User talk:Rockfang/Archive 1

AFD
I am nominating them correctly, see WP:AFD for multiple related pages, it says you nominate the first one, and everyone there after is to be headed with the title from the first one to group them together. Ejfetters 21:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Metallica
The first sentence should introduce the band, not glorify them by saying they are award winning. Mentioning the awards would be appropriate after the first sentence. Once i've finished re-writing the article i will mention their total Grammy wins. M3tal H3ad 08:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed
I'm curious as to why your bot did the following change: It doesn't affect how the article looks. --Rockfang (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The date moves the article from the category:Articles with unsourced statements to category:Articles with unsourced statements since December 2007. The change in template name is canonicalization. Rich Farmbrough, 22:39 17 December 2007 (GMT).

Help Requested
helpme

I need help. I tried fixing the error at by doing the change  but all that did was move the error. Might someone be able to fix the article so no error shows up at all? --Rockfang (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the actual original link that you are reusing the reference from. Sunder  land  06   18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is because there is no reference called "OhmyNews" in the article. In order to the error to go away, the first instance of that reference must look like this: . I'm not sure what the reference used to say, if indeed it ever said anything at all, so I'm not able to fix this. If you know what link the reference is supposed to display, you can fix it as stated above. If not, I'd recommend you simply replace them with fact tags as you did before. Sorry we can't be of more assistance. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 19:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Reflist removals
I noticed some articles (Tyra Banks was an example) where you removed the reflist template with the edit summary "per WP:FN" - I was wondering why you were doing this. Thanks - Videmus Omnia Talk  18:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Howdy. I was trying to get references sections to coincide with the guideline here:   It states that if the list has 9 or fewer items then "references/" should be used.  If it has 10 or more then "reflist" should be used. --Rockfang (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your good intentions - however, it's probably not worth the effort to go around changing the templates. Personally I prefer to always use reflist to get a consistent look, even when there are fewer than ten references. Since WP:FN is just a style guideline and not policy, it's no big deal, really. It's definitely not my place to tell you how to spend your time and effort here, but some people might not like the change. Videmus Omnia Talk  23:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for your opinion, but I'm going to keep doing it. --Rockfang (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you didn't. Please get talk page consensus first. Videmus Omnia Talk  22:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure, are you asking that I get consensus on every article's talk page on which I want to switch the references section? --Rockfang (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

To add to what's been said above, WP:FN is a style guideline and constitutes little justification to remove and replace the reflist template where it has been used. Wikipedia can always use editing and expansion, but removing a standard template for consistency's sake accomplishes very little. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Here (Adrian Belew album) - cover art
Can you look at the history for me and answer a question? Would you really have deleted that? --Brian McNeil /talk 21:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you are referring to this change:, then no.  I personally think when I added the tag about no rationale that it would been enough.  If after 7 days the cover art was deleted, then I would have removed the image from the article.  Also, just a friendly bit of info.  For album covers, you need a licensing boilerplate and the rationale section.  I edited the image's page to reflect this.  I also resized the image to fit with the low res requirement.  If you add any more cd covers, you might want to use the formats I used on this album. --Rockfang (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting this out properly. --Brian McNeil /talk 21:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianmc (talk • contribs)

Aces High
Thanks for making the effort to bring the impending deletion to someone's attention, after discovering that the uploading user's page is blocked. If you run into this problem again, a better place to take it than the Songs Project, is likely the talk page for the band's article. But I did take care of it. Thanks again. -Freekee (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure thing.--Rockfang (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging
You may be interested in this tool when you are tagging images. I makes the whole process easier since you with one click both tag the image and notify the uploader, and all within your web browser. It will save you some time. Feel free to ask me if you want help installing it. Rettetast (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I'll check it out once I'm done with the Beatles album covers.  I don't want to have my noobness with it screw up images that are possibly high profile.--Rockfang (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Installed at User:Rockfang/monobook.js. Just clear your browser's cache (Ctrl-F5 for IE, Shift-Ctrl-R for Firefox). BTW. If a non free image has a too high resolution, you can tag them with fair use reduce, and someone will fix it shortly. Rettetast (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the inclusion of formal fair use rationale sufficient enough to remove the image tag? I think so.Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not in the case of Image:Pastmasters1label.jpg and Image:Pastmasters2label.jpg. The most recent non revert I did to both images was not for a lack of rationale.  I admit they are there.  The changes I made are due to the fact that the images are not low resolution.  I suggest you read this.  One of the above images is twice the size stated and the other is 4 times the 300x300 suggestion.--Rockfang (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to suggest instruction creep, but where the specific objection is image size it'd be good if the notification included this. A good percentage of contributors upload and cross their fingers (like I did with the Adrian Belew one above), there's a degree of hope that if it isn't quite right there is enough detail to work out what is required. --Brian McNeil /talk 21:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianmc (talk • contribs)
 * I do this already.--Rockfang (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Image Uploading
The whole idea behind preloading the template is that a lot of new users don't know what a fair rationale is or they write an 8 part rationale that doesn't include the source, resolution, or intended article. This then makes it an invalid rationale. BcB tags it, admin (probably) auto deletes it, and we lose a good image. If the summary is pre-loaded, at least the user gets the idea that they should probably enter something after the = sign, completing the rationale properly. As to the edit summary issue, that I don't know how to fix. Mbisanz (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

High resolution non-free images
Hi there. I've just gone through a load of hi-resolution non-free images you tagged as being too high resolution, and replaced the deletion tags with fair use reduce. Could you use that tag in future? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Thanks for the info.  Is that template the same as non-free reduce?--Rockfang (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. Don't mind me. I just spotted a whole load of South Park images claiming to be used in the episode list article... Carcharoth (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, sod that. Far too many of them. There are enough South Park editors to do that themselves. Carcharoth (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Roger.--Rockfang (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Help Requested (#2)
Could anyone possibly fix the rationale I used on Image:Polysics - Polysics or Die.jpg please? It seems the album name messed it up.--Rockfang (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have isolated the problem. It is the name of the article - I am guessing the fact it contains the '!!!!'. Despite this, I do not know how to fix the problem. Hopefully someone else should come along soon and be able to help you more. Thanks, Tiddly  -  Tom  09:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this, what you had in mind? --Thw1309 (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That works. Thankfully, a link isn't needed in the rationale, only the name of the article is.  Thanks for the help.--Rockfang (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things

 * 1) Templated messages are removed from my talk page, please don't send them.
 * 2) About Image:Metallica and justice for all a.jpg. That wasn't helpful tagging. The rationale for the ...And Justice for All (album) is valid and is still valid. If you see a non-free image being used on an article that doesn't have a rationale written on the image description page, it is better to remove it from the article (i.e. ) than to tag the image for deletion when there are valid rationales that are being used. In a nutshell, Image:Metallica and justice for all a.jpg had one good rationale and a bad (non-existent) one for the other usage. When one good one exists, don't tag for deletion, remove the ones that violate WP:NFCC.
 * Thank you. — Save_Us _ 229  09:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Response
 * Understood. I'll remember this for future reference.
 * I'm going to continue tagging images without the proper number of rationales as I have been doing. Your opinion is noted.--Rockfang (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

reply to your query
Ask Admin BigHaz. He took care of nom'ing all the Metallica songs that weren't singles for AfD. The concensus was redirect them all. If you look at all the Metallica albums... none of the non-singles exist anymore. Every song used to have its own article. Which was just superfluous overkill and useless. BigHaz can explain the history. 156.34.212.152 (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replied on my Talk page. Not sure if you've got it watchlisted or not, but there's a link to one of the AfDs there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

