User talk:Jay32183/Archive 1

Concern about Xiaolin Showdown
The thing with the Xiaolin Showdown list of episodes is not working. You can have the pictues but we need to have it in the same format as before with the shen gong wu and listing the xiaolin showdowns Herb-Sewell13:36, 30 June 2006

May be so, but suppose we don't have enough pictues, and now we'll have to write a shortened synopsis for every episode. Herb-Sewell13:55, 30 June 2006

Dude, all I'm saying is that the new format is really hard to people who are trying to improve the articles of the episodesHerb-Sewell 00:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Color scheme?
I can see that you changed the value for "color scheme" but I cannot see any difference at List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes. Should it look different somehow? Ryulong 00:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess my problem is that I'm using Internet Explorer, then. Is there any way to alter the code so it's useful for IE users? Ryulong 00:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hay jaw
I saw you using my AWB settings, however you deleted a "for" here. I'm not sure exactly what you're doing but if you need help pelase contact me. --mboverload @ 01:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup in aisle Xiaolin Showdown
has been inserting a lot of useless and horrible grammatically structured information into many articles. Clean-up may be necessary. Ryūlóng 08:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping orphan the stack of Kimiko screenshots from the Xiaolin Showdown episode entries. Dr Zak 14:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in lists
Hello, I see you have contributed your thoughts to Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It's been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the concrete proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata 02:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Super Mario 64
I'm glad you're trying to improve the article. As much as I would love to make over the article of one of the greatest games ever made, I've got my hands full with another one. :) But I'd still like to help you out, so here is the section "THE MAKING OF MARIO" from Steven L. Kent's book, The Ultimate History of Video Games: From Pong to Pokemon--The Story Behind the Craze That Touched Our Lives and Changed the World (2001). Here is an Amazon link detailing the book so that you can cite it properly. I don't believe Amazon mentions the location of publication, but it is New York. Without further ado, here is the text, taken from pages 529 and 530:

Shigeru Miyamoto, creator of Donkey Kong, Mario, Zelda, Yoshi, and Star Fox, entered the video game industry with a unique philosophy that was always reflected in his games. "When you draw a laughing face, your face should laugh," he once explained in an interview. "When you draw an angry face, your face should be angry. The character will capture your emotion. The emotions and fun in a game are not made while thinking about business."

By the time Nintendo launched Nintendo 64 (N64), Miyamoto had been creating games for nearly twenty years. He had witnessed and aided the evolution of the business, software, and technology of video gaming. His first game, Donkey Kong, was created by a five-man team and contained approximately 20K of code. Now, as he made the flagship game for N64, his team had swollen to more than fifty members. Instead of 20K, he and his team would write 8 megabytes of code - more than 400 times more code than in Donkey Kong. Instead of designing levels that fit on a single screen, they created enormous 3D landscapes complete with trees, castles, and dinosaurs. Adapting to this new challenge, Miyamoto created a new philosophy. While most game designers were coming up with features, then building their games around them, Miyamoto worked on creating expressive landscapes, then created ways to use them.

"One thing that was different with Super Mario 64 was [that] we wanted to make some snow mountain, a really big one. That came first, and afterward we asked [each other] for the ideas about how to make use of this mountain.

It was as if we were building up an amusement park. We first found our location. We purchased the mountain, and afterward, we thought of some interesting things we wanted to implement on the mountain." - Shigeru Miyamoto

Super Mario 64, Miyamoto's lead game for N64, did a better job of bringing a two-dimensional side-scrolling game into the world of 3D than any game before it. To accomplish this, Miyamoto's team used all of the old characters and objects made popular in early Mario games, then incorporated new devices that could only occur in a 3D environment. The big end battles, for instance, pitted Mario against a much larger foe on a huge 3D platform. The only way for Mario to win was to circle around the enemy.

Building from Miyamoto's amusement park analogy, Super Mario 64 included huge slides and other kinds of activities that bought true variety to the game. Everybody at Nintendo recognized the game as a masterpiece; the only problem was that Miyamoto was taking too long to build it. According to Hiroshi Imanishi, Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi's right-hand man, the release of N64 was delayed until Miyamoto was satisfied with Super Mario 64. The delay would have been even longer, but Yamauchi finally told Miyamoto that the game was good enough.

If you have access to academic databases such as LexisNexis, Academic Search Premier, or Proquest (search for old New York Times articles), I would highly recommend those. If not, I can always try to add in stuff later. Good luck! --Tristam 06:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus gathering at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)
Hello. Thank you for offering your opinion and "vote" to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)! We notice that there may have been confusing in collecting the opinions of yourselves and others. Thus, we would appreciate it if you took the time to voting again at the poll. Please choose "#Support" or "#Oppose" for the first option. Additionally, you may also make a completely separate vote for which disambiguation title with be used.

For example, you may vote to support the first policy and then support the convention that articles have the disambiguation suffix "( episode)" appended to their name. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sopranos LOE
I will start the expansion of the episode summaries tomorrow, because in my time zone it's getting late. I think that one paragraph of 5 sentences per epiosde should do the trick. Once I do, you can copyedit them as you see fit. — Cliff smith 05:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Karkonosze/Giant Mountains/Krkonoše
Just in case you're interested, there's a new Karkonosze → Giant Mountains or Krkonoše vote here. Cheers! +Hexagon1 (t) 07:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Help please
People keep inserting fanon on the "Kimiko Tohomiko" and "Raimundo Pedrosa" articles...and frankly, I'm getting sick of it. The statements went from fan speculations to being considered as actual facts, and the same users keep posting it, it's ridiculous. Is there a function to at least prevent non-registered users from making edits? Gah, some help would greatly be appreciated :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayeli (talk • contribs) 23:14, Nov 10, 2006 (UTC)

Tainted poll?
Hi. Sorry to bother you. You participated in a television episode article naming poll which now lives at this location. Some feel that wording changes have compromised the results of that poll. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at what is there now and add a quick note at WT:TV-NC to say whether your feelings on the matter remain the same? Of course you can feel free to read over the entirety of both links for more information. Thanks. — Wknight94 (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Jack Spicer
No, you went about it the right way. I did it wrong. I've put things back and put a db-move speedy deletion tag on Jack Spicer so Jack Spicer (poet) can be moved back there. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A pearl among administrators - Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk • contribs) - has fixed things up. Magic ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. — Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review?
Hi, I just want to ask if you'd like to do a peer review of the Luigi article at Peer review/Luigi/archive1. &mdash; The Gr e at Llamamoo? 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility
A sentence such as "Suggesting a poll is spitting in the face of everyone who has participated in the discussion and is the most disruptive and uncivil behavior that one can engage in at this point." is not particularly helpful. Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following: Thanks! --Elonka 01:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Remain polite per WP:Civility.
 * Solicit feedback and ask questions.
 * Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
 * Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Dragon World
Please see Talk:Dragon World dispute for your vote on whether we should keep the Human (Dragon World) article or have it merged into Dragon World. Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 15:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Where's that diff???!!!
Hi. You made this comment earlier re: the old Star Trek naming convention. Where is the original discussion that explained all that? I need the diff for my RFAR statement! Thanks. :) — Wknight94 (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Jay! Thanks for helping in my PR. I'll add a "Development" section to Rise of Nations as you said when I begin to attempt to feature it. | A ndonic O Talk 20:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Paulins Kill Featured Article Candidacy
I thank you for your comments and suggestions on how to improve the Paulins Kill article in order to make it worthy of being named a Featured Article.

So far, I think all the issues have been addressed with the sole exception of the listy Flora and fauna section. Now there are two ideas on how to tackle that, and there are possibly others. If you could weigh in on what the preferrable method to tackle this in the next day or two, I'll be able to fix it before Christmas. Also, in addition, if you could take a second look at the article and its candidacy and examine whether the edits made in response to the FAC page comments address your concerns adequeately, I'd be much obliged. &mdash; ExplorerCDT 01:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, finished a season
Hey, as per your request of informing you, I have just finished Season 4 of the x-files articles.. I think I'm getting the hang of this :P .. Anyway, I should have Seasons 5 and 6 done in about 24 hours :P .. --Illyria05-- 07:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, um, I've figured out how to edit the template, so Season 5 will have everything correct, as will when I do future seasons... --Illyria05-- 17:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Paulins Kill FAC
You commented on that featured article candidacy for the article Paulins Kill 4 weeks ago. It is still a candidate. Your concerns have been addressed, will you please read through the article and offer your support? &mdash; ExplorerCDT 20:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if you can't support, could you add a little note as to whether you think your concerns have been adequately addressed or not. &mdash; ExplorerCDT 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Paulins Kill now a Featured Article
As of a few moments ago, Paulins Kill was promoted to Featured Article status. I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to and suggestions for improving the article over these past few months and that I appreciate your help in bringing this article to notice as a Featured Article. Once again, thank you, and keep up the good work. &mdash; ExplorerCDT 22:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Omi (Xiaolin Showdown)
I've nominated the article Omi (Xiaolin Showdown) for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Omi (Xiaolin Showdown) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Omi (Xiaolin Showdown). Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Omi (Xiaolin Showdown) during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. If there are articles in publications independent of the show's producers and which are verifiable and reliable (not blogs or fansites or mirrors of the Wikipedia article), please add them to the article as inline references. Regards. Edison 16:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Birds of Paradise (Xiaolin Showdown)
Ok...no problem. Sorry about that!-- Salvax T - C --21:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Episode List vandal
Hey Jay, I hate to be the whistle blower, but that anonymous user who keeps ading season four has done it again. I checked out his talk page and found that he's already received his last warning. I think it's unfortunately time to block him. Seabiscuit_1982 16:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

List of My Family episodes
Following your comments I have enlarged the text, I'm sure you will agree that this is now big enough, although it can be made bigger if needed. Otherwise I don't see what is wrong with this table now; if you feel that who wrote each episodes is necessary (I don't think it personally), this could be added to the existing table. You say a reformatting has been requested, by whom and can I see their reasons for this? On another point, when you originally changed the series one table, you also changed the capitalisation of the episodes titles. The capitalisation before was the correct capitalisation according to the episodes themselves and it would be appreciated if in future you could check this before changing it? Thank you. --Berks105 11:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, while you have showed me when the request was made I see no reason given. It worries me that the Wikiproject is trying to install an episode guide format without first having got support from outside the Wikiproject group. Secondly, you say the show takes artistic licence with the titles. That is immaterial, the fact is the episode titles that appear on the show itself are the official ones, grammatically right or not. Quoting from TV.com is like quoting from IMDb, neither are reliable, the actual episodes are reliable as this were we get the titles from in the first place, we can't change them just because they aren't grammatically correct. The summaries I enlarged to 100%, not 90% as you say, and if you want them larger still I can do that. --Berks105 10:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, with regards to the text size. As I have said I think its big enough, and I cannot work out to enlarge it so only the summaries are the same size as the titles. I still argue with the "correct capitalisation"; you are being very arrogant here. The fact is we get the episode titles from the episodes, therefore by the same token we have to use the capitalisation they use. If we don't we might as well just change the episode titles if we don't like them! I remain unhappy with the 'standard format' as I believe it does not suit all episode lists. --Berks105 10:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In-line citations
I've userfied Omi's article. You can use it to work on refs. — Ryūlóng  ( 竜  龍 ) 00:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV
Thank you for your recent posting of an anonymous editor to Administrators intervention against vandalism. In the future though, when reporting IP addressed to WP:AIV, please make sure that they have had a final warning in the recent past. Due to the nature of IP addresses, spans of time between edits may indicate different users. Being it is possible that the currently vandalizing user did not get a true final warning they are often not be blocked. To remedy this, please make an effort to ensure that all vandals reported to WP:AIV have an appropriate, and recent, final warning. The most common final warnings are test4 or bv. If you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to ask me on my user talk page. Thanks again!-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of X-Men 1992 TV Series episodes
This list could do with some more independent opinions. Is your position a support or object? Colin°Talk 12:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed your support. Colin°Talk 12:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Dad's Army episodes
Two questions - are the fan/unofficial sites I have in references ok? The other is can references be solely made up of book page numbers (with ISBN's etc?) - from one of the existing book references. Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 13:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And can teh mini synopses have spoilers in? RHB Talk - Edits 13:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Dad's Army episodes
I've done some heavy editing. Would you consider taking another look and reconsidering your vote? Thanks for your input, RHB Talk - Edits 01:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Its been removed from the FLC page, but apparently not yet failed - as in template on the flc page? Should I relist it now that all editors concerns have been met? Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 21:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion
I've reverted your removal of the nogallery tag at CAT:CSD. There are way too many images up for deletion right now. This causes severe lag time if someone tries to load the page and has to wait for all those images to load. You said that "admins need to know what they're deleting". Well they do...they click the image's link which takes them to the image's page where they view it and delete it. It's the same as if they were going to an article. Metros232 19:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The original adding of the tag did not include that explanation in the edit summary. I assumed some one had missed the fair use exemption decision for the page. Jay32183 19:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The original edit summary wasn't descriptive because almost all us administrators who patrol CSDs know why it was added. Sometimes it's added with a comment saying "+nogallery tag, over 100 images" or something like that, but it's understood by most why it's added when it is, Metros232 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Naked News
First of all, stop menacing me. Second, everything was fine with the Naked News photos until, I created new articles this week with Naked News pictures. Third, I've created profile, only for Yukiko Kimura, Whitney Saint-John, Erica Stevens & Alex Pantos. These profiles have been tagged; as far as I'm concerned, the other pictures of the Naked News profile don't have neither sources information. So, I don't understand, why everything was fine until I create some profile and then, pictures are subjet to deletion. So please explain this sudden change.VincentG 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In the information box under the picture of Christine Kerr it's written (without the brackets): [241×180 (9,752 bytes) (Naked News newscaster Christine Kerr. screenshot)] Is it what you want me to write with the files I uploaded? Because like I told you, the only files that are tagged are the ones I've uploaded. The other pictures of the other girl's profile are not tagged. So, I will comply...but if the other pictures don't comply tag them as well. But like I said, I'm eager to learn, but I demand justice and some good explanations. See you man.VincentG 01:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the pictures that I have uploaded. It is not clear enough for me; so in that case, I think it's better to wait and find a solution to post the pictures.VincentG 02:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No rationale templates
I realize you apparently disagree with it, but the general opinion on the wider forum (and wider forum discussions override template talk pages which draw only a small minority of editors) holds that screenshot templates do in fact give a minimal fair use rationale sufficient to protect them from speedy deletion under I6. This is especially true for the image under contention, since the Disney tag gives as much substantial defense as a detailed rationale would.

Of course, the lack of any image source makes the issue rather academic for this particular case, but I strongly advise you to not act against policy page consensus here. --tjstrf talk 05:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read the highly sensible discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 16 where it was concluded that not only is there no consensus for what you are doing, but that norationale tagging images which have the correct template is pretty much just laziness since all the necessary information to write the rationale (except possibly the source) is present in the tag. It would take 30 seconds to put a rationale on those images you are presently mass-tagging, which means a loss of maybe 15 seconds for you but which would save the project as a whole in wasted labour because someone else has to go and add it since you won't. The tags that no rationale deletion properly applies to are grouped at present under Category:Wikipedia:Generic fair use tags. --tjstrf talk 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion I linked to says that the distinction of "Generic fair use tags" was made so that it also covered the near-variants such as fairusein2 and so on. And even if what you say was true, your tagging for deletion rather than fixing the problems is unproductive. If the image is an album cover, how many seconds does it take to type that the image is rationalized under fair use in articles where it is an illustration of the album it represents? Certainly less time than it took for you to tag it and then another person to add that same text. --tjstrf talk 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

William Monahan article at FAC
Hello. I noted that you are a resident of Massachusetts. I wonder if you would mind doing a review of my article on one of your fellow Bostonians, William Monahan? I'm running the article through WP:FAC and I'm trying to get as many opinions as I can. Your comments would be of great help. Perhaps you could even write up Monahan's early years in a more interesting way? I talk at length about his years in MA and I see that you went to the same university as him. Anyways, I'd be interested in what you think about the article.-BillDeanCarter 03:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kepler at FAC
Jay, thanks for your kind words about the Johannes Kepler article. I've completed what I had intended to add before going for going for FA.--ragesoss 21:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile!


Here's some Penguins for you! Penguins somehow in their own strange way promote WikiLove and hopefully these Penguins have made your day seem even better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing!  Crested Penguin 05:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Pro Tour
I like what you've done in your sandbox. Any chance of it being rolled out? Shadowin 21:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

New look at Representative peer
Changes at Featured article review/Representative peer; pls revisit. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Spider-Man (1994 animated series) episodes
I've wikified the airdates on the list and answered your comment. Would you consider taking another look and reconsidering your vote? thank. Gman124 21:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Something showdown
How do you know they will never? You don't. The episodes are the source for the plot so it has at least one source. PRODs can be overturned (so even that deleted page can be undeleted, yes). Now, if it pleases you then you may AfD the episodes. Your prerogative, I'm ready. Matthew 22:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they should be deleted. You can't have six of one, and half dozen of the other. Wikipedia doesn't bend to your desires.. I find your actions distasteful and disruptive. Addendum: "people just won't quit their whining" - the only people I see whining are the deletionists. Now quit your gorram moaning and go help the encyclopaedia, you know.. why don't you actually IMPROVE those articles? Matthew 22:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

FARC Torchic
Tell me where to find info about creation. Torchic isnn't that notable for stating all such things, OK? Vikrant Phadkay 14:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed
Hi, I've noticed that you have recently added this tag to several images that qualify for fair use. Your reasoning, "the fair use rationale does not explain the specific usage of this image in any particular article", is a bit contradictory to common sense. For instance, Image:019.jpg is tagged with tv-screenshot, which states that the claim extends to "identification and critical commentary on the ... program and its contents". This statement provides a solid base for determining fair use status. If the article, Bart Gets Hit by a Car, includes critical commentary on the event depicted in the screencap, then the assertion that there's no rationale for specific usage is frivolous. There is no mandatory format for fair use rationales, only an expectation that they adequately address concerns outlined at WP:FUC. Tagging appropriately used copyrighted images with disputed tags is counterproductive, as it does not directly dispute the fair use claim, but rather outlines a dubious claim of the inadequacy of the rationale. If you think that the fair use rationale is incomplete or insufficient, then just fix it! Address your own concerns about the rationale, instead of passing the buck to someone else. No, there's no policy or guideline that requires you to do this, but then we are all here to contribute in a spirit of courtesy and collaboration. I don't mean to come off as a complete jerk, this little rant is simply the result of my experience in clearing out logs of replaceable fair use & no-rationale images. It sometimes seems as if users tag images they simply don't like and want to get rid off, instead of being willing to put in the time to fairly assess usage and copyright status. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for completely missing the point. Just out of curiosity, could you point to a rationale of a TV-screenshot that you deem adequate? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of WP:FUC and I resent your accusation that my involvement is disruptive. Your comments so far have been dismissive and condescending, so I am not at all inclined to placate your concern. If you wish to delete this image, then post it on WP:IFD, and offer up your assertion for review. Fair use disputed is not a deletion shortcut. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Vandalism? Wow, you really don't have any respect of users you disagree with. I have no desire to put up with such obstinate castigation; if you are not willing to put any effort into assuming good faith, it is time to seek recourse. FYI: The assertion that a screenshot is accompanied by relevant critical commentary directly satisfies the concerns brought up in WP:FUC. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kindly stop putting frivolous warnings on my page, I do not respond well to childish intimidation. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think that I am acting like a vandal (I can only assume that "vandalism" is code for "disagreeing with Jay"), then feel free to report me to WP:AIV. Until you do that, don't place any more idiotic warnings on my talk page. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion
I have provided a third opinion regarding the image and the fair use dispute at Image_talk:019.jpg.

Seraphim Whipp 10:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe I dealt with the issue that you had a problem with. I assessed the rationale adequately and addressed the FUC concerns that you had. There really is nothing to dispute.
 * Seraphim Whipp 19:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Berating people you don't agree with is immature. I've had far more experience in dealing with Wikipedia image use policy than you have, look over my contributions and logs. I am willing to discuss this issue with you, but repeatedly making statements to the effect of "NO, I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE AN IDIOT" is not going to get you anywhere in a collaborative environment. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I assure you that our disagreement will not unfairly prejudice my judgment, thanks for the note. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing up the page, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lindsay Lohan. I appreciate it. --Yamla 01:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of The Batman episodes
I have found the references for writer, directors, and references for List of The Batman episodes. Would you consider taking another look and reconsidering your vote? Gman124 01:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is your position a support or object on List of The Batman episodes. Gman124 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Michigan State University photo
Please do not change the Photo for the Michigan State Featrued topics box I see you have had some problems with other people and there Images, I do not want that. Your contrubs section sad "restoring free image, this does not count as article space)" Well It is the Michigan State College Seal. Using this image is not breaking the Rules, The College Seal is also free because the school is Public and Funded by the Government, with Tax payer money, and there for it is free.Max ╦╩ 15:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok your right I have look all over and yes the College Seal it is copyright. But What if I could get the University to grant Wikipedia the Use of the image in some form or shape? I live next to the copyright office so I would not be a big problem. What usage claim could it be Used under? the Creative Commons Attribution? Max ╦╩ 18:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Right again, about the problem with permission, I think the MSU FA Topic box still looks cool even with out the College seal. Thanks for helping me understand the problem with the copyright. I do not want to get Wikipedia in trouble. I will now keep an eye out for copyrighted photos,. Max ╦╩ 20:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Royal Assent FAR
Hi Jay, if you get a chance, would you mind revisiting the FAR above as there has been work on 1c. Thanks. Ceoil 19:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Petarded
Ok, it's fine that you disagree, but can you at least tell me what's wrong with the box we already have? I don't want any edit war, so please could you explain what's wrong with the Family Guy episode box? TheBlazikenMaster 11:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

U-bot (Xiaolin Showdown)
You placed a db tag on this. IMO neither the original article nor the redirect are appropraite for speedy deletion. The original had little content, but clear conteXt, by mentioning Xiaolin Showdown. The redir from a character to the larger fictional work is perfectly appropriate and does not fit any of the WP:CSD as far as I can see. Use WP:RfD if ypu think this should be deleted. DES (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The same reasoning applies to Heylin Plant (Xiaolin Showdown) except in this case the redirect had been in effect for over a year, so the origianl article contents clearly have very little relevance to whether the redir should be deleted. DES (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be correct that the original information was "meaningless" or perhaps one should say useless or unencyclopedic. (It was not patent nonsense.) That would have made the original articles worthy candidates for proposed deletion or WP:AFD, but not in my view for speedy deletion -- they clearly didn't fit WP:CSD as written. As for the redirects, the merits or demerits of the original articles aren't relevant -- the redirs should stand or fall on their own. These do not fit any of the speedy criteria for redirects. They redirect to a page that does exist; they are not cross-namespace redirs; and they were not created as a result of typos, plausible or implausible. Your argument that they are unlikely search terms may have merit, but it could be debated -- which is why this should IMO go through WP:RFD if these redirs are to be deleted. DES (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Mike Flores
I recently added an edit to Mike Flores which you deleted for a good reason. see here However, if I can source the material, (which would be relatively easy as William Spaniel now has his own page), would the material I posted be appropriate? Thanks, stealthymatt 01:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, however, I have another question. User:Smokizzy recently tagged the page William Spaniel for notability during its first stages of creation. Since then, the page has expanded by a large degree, and I have included 3rd party references confirming his notability. User:Smokizzy only recently got NPWatcher (see his talk page), and has possibly been using it multiple times (see his talk page) without giving a reason. Is there a way you can fix this? Thanks, stealthymatt 13:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is fixed now, as User:Smokizzy removed the notability tag, congratulating the article for its great improvement. Thanks again, stealthymatt 02:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for your small but appreciated contribution! fixing the header in Featured article review/CPU cache i was stumped haha. Slowbro 03:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: FAR
Please cool down the discussion of "stupid people" and "bad editors" at The Country Wife FAR. I don't think excess aggressiveness will help yourself or your cause. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
The simple, clear, and fair warning from Christopher arrived at 22:45 yesterday. At 23:02 you came back to FAR with "Cite your sources or go fuck yourself" in reply to Bishonen. The comment alone would make one itchy to block, but could probably be passed over given a clean block record — but arriving immediately after the note above, and given your extreme dickishness on the review in general, it strikes me as real disruption. It occurred within the last 24 hrs, so I am blocking you for a day. Please consider how you can aid review processes with more civility. Your review comments at present are not helping anyone. Marskell 14:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

wuya
okay I added a more detailed use rationale.--Marhawkman 04:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comments
Here on Wikipedia, we do not call our fellow editors fucktards. Hence, you are now blocked for a week.

Since the previous discussions seem not to have had an effect on you, let me spell it out more clearly: playing nice with other people is not optional. You will learn to interact courteously with other editors, or you will find yourself quite unwelcome to participate further. Kirill Lokshin 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome back Jay. and don't let Stalin's right hand man above get you down. Just learn to not let them annoy you, as they're not worth the effort. Leave them bicker amongst themselves. LuciferMorgan 16:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Springfield Isotopes
Hi. I noticed your comment at the AfD, and have since edited the article to, hopefully, address your concern. I would appreciate your further input. --Maxamegalon2000 00:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo. director
It looks like useful OOU information to me. Matthew 20:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Californication
Thanks for the great criticism at the FAC. I believe that your concerns have been dealt with. If there's anything else that strikes you as incorrect in the article, or that needs work, just identify it. Thanks again and best wishes. NSR 77 TC  05:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Naming convention
Well it's not specific enough just putting "Lost" or "Futurama" in parentheses when some pages have "episode" as well. --SilvaStorm 19:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured article review/Great Lakes Storm of 1913
I've removed the thumbnail resizings as you requested, and the quotations have been moved to Wikiquote. Can you please leave a response? Thanks! &mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2007-04-29 15:48Z 15:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about AnnaSophia Robb page
Hello, my experience here is very little so I didn't get why did you delete photo of AnnaSophia from her page. Was it violating any legal stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Usoltsev (talk • contribs) 06:52, April 7, 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes Jay32183 19:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Your AfDs
You might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction). However, just note that the rewrite will encourage transwiki and merging, and only deletion as a last resort. &mdash; Deckiller 21:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Blake Holsey TfD
It was my mistake not to delete those templates. I was closing the debates extremely late at night and simply must have missed them. I'll delete them straight away. RyanGerbil10 (One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 03:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and they're gone. RyanGerbil10 (One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 03:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's no problem. RyanGerbil10 (One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 03:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay

 * [[Image:Stop_hand nuvola.svg|35px|Stop]] This is you final warning. Under no circumstances is the licensing template a sufficient non-free content rationale. If you remove the no rationale template without supplying a non-free content rationale, it will be considered vandalism and you will be blocked from editting. Jay32183 00:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Really my final warning? Where was the first warning? Warning for what? It's absolutely sufficient... what makes you think it's not? Vandalism? No, I don't think so. ¦ Reisio 01:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

