Award-winning' in the intro sentence, which I think we've avoided now.  All articles I edited now have at least a direct Oscar reference in the lead paragraph.  I also understand his argument about Oscars being US-centric (which I had made note of in my first reply to you), but I guess that's a fight for another day. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Althea Flynt.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Althea Flynt.gif. 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 Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bond RPG Adventures.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bond RPG Adventures.jpg. 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 Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Assata Shakur
As the FAC has failed, I have copied your comments to the talk page. Savidan 02:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've re-read the NYT archives related to the article and substantially expanded it, with particular emphasis on other details about the trial and shootout. I hope that these have at least softened some of your issues with the article. Please give the shootout and trial sections a new read through and let me know where we stand. Savidan 04:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to give thorough and specific comments. I think the article has improved greatly from your input. If you think that I have not resolved any of the issues you brought up you can reply in the embedded format and/or by starting a new section. Thanks again. Savidan 20:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you restate your remaining comments (if any) in a new section? I think it's getting a bit hard to read. Savidan 23:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I'm pestering you; if you don't have the time to list your remaining comments now thats fine. Could you just let me know if you have any issues remaining with the article? Thanks, Savidan 06:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't have as much time as the article deserves, no. I will say three things in general, though - 1) the article is much improved since the FAC - 2) if you're dying for my comments :-) take a look at the ones I've already written. I noticed that in a number of times I came back, you hadn't completely responded to the earlier ones, for example from the first batch one about the convictions of her rescuers, from the second batch one about using a spell checker, etc. 3) the fourth time I come back, I will likely have similar comments to the third time - read the whole thing over, find the the sentences that seem broken or out of place; put them in the right place. Good luck! --GRuban (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll re-read your comments, but I guess at the end of the day no one call tell if your comment has been remedied except you. I have added information about the conviction of those you participated in her escape, for example; maybe it wasn't as much as you wanted, maybe you just haven't noticed. Anyway, thanks for all the time that you've put into the article already. Savidan 18:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have finished re-reading your comments and decided to renominate the article. Just a heads up. If you find yourself with more time, feel free to comment anew. Savidan 22:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Circle of Chalk
Fast, good work there, GRuban-- Thanks! Dekkappai (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Masterpapers article
I saw my article about Masterpapers company has been deleted due to its 'blatant advertisement' of the company's services. You saw my article and I'm quite sure you didn't find any advertisement. I'm not so confident in such questions, but if Lucinor has ever had some experience with this company how could her/his opinion be neutral one? Regarding notability: he/she knows well (if he/she has had experience as she/he mentioned) that essay selling industry is really notable to write about because there are 'papers mills' as she/he said and they produce THOUSANDS of essays for students. This industry estimates millions of dollars and it IS NOTABLE TO TALK ABOUT! It's become the global-scale problem of fraud and such reports as Times etc. are really important to say about. Among such 'paper mills' masterpapers is a giant, thus I chose this company to write about: it's like McDonald's products among fast food. Essay selling DOES EXIST and it's worth saying due to its huge volumes of profits and services provided. Hope you'll change your mind soon Masterpapers (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Masterpapers ... it's not the advertisement, it's that there isn't much written about the company as such. The guideline is called Notability, and usually boils down to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and we didn't find such coveage. McDonalds, or Microsoft, or Miller Brewing, just to pick 3 Ms (or 3M for that matter!), get people not working for the company writing books, or at least newspaper and magazine articles, about them, not just "the fast food industry" or "the computer software industry" or "the alcoholic beverages industry". If you can show 2 articles, not press releases, and more than directory listings, about MasterPapers, rather than just "the essay selling industry", we will be glad to have an article on MasterPapers. --GRuban (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Argument from poor design
Hi -- as I explained on the talk page of that article, I did some research, and in every source I found, "dysteleological argument" was used to mean something different from what the article is about. Can you please provide a source that supports the change you made? Thanks. Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Panda thumbs its nose at the dysteleological arguments of the atheist Stephen Jay Gould Dysteleology and Intelligent Design: If Only This Were a Spoof Bypassing the cracks: An amazing evolution-defying design in a tiny insect National Geographic Evolution Article Discusses Evidence that Supports Intelligent Design (Part III) Truth In Design: An Examination of the Teleological Argument ...
 * Your argument on the talk page doesn't actually contradict this usage, you realize, it's not "something different", it's just a more general case. One meaning of dysteleological was that the universe lacks purpose, which is interesting, but sort of meaningless - what can you compare the universe to, after all? This usage means that specific parts of the universe lack purpose, which seems much easier to argue about, since there are many alternatives. This is just a time when the special case has become an equally common or even more common usage than the general case, as is quite common among abstract philosophical terms. --GRuban (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's another, an abstract of a paper from Oxford: he Logic of Dysteleology Paul Nelson Biola University. If you want to write in the article that this is just one of multiple meanings of the word, fine. But that's not the same as saying the article should be deleted. --GRuban (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's more. :

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This dys·tel·e·ol·o·gy   Audio Help   (dĭs-těl'ē-ŏl'ə-jē, -tē'lē-)  Pronunciation Key n.

1. The doctrine of purposelessness in nature. 2. Purposelessness in natural structures, as manifested by the existence of vestigial or nonfunctional organs or parts.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary Dysteleology Dys*te`le*ol"o*gy\, n. [Pref. dys- + teleology.] (Biol.) The doctrine of purposelessness; a term applied by Haeckel to that branch of physiology which treats of rudimentary organs, in view of their being useless to the life of the organism.

To the doctrine of dysteleology, or the denial of final causes, a proof of the real existence of such a thing as instinct must necessarily be fatal. --Word (Dynamic Sociology). Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Emochila page
Hi Mr. Ruban, Regarding the page Emochila that was recently deleted, I am hoping you can help me. i was working personally with you on that page, as you can see on the talk logs, and you helped me list the proper things for the page to be kept. In fact, you issued a Keep on the 16th of August, thank you. However, user PeterSymonds deleted the page about an hour later, and I don't know why?! I completely followed your directions, and the only other talk on the page that might have led to this, by someone who didn't even login (they only have an IP address) was saying that someone was deleting their messages, and that the page was written by an officer of the company. That's not true, i am not related to Emochila at all, and i certainly didn't delete anyone's talk on that page, or it would have been noted as me. Can you please relist the page? Kwintern (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)kwintern

Deletion review for Emochila
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Emochila. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kwintern (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The Emochila article has come into question again, almost 9 months after you commented to keep it last August. Would you please offer your opinion on the matter again at Emochila's articles of deletion (second attempt)? Your input would be greatly appreciated.--76.105.144.161 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creationist museums‎
Consensus was in favour of deletion, so I closed it thus. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  13:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There were two main reasons why I closed: The solid arguments WP:SALAT and WP:NOT. "Keep - but remove red links" isn't really a solid rationale; it didn't really address the two arguments above. The second keep was stronger, but again didn't really address the points above, and was more along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As We66er said, removing the redlinks would leave a list of five, which defeats the object of a "list". On the counter side of that argument, redlinks show potential for new articles, but when there are so many redlinks, there is no need for such a list. There were many items on the list, yet only a handful were referenced, and as another said, one of the organisations on that list had been deleted previously through AfD. The strongest keep therefore was WP:STAND, but that was struck as a result of misinterpretation. This is the full reason for my close. However, deleting admins don't generally say any more than "keep" or "delete" in their closing statement, unless 1) there is a specific reason for the delete and/or 2) it was a decision that could cause controversy. Generally the reasons for delete are ascertainable in the discussion itself. By the way, the text is at User:GRuban/deleted article for your review. Best, 13:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, done, I've been debating about what to do with it. I've temporarily restored the whole history to your userspace (User:GRuban/List of creationist museums‎) so you can work on it if needed. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  13:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Creationist museums
Regarding Category:Creationist museums, I suggest you read WP:UNDUE. Many of your recent articles cast science in an incorrect light by citing poor sources promoting pseudoscientific claims. The fact that not a single person who runs one of these places is a not a scientist is not a coincidence. I don't know if you saw the Daily Show clip of Baugh actually comparing reality to The Flintstones, but you should. That interview also mentions the hunting.

I hope you revaluate how you present science. IE, it is not enough to call something "alleged." You must explain why it goes against 200 years of scientific progress and that it is not in the purview of real science. I hope you take this user seriously. A child searching the internet comes across this rubbish will get the wrong impression about how incorrect these people are.

A red flag is when you cited user:Jason Gastrich on one of the articles, His material is to be reverted per this decision here: Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich. Read this he has a "PhD" from the same diploma mill Carl Baugh, Bob Cornuke, etc got their degrees.


 * Check that decision again - I'm fairly sure it doesn't say what you think it says. It says nothing about us never being allowed to link to or mention him. It just says he isn't allowed to be an editor. So unless you're accusing me of being him... :-) --GRuban (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Teachers have a hard enough time trying to undo the pseudoscience of the likes of Kent Hovind and other professional misinformers. Let's not let wikipedia add to the problem. We66er (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not expand this List of natural history museums? Places such as Elgin Public Museum are much more interesting and significant than Baugh's double-wide lies. We66er (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm writing these articles for two reasons.
 * One, because I'm fairly sure the idea of the Wikipedia is that it should be the sum of all human knowledge. And that doesn't just mean The Truth; not just the parts of human knowledge that I personally like or agree with. If you check my user page, you'll see I'm a proud member of the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias; that's all about writing unpopular articles that yet deserve to be written. I'm not here to pitch their point of view, or any point of view, in fact - if you'll check my WP:CSB work on my page, you'll find a wide assortment of subjects, from American feminists, to Korean artists, to an African armed group. The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors are educated, scientific and technical, so favor evolution. But we're not just supposed to be "the sum of scientific knowledge". So these subjects need to be written about too. Someone needs to speak for those who have no voice.
 * And, two, because you challenged me to. I never did a thing in this area until running across that AFD. If you had merely let the list be, I would have stopped there. Instead, you specifically challenged me to write these articles. So I did that, for five of them, and a category, not a couple, or three or four, as you seem to think. It took me about as many days. I can probably keep going at this rate. You seem to not like me creating these articles, but as long as you bring up more challenges, it's human nature to want to meet them. At this rate, I feel fairly sure I can. Are you sure you want that? All I want is my original goal, restoring the list that I came across in the AFD. The current place to decide that is the DRV, but there will be others - for example, if the decision is that the list needs more work before coming to main space, I feel fairly sure I can put in that work, and if that no list is called for, I feel fairly sure I can write a non-list article. Doubt me? Your call. --GRuban (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The only problem I have, and at least one other editor has, is the wording in your articles promote anti-science, a violation of WP:DUE. You use unreliable sources to make ridiculous claims. That is something you didn't address in your response. We66er (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it's just wording. I'd be happy to work on that with you. I've been trying to use wording from the sources I find, and even adjust to wording you'd like better, but I'm sure there's always room to improve. --GRuban (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) For example, you seem to have objected to 7 Wonders Museum. That's not a very big article, so it should be easy to analyze. Let's take it one sentence at a time, and see what needs work. If we can agree on one, presumably the others will be easier.
 * 1) The 7 Wonders Creation Museum, also 7 Wonders Museum of Mount St. Helens, is a museum and bookstore dedicated to creation science in Silverlake, Washington (or Toutle, Washington) near Mount St. Helens, United States. Presumably you have no objections there?
 * 2) Admission is free, and often accompanied by a guided tour of volcano sights.[1][2] Any objections?
 * 3) The two room museum was founded in 1998 by Lloyd and Doris Anderson, who live in a nearby house. Any ridiculous claims so far?
 * 4) Lloyd Anderson, born circa 1934, has a master's degree in theology from Dallas Theological Seminary, and is a retired former pastor; his wife Doris has worked as a registered nurse and journalist.[1][2][3] How about here?
 * 5) The 7 Wonders Museum takes its name from seven Mount St. Helens land features that changed in no more than a few years. Here?
 * 6) These, the museum owners say, disproves the more commonly accepted theories of archaeologists, geologists, paleontologists and other scientists that the Earth had to evolve over millions of years.[citation needed] Not sure what part you think needs citation. That the owners say so? That's the citation at the very next sentence (to a pulitzer-prize winning newspaper). That the other theories are commonly accepted? Something else?
 * 7) For example, the second wonder is the rapid formation of the Step and Loowit canyons in front of the volcano crater over five months in the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens.[1]
 * 8) The Andersons see the eruption as divine evidence for young earth creationism, and see their museum as a counterpoint to the many shops and visitors centers near Mount St. Helens conveying the secular view.[4]
 * 9) Scientific critics say the museum rejects any part of modern science that doesn't agree with its preconceived views, and misleads visitors by extrapolating very special geologic events into equivalence with much longer-term events.[2]

Issues?

