User talk:MeekSaffron

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia on Earth! You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics!

You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some helpful links:
 * Merge, for information about merging, renaming and moving pages.
 * Wikipedia directory is also quite useful.
 * Meet other new users You may want to add yourself to the Wikipedia new user log.
 * Assign edits to your username from before you registered.
 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you
 * How to upload files and image copyright tags.

By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

Hope to see you around the Wiki! If you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page! Joe I 22:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually,I think it was User creation log, but not sure as it was a day ago, and I'm not young anymore. :)  Joe I  23:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

oh, hehe, no I thought I had posted the welcome yesterday, lol, shows how bad my memory is. Yesterday was the first day I started welcoming, so I just assumed... :)  Joe I  00:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox President
Hi. There has been a mess on that template. As a hot fix I've created template:Infobox President old. Please use that on all articles that you see broken. Many articles have already been converted to a new parameter set, so they now need the new version of Netoholic in order not to break. Adrian Buehlmann 02:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. Please address further concerns regarding template:Infobox President to User:Netoholic. template:Infobox President old is now orphaned (not used) and I put it up for a speedy delete. Adrian Buehlmann 10:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

stargate stubs
Technically, you are correct. I added them to the stargate-stub category because I felt they all could be recognized as needing attention. There are some articles, such as Lost City, that probably do not fall under the category of stub-worthy. Yet I feel some articles either need more info, or less info. Personally I feel Lost City has to much info. You did a very good job of detailing to episode. Only general plot outlines is what I feel is necessary. Solitudes (Stargate SG-1) is an excellent example of how I feel a stargate episode should be. Regardless, my personal feelings of how something should be is probably different from someone else. Hence, some I labeled as stubs so it could be brought to attention, and discussed.

(Opes 21:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

West Virginia for U.S. Collaboration of the Week
Hey MeekSaffron, I recently nominated West Virginia's main article to be a candidate for US Collaboration of the Week since it is in need of major attention and reorganization. I felt that by making the West Virginia article a US Collaboration of the Week, it would be brought up to par with those articles of other U.S. states. I noticed you had contributed to a number of West Virginia topics so I thought I would bring this to your attention. Thanks! --Caponer 20:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Nominating conventions
Hello Meek Saffron - in national nominating conventions, shifts sometimes occur at the end of a ballot. They most frequently occur on the final ballot, but I know of one case in which a shift occurred at the end of a ballot though no one had been nominated. I don't know how familiar you are with the mechanics of national nominating conventions - we have not had a second ballot in a major party convention since 1956 so most people have not heard of shifting votes.

Here is an example of what I am talking about. In the Republican National Convention of 1860, Abraham Lincoln led on the third presidential ballot with 231.5 votes, with 233 needed for nomination. Four delegates who had voted for Chase switched their vote to Lincoln, which gave him a majority. Now that he had won, other delegates shifted their votes to him as well. After all the delegates who wanted to switch their vote had done so, Lincoln ended up with 340 votes to 126 for all others. That means that there are two tallies for the third ballot: the vote before shifts (Lincoln 49.7%) and the vote after shifts (Lincoln 73%). Chronicler3 00:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Also I wanted to mention that in historic conventions, it is commonly the practice to declare the winner of the ballot nominated by acclamation. Historians usually do not recognize this as a shift of delegate votes, and in my research most accounts don't even mention it. Since the proceedings of most conventions are printed, though, the information appears there. Technically, this is a shifting of delegate votes also. Chronicler3 00:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your Reverts of Elephant
If you wanted a reason for my editing of the article, Elephant then I have one. I was doing what the peer review said. Daniel10 09:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II
The Reagan addition is not relevant. The people mentioned are mentioned for a reason, especially George Bush Sr. If we were to go through every person Queen Elizabeth II has met during her reign, we would have no space left. We also have too many fair-use images as it is, per Wiki standards. I hope you understand. Maddyfan 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tangent (Stargate SG-1).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tangent (Stargate SG-1).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. BetacommandBot (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons
Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is, however, another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading your media there instead. That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!--OsamaK 07:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank for adding the Presidential transition of Barack Obama article to the "Ongoing Events" Section of Wikipedia's Current Events Portal, per my suggestion on the Portal Talk Page. For some reason, I was unable to add the article myself earlier, which was part of the reason for the Talk page proposal. --TommyBoy (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Titan Globe
Kaldari has proposed a replacement image. Please consider updating your !vote.  wadester 16  04:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Psycho (1960 film) GAR notification
Psycho (1960 film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Defamatory Edit
Can you please clarify the accusation that you have made on my user account? Thank you--81.129.185.173 (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bond Girls
Greetings MeekSaffron,

The Bond images were removed because the Bond article was being reviewed for possible Good Article status, and it was felt there was an excess amount of screen-shot fair use images. WP not only wants a fair use rationale for each image, but also wants to limit the total number of fair use images. Personally, I think for a 23-film series, we are entitled to a few more images.

There may be plenty of written analysis of the recurring motifs in the film series, but they may somewhat fall under the category of "plot summary" which WP doesn't require citations for. At any rate, a lot of stuff on the recurring motifs states stuff that is moderately evident to those who have seen all 23 films. (About 10% of the section was written by me.) The issue of too many images is different from the issue of lack of citations for analysis of recurring motifs.

There was some talk of a further review of the images with a possible appeal that this would be an appropriate special circumstance to break the rules (one of WP's rules is to break the rules...when appropriate), but it never really was followed up. I still have my own copies of the images and would like to see them go back. I was concerned that the choice of images to delete was a bit arbitrary. Perhaps the deleted ones provided less insight than the ones that were kept.

I can get around soon to editing the File page to add a section on who the characters are. They are Eva Green as Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale, Diana Rigg as Tracy Draco in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Maryam D'abo as Kara Milovy in The Living Daylights, Jane Seymour as Solitaire in Live and Let Die and Daniela Bianchi as Tatiana Romanova in From Russia With Love.

I also uploaded about 14 images to the Stanley Kubrick article which has also come under fire for too many fair use images, but no one has tried to delete them, and I would fight a lot harder for their inclusion there than in the Bond article. --WickerGuy (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Times archive links
I don't see any change of policy. All the new articles since the paywall started are behind the paywall. A google search of their old site brings up 43,400 results, showing articles still available. I've gone through the links at Gordon Brown trying to replicate your results, but they all worked just now for me: You may have hit a temporary fault. I occasionally find an article on their site comes up 404, but this could happen way before the paywall. Just an error somewhere or other. Sometimes URLs can change, and this may result in a 404, because the article has moved. It can be worth trying a different search, but sometimes the article just isn't (apparently) there any more. The problem I have found with some old articles which are still available is finding them. The current Times search engine doesn't seem designed to help in this respect.  Ty  02:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Geography of Israel
According to the conventions at WP:RFPP, this wouldn't be protected (or semi-) because the admins there usually protect only emergency cases, from my experience. However, these conventions are more strict than the protection policy so if this behavior continued once or twice more, I see no problem in semi-protecting the article for a period. I will add the article to my watchlist to help you keep an eye out. Thanks for letting me know about this. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have protected the other article as you requested. Please let me know if the vandalism continues after the 1 month expires. —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)