AN/I
You are being discussed on AN/I. Tyrenius 12:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You've reverted Image:Imogen Heap-Speak For Yourself-Hide and Seek.ogg four times within 24 hours. You should probably avoid doing this in the future, as it's a violation of policy: WP:3RR. ¦ Reisio 00:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion welcome at deletion review for Plot of Les Mis
After Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables closed as a deletion, I'm challenging the way the closing administrator acted as in violation of Wikipedia rules. Your participation is welcome at that discussion, Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14. Please keep in mind that only arguments related to either new information or to how Wikipedia rules were violated or not violated in closing the discussion will be considered. It isn't a replay of the original AfD. I'm familiar with WP:CANVASSING and I am alerting everyone who participated in that discussion to the deletion review. I won't contact anyone again on this topic, and I apologize if you consider this note distracting. Noroton 04:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Randy (Trailer Park Boys character) (2nd nomination)
I was trying to say that I agree with you, plus WP:NOR as another reason. I'm sorry for the confusion. GreenJoe 23:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Slander75.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Slander75.jpeg. 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. Jay32183 02:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My dispute is that no specific use is explained within the fair use rationale. Saying "This is a book cover in an encyclopedia" is not acceptable. You must explain, in detail, why the image is being used in the particular article(s). My dispute stands until that is met. Jay32183 16:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Its a book cover that meets all the requirements for a book cover used to illustrate a book article. I do not understand what you consider is missing. There are thousand of book articles in wikipedia that have book cover images used to illustrate the article. The image page provides all the required information to support its existence.--CltFn 19:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to keep it cool, OK?
Listen, Jay. I've been on Wikipedia for a long time. I know the policies and guidelines. I know that you do too. We interpret those policies differently. Let's try to keep things cool and wait for the closing admin, shall we? The talk radio-style "YOU ARE WRONG" attitude isn't helping anything. — Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you would be kind enough to withdraw the accusation of bad faith, I'll be happy to let things be. — Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for striking out that comment. Consider the hatchet buried. — Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Vegeta Pics
Is there any particular reason you are deleting these images so that I can prove it wrong and the article can be back to normal? They're all legal and well documented for fair use and illustrate information present in the article and aren't just htere for decoration. In fact, the majority of the ones you have chosen to speedy delete are the ones NOT there for decoration. If I knew how to undo what you've done I'd just do it but alas, I don't.Darkwarriorblake 13:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use of Images
Salutations, You recently added to my Talk page instances of warnings of several images that I had uploaded to Wikipedia, for Fair Use Rationale. I don't quite understand what it is you are requesting. All text accompanying the image were automatically populated by Wikipedia upon uploading the file and assured that the images were protected. What exactly needs to be done? The S 05:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Ghost of Mateel
"Decline prod" just means that I thought the article should be kept. (Any user can remove a prod tag from an article.) It didn't seem different from the hundreds of articles we have on episodes of other TV shows. If you disagree, you can list the article at AFD. NawlinWiki 11:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.  ^ demon [omg plz]  13:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Yes Minister
Hello. Thanks for your comments, again, on this FAC. I think I've addressed your concerns. If I haven't, please let me know. The JPS <sup style="color:purple;">talk to me  15:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at regarding. You are free to comment at the discussion but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. 05:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Jay32183,  and  are not appropriate on wiki. Everyone's input is welcome. FYI, User:Artw is British and speaks English well.Rlevse 11:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV
I have initiated a deletion review of an AFD which you were involved in. You may wish to contribute to the discussion. Balancer 04:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the IFD of Rbh C.jpg
For your information, I've added a statement in the casting section of Rob-B-Hood, stating "Some of Yuen Biao's past antics were repeated in Rob-B-Hood, including a fight in which he tried in vain to handcuff Jackie Chan's character", and now that image illustrates that scene in hand. (And, I've described the whole sequence in the IFD, just for reference.)--Alasdair 01:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a follow up, having checked Google, I found this website:, and it's licensed with the CC Attribution Sharealike License 2.5. Hence I took one of their images, scaled it down, and replaced the file with that.--Alasdair 07:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a new development. Having emailed the webmaster of CineOggi, a webzine,, they have agreed to drop the NoCommercial tag of their CC license on the images of their page. Would this make the images suitable for Wikipedia? After all, if they have attended the Venice Film Festival, as stated, they are one of the press member that get explicit access to such shots.--Alasdair 00:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Something you may be able to help with
Please check this article: Alfonso esposito. I tried to add an unreferenced tag, which was removed. I tried to make the subject's name bold, and that was reverted as well. Perhaps if a "fresh face" has a look, it will be respect, as I'd rather not edit war with the article's creator. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 23:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look at that one! :) Have a nice night!  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it may be a copyvio. Please compare Alfonso esposito with this page.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see you got it taken care of and now I see the template to use in the future. Thanks!  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Order of the Phoenix (organisation)
''What was your reasoning for closing Order of the Phoenix (organisation) as keep? Not one of the people saying "keep" refuted the claims made that the article should be deleted, or provided any evidence that it could be improved. Vote counting should never be used to close an AFD. Jay32183 04:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)''
 * Conversely, none of the people saying delete refuted the keep arguments. A lot of the delete arguments stated stuff like "the topic of this article has no real world notability" - too bad the opposite had already been proven a bit higher up!  If you object to my closure, I suggest you get it reviewed. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jay, when you said there was a 'clear' consensus to delete, are you counting your FIFTEEN comments as part of that consensus? It's a bit obsessive, and to further track down the closing editor simply tells me you may be taking this personally. I agree with DM - take it to DRV or put it back on the chopping block. the_undertow talk  23:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read DRV. You are very quick to point out to other editors the plethora of guidelines that they probably have not read, btw. In a normal situation, I would consider contact with closing editor, of course, to be in accordance with this policy. However, responding to every opposing comment in an AfD, opining 15 times in a single AfD, going to the closing editor less than one hour after closure, then to DRV shows compulsion that I do not believe to be justified. And "Users hoping to become admins should not support bad arguments, and existing admins should know that" is a comment that baffles me. Nobody should support a bad argument, should they? And I have no idea to what the 'admin' comment refers. the_undertow talk  23:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Pandabubba
I have removed the CSD tag from this because you have used an invalid criteria. A5 only covers articles, for starters, and are for things that have been transwikied. As this is a redirect and has not been transwikied, the CSD tag did not apply. Natalie 20:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki-ing things is great, but I think it's okay to leave the redirects to a main article. That way, people won't come across the completely empty page and think "I should create an article here". Natalie 21:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Twopints.jpg
Hi, I notice you put a speedy on this in List of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps characters; I've now added rationales for fair use on the image page. Hope this is OK. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 18:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

1080
In regards to 1080° Snowboarding, and its FAC, do have any further comments for improvement? I noticed you did some work with dates, and you have my thanks.--CM (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

that idiot who keeps vandalising you
Don't worry, I'm putting him up for deletion. Cf38 (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing
I have this feeling that there's something I'm supposed to tell you. It's probably either an explanation or an apology, so if something that would need either comes to your mind, then say so. In the meantime, I'm currently doing an essay on a book written by a philosophy professor in your university. How is the place? --Kizor (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and drop me a note if you'd want your user page protected. --Kizor (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Frank, he's a swell guy!
Cool. :P You should have heard me cursing at my computer trying to get pages to load faster so I could find more material. Finally gave up, my internet sucks here during the day. :( Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Frank West (Dead Rising)
I noticed your previous discussion about the Frank West article on Kyaa's page, and the article needs your help. TTN and his friends are now attempting to get it merged, even though consensus for a keep was reached on this once before. They have been doing this to alot of articles, or so my research has turned up. The discussion is occuring at the Dead Rising talk page. Smile Lee (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. He, TTN, has been having an ArbCom located here. Smile Lee (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Caulfield Grammar School
Hello. Earlier this year you voted to demote this article from featured status. I have recently been working to improve it and re-nominate it as an FAC. Please take some time to review the article's current form, as any feedback for further changes would be greatly appreciated. Harr o 5 22:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ye Art Cordially Invited to the Annex
Hello, My good Fellow, listen and I shalt telleth Ye a Tale of a Wiki that well comes All Manner of Articles relating to Fiction. What is This wonderful Place of Fantasy, You ask? It is the Annex, Haven to All fiction-related Refugee Articles from Wikipedia.