High Voltage FUR
Hi Rockfang, thanks for your message re: Image:Acdc_high_voltage_international_album.jpg. I'm guessing that your concern is that there is not a FUR for each use of this image, not that the one FUR provided is invalid. However, that's not immediately clear from your message. Is that accurate or do I assume incorrectly? I had avoided providing FURs for the song articles which use that image as I am not yet certain that this counts as fair use. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to investigate the current consensus on that. Anyhow, if you can clarify the "10c" problem, I would appreciate it. Thank you, GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * After looking at the fair use tag on the image itself, it does appear that I have surmised correctly. So, I will take a look into it. Thanks, GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In at least one person's opinion, using an album cover image in an article about a song on that album does not comply with Wikipedia's fair use policy. So, I've removed the image from all the song articles, none of which had provided a fair use rationale. I believe that this should bring the image into compliance with this aspect of fair use policy. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing it.--Rockfang (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Goldmember
Image:Goldmemberfoxy.jpg. Are you not aware that oversized images are also not really permitted also? -I reduced the size of it I just felt like getting rid of the other. You're not dealing with a beginner here lol! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      Talk? 11:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Tagged images
Sorry about the confusion of my posted then deleted entries. In reply to your comment on my talk page, the answer is both yes and no. I got in a rush after noticing that the first one was tagged incorrectly, for reference it was Image:801 image 04.jpg then the next several were tagged correctly, as the FUR was linked to an article that the image was not used in and the article that used the image was not mentioned in the FUR. I have simply been correcting those FUR's and then deleting your tag. My guess is that you may have done the exact opposite of me, tagging bunch that needed tagging and accidently tagging one that did not which is why I did not bother to repost as a single mistake can be easily understood, but a series of errors needs to be addressed to avoid it for happening in the future. I have also become upset because of Betacommand and his bot, which has unfortunately tanted my view of thoes tagging images with the incorrect tag. Dbiel (Talk) 00:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok.--Rockfang (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

FAIR USE RATIONALE
I added a fair use rationale for Tempted and Tried. I would have thought that IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BLOODY OBVIOUS. Alan (talk)
 * Is that better?Alan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Guess WHAT? All fair use images NEED rationales, no matter HOW BLOODY OBVIOUS it may SEEM.  tomasz.  15:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Billy Squier - Don't Say No.jpg
About Image:Billy Squier - Don't Say No.jpg, could you please explain? I'm not too sure what you mean; after all, I do explain what it's used for, and the origin. If the matter is, however, the templating (as in a template) (or lack thereof) and such, when I uploaded the album art for Billy Squier's Don't Say No, there wasn't that auto-templating thing, so I typed out the fair-use rationale. So again, would you mind being a bit more specific and/or explain? Ta. Qwerty (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've filled it out now. Would you care to remove the tag and strike-out the comment on my talk page now? Thanks. Qwerty (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything is fine with it now. Originally, when I tagged it all that was on it was a description of what it was and where it was gotten from.  It didn't state why we should be able to use it in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline.  Thanks for adding the rationale.--Rockfang (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Non-free use disputed
I've fixed both rationales. Thanks for the note. Jogers (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Fair use rationale for Image:Festival_airlines.gif
Provided proper rationale, must have forgot to do that when I originally uploaded it. Marcusmax (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Image resolution
Replied here. I uploaded new versions of both Image:Pastmasters1label.jpg and Image:Pastmasters2label.jpg with res reduced to 300x300. I dorftrottel I talk I 14:32, December 27, 2007
 * Ok. --Rockfang (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

2003 GSSE image
"The image comes from http://www.nocmalta.org/gsse.htm, the official website of the 2003 GSSE, and will fall under fair use for the 2003 Games of the Small States of Europe page only. matt91486 13:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)"

This was already in the rationale section, from November 5, 2007. matt91486 (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Monsters of Rock
Is sufficient?--Alf melmac  14:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed.--Rockfang (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Alistair_Maclean_-_Athabasca_book_cover.jpg
The free use rationale should be sufficient, as there is a valid link to the article in question. If you have tagged this image for other reasons, please clarify. --MChew (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that there is a link to the article on the page, but the rationale section should state the name of the article the image is used in, which it currently doesn't.--Rockfang (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tagging images
When tagging images with tags that could result in the removal of the image, as you did to Image:Calvin & Hobbes - Hobbes.png, it is considered common courtesy to leave a note on the relevant articles' talk pages so that interested editors are informed of the problem and have opportunity to fix it. Please do this in the future. Thank you. Anomie⚔ 12:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. I only do this when the original uploader has been banned. --Rockfang (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The original uploader could have left Wikipedia (either formally or informally) without being banned, or even indefinitely blocked. They could also think "I don't care if it stays or not, someone else can handle it if they want it kept"; this is especially true now as some people are getting upset over the enforcement of the new NFC criteria on images that were uploaded back when such formality was not required. They could also simply be on vacation for more than a week, and coming back to find their image has been deleted because no one else was informed would not be a good "welcome back". Anomie⚔ 00:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your viewpoint.--Rockfang (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you running a bot or a script? El_C 05:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A script.--Rockfang (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, makes sense. Thx. El_C 05:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Invalid fair use rationales
Please don't leave me messages about invalid fair use rationales in images I uploaded. I have them all in my watchlist. I can't fix them now because I'm very busy but I'll do it when I have some spare time. Thanks in advance, Jogers (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Bogdanb
Hi! I imagine you're swamped by questions like this, sorry. I've already added a "non-free album cover" tag, and a rationale. I'm not sure if that's enough, you last message seems to imply that it also needs a "non-free fair use in" tag (though the article where it's used is already mentioned there). Is it?

Secondly, you say the source must be mentioned. I'm not sure how to go about that, I've had the file for a long time from a website I don't remember. The file appears several times in Google's image search, but I doubt any of those sites will still be there in a couple of months. I have no idea how to determine the copyright holder (it may be the band, the cover artist, or some label), especially since the image is the cover of an old, very limited edition demo. There's even less of a change to find who originally scanned it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdanb (talk • contribs) 21:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In this instance, I would suggest finding another suitable version of this image and use it to replace the one that is currently on Wikipedia. That way you know what the source is.--Rockfang (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would, except that it's a very rare, old casette (200 copies, ten years ago), so there are only three or four images of it on the net that have circulated between sites for years. (I've done a long search previously on this cover.) bogdanb (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi
You put template:image-source on my userpage regarding an image I uploaded. I was just wondering whether you could point me in the direction of some information on how to correctly cite a source for an image. -- Bobyllib (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For an image, a source could be a number of things. If you scanned the image from a CD cover, this could be the source: "The image is from a scanned cd cover."  If you got the image from the web, just link to the url of the page the image is used on.  Let me know if you need more examples.  I'm happy to help out.--Rockfang (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Can you have a look at what I wrote at Image:TheLoungsWeAreTheChamp.jpg‎ and Image:OobermanTheMagicTreehouse.jpg‎ and let me know if those would be considered acceptable sources please?  --Bobyllib (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me.--Rockfang (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Cheers! -- Bobyllib (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Clock Tower image
I added the obvious source that the developers of Clock Tower, human entertainment, created it. Is obvious information that is based on basic common sense sufficient? If not, please elaborate. The image was indeed taken from the web quite a while ago. The site quite possibly could not exist anymore and that cover art image was harder to obtain that normal. If we are done here, then I would like to request that you never leave a message on my talk page again. William Pembroke (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If the image was taken from the web, we need the url of the page it was gotten from. If the original url cannot be found, a new suitable version with a known source should be uploaded.--Rockfang (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: re: this edit
Where is the source info?--Rockfang (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Silly me, read it a little too fast. It's got proper source info now, thanks for catching my mistake. Melesse (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome.--Rockfang (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

RE:
I'm sorry. I've never done that before so I didn't know how to do it correctly. I will keep that in mind next time I attempt to do that. Sorry,   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  18:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's ok. That's why I put the info on your page.--Rockfang (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

List of SST Records bands
Don't worry, I will. At the moment though, I'm focusing more on The Replacements. CloudNine (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok.--Rockfang (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: regarding Image:Shiri.jpg
Could you please verify that the uploader of the above image has permission to release the image under the GNU FDL and CCA licenses? For some reason, I highly doubt he does.--Rockfang (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The ticket linked to were to do with permissions for several unrelated images, and after searching I couldn't find any other permissions tickets covering this image. I removed the permissions template from the image page. It's probably the result of someone not knowing what they're doing and copy-and-pasting the image description page from somewhere else to get the templates they want. --bainer (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

FUR for "The Monitor.jpg"
Two reasons mainly: What's there now still has the syntax for the multi-use template, which can be used if the image is used in other articles at some point in the future.
 * 1) To flesh out and clarify some of the points with in the FUR, especially where the piece was first published.
 * 2) to condense to the template for images used in a single article. Which is, last I checked, the same default the upload wizard uses.

