User talk:Moose Boy

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 18:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Your Mt Greylock photo
I took a stab at adjusting the balance on your Mt. Greylock photo-- hope you don't mind. I brightened it up a bit, increased the contrast, and tweaked the blue and green up a bit. If you don't like it, you can revert it (or let me know, and I'll do it). -- Mwanner 12:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Raylene.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Raylene.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 03:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Monicamayhem.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Monicamayhem.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok  ☠  16:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-Moose Boy
Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-Moose Boy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Iamunknown 23:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Nikkidial.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nikkidial.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 14:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Nikkidial.jpg
I have tagged Image:Nikkidial.jpg as replaceable fair use. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. Videmus Omnia 14:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Laure_sainclair.jpg
I have tagged Image:Laure_sainclair.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 18:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Laure_sainclair.jpg
I have tagged Image:Laure_sainclair.jpg as replaceable fair use. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. Videmus Omnia 18:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Stacy_moran.jpg
I have tagged Image:Stacy_moran.jpg as replaceable fair use. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. Videmus Omnia Talk  06:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Britneyrears.jpg
I have tagged Image:Britneyrears.jpg as replaceable fair use. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. Garion96 (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Grasshoppersbozzetto.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Grasshoppersbozzetto.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) 05:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Grasshoppers2.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Grasshoppers2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Moose Boy! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is an  Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current  article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Kelly Trump -

Proposed deletion of Jewel Raider


The article Jewel Raider has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not appear to meet Notability (films) criteria. Trivial mentions only.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. EuroPride (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Melancholia
Hi. You just added several hundred words to the plot summary of Melancholia, which was the perfect length before (just under 600 words, which is the max). You added a lot of very poetic prose and nice images, but they're not appropriate or necessary for a plot summary, which should be brief and a rough sketch. You're not writing a treatment for the film, just a summary of main plot points. It's okay to add back the actor links, but that's really all there's room for.

Also, your edits are all marked as minor edits, when they clearly are not minor! Please do not use that to mark edits of content--it's for doing things like fixing a spelling error or putting in a comma. Thanks.--TEHodson 07:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

-Well, the vast majority of my edits were in the first edit, which I did not mark as minor. The following edits were afterthoughts of a sentence or two, but I agree that if "minor" constitutes only a single character such as a comma, then they were not minor by Wikipedia's definition. (They were minor by my own definition, but Wikipedia has changed so much since my early days of contribution that I haven't kept up. They don't pay me enough to do that.)

I felt that the plot description lacked a few development points, but if the current limit is 600 words, so be it. I simply found the extant plot summary somewhat light on detail. I agree that there should be a standard of accuracy and brevity for Wikipedia, but my standards don't always match those of the editors. I have had a pretty dismal record of trying to add anything new since about 2009, as everything always gets deleted, contested, or rewritten. I go to the editors' pages and guidelines pages and am frankly swamped by new rules and the occasional Dickensian bureaucratic nightmare. (Dickensian makes more sense than Orwellian here, as I often find myself about a century behind.)

Anyway, while I appreciate the authors' attempts to make Wikipedia a repository of useful information rather than misinformation and trivia, more often than not I find myself butting heads with the more senior (or at least, more prolific) editors over rules that have been changed since the last time I attempted to add information.

Although your response was courteous and completely reasonable, I have doubts about bothering to contribute to Wikipedia in the future. I understand that WP needs rules to grow as a reputable source of information; OTOH, I have never contributed information that I consider frivolous, extraneous, inappropriate, or debatable (with the exception of some of my very first edits, 7 or more years ago).

But hey, whatever. Maybe next time. There was a brief period when anyone could contribute, improve, etc. Those days are gone (dumped in favor of all the Lit Majors who need something to pass the time) but I guess I still cling to them.

I will probably remain a faithful Wikipedia viewer, but I see little future for myself as a contributor (though I was asked to be an editor in the past). My father was a Fulbright Scholar in English Literature, so I learned a thing or two about writing and editing from him. I already hold myself to a rigid standard; when that standard falls short of Wikipedia's guidelines, I begin to doubt my priorities in even attempting to contribute.

This is not a minor edit.


 * I can sympathize with your feelings. As both a writer and a former, very passionate, filmmaker, I have had to learn a great deal of self-discipline in dealing with plot summaries. As a result I have sort of specialized in making them brief but informative, with references to style whenever possible, and the odd detail or two that I hope will make people seek out the film. I've also had to help other editors who are madly in love with this film or that to get a grip and allow the summary to be just a brief sketch, rather than an essay that evokes the mood of the film--that's not what we're here for. I make up for it by writing reviews elsewhere, where I'm allowed to use the sort of language I prefer and can focus on elements of the piece that just aren't appropriately discussed in a plot summary. If you want to expand the Melancholia article, find some reviews and essays--some scholarship, in other words--and do more in the other sections of the article where you can write more prose, less dry fact. Your writing was good--it just didn't belong in the plot summary (the sentence about Melancholia appearing large in the night sky was especially nice). But I hope you won't quit; we need good writers, and we are few and far between.--TEHodson 09:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Angelica Costello


The article Angelica Costello has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. Little reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Angelica Costello for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Angelica Costello is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Angelica Costello until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz Humbug! 18:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Anja Juliette Laval for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anja Juliette Laval is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Anja Juliette Laval until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Kelly Trump for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kelly Trump is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Kelly Trump until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz Humbug! 22:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)