Before nominating or proposing a fiction-related Article for Deletion, It is My sincerest Hope that Ye import It to the Annex. Why do This, You wonder? Individuals have dedicated an enormous Amount of Time to writing These Articles, and ’twould be a Pity for the Information to Vanish unto the Oblivion where only Administrators could see Them.

Here is a Step-by-Step Process of how to Bringeth Articles into the Annex:
 * 1) Ye shall need at least three Browser Tabs or Windows open. For the first Tab or Window, go to Special:Export.  For the second, go here .  (If Ye have not an Account at Wikia, then create One.)  Do whatever Ye want for the third.
 * 2) Next, open the Program known as Notepad. If Ye haveth It not, then open WordPad.  Go to “Save as,” and for “Encoding,” select either “Unicode” or “UTF-8.”  For “Save as type,” select “All Files.”  For “File name,” input “ ” and save It.  Leave the Window open.
 * 3) Next, go to the Special:Export Window at Wikipedia, and un-check the two small Boxes near the “Export” Button. Input the Name of the Wikipedia Article which Ye wish to import to the Annex into the large Field, and click “Export.”
 * 4) Right-click on the Page full of Code which appears, and clicketh on “View Source” or “View Page Source” or any Option with similar Wording. A new Notepad Window called “index[1]” or Something similar should appear.  Press Ctrl+A to highlight All the Text then Ctrl+C to copy It.  Close yon “index[1]” Window, and go to the Notepad “export.xml” Window.  Press Ctrl+V to pasteth the Text There, and then save It by pressing Ctrl+S.
 * 5) Now go to the Special:Import Window over at the Annex. Clicketh on “Browse…” and select the “export.xml” File.  At last, click on “Upload file,” and Thou art done, My Friend!  However, if It says 100 Revisions be imported, Ye be not quite finished just yet.  Go back to Wikipedia’s Special:Export, and leave only the “Include only the current revision, not the full history” Box checked.  Export That, copy the Page Source, close the “index[1]” Window, and go to the “export.xml” Window.  Press Ctrl+A to highlight the Code all ready There, press “backspace” to erase It, and press Ctrl+V to pasteth the new Code There.  Press Ctrl+S to save It, then upload once more to the Annex.  Paste   at the Bottom of the imported Article at the Annex, and Ye art now finally done!  Keepeth the “export.xml” File for future Use.

Thank Ye for using the Annex, My Friend — the Annex Hath Spoken 01:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing my mistake on Articles for deletion/No. 17‎. I had started to close it, but then decided to vote instead, and forgot to put the template back in. Much appreciated. Pastordavid (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

suggestion for advisor
Done :) --Cameltrader (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ellipses
Please see if you have any objections here, here, and here. --Cameltrader (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Alan Comer
Another editor has added the  template to the article Alan Comer, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are unable to find any reliable sources outside of wizard.com then I will have to send it to AfD. See WP:BIO for the notability guideline of people.--Otterathome (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This also applies for all articles in Category:Magic: The Gathering players.--Otterathome (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mario2small.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mario2small.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) 12:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Action potential
Hi Jay,

About two months ago, you voted to Remove action potential as a Featured Article. Since then, the article has been completely re-written and referenced to the gills. It also does not seem to fail any definite MoS criteria, although there's been a little discussion of how many sections to have in the Table of Contents. We'll also keep trying to improve the article. Nevertheless, if you think it's worth keeping as an FA, now would be a good time to change your vote to Keep; otherwise, now would be a good time to explain what you find still lacking in the article. Thanks for taking the time to reconsider the article! :) Willow (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...
for this. Boy do I feel kinda' dumb right now. Cheers. <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 19:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

west wing ep pages need work
if you're interested, or if you know anyone who would be, I could use help. thx. St. Puid, Head of Assisi 17:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Magic: The Gathering
Hey, I noticed your recent work on assessing articles tagged with mtgproject, and I was wondering if you would like to join Wikiproject Magic: The Gathering. This Wikiproject is a place for editors interested in Magic: The Gathering and related articles to gather and collectively discuss ways to improve Magic: The Gathering articles. You can join by adding your name to this list or by adding to your userpage. Even if you decide that you don't want to join the Wikiproject, I hope that you'll continue to edit and improve Magic: The Gathering articles. Cheers, and happy editing! <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i> (talk - contribs) 15:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

on abu el Banat
tag says third party references needed. who is the 2nd party in this case? and I guess the first party is the authors of the article right? St. Puid, Head of Assisi 00:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Michael Corvin
You might also want to take another look at this one. Your comment explains why the subject might not be worth a separate article, but a lack of references in the article is not a valid reason for deletion, only when said sources cannot be found with reasonable effort. Verifying the character exists within the universe and making it a redirect would take little effort. - Mgm|(talk) 10:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Walter Paisley (2nd nomination)
Your !vote in this debate explains why we shouldn't have a separate article, but doesn't explain why you didn't choose for a merge or a redirect. According to the deletion policy, problems that can be handled through editing should not cause a deletion and the fact the actor played characters with this role repeatedly can be sourced, even if it is not the case right now. - Mgm|(talk) 08:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about salvaging content and giving the original author proper credit, rather than saving the article itself. - Mgm|(talk) 09:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the original author could not be bothered to find sources for the content, s/he does not deserve credit. We should not preserve the content. If you have sources for expanding another article do that, don't copy this and see if the sources match up. Jay32183 (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is your personal opinion, there's nothing in the rules and guidelines about people not deserving credit when they don't provide sources. In fact, we cannot delete accounts because every single edit needs to be accounted for. As for the content: why not preserve it? It's verifiable and relevant to the subject. When the referencing occurs has nothing to do with it. - Mgm|(talk) 21:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess we disagree on the worth of the material then. Let's leave it to the rest of the community to form the consensus on who is right. - Mgm|(talk) 08:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Attention
I assure you I am paying very close attention, especially to uncivil comments like this. I recommend you pay a little more attention to the words you choose. Dreadstar †  04:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding WP:PLOT
Jay32183, you recently said "WP:PLOT specifically requires real-world context in all articles." That may have been true at one time, after Kyorosuke edited PLOT any without prior discussion, but PLOT no longer says such a thing. You may be interested to know that the editor who proposed WP:PLOT in the first place recently asked that PLOT be removed from WP:NOT. You also said "Things need to be notable in the real world, not the fictional world. That's why significant coverage of real world context is required." I don't really understand your stance, given your edits to List of Xiaolin Showdown characters, Shen Gong Wu, List of Shen Gong Wu revealed in Season One, List of Shen Gong Wu revealed in Season Two over the past 2 years. You might be interested in the ongoing discussion at WT:FICT. --Pixelface (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Fiction
You can't describe a fictional universe without some plot detail that is not real world related. Just because one particular character has no real world information doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in the main article about a fictional universe. It easily can be, as long as the fictional universe itself has real world content.