- J Greb (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply.--Rockfang (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Eq2_level_60_mount.jpg
I updated the Fair use rationale, what makes it still invalid? Could you point me to an image that has a valid FU rationale, please? - TexMurphy (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please look at Image:Texas AMU logo.png. Notice how it has separate rationales for each use?--Rockfang (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've updated it, could you have a look and remove the tag if the rationale is adequate please? Also, can you point me to the WP page where Fair use templates and/or practice is explained? Not being rude or anything here, I've been looking for a good explanation. - TexMurphy (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * NFCC and WP:RAT are both good links.--Rockfang (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I appreciate it. - TexMurphy (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Venusonahal.gif
The template you added to Image:Venusonahal.gif explained exactly nothing, Please explain why the fair-use rationale is incomplete. AnonMoos (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears the issue has already been addressed.--Rockfang (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:clarification
It was orphaned because you orphaned it. Generally, it's a little more polite if you leave a message on the article's talk page notifying the regular editors that an image being used on the article has an improper rationale. Even bots do it nowadays. Naturally, you could have just changed the target of the fair use rationale to the article it was actually present in, rather than tagging it, since the everything was fine except that. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I orphaned it because I was following policy. It was being used in an article that it didn't have a corresponding rationale.  So, I removed it from the article.  It is the uploader's responsibility to provide proper rationales.--Rockfang (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just a courtesy to alert the relevant people about an image that may be deleted. Some (or most) uploaders are not aware of Wikipedia's image policies so it's best to notify both the uploader and the talk page of the article in which the image was used. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In some cases, I do. If the uploader has left Wikipedia either voluntarily, or is blocked or banned.  In these situations I typically either put it on the article talk page and/or the project covering the page.--Rockfang (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I guess my suggestion is to go for the article talk pages first since more people see them (and are watchlisted). Axem Titanium (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Music commoners crown.jpg
The fair use rationale for this image has been clarified and expanded. Nickaubert (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing Images
Please do not hide images like you did on Final Fantasy VII. If the image does not have a proper rationale, then either give it one, or place a notice on the talk page. Hiding the image does not solve the problem. --PresN (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A non-free image cannot be used in an article if it does not have a corresponding rationale. At the time, the image did not.  So I did indeed fix the problem by commenting out the image.  If someone adds a non free image to an article, it it that user's responsbility to add a corresponding rationale.--Rockfang (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod from Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth, it had a prod removed on it once before
I have removed the prod tag from Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-proded, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! --  At am a chat 00:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Christina Milian
I noticed that you removed the audio of the song "Dip it Low". Instead of just removing it, or hiding it, couldn't you have added the fair use rationale yourself? I'm not sure how to do it, and you could have easily done it. Corn.u.co.pia (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoever added it to the article is responsible for adding a proper rationale.--Rockfang (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Help regarding bold in watchlists
helpme On WoWWiki when I view my watchlist, new changes are bolded. How do I do that here?--Rockfang (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe you would check the "Enhanced Recent Changes" box under the recent changes tab of your preferences. You can also look here for an idea on another way. Gtstricky Talk or C 15:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If that does not do it ask over at Wikipedia talk:Watchlist help. They will know for sure. Gtstricky Talk or C 15:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your first suggestion totally changed my watchlist. That is not what I want.  I would just like page names to be bolded if they are updated since I last viewed my watchlist.  The page you mentioned in your final suggestion hasn't been used in 2 years.  The page it links to hasn't been used since June of '07 (with the exception of 1 section).  Do you have any other suggestions?--Rockfang (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This sounds like an extension that your other Wiki uses, but Wikipedia does not. I'd suggest contacting an administrator on WoWWiki - they may be able to give you the name of the extension which does this, which you can look up on the MediaWiki site, and (possibly) copy the javascript code into your personal script file. I'm not sure if this will work or not, so I'll leave the template up. If it gets removed, assume someone else read this and thought it a good idea as well. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information and suggestion. I have asked the question here.  Hopefully someone there will be able to assist me.--Rockfang (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good to hear - hopefully that helps. Since the helper bot on IRC is getting a bit annoying, I'll go ahead and take the helpme down - if things don't go as well as planned, let us know again. :-) Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Try User:Ais523/watchlistnotifier.js.--Sunny910910 (talk 01:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can add that script by typing {{subst:js|User:ais523/watchlistnotifier.js}} on Special:Mypage/monobook.js (which is your personal scripts file; you should only add scripts writen by users you trust). That script has two effects; one is the watchlist bolding as you request (it bolds all changes since last time you viewed your watchlist, which isn't quite what you asked for but is easier to implement and almost the same), the other is a message at the top of your screen (like the new messages bar, but much smaller and less obtrusive) whenever your watchlist has changed since you last looked at it. (If you like, I can make a stripped-down version of the script that just has the bolding). The script is also incapable of remembering what to bold when you close your web browser (as it works using temporary cookies), but that only affects the first time you view your watchlist after opening your browser. The bolding that you're used to is part of the same code that handles email notifications, and isn't installed here for performance reasons (it's also on Meta, if I remember correctly), so an separate script is the only way to gain a similar effect. Hope that helps! --ais523 14:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I added it. Thanks for the help.  Could you make a stripped down version like you mentioned above?  With just the bolding part?  Also, if anyone else reads this, the code to add the "full version" to your Special:Mypage/monobook.js is    Use the better suggestion below. --Rockfang (talk) 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Reply to comment on talkpage: No problem, glad I could help. Oh one more thing, just writing isn't the best idea, while it does work, any new changes made by ais523 won't be transfered to your monobook.js it would be better to import them using   or even simplier use  .--Sunny910910 (talk 03:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. Makes sense.--Rockfang (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't tested it, but {{subst:js|User:ais523/watchlistbolder.js}} ought to work as a stripped-down version of watchlistnotifier.js, if I haven't made a mistake. (You'll have to remove watchlistnotifier to use the stripped-down version, as they conflict with each other.) Send me a talkpage notice if I have made a mistake, because otherwise I quite possibly won't notice. --ais523 21:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Comgall
The original 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia is in the public domain, so while it's pretty useless to have copied the St. Comgall article - available on Wikisource) - it isn't a copyvio. Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tag removed
Hi, please would you explain why you removed this tag on Empty vessel? - Fayenatic (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Explaining why I did what I did would be pointless, because it has already been reverted and I don't want to get into a revert/edit war.--Rockfang (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

All Time Low image
I replied on my talk page, but short answer: Copyright problems/2008 January 31/Images Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just replied on your talk page.--Rockfang (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding functions to other user's pages
Hello,

Noticed you tried to help out Moshikal‎ by adding an archive function to his talk page.

While it may be a good idea for him to archive his page, doing it is his choice. By all means suggest that he may want to archive or weed his talk, but you don't have the right to add or alter functionality on another editor's User-space pages.

- J Greb (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have replied on your talk page. --Rockfang (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat: It's his page. You adding a function that will remove things, possibly before he has a chance to remove it is a statement that it isn't his page.
 * His page his right to chose how he maintainse it and not have another editor fore thier solution on it.
 * - J Greb (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a policy that states that what I'm doing is wrong? It's not like I'm completely deleting his talk page or blanking it.  A user's page and talk page can be edited by anyone.  User_page --Rockfang (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop and think. And I mean real think hard. You are imposing your standards on another used talk page. You are making dicisions for them in stead of suggesting that they might want to do some thing.
 * Also, see Help:Archiving a talk page, second paragraph. You are not consensus. - J Greb (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nettie Moore closure
It's not normal to close an AfD after 12 hours or less with only two responses unless it's clearly disruptive or frivolous. Looking back, I realize that it was a bit frivolous (but not in a vandal-ish way) to have put those songs up for AfD anyway, and that I should've just redirected in the first place. (This is why we don't stay up editing until the wee hours!) Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries here. Was just curious.  Thanks for the reply.--Rockfang (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

invite

 * No thanks.--Rockfang (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Blackparaemcrse.jpg
Could you elaborate on what specifically? I can't find that anything is missing from the rationale myself, which is why I declined the speedy. I have just deleted the old version of the image, which I probably should have done previously, but I don't see any reason to delete the current version. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 21:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'll go through the items one by one.
 * 1.What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage?
 * Neither are addressed in the rationale.
 * 2.To what degree is the image replaceable by a free content image?
 * Also not addressed in the rationale.--Rockfang (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Lex Luthor
Hi - I restored the NFIO tag to the article, but unlike most editors I deal with on fair-use issues it appears you have a good grasp of the policy. So ... can we justify 12 non-free images on this article? Black Kite 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think some of them can be justfied. I think the ones in the Origin, Relationships, One Year Later and Countdown could all be removed though.  I don't think they depict anything much different than the infox image.--Rockfang (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rockfang, and I'm following up on the tagging since I've got the article on my watch list, would you mind re-posting your comments to the section Black Kite started on the the talk page there? It would be helpful to have them there. - J Greb (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure thing.--Rockfang (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema#Request_for_Comment_-_Integrate_two_versions

--Skyelarke (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, but with that article I was just interested in the removal of unsourced comments.--Rockfang (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Brainiac Ship.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Brainiac Ship.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) 12:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

maybe he was born in Australia? ;)
When you have a moment, could you explain the WP:AUS part of this edit?--Rockfang (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Rockfang! The article is in the , which is on the list of categories the bot is going through to add banners.  If you have any more questions, let me know on my User talk:SatyrTN talk page?  Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Prod-2
No problem. :) Thanks for letting me know about the proposed deletion of Moruth Doole - looking at that article, I don't know why I didn't try deleting it myself, but I'm just glad someone did! Terraxos (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree images
Regarding this edit, please note that all the images on that page have been resolved. Three of the four blue lins are on Commons (so can't be dealt with from here) and the remaining one has been determined to be validly available under a free license. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cry-of_karawan.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cry-of_karawan.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. Rockfang (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My rationale was that This image is a screenshot from a copyrighted film, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the studio which produced the film, and possibly also by any actors appearing in the screenshot. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots.

If that is not acceptable, please delete the file, many thanks .--Ghaly (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading WP:RAT. It shows what an image rationale consists of.--Rockfang (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Isthmian_League.jpg
I have tagged Image:Isthmian_League.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. Rockfang (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Er, if you bothered looking at the history of the image, you'd find that I did not add the fair use rationale. There was no requirement for one back when I uploaded the image. I know the rationale isn't valid now, but it really is nothing to do with me. I just do not understand why the original uploader of the image is always held responsible for any subsequent changes to fair use rules that invalidate every image on Wikipedia. I'm sick of it. It would be much easier — and more useful to Wikipedia — if editors who find invalid fair use rationales fixed them, rather than whining to users who have probably forgotten that they uploaded the image in the first place. - Green Tentacle (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I notified you because I thought you would be interested to know that the image you uploaded could possibly be deleted.--Rockfang (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Two pics of Murton
Hi, you tagged a couple of my pics last night: Image:Murtoncolliery.jpg and Image:Oldpic.jpg. They are both from the archives of the Sunderland Echo. I thought I had made that clear on upload, but probably hadn't. I've had another go, hope that they are OK now.-- seahamlass  09:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just looked at them, and they look fine. FYI, if you want to link to images, you can type them in like a normal wikilink, just put a : before the word image.
 * This: Image:Oldpic.jpg will show up as Image:Oldpic.jpg--Rockfang (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That change
I marked it as vandalism because you removed a whole paragraph. Not just a typo. Superstarwarsfan (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh duh :P Wow am I stupid. Sorry about that Superstarwarsfan (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale tagging
Hi Rockfang. Recently you tagged some audio samples I uploaded (Image:Rammstein - Bestrafe mich (sample).ogg, Image:Rammstein - Ohne dich (sample).ogg, Image:Rammstein - Zwitter (sample).ogg) with. It is fortunate that I am still around to defend and update my edits. When an editor is no longer around to maintain his work, does that mean it should all be deleted because no one else could be bothered to update it for consistency with current policy?

These files do, in fact, have rationales, despite the fact that they are not tagged with. I urge you to use more discretion when tagging media for deletion. Rather than robotically applying the destructive tag it would be better if you inserted  and moved the existing information into the proper fields. This does take more time, and in some cases you may have to add anyways, but you would avoid undoing others' work. ~MDD4696 17:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is the uploader's responsibilty to make sure media files they upload follow and keep up to date with policy.--Rockfang (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes but we're a Wikipedian community that should try to help one another out. Wikipedia needs more people who do actual constructive work, rather than template pushers. ~MDD4696 14:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When I tag images or other media with various templates, I am helping people out. I typically notify them on their user talk page letting them know that something they uploaded may be deleted soon.  If I didn't notify them, the chances of their media being deleted increases.  In a sense, I'm helping out the community twice.  By making sure media on wikipedia is up to standards and also by making sure editors media contributions don't go to waste.--Rockfang (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

regarding this change
Indeed there is a rationale there. According to wikipedia policy NFCC (which I mentioned in the article and in my edit summary) there needs to be a separate detailed rationale for each use. There is no rationale on the image's page that corresponds to Bahram Bayzai. The only rationale there deals with Bashu, the Little Stranger.--Rockfang (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad, I was looking at something else entirely. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up
Thanks Sometimes I get a little ahead of myself. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for fixing to  Image:MashEpisode72.jpg. NFCC is such a trainwreck of half-legalese and mumbo-jumbo, I didn't notice the "separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item"" down in section 10, subsection c, in the middle of the paragraph. (-: Thx. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 21:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit weird
I like to keep red linked categories on my user page. There are a few of us out here. Thanks for telling me about it. - LA @ 20:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

CPI(M)-politician-stub
Sorry -- I should be less terse in my posts. :) A new template, CPIndiaMarxist-politician-stub, has replaced CPI(M)-politician-stub, so the latter type needs to be orphaned, i.e., removed from all articles and replaced with the former type. "Upmerging" is done by creating a template but using a higher-level category for it to feed into. For example, currently Blekinge-geo-stub on an article deposits it into, because there aren't yet enough articles on Blekinge County geography for it to merit its own category. I hope this makes sense. Thanks for your message - Her Pegship  (tis herself) 05:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * , Yes, replace is the last step. Cheers, Her Pegship <small style="color:green;"> (tis herself) 16:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: thanks for the laugh :)
I wondered whether anyone would spot that comment :) Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  06:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Metabolic pathways discussions
Hi there! It's at Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/March/19. There's also an older discussion at Discoveries. To find these, click on the template link; when you get to the template, select "What links here" from the frame on the left, and either browse through or use the "namespace" option to select Wikipedia pages. Something from Deletion or Discoveries should show up. I'll try to remember to post those once the logs are removed. Cheers, Her Pegship <small style="color:green;"> (tis herself) 13:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fun, fun, fun
See my additions to your comments at Koavf's talk page. As you can see, this is an ongoing problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info.--Rockfang (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to "Kyptonian"
It is a mispelled word, that's what it looks like to me. I did not originally insert or change that spelling in any case.--Replicator4.7 (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

All You Had To Do Was Ask
If you wanted the images removed, you only had to ask me to remove them from my userpage, but please don't edit someone else's userpage. Soory about the images tho... Tool-apc (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The images weren't supposed to be there. I fixed the problem.  If the same situation came up again on someone else's user page, I'd do the same thing.--Rockfang (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

FootnotesSmall
Your replacement of this template with is not correct in many instances. If you do further replacements, if was used in a way that left the references at 100%, it should be replaced with  and   manually.