List of natural history museums
"Why not expand this List of natural history museums?"
 * All right - I'll take that as a challenge. :-). I'll start with Morro Bay State Park Museum of Natural History. Watch the red link turn blue. Hopefully it'll be a sign of us working together. --GRuban (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Allosaurus?
Allosaurus and Triceratops are genus names. Mastodon, cat and dog are common names. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of True Adventures
A tag has been placed on True Adventures requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. —  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 07:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Restoring True Adventures
Best of luck in restoring True Adventures. Just in case you missed it, I've previously asked User:Gwen Gale to restore a number of the LARP articles she deleted, but she disagreed with my reasoning. Our discussion is here if you're curious. (I'm linking to the archive since Gwen archives aggressively; understandable given the traffic on her talk page.) I'm working on putting together arguments for WP:DRV reviews of several of the more notable LARP articles, but it's tiresome work and it may be a while. I'm trying to be careful to have a solid case, since multiple review requests will likely just leave admins with a bad impression about you. If you think True Adventures is ready for restoration and open a review at WP:DRV, please let me know and I'll provide what support I can. Thanks for your time! — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

All restored
I've restored them all, some things trump CSD A7 worries. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, appreciated! --GRuban (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Lenin and the Jews
Most of the material was copied into other articles from the Lenin, not vice versa. This is a common practice amongst lazy editors and should not be used as an excuse to delete the original material. If you look at the edit history you will see that the Lenin and the Jews section grew incrementally over a period of years, it was not copied from another article. Lenin and the Bolsheviks policy towards the Jews was a radical departure from the previous history of Russia and the whole subject has a bearing on Lenin's harsh attitude towards the church mentioned elsewhere in the article. Lenin saw the Orthodox church as the prime mover behind the Black Hundreds who initiated pogroms against the Jews. The whole issue of anti-Semitic pogroms was a live issue during the Revolution, with the Reds warning that they were a manifestation of right-wing White terror and the Whites using them as an instrument of policy in actual pogroms and also vis-a-vis their proposed bloody mass pogrom of what they saw as a Jewish/Bolshevik government if they had ever captured Moscow (as per the reaction after the Paris Commune in 1871). White Anti-Semitism was a popular rallying standard for right-wing opponents of the Bolsheviks. Basically the Civil War was a stand off between the extreme right and the extreme left. The liberals didn't figure either in numbers or military strength. Ant-Semitism and anti-anti-Semitism it is an issue of a fundamental importance to the history of the time. Just out of interest do the deletionists think that in articles dealing with the history of the Third Reich that 'Hitler's attitude to the Jews' is an unimportant matter which should be relegated to a peripheral article. The Whites practised the same genocide against the Jews as Hitler. Lenin's attitude towards the Jews was therefore as important in historical terms as Hitler's attitude. Colin4C (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC bot
Those are actually expiration dates, so naturally the newer ones will have future timestamps. --harej 19:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The RFC bot removes the tags after 30 days. Also, there are still some issues to work out. --harej 21:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7
Hi there! :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Chihuahua
Note that the move broke the disambiguation page - the link to Chihuahua (state) now goes nowhere useful -- actually, that was me changing it from Chihuahua (Mexico) to Chihuahua (state) there on the dabpage while doing a spot of cleanup after the move; sorry. I should have checked instead of assuming that the drive-by editor who started this whole mess would at least have fixed her double redirects. Anyway, thanks for chiming in on the discussion although (and I still can't get my head around this) it appears to be a lost cause. Aille (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Don Kingsborough.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Don Kingsborough.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 20:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 20:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From http://www.lasertag.com.au/history.htm, but who owns the photo is not really relevant,

since we're using it under fair use, regardless of their copyright. We're using it despite anyone's ownership. --GRuban (talk)