Perhaps you should consider redirects instead. Actors and characters existing is easy to verify and their names make likely search terms. - Mgm|(talk) 09:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

a suggestion
when reverting edits for policy issues, it is a good idea to indicate an explanation and a specific reference to the policy at the outset. telling editors what 'not to do' is unnecessary and sets a low bar of wp:civility that can lead to more contentious dialog. cheers. --emerson7 15:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop trying to delete everything with a blanket statement
Going through your recent contributions, you vote deletion for multiple articles with the exact same copy-pasted "reason". It isn't a vote. At least take enough time to study the case to tailor a unique response for each article's deletion.

As well, if you're going to mass-mark images for deletion in the span of minutes, then this is bot-like behavior and you should get approval for running such a bot. You are not a robot. Stop acting like one. --68.161.186.184 (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on. "Kill them all and let heaven sort them out" isn't policy: --68.161.186.184 (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23:25, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirar ‎ (→Mirar: delete)
 * 23:24, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesogog ‎ (→Mesogog: delete)
 * 23:19, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lothor ‎ (→Lothor: delete)
 * 23:19, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lanstag ‎ (→Lanstag: delete)
 * 23:16, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Manx ‎ (→Katherine Manx: delete)
 * 23:14, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helic Republic ‎ (→Helic Republic: delete)
 * 23:13, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HERCULAN ‎ (→HERCULAN: delete)
 * 23:11, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guylos Empire ‎ (→Guylos Empire: delete)
 * 23:10, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glidoler ‎ (→Glidoler: delete)
 * 23:08, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geruder ‎ (→Geruder: delete)
 * 23:08, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuzor (Zoids) ‎ (→Fuzor (Zoids): delete)
 * 23:07, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Liger ‎ (→Energy Liger: delete)
 * 23:07, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreamweavers ‎ (→Dreamweavers: delete)
 * 23:05, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descat ‎ (→Descat: delete)
 * 23:04, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dannyl ‎ (→Dannyl: delete)
 * 23:03, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danjin Spear ‎ (→Danjin Spear: delete)
 * 23:02, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creatures of Kyralia ‎ (→Creatures of Kyralia: delete)
 * 23:00, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circlian ‎ (→Circlian: delete)
 * 22:57, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brastle Tiger ‎ (→Brastle Tiger: delete)
 * 22:56, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birdon ‎ (→Birdon: delete)
 * 22:55, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bio Raptor ‎ (→Bio Raptor: delete)
 * 22:55, 8 December 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bio Ptera ‎ (→Bio Ptera: delete)

CSD of Oddworld images
Hello. You've recently nominated three images for deletion three times each: File:Abes Oddysee screenshot Abe on Elum.jpg, File:Molluckprofit.jpg, and File:Mudokonpops2.jpg. The speedy deletion of all three of these files was contested by myself and, once each for each file. When I remove the CSD templates the second time, I stated that I believed the FUR to be valid and that any further nominations should be at WP:FFD, not WP:CSD. However, 2 hours later you had nominated all three files for speedy deletion again, with no additional reason provided beyond what you had already said.

I don't want to get into an edit war, so I was wondering if you could explain your reasoning behind re-adding the CSD tags even after they had been removed twice, or at least explain why you didn't give a different reason the third time. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
–Drilnoth (T • C) 13:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
–Drilnoth (T • C) 19:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

File:1-up (Pac-Man).png and File:1-up mushroom in Super Mario Bros.png
I'm not going to try and argue the case for these images - you're probably right about them. But if you're objecting to the use of the image, and not just its lack of rationale, it would have been easier for you - and a lot easier for me - if you'd just gone and proposed their deletion in the first place. CountingPine (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Their uses were given on their pages as you originally saw them. If you'd disagreed with them then, it would have saved you even more time if you'd told me you planned to contest their provided uses. Then you wouldn't have had to make a case for their deletion. CountingPine (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ugh, sorry: I shouldn't have started this argument - I should admit I did primarily out of annoyance. Can I offer a draw, and an olive branch?  Otherwise I think we'll reach an angsty stalemate. CountingPine (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

File:0414608b.jpg - use rationale
File:0414608b.jpg. I've added a non-template rationale that I believe satisfies concerns over its use. If you believe I'm incorrect here, I would appreciate some education. Thanks for improving Wikipedia. Cheers, Critical<font color="#2B547E">Chris   15:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Old South Meeting House
Seeing that you've tagged the good picture of Old South Church in Boston for deletion (an action with which I agree), would you please offer an opinion about the best picture to use for an overall picture of the church? Commons has File:OSCnw.JPG and File:CopleyNW07.JPG. Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

University of Massachusetts WikiProject
I noticed that you have attended the University of Massachusetts system. You are welcomed to join the WikiProject University of Massachusetts at your own convenience. If you have any questions for me, I will respond as soon as possible. Your participation is appreciated. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

May, 2009
I have asked you to stop disruptive image tagging. Yet you are repeatedly re-tagging the image and have called me a vandal. Surely you know that kind of behavior is against the behavioral rules, e.g. WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:EW. You should also review WP:VANDAL to understand what vandalism is, and that it is not acceptable to accuse good faith editors of vandalism. Please desist at once, and self-revert your latest tag. I would ask you to handle this in a more mature way among collaborative editors. I see you're also edit warring against other editors on disputed image tagging as well. The normal routine, as with any speedy deletion nomination, is that if an editor removes the deletion tag in good faith, and you still believe the item is deletable, you can nominate the item for a deletion discussion, in this case I believe Files for deletion. If you won't follow process we can take it to WP:AN/I. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Final warning - you have had plenty of time to reform your behavior here. Yet you refuse.  You have removed a source statement and non-free use rationale in support of gaming to have an image deleted.  You are at WP:3RR on reverting a disputed image tag, and you are accusing good faith editors of vandalism.  Please revert your latest reversion, and stop now, or I will report you to AN/I and you will quite possibly be blocked to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia.  Wikidemon (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

AN/I report
I have reported your recent editing behavior to AN/I, here. Please direct all comments on the subject there now. Wikidemon (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. - ALLST✰R &#09660; echo wuz here @ 08:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an  edit war. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.