Happy Editing! &mdash;  00:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan.--Rockfang (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Another thought ... any article listed in Category:Proposed deletion-endorsed also qualifies for an Oldprodfull, and it can use   as   and   (assuming that it runs daily, the first notice is valid for the second, and it's probably the same day that it was nominated) ... I usually patrol it once a week and add the template manually. &mdash; 72.75.78.75 (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I'm going to hold off on adding Category:Proposed deletion-endorsed mainly because I think it will take a new bot request to add it. Also, fyi, according to the bot request for the current task, I have to wait 7 days after the category start date before I can start adding oldprodfull.  I know the idea was to originally add it right after day was done, and I did ask for that, but that version didn't get approved.  notice the many Strike-through text occurances. ;)  Rockfang (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Copy that ... I guess I only skimmed the WP:BRFA, and didn't read the fine print ... yeah, Category:Proposed deletion-endorsed should be detected and added the same day, but if the procedure requires a new request, then maybe that one will get "same day" approval. &mdash; 72.75.78.75 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

- FYI, my IP has changed again. :-) Happy Editing! &mdash;  15:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Julián Di Cosmo AfD
Thanks for that - can't believe I missed it, especially as I think I even put the tag on the talk page! Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  20:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Prod on Dragonchess
I'm afraid the situation on Dragonchess is a little confusing, and it's really my fault. There was an article on Gary Gygax's chess variant at Dragon chess; the correct name is Dragonchess. Noticing that there was an existing article at Dragonchess, but that it was unnotable, I prodded it. When it was deleted, I moved the Dragon chess article there. That quick of a change was a little confusing, and I apologize. I don't think the oldprod tag is appropriate here, do you?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur.--Rockfang (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: El commento
El excellent. :) Can't take this stuff too seriously. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot malfunction
In this edit I had to remove the template. Is there a way to reduce false positives in this way? NonvocalScream (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That wasn't an error. That article was prodded here. You removed the prod, so I put you down as the contestor.  I put in your edit summary from when you added the AfD so people would know it wasn't an error.--Rockfang (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, The info was manually added by me, not my bot. My bot only adds an empty template.--Rockfang (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Derivative work
Hi Rockfang - I'm not sure where you're seeing a contradiction? The image itself (ie, the scan) has source and licencing data (self-made by the uploader, licenced under the GFDL), but lacks source and licence data for the image that it contains (ie, the back of an action figure packaging - not specific enough to be adequate as a source).

Could you perhaps suggest wording that makes this more clear? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a brain fart. :) I just reread what I quoted, and it makes sense.  Sorry for any confusion. :) Rockfang (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-Mission image
Hi Rockfang. The image was uploaded by myself, an employee of HopeLab to whom the image belongs, and with their blessing obviously. (X900BattleGrape) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I transcluded it ( = transclusion while  = substitution). Did you mean to say that I should have subst'd it? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion is the "normal" method of including a template - other that transclusion or substitution, what are you suggesting? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

*Ack* you blinded me with syntax. I am not sufficiently versed in complex template syntax to provide a suitable response without significant research, unfortunately. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I will not include the embedded subst, then, but rather treat it as an empty field to be filled. Thanks for the investigation. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Help requested
Please see this page/section. I have recently cleaned out my cookies and cache, and they still don't collapse on the Obama page, but they do on my Sandbox's talk page. I use IE7. I asked another editor to view the Obama talk page, and it didn't collapse for him either. He uses Firefox. I asked a 3rd person. The Obama page collapsed for him. He uses IceWeasel (a spinoff of Firefox). All of the above would make me think it isn't a cache problem. As both users had never viewed the page before. It probably isn't a browser brand problem because they don't collapse on 2 different brands. I would like some suggestions on what the cause of the problem might be.--Rockfang (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Try asking at the village pump or on the talk page itself. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already asked on the Obama article's talk page, but I'll try the village pump.--Rockfang (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Cite book
I listed Cite book for deletion. The redirect creator has not edited Wikipedia in a while. Your edit was the next one up that was similar to the creators. The discussion is here. Suntag (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice. I'm fine with them being deleted.--Rockfang (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Persondata
I closed this as Speedy Keep. I am writing to let you know I did consider that the TfD notice had only been on the template for 5 hours; however, I think further discussion would have just got more insulting and been overwhelming for keep. As to people not responding on the talk page - there isn't much reason to watch the template page as it is indef protected with a simple structure. -- Trödel 02:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are some interesting uses of persondata: Persondata . Btw, sincere thanks for the TfD, it really does highlight how the Persondata project has a marketing problem. Hopefully we can get some killer apps rolled out soon and get people fired up about it. --Rajah (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot adds templates to redirects
Hi. Check here. Your bot replaced redirect with your template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That was intentional. If an article is manually made into a redirect as a result of a PROD, then it should still be noted on the orginal article's talk page that the article was PRODded.  If an article was moved after being PRODded, then the "new" article's talk page should have the oldprodfull template.--Rockfang (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit Dispute
If I reverted something that wasn't vandalism... then it was probably a mistake... I'm a little trigger happy (due to the copious amounts of spam edits).

No hard feelings :)

SpK (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Songs written by Robert Lange
Why don't you think it's a speedy rename candidate? I think it meets the critierion of non-conformity, as "Songs by songwriter" categories should always match the parent articles, and in this case, the parent article is Robert John "Mutt" Lange. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've responded on the speedy cat page.--Rockfang (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I still think it's speediable because I can't imagine anyone ever opposing it and it's kind of a #4. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Music Project debanner
Thanks for removing all the code. That's great. Do you have any good ideas for removing categories associated with the banner, without having to argue each individual case through the Cfd process? The cats are Category:WikiProject Music articles, Category:Start-Class Music articles. Thanks. -- Klein zach  04:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome for the debannering. Didn't know that was a word. ;) For the categories, you could remove all of the articles from the categories.  Then after 4 days, they would meet WP:CSD C1 and you could tag them with Db-c1.  I'm guessing you may ask if I can remove the categories with my bot account.  In this situation I can't.  The only (non-user) category work my bot is approved for is:
 * Speedy rename categories at WP:CFDS and
 * Process Categories with "and" results at WP:CFDWM.
 * I could put in a bot request to orphan those cateogries you named. But I'd suggest getting a consensus within the Music project first.--Rockfang (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's very helpful. -- Klein zach  06:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting statement. So did you want me to orphan the categories?  If so, is there consensus to do so?  And if so, could you provide a link please?  The people at BRFA will ask for it.--Rockfang (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's Rock (event)
Hi Rockfang, earlier today you removed a screenshot of iTunes' new grid interface from the article Let's Rock (event). You say there's no rationale, but it was there to illustrate one of the announced features. Would you be ok for me to restore the image (already used in the main iTunes article)? - P retzels chatters 16:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The image I removed was Image:Itunes80mac.png. For it to be used on Let's Rock (event), it needs a rationale that specifically mentions that article.  Currently it only has one for iTunes.  Once a rationale is added for Let's Rock (event), then it can be put back into the article.--Rockfang (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've replaced the image with the newer one now used on iTunes. I've added an additional rationale to this image. Hope this is OK, WP's image policy is very confusing... P retzels Talk! 11:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the heads up on the Legion thing. Can't say I agree with their "consensus," but as I don't want to get strangled in their wikicracy, I think I'll just hold my tongue. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Darkseid picture
Hello there. I noticed you changed the infobox picture for Darkseid but failed to give a reason why. I thought I'd let you know that I have created a discussion on the talk page concerning the issue, and would like your opinion there. Thank you. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Rockfangbot image spam
Hi,