Hi
Good to see you here! It's been a long time! --Orlady (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise! I've seen you about for a while, but you've been low key. Active, but quiet about it. Liftarn shows up more than you do.
 * I'm fairly low key here too... and don't think I've written a single tool! Bigger pond effect maybe?
 * Back at ODP, you were the definitive Meta peacemaker. Now people are calling you sarcastic and abrasive? I did a double take there! :-) --GRuban (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still at ODP, but less active. I've noticed liftarn here, but most of the familiar faces I come across here are probably since your time at ODP. I'm surprised to hear that you haven't written any tools here; I guess you're leaving that to the younger generation.
 * As for my reputation, I don't think I have changed much, but it's a different culture here. ODP has its drama, but the worse of dmoz drama is pretty tame compared with a typical day of wikidrama. I know that I have been sarcastic on occasion here, but I think that some of the complaints of bullying and abrasiveness are coming from people who are mistakenly identifying the behavior they see in the mirror as "Orlady." --Orlady (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
for the barnstar! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

David Copperfield photo
Hello, I do not understand what you meant by "room for both pictures". Do you mean that we can have 2 photos for David Copperfield? The only reason I replaced the current photo is because it is at least 15 years old and he no longer looks like that (hairstyle, clothing, etc.) so I wanted to post an updated photo. Did I not do it correctly? Please advise. TheMagicOfDC (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was what I meant, we can have 2 photos of David Copperfield, that article is large enough, and both are free photos. I'm not sure why you think that one is 15 years old, though, the source for the picture said it was from 2007, though I guess that could have been a mistake by the source, some photo sites will happily give the upload date as the picture date. If you are quite sure that it is not from 2007, we can remove the date there. --GRuban (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Proposed decision finding 14
Thanks for catching that. That was supposed to be under Scjessey, not Baseball Bugs. Dunno how I messed that up. Wizardman 15:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

List of celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who
There's a new AfD nomination for an article you've previously discussed. Please stop by to voice your opinions again.  Czech Out  ☎ |  ✍  11:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Bing starovoitova.png)
 Thanks for uploading File:Bing starovoitova.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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

New Alan Roger Currie article
Thank you very much GRuban for your efforts and objectivity in this issue. Extremely appreciated. Chicago Smooth talk 14:08, 17 August 2009

alan roger currie afd
please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Roger_Currie_%282nd_nomination%29. it was recently deleted, and you voted either delete or keep, and it has since been recreated. i am messaging all previous voters to see if they wish to vote again. please do not take this as canvassing, as i have attempted to contact all voters Theserialcomma (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Kathy_Keeton.gif
I have tagged File:Kathy_Keeton.gif as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Use rationale examples. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:A Frontier Nurse Rides Through the Rain.jpg
File:A Frontier Nurse Rides Through the Rain.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:A Frontier Nurse Rides Through the Rain.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

List of creationist museums
I added the content from your "List of creationist museums" to the article Creationist museum. See what you think. Plazak (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-20/List of charities accused of ties to terrorism
It seems that our moderator is back from his wikibreak, can we begin to move forward on this case again? I dont consider this matter resolved and hope we can break the deadlock with input from outside sources. Thanks in advance. Bonewah (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

David Shankbone
User:GRuban/Shankbone. Thanks, Black Kite 00:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If I may interject...shouldn't it be restored and moved rather than copied and pasted? It seems this may well be recreated at some point, so we should be mindful of GFDL. Frank  |  talk  15:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

File:A Frontier Nurse Rides Through the Rain.jpg
Thats obviously not an photograph created by an employee of the U.S. federal government during this persons official duties - or? But thats what the PD reason is at the moment. The image is also not public domain because it comes from a LOC website, see their copyright. But why should this bee public domain? --Martin H. (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I uploaded this back in 2006, when I didn't understand the LoC copyright issues. On consideration, I think you are right. This, and a few others, are probably not PD. I'll look through my other uploads at the time over the next few days. A number of similar photos by women photographers are work for the US Fed Govt, for Roosevelt era programs giving work to artists, but this doesn't seem to be one. Thanks for the reminder. --GRuban (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)