 * Edit warring is edit warring, regardless of whether there's a source on the image or not. You were also warned about it and continued. The license was changed to satisfy the image and that still wasn't good enough for you. Further, reverting people's edits and calling them "vandalism", when they clearly were not, is just downright rude. - ALLST✰R &#09660; echo wuz here @ 09:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that numerous other users, acting in apparently good faith, were asking only for more discussion of the sort a blunt speedy tag cannot allow; if you're so convinced you're right, why are you so hostile to this request? – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to discuss. No source is no source, no license is no license. This is exactly what speedy deletion is for. Images that don't indicate source, license, or permission are deleted, no exceptions. Working to delete those image is a positive contribution, while working to maintain them is a negative contribution. Removing a speedy deletion tag in such an instance is acting in bad faith. I won't revert anymore, but I am right. Jay32183 (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Truce
I just want to say that I very much see your point about the Aubrey and Aundrea image I uploaded. While I still see some validity in keeping the Aubrey O'Day singing "At Last" image, I see your point there as well. I do not agree with you at all about images like the Reese and Zach Slater controversial kiss one (which has a lot of critical commentary about that kiss due to that very imagery having upset a lot of people), found in the Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery article, in the same way that I would not feel that the image of Aerith's death in the Aerith Gainsborough article should be deleted (which also has a lot of critical commentary about that scene). However, I would like to call a truce between us instead of this back and forth that resembles bickering on our parts toward each other. I am usually not too rude in my replies; it is just that I felt you were being a little rude to me and I was annoyed by having a few of "my images" recently nominated for deletion. Seeing your past history with incivility, what you stated to me was not all that bad. And I am not holding your past warnings against you.

Basically, I am saying that I get your point in some parts of the discussions we have had with each other, and would like to move on. I apologize if you felt offended by my words. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion nominations
I have reverted a number of your recent image deletion nominations. You have been nominating a number of old images for deletion that were appropriate per the policies of the time, based on technical noncompliance with newer requirements. When those images were uploaded, the uploader's public domain tag was considered a sufficient claim that they were the copyright holder and intended to give their copyright to the image to the public domain. Frankly, nominating those for speedy deletion seems silly and misguided, and a deletion discussion would also be the wrong way to go. If you do wish to go through Wikipedia's old images to see if they should be purged for noncompliance with new policy, I suggest you start at Village Pump or some other central forum rather than nominating miscellaneous images for deletion. Please do be careful and work with other editors on your policy concerns. Wikidemon (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried to explain to him about "legacy" images (older images under older policy) before.. he didn't want any part of it. - ALLST✰R &#09660; echo wuz here @ 07:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009 X 2
(after edit conflict) Please stop edit warring to add inappropriate image deletion tags. You have recently been blocked for this. I am not going to engage in an edit war with you over this. However, your nominations are rather odd, and not according to policy as indicated above. If you continue to revert, or to add new images in this apparent campaign, I will bring the issue up on WP:AN/I, and an administrator may block you again, possibly for a longer period, to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia.Wikidemon (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you continued after the above warning, I have taken this matter to WP:ANI again. Please see here.  Wikidemon (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Ann Arbor
nominated Ann Arbor, Michigan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 19:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

University of Massachusetts WikiProject
I noticed that you have attended the University of Massachusetts Amherst. You are welcome to join the WikiProject University of Massachusetts at your own convenience. If you have any questions for me, I will respond as soon as possible. Your participation is appreciated. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Papertree's images
I happened across some images you had (quite reasonably) marked for deletion last year due to their lacking a source. With some digging, I located an edit where the uploader clarified the source and intended license, and so restored the images. I wanted to let you know. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Forgot to actually specify the images: File:IMG_0121(Notre_Dame_statue).jpg, etc. (check my contribs if needed). JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

USOC final picture
I've attempted to address your delete position on. Please feel free to reply if you have anything further to add. Thanks! --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 04:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Xiaolin Showdown
It looks like I removed the majority of the original research back in 2010. However, there are still a lot of unsourced statements about events from the show. I'm sure someone who has seen the entire thing could cite specific episodes. I added a fact tag to one sentence about an unsourced Chinese phrase. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

An AFD you commented in before, has a sequel
The same articles in a previous AFD you commented in are at AFD again. Articles for deletion/Thelma Harper (2nd nomination)  D r e a m Focus  21:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

M*A*S*H episode for creation
I see you are the second leading editor of today's WP:TFA, "Abyssinia, Henry", in terms of the edit counts. You will note that there is an episode listed at Television_episodes among the few episodes in television history with multiple major "Episode" awards that does not have an article. Would you be interested in creating this article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I had no idea I was number 2 in that article. Unfortunately, I only worked formatting on the article. I don't have the appropriate sources to create an article from scratch. Good luck with that. Jay32183 (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Info' box

 * I believe that's deliberate. The stars of a series don't change from episode to episode, but guests are specific to episodes. Individual episode articles don't need to repeat the full series details, or even single season details. That would be extremely redundant. Jay32183 (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. It makes sense when I think about it.  Although, in this instance, it being the pilot, the omission of the names of the regular actors might appear to be unusual.  Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting
Message delivered by Dominic at 08:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

Boston Wiknic
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Meetup/Boston at 14:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Xiaolin Showdown Wikia
What happened to the Xiaolin Showdown Wiki? 71.212.128.66 (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really know. It redirects to another. Xiaolinpedia, I think. I am not involved. Jay32183 (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why did you cease involvement? The last time I saw the Xiaolin Showdown Wiki, you were rather active.71.212.128.66 (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * After the one I was working on disappeared, I decided I wouldn't work on the other. It looks like they're going for style over substance, which I don't like. Jay32183 (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not discuss it with them? Can you tell me what you mean by style over substance?71.212.128.66 (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting
You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Jay32183 (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You're invited: Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March
Jay32183 (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You're invited!
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Jay32183 (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Aristocratic Assassin, Sesshomaru (InuYasha episode) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Aristocratic Assassin, Sesshomaru (InuYasha episode). Since you had some involvement with the Aristocratic Assassin, Sesshomaru (InuYasha episode) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 03:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Assault on the Wolf-Demon Tribe (InuYasha episode) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Assault on the Wolf-Demon Tribe (InuYasha episode). Since you had some involvement with the Assault on the Wolf-Demon Tribe (InuYasha episode) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 03:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Battle Against the Dried-Up Demons at the Cultural Festival (InuYasha episode) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Battle Against the Dried-Up Demons at the Cultural Festival (InuYasha episode). Since you had some involvement with the Battle Against the Dried-Up Demons at the Cultural Festival (InuYasha episode) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 03:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Enter Sango the Demon Slayer! (InuYasha episode) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Enter Sango the Demon Slayer! (InuYasha episode). Since you had some involvement with the ''Enter Sango the Demon Slayer! (InuYasha episode)'' redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 03:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Miroku's Old Mistake (InuYasha episode) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Miroku&. Since you had some involvement with the Miroku's Old Mistake (InuYasha episode) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 03:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Seekers of the Sacred Jewel (InuYasha episode) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Seekers of the Sacred Jewel (InuYasha episode). Since you had some involvement with the Seekers of the Sacred Jewel (InuYasha episode) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 03:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Down the Rabbit Hole and Back Again (InuYasha episode) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Down the Rabbit Hole and Back Again (InuYasha episode). Since you had some involvement with the Down the Rabbit Hole and Back Again (InuYasha episode) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. <strong style="color:#606060;">AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 03:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Jay32183! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)