Is there any particular reason that the template spam generated by Rockfangbot uses your sig, and not one for the bot? It would probably be less annoying if regulars were aware that they had been templated by a bot rather than by a person. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My bot doesn't work with images. To see what my bot does, please check out this.  I use a script to tag images that need fixing, etc.  I use this script on this (Rockfang) account, so that is why my signature shows up.--Rockfang (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. Well, in that case, would you consider alternative ways of notifying established users? Looking at your recent edits, it looks like you iterated over all of my uploads, which could have meant a wad of templates coming my way at once (I got two, one of which was a trivial fix and one I plan to let run down, in rapid succession). Having recently discovered the wonders of Twinkle I understand how convenient semi-automated tools are, but I'd still think twice before allowing them to go multi-templating people. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer your question, no. I will continue to use the script to notify established users.  Typically though, if I come across more than just a couple images from the same uploader, and they would result on a template on their talk page, I stop at 3-4.  You are welcome to try one of the variations of Bots.  It seems like it might work with this script.  I have asked the script's author.--Rockfang (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll look into bot opt-out, and I appreciate the heads-up about the images anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon Box
Like I stated, establish notability. There are almost no references, there are exactly no references establishing notability, there isn't even an inclination in the entire article of the software's notability, so why do we need to have the article? There's a general failure here, throughout the article's four years of life and hundreds of edits to establish this, with most editors choosing to instead make a guide to how it works. And do not just remove tags at your whimsy. The noreferences tag was more than acceptable considering that there was only one single reference in the article, and that was just about release information, not about anything significant. And absolutely do not remove inappropriate tone, just because you think it's fine doesn't change that someone disagrees, and at what point is the article saying that a lack of a feature is unfortunate appropriate tone? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that any possible merge/redirect should be discussed on the article's talk page first. It doesn't seem like a lot to ask.  If you want to do one of the two, I suggest starting a section on the talk page.  After a week or so, we can see what consensus is.  What is the harm in that?  I have reverted the redirect again and I've restored the article's talk page templates.--Rockfang (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So, funny how you just completely ignored my request for sources establishing notability. Why won't you give me a single source establishing notability? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Aryalogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Aryalogo.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) 05:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Music project mergers
Hi. You may remember helping me with the (successful) Music Project debannering. I now have two project mergers: the inactive WikiProject Music genres to WikiProject Music, and the inactive WikiProject Classical guitar to WikiProject Classical music. Do you know how project mergers should be done? I realize that asking you is something of a long shot, but no-one I've tried so far seems to have an answer! Best. -- Klein zach  00:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure. I not a member of any projects.  I did a little looking around though.  One option is Miscellany for deletion.  But, on that page they suggest:
 * This includes WikiProjects, although it is usually preferable to either mark the Project as historical or change it to a task force of the parent Project, unless the Project is entirely undesirable.
 * Other than that, I'm not sure. Sorry.--Rockfang (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Maybe there just isn't a procedure and I should be creative? I don't want to delete anything, nor do I want to set up a dead task force. I think 'marking as historical' just means making an archive, maybe that's the way to go . . . Best. -- Klein zach  04:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Plaigarism in the classroom
Should I not have bothered creating that AFD? Sorry if I pressed the button on a long process unnecessarily. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your creation of the AfD. I disagree with how that other editor closed it as a speedy redirect.--Rockfang (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I now see that Plagiarism in the classroom (correctly spelled) also exists, so it could have been a speedy redirect to that one, followed no doubt by speedy deletion after that one goes; but let the AFD run now. - Fayenatic (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Flash
If you know the series is coming and know the article requires a citation, please be more proactive in the future and add a source. --CmdrClow (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that I knew such a series was coming. I did not.  As the person who originally added the information to the article, I would think that you would have cited a source at the same time.  Especially for something that happens in the future.--Rockfang (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Superpowersad.jpeg
I don't know how to give this image the proper copyright/or licensing for the fair use image rationale. I think its important to show the old advertisement ad that appeared in the various DC Comics published titles from 1984-1985 on the Wikipedia listing for the Super Powers Collection, plus as well as show more "illustrations" to the page itself. I have scanned this image of the ad from my own comic book, from the back cover of DC Comics Presents Annual # 4 (1985).

Plus, I have no idea on how to make the image into a smaller size, if it is to be kept on Wikipedia. I have not been able to understand how to make a scanned image in smaller resolution size jpeg. If you can help my with any of this, that would be great, Thanks. --(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.95.135 (talk) 09:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've shrunk the image for you. I've also fixed the rationale by adding the name of the article the image is used in.--Rockfang (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake
I thought the article was saying that Superman's ship landed in 1953 (which didn't make sense), not 30 years prior to 1953. Sorry. --DrBat (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Amidst the Bloodshed
There's no reason that speedy and afd can't overlap if the speedy is valid. This is clearly an WP:CSD criterion in my opinion, so I feel that it can be speedied. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that having a speedy template and an afd template both on an article at the same time is against policy. I just think that once an AfD is started, it should be completely finished.  If someone closes the AfD as speedy delete, that is fine.--Rockfang (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Section length, Book titles, et al.
Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll pass.--Rockfang (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Image issue
I have already added the permission tag. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice you did add a source for the image recently. I also see how you stated the company's CEO gave you permission to use the photo.  This permission needs to be proved though.  Especially since the source website is labeled with "2007. Aero Controls Inc. All Rights Reserved."--Rockfang (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries
No. or rather I see nothing wrong with my edit summaries. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Myrtle Avenue (UK)
Thanks for the note, but I removed the statement "The article was proposed for deletion in the past" because it hasnt, the prod is still current and has not been closed so cant yet be in the past. I would not expect the comment to be added until the prod is closed without deletion otherwise is should be "The article has been proposed for deletion". MilborneOne (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Apology Rockfang you are right - senior moment. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:First appearance of Wally West as The Flash.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:First appearance of Wally West as The Flash.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) 05:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The proposal for deletion "box"...
had a place in the box, where it said, that if you disagreed with the box, you could remove it. I both disagreed with the box, since I had stated that I was in the process of creating the article. Also, since then I have added the content that was advised: ISBN, at least one review, correct spelling of author's name. The person who put the notice there, has not engaged in a discussion of how the book is notable or not notable. Neither have you. If you want to do so, I welcome a content-filled discussion. Dropping in these textboxes on the top of the talk page is malicious. Just start a section in talk and we can debate the issues. That is constructive and is what the talk page is for.TCO (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For anyone else that is reading this, the article TCO is referring to is Burn Rate (book). As noted by the oldprodfull template on the article's talk page, the article was prodded and then contested.  Neither of which, I did.  For the record, I don't care if the article is deleted or not.  I was never challenging whether or not the article passed notability guidelines. All I did was add the oldprodfull template as suggested at WP:PROD.  "Dropping these textboxes on the top of the talk page" is actually suggested on the policy's page.  If you do not agree with that policy, that is fine.  Comment on WP:PROD's talk page if you want to change it.  There are multiple purposes of the oldprodfull template.  If the tagged article ever goes to WP:AFD, people will easily know why it was prodded and who prodded it.  The template will also let editors know at a glance whether or not it has been prodded.  This is good to know since an article can only be prodded once.  If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.  If I may offer a suggestion, in the future you should probably investigate things further before accusing people of being "malicious."--Rockfang (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no malicion! On the content: ;-)

1. I don't think the "old prod" is helpful as the whole concept of prod is that the box can be removed quickly (and hence people drop it very readily). If there is a serious reason for removal the person can take it to afd. Unsing the old prod box is like a scarlet letter and basically obviates the whole point of taking the prod away.

2. If anyone has a serious reason for deleting the article, they can engage in some actual discussion. I have a thread for that which even references a bunch of content on notability requirements. No one has commented on that thread (or in talk page at all in terms of substance).

3. Really, the prod was done while the article was actually in creation...also the whole situation is obe now, since the requested content is now in there. It's even rated as a start class article, now, so I took my own stub tag off.

4. So an "old prod" is a nuisance. Should a 5 day test last forever? I completely support "old afd's though.

5. And history still remains of who the prodder was. (Which is rather irrelevant as a 3 word phrase was the amount of content given for the prod, as an actual afd would have more meat on the bone.)

6. BTW, I went and read the Prod policy. It says that you use oldprod template for cases where you AGREE with the deletion. It's not just something to keep a scarlet letter there...the policy says that you should actually have an opinion on the article itself (which from your text above, you don't.

7. So anyhow, nice to meet you. I guess I learned some wiki policies and such. And how to argue about, them, lol. Now, I'm going to get back to putting more meat on the bone. :-)

TCO (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, the prod page also suggests adding it when you don't think a page should be deleted.--Rockfang (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's OBE since the article is pretty slick now. I checked out some other books and I'm actually in very good shape in terms of proof of notability and such.  Maybe could add more content on the book itself.  But it's clearly enough there to show the arcticle meets notability requirements and has already been rated by the Book project people.


 * I didn't find any support (contrary to your original statement) that oldprod is supposed to be tagged on all deleted prods. Also, you said you had no opinion con OR pro, so the last rebuttal is irrelevant to your original position.  But it's cool, man.  This newb can take a bite.  ;)


 * Anyhow, feel free to check out the article. There is a nice talk thread for notability debate.  Feel free to check out the reviews, including 3(!) from the New York Times and let us know your take on the actual question of the notability.TCO (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:William Faulkner - The Reivers.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:William Faulkner - The Reivers.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) 05:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Math Technology-Calculators
Thank you for noticing that that had been prodded before, I merely checked the edit summaries and a selection of previous revisions against the possibility that a more encyclopedic might have existed. If you would like to render your opinion, the AfD is here. - Eldereft (cont.) 08:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Most editors put "prod" in their edit summaries, some do not.  Thanks for the link to the AfD, but I typically don't care if articles get deleted or not.  I just add the suggested related templates if they aren't there. :) --Rockfang (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cowgirl Ed Album Cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cowgirl Ed Album Cover.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) 05:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:TheWitcherLakeside.png
Thanks for uploading Image:TheWitcherLakeside.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Explain-inote
Thanks for your assistance. Apparently I don't know my months :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Luis Sandrini
Hi can you please stop spamming me with it. There is already an image in the commons. Thanks Count Blofeld  14:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't spamming you with anything. I knew the image was on Commons already.  That was what the message I left on your talk page said.--Rockfang (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Its just I had already recieved a "source missing message" about it when I logged in this morning which I removed. Then when I logged in earlier there was a new message on it, so you can see why I thought this Count Blofeld  19:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Kamen-Rider-stub
Hi Rockfang - there seems to be something odd about the way you depopulated - you listed it as depopulated even though there were still a handful of (manually applied, non-templated) stubs in there, and now articles from the category are slowly arriving one by one in.

When an sfd calls for a deletion of a stub type, depopulating a category calls for removal of the (to be deleted) stub type and simultaneous replacement with whatever the most appropriate stub is (in this case, for most articles, fict-char-stub). Bots are not used for this work unless every article in the old category will go into the same new category (and if there's only 20 or so stubs in there, it ends up creating more work than manual resorting does). Most importantly - stubs are never returned to the base. That simply makes more work for stub-sorters. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  01:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I orphaned the stub. If you check out this, it wasn't mentioned there that a category specifically needed to be depopulated.  Notice that the other stub to be orphaned entry does mention a cat.  I never listed anything as depopulated.  I just listed the stub as orphaned.  On your second point, you are more than welcome to continue stub sorting.  I don't like doing that, so when I orphan a stub template, that is all I do.  The only reason I put stub on some of the related articles was because I also did other general fixes at the same time.--Rockfang (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Walk Among Us.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Walk Among Us.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) 05:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Blockbuster
Ah yes - as there was no image size set I didn't set one either and it didn't look problematic at that size. Good catch though (and thanks for the revert - all the boxes will be updated so it would be a shame to have someone keep updating it only to be reverted) but it might be a sign we need the scan at a larger size as the small image looks a little odd. Just a thought. (Emperor (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC))

Template:Voice actor
I placed a request in the orphaned templates section of tfd to have it taken care of by a bot, because there were so many it would have taken me hours to remove them all. Wizardman 20:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, alright. I usually orphan them myself so I wasn't too familiar with how to go about doing that. I can temp restore it if it makes things easier. Wizardman  20:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

AMG
Thanks for the notification, I am indeed paying attention to the edits I am making, but perhaps I misunderstand - how does what it was named affect the article? He founded Allmusic under the name of All Music Guide, surely. <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; neuro(talk) 19:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed that, hm, perhaps I am wrong. Thanks for not hesitating to revert. :) <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; neuro(talk) 19:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

image rationale
Thanks for the help MythSearchertalk 15:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Combattor (comics).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Combattor (comics).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) 05:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Abraham Woodruff
I can see why you would disagree with edit, however, unless I am mistaken, lack of source information is not a reason to delete the image if it is properly licensed (or properly identified as being in the public domain). I have emailed the uploader since he is no longer on the wiki, but have yet to hear a response from him. I will continue to pursue source information but I'd appreciate it if you'd remove the tag that will delete the image in 7 days if the defect is not cured. I have no problem with identifying it as lacking source information but it is properly licensed. -- Trödel 21:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dan Marino bronze statue2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Dan Marino bronze statue2.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) 05:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:Freedom of panorama
Very good point. I was aware of this, just sloppy. :=) -Seidenstud (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops
That's what you get when Firefox thinks it is meant to autocomplete something, and then goes "OVERRULED" when you put something else in, heh. Good job catching it. :P <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; neuro(talk) 12:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 * Thanks for this.--Rockfang (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Gangbuster
I'm ok with the new image. --DrBat (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

An article you created
FYI, I've CSD A7'd Massimo Dutti. I was gonna template you, but I figured nah. Might be pushing it to template an arbitrator. ;) Rockfang (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Template me whenever I am wrong :) Well, i see that someone added a few references and sources. Are you satisfied with them? -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  13:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorta indifferent. I do admit that being mentioned in the Times London is potentially a big deal, but the article in my opinion still doesn't actually mention why the company is either significant or important.  But, after a recent IFD/DRV I was in, I've pretty much given up on discussing my point on anything anymore.  Thank you for replying though.--Rockfang (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, the Italian Massimo Dutti brand (with 444 stores worldwide) belongs to the Spanish Inditex (€8.196 billion in sales), the owner of Zara. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  13:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Acdclivedonington.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:Acdclivedonington.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) 05:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Acdcplugmein.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Acdcplugmein.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) 05:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

IfD doc thanks
Thanks for fixing this - I totally missed this template when I was updating pages to work with the new name. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome.--Rockfang (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)  §hepBot  ( Disable )  20:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 00:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot  ( Disable ) 

Category:Wikipedians by interest in a region
Thanks for making this edit. I missed it.--Rockfang (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I typically check "whatlinkshere" when dealing with WIkipedian categories, since it's so easy to break userbox links (among other reasons).
 * And btw: thank you for all the help and work you've put in helping at UCFD. I'm sure that all who frequent there appreciate it : ) - jc37 23:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Our Class Project
A group of people and I have been assigned to edit the page on Cheiracanthium Inclusum for a University Assignement. Our professor wants a notice posted on the ARTICLE PAGE (not the discussion page) and I noticed your username has moved the notice twice to the discussion page. Can you please leave the notice on the first page as the format is part of our grade. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bealelor356 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion on that article's talk page regarding this subject. Please state your opinion there.--Rockfang (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am the Professor coordinating the project you commented on. The Educational Assignment notice should be on the Discussion Page as per the instructions I received from a Wiki editor. Please don't confuse my students -- this project will be completed in a couple of weeks and the notice will be removed. These are a work in progress and the purpose of the notice is to help people resist the temptation to "help". Prof. Chris Darling —Preceding unsigned comment added by EEB356Prof (talk • contribs) 12:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to rethink what you typed. I am agreeing with you.  It should go on the Talk page like I stated here.--Rockfang (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Earlier at my talk page
Hi Rockfang; I'm sorry if I sounded dismissive of your note earlier on at my talk page about the WP:CFDS page. I was dealing with four or five inquiries/complaints on my talk page at the time, and then yours came up and it was just one more thing for me to respond to. I do appreciate you keeping an eye on things like that, and I'm not upset that you let me know. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of video games with time travel
I have nominated List of video games with time travel, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of video games with time travel. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. -Zeus- [ t|c ] 17:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:RockfangBot
Hello there. From what I can tell, this edit was a mistaken one from your bot, as, checking through the page's previous history, I found no prod templates. I have removed the template for now, but would appreciate your feedback on the matter. <font color="#006600;">It Is Me Here  <font color="#CC6600;">t / <font color="#CC6600;">c 08:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the Prod. I've readded the oldprodfull with more info.--Rockfang (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange – I wonder how I managed to miss that. Anyway, thanks for your time, it's most appreciated. <font color="#006600;">It Is Me Here  <font color="#CC6600;">t / <font color="#CC6600;">c 22:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 22:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

File:lemar_image.jpg Deletion
Hi! I have uploaded File:Lemar_image.jpg recently for my userpage, and never intended to use it for any other article or page other than that. I found your comment and I think maybe you should find first where I ever used it... And do I have to license my own picture?--Johnlemartirao (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Before I edited the image, it did not state what the license was, or where the image is from. All images on Wikipedia should say where it is from, and what type of license it has.  You can read more about this here.  Your image is fine now.--Rockfang (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple notes Re: UCFD working page
Good work at the UCFD working page. Just so you know though, the job queue is currently broken. Has been for over 2 months, not sure when it will be fixed but I do know they are aware it is broken. Hence, "auto-emptying" won't be happening until that is fixed. Also, If you double check to make sure all pages are removed from a category, I see no reason to leave it in the "already deleted but not empty" section of the page. That is more for ones that have been deleted without removing any members. If no more work needs to be done involving the category, and we are just waiting for auto-empty, I don't think we need to keep those listed in that section. Finally, if you are looking for something to do, there is a whole slew of populated previously deleted user categories listed at Database reports/Deleted red-linked categories, many of which could be legitimately added to the "already deleted but not empty" section if the category was deleted due to a XfD decision. One could simply skip to the chase and directly remove it from the page without bothering listing it on the working page as well, although users who have re-added deleted categories after having already been removed from their page once should probably not be re-removed unless you want to stir up drama. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info.--Rockfang (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation
I noticed that you've done follow up on suspected copyright violations. I'd like to call your attention to the photo "File:Moran mor Baselios Kleemis.jpg" (shown) and the track record of the uploader User:Simon Cheakkanal. You might also check out other photos this user has uploaded. Their image size and resolution indicate to me that they have been lifted off the web. I acknowledge I'm not assuming good faith, but I think someone savvy in such things should take at least take a look. Thanks for all your work for Wikipedia. -- --Boston (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've checked out the uploads the user made with the link you gave me. Some of the images were duplicates of images on Commons and I tagged them as such.  They will most likely be deleted here for that reason.  There was 1 image I put on WP:PUI because it looked like a photo or a scan of a picture in a magazine or book.  That one may be deleted.  I came across 2 other images that another editor had put on WP:PUI as well.  The image you gave as an example I left alone.  It does seem like a really high quality photo that could have possibly came from a website.  But, the uploader states on his user page that he is a journalist, so him taking such a good photo seems reasonably possible.--Rockfang (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for considering my comments and helping to discern what from what. You're a noble Wikipedian to assume such good faith regarding "File:Moran mor Baselios Kleemis.jpg" --   I wish I could find a bookie to accept my bet that User:Simon Cheakkanal is not the creator of that image!  Keep up the good work.  --Boston (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe. Leave the bookie's number on my talk page if you find one. ;) Rockfang (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for an opinion
If its appropriate to request this and you have time, would you please check out comments made at Talk:Python_reticulatus and Talk:Python_reticulatus. It is my position that I've endured days of personal attacks and incivility from User:Mokele and User:Jwinius. I've lost count of how many times I've encouraged courtesy in these users. Perhaps encouragement of good behavior coming from someone other than myself and User:Cygnis insignis might have effect. User:Cygnis insignis's comments on our discussion begin as follows “I've waded through the incivility, bold assumptions, uncited assertions, expletives and other obstruction to this good faith contribution. However this is not the place for identifying this obnoxious pattern of behavior...” (see hidden comments at Ultimately, this dispute is about a claim made by [[User:Mokele] and User:Jwinius to allow certain content at Python_reticulatus that they deem unencyclopedic. Thanks for considering my comments. -- --Boston (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for reading my comments. I guess I'll have to pursue outside resolution as I'm not engaging in any more conversation with editors who are swearing and name calling. --Boston (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Mokele has told me "Cry me a river. I see absolutely no reason to listen to a mere amateur. Come back when you have a graduate degree in herpetology. Until then, stop wasting our time" and represents his editorial standpoints as "I don't give a crap if the news articles meet some overly-vague WP rule...we should stick to peer-reviewed scientific journal sources ONLY" and has referred to my good faith edits as "unencyclopedic crap" (all comments at ).
 * User:Jwinius has informed me that I am "silly",, "petulant" , "irritable", "thin-skinned", etc.
 * Please also note this edit summary by User:Mokele "Put up or shut up, amateur. Show me this mythical "outside arbitration", because you seem to lack the balls to use the talk page anymore." --Boston (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Apart from any possible incivility, I have warned both you and Mokele with regards to WP:3RR. It appears you may have already broken it, but I figured a warning should probably come first.  I've noticed you brought the civility issue to the attention of other editors as well.  Perhaps they will comment on it.--Rockfang (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I for one object to this unilaterality on Boston's part. Put up a page where we can all participate in resolving this, rather than just letting him run crying to the staff because we dare disagree with him and dare to get annoyed by his juvenile antics. Mokele (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I'm not staff. I'm not sure if you thought that at the time you posted your comment above.--Rockfang (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rockfang, apologies, I mistook you for an Admin or else I wouldn't have left message. I'm just looking for an Admin who is online and can at least give a warning about personal attacks.  Thanks again and best wishes! --Boston (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, admins aren't the only types of editors that can give out warnings regarding personal attacks.--Rockfang (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 16, 2009
<div style="margin-left:30px; margin-right:30px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:135%; line-height:120%;">

<div style="margin-left:20px; margin-right:20px; text-align:center; color:#333; margin-bottom:-20px; font-size:90%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; padding-bottom:5px; font-style:italic;">You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 07:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:


 * Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
 * An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
 * News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
 * Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
 * Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
 * Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 21:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Miller Chill.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Miller Chill.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) 05:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)