User talk:Richard75/Archive 2010

Fair use rationale for File:Judda.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Judda.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Richard75 (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mega City Three
The new Judge Dredd The Mega City Archive series has been published by rebellion to get set out the defintitve guide to Judge Dredd. In the first book It gives a detailed time line to the series and it says "2039 - The success of Mega-City One inspires other areas to build mega cites. Plans are drawn up for Mega-City Two, covering the whole of the Westeren seaboard and Mega-City Three, centered around Texasand the other southern staters. Each is designed to accommodate two hundred million citizdens". so it seems that either the writer got it wrong or its been reconed again. It then later states "2086 -The war ends in stalemate and deciding that further confilict would simply be a waste of time... Mega-City Three adopts the name Texas City; the other two form closer links with each other and for "The Union". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.149.172 (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mega City Three progs and mags.
I can't rememeber any exact progs or mags but I a certain I have read it somewhere. In light of this I have been too 2000AD website and to the forums to ask the diehard fans if they can remeber where they have seen it. I am in the UK and will check the post this time (23.25) on monday night to see if this was just my imagination or if it really has been called Mega-City Three in the past. Will get back too you with the response. PS The old 2000AD's website had a time line for the Dredd comics in the Dredd Zone section, this time line did mention Mega-city Three and can still be accessed at http://www.2000ad.org/?zone=dredd&page=timelines (this also seems to be the time line they used for the JD TMCOA, I still think it was a mistake on Wagners part not too call it Mega-City Three in orgins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.149.172 (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Right I now have some feed back from 2000AD. The whole civil war part of the stiroe is of very dubious canonicity. It appears the whole stoire started in the 1984 2000AD annual. A fan was given the job of writing a time line for the comic which was latter adopoted for the series. It inclueded in it the first mention of Texas City being called Mega-City Three. A few years latter a prog showed a battle between the MC1 judges and TC soldiers but gave no offical names as too who was fighting. So it could be that either wagner does not aggree with the time line and ignored it or forgot about he whole civil war and did not included the right names and dates in origins. If you want to follow up the posting here is a link to the 2000AD forums http://www.2000adonline.com/forum/index.php/topic,28097.0.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.149.172 (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No further arguments
I have no further arguments on the MC3/TC pages. I will keep an eye on the 2000AD post for a few more days to see if anyone finds any thing. I will be working on the pages about judges as I have got a copie of the JD TMCOA 2 about the judges, but as you pointed out some of it does seem to be taken form this site, (I can reconise the artical I wrote on Judge Priest even after they have changed a couple of words, some of the sentences have ripped off completley). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.149.172 (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome
You'd earned it with all the hard work you'd continued to put into the article until it achieved that level. Keep up the great work and hopefully other articles on Wiki can get similar promotions. Homoaffectional (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Booth.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Booth.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

huh?
I didn't edit anything why are you saying I edited something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.193.214 (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Republicanism in England
I notice that you have been adding several articles to Category:Republicanism in England however I think that you should reconsider tagging articles about people such as Charles Fleetwood and John Lambert (general) as they are already linked via a sub-category -->Category:English republicans-->Category:Roundheads.

Also rather than linking articles such as Rule of the Major-Generals directly into Category:Republicanism in England it would probably be better to create two new categories Category:Commonwealth of England and Category:The Protectorate (shadowing the articles Commonwealth of England The Protectorate) for articles such as these which in turn can be placed as sub categories in the Category:Republicanism in England. -- PBS (talk)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Year of the Four Emperors
Please see the talkpage for a response to your threat of "reporting" other editors to "an administrator". This has been discussed before, and until the consensus says it should be removed, removing it against existing consensus is unacceptable. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (For your information, the article was protected against such a removal against consensus following an anonymous editor who continually jumped IP addresses to evade a block, who also refused to participate in reasonable discussion on the article talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC))