User talk:Shannernanner/Archive 2

Landon Ashworth
Why does Landon being added cause such a qualm? He's a talented actor and humaitarian. Being on Wikipedia will help his exposure in life and help people learn of his talent and giving. Let him be added. You're the only one causing problems, and this could further his exposure. You stand nothing to lose if he's added. He has everything to gain by the exposure. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pilotdmb (talk • contribs) 09:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion or advertising. Shannernanner  09:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Term Chlorokinesis on the Sky High page
Chlorokinesis is a Neologism, it's not a real word. The page you recently directed as proof that Chlorokinesis is a real word is currently being re organised (as visible in the Discussion thread there), and chlorokinesis is being changed. Layla never says her power is chlorokinesis, therefore it's not. It is plant control and growth since that is what she shows. That is my reason for reverting your edit. If you have proof it's not a Neologism (and therefore doesn't break Avoid neologisms), then I won't revert it further. Jacobshaven3 12:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit: Since I can't edit again without breaking the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, I'll leave it as it is until I can fix this error. Jacobshaven3 12:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you feel it is "not a real word," then you ought to remove it from the main article rather than just telling everyone so. Be bold.  And for the record, the fact that "she never says it" doesn't mean she is not; if someone has brown hair but never refers to himself or herself as brunette, it doesn't mean he or she is not.  Shannernanner  12:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The entire section Kinetic Abilities is being revamped, not just chlorokinesis. See here if you wish to help with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacobshaven3 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC).


 * Sorry about forgetting to sign... Jacobshaven3 13:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright status of Image:Gabriel damon pd.jpg
Hi - I noticed your query at. The image is clearly tagged as a film screenshot, which means it's fair use only. That's the copyright status. Seems very clear to me regardless of who created it. Please remove the "no source" tag from this image (and you might want to review other such images you've tagged as "no source"). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not inquire as to "the copyright status;" I tagged it as having no source. On the "Upload file" page, the first item listed is "Note: Your file will be deleted unless you provide detailed information on... [the] source of the file."  As the template states, "If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added [emphasis added]."  Shannernanner  16:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The source is that it's a screenshot from the movie (like it says). I don't understand what you're looking for, something like "I, user Who, created this image using xyz software package as a screenshot from the DVD of the movie at approximately x minutes into scene y"?  What conceivable difference does it make?  -- Rick Block (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It makes a difference per Wikipedia guidelines. See Image use policy.  Shannernanner  17:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My view is that declaring something is a screenshot is adequately identifying its source. You seem to not agree with this.  How about if we get some more opinions on this?  Perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy?  I'll start a thread there referring to this conversation. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You may if you want to. The existing guidelines seem to be abundantly clear about this.  Shannernanner  17:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I just wanted to drop by and let you know that I appreciate your persistence in pursuing policy with regard to this image. user:Who is an admin, and has not actively edited in nearly a year. I trust that he was not knowingly violating copyright and was not making false claims about the source of this image. I hope you're not taking my defense of him personally. I think the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy about whether declaring an image to be a screenshot identifies its source is a useful clarification. With regard to this image, the film is in color, and the alleged screenshot is black and white which certainly looks like an inconsistency. I assure you I'm on the right side in this as well — I just want to make sure Who gets a chance to explain. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand, and am not accusing the user of making false claims; I'm just hoping that a properly licensed and sourced image can be found. Shannernanner  03:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request
You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. For an outcome to be achieved, we require you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. Also, a checkuser has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Daniel.Bryant 01:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

Reverted edit
I am curious as to why you considered it necessary to revert my edit to Given name, which unlinked the word Hamilton. This link is undesirable for several reasons -- first, it is a link to a disambiguation page, which are discouraged; second, it does not appear to be relevant to the context; third, it is just odd, because Washington and Taylor appear in the same clause yet are not linked. What are your thoughts to the contrary? --Russ (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The disambig link currently contains information regarding the word as a name. If someone creates an article regarding the name, it can easily be disambiguated to such article.  Washington and Taylor were not linked as neither of their disambig pages contained information on the words as names.  Shannernanner  10:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you look over Billy Ray's article re: his family please?
I'm not any more knowledgable about Miley & Billy Ray than what I research on quick googles. Judging from your edits to Miley, could you delete the items you know to be untrue on Billy Ray Cyrus please? The cite applies only to the last 2 sentences, and him marrying Tish on 12-28-93. TransUtopian 11:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not horribly knowledgeable on their family, but I do know that the rumor about his second wife being dead originated from Miley Stewart's mother being dead on Hannah Montana. I'll definitely work on that section.  Shannernanner  11:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're a star. Thanks for the edits, and the explanation on the rumor. I've never seen the show, but sometimes I find article facts that I like to source, and then I find more facts at the source. In the process, I learn cool things about people and things I'd never have gotten interested in otherwise. TransUtopian 22:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I understand, I do the same thing sometimes. :-)  Shannernanner  21:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Checkered Game of Life
Re your proposal to merge The Checkered Game of Life with the Game of Life. IMHO this is flawed proposal. The Checkered Game of Life is a significantly different game from the modern day game. Certainly the two are related and I believe both articles indicate as much. But they are two different encycopedic ideas, both worthy IMHO of their own individual articles. Rob ( Talk )  12:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: you merge of the article - I accept the merge has gone ahead and don't proposed to change it. But I'm confused by your interpretation of the following paragraph from the wiki merge article "After proposing the merge, place your reasons on the talk page and check back in a couple of weeks for a response. You may be able to invoke a response by contacting some of the major or most-recent contributors via their respective talk-pages. If there is a clear agreement after two weeks, that the articles should be merged then go ahead and merge them. If there is no response after four weeks then go ahead and merge the articles." - Did this really occur? The words "if there is clear agreement after two weeks"... what do you take these to mean? I'm not convinced there was clear agreement? You responded to my disagreement on the 8th Oct and then merged on the 13th Oct (since I didn't respond), five or so days later. Did two weeks really elapse between proposal and counter-proposal? Anyway, I'm not intending to start an edit/flame war. My intentions are well meaning and I am sure are yours. Happy edits. Rob  ( Talk )  09:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The section which you are quoting is referring to the multiple-page merge into one article. The main section, under "How to merge pages," states, "After sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence (at least 5 days), you may perform the merger or request that someone else do so."  As you initiated the discussion on the 8th, I responded, and you didn't for five more days, I went ahead and merged the articles, as I stated (the tag was added on the 6th, so I waited a total of seven days).  I'm sorry you feel I somehow neglected your say in the matter, but that was not my intention at all.  Shannernanner  10:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't feel neglected, I just don't believe that consensus was reached. I see your point, thanks for seeing mine. All the best. Rob  ( Talk )  01:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

WHAT?
WHAT EDIT? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.143.230.185 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Your edit to the article Hannah Montana. Shannernanner  09:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

ok first of all im not some kind of person you can just go on and tell them wat i did was wrong if your talking about editing production section on the HM page i reprted that and said to SOMEON else that it was incorrect information i really dont edit anything else. Please do not comment me after this there are other people who tell me wat i do wrong —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JustSome1 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC).
 * If you are trying to remove information on an article, or editing an article in any capacity, please provide an edit summary. Shannernanner  02:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Award nominees
Simply wondering as to the possibility that could there be such a category (as opposed to Hugo Award winning works or merely redundant to their corresponding articles (like this: Hugo Award for Best Novel or Best Short Story)? DrWho42 18:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I think that a general category would be fine. There are nominee categories for awards like Academy Award nominees and Golden Globe Award nominees.   Shannernanner  10:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Hannah Montana Episode Information
Recently I added some information to the episode pages for Hannah Montana. I noticed that information was removed, I would appreciate it if you would come to my talk page and reply the to heading Hannah Montana Episode Information. Also, if you can think of others who might find this article useful please inform them of it or let me know where to link to it.

Thanks for your time > Brandonrc 22:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Rocko's Modern Life
Thank you for all the work on the Rocko's Modern Life articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlk89 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC).
 * How kind. Thank you. :-)  Shannernanner  23:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Eye color
Good work in Eye color. I'm wondering how to supply a citation to the sentence: "Elizabeth Taylor's physical trademark is her 'violet' eyes." Everyone seems to "know" that Taylor's eyes are violet, but they certainly look blue in every photo I've seen of her. Any thoughts? -AED 00:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :-) Here's a page on snopes.com (the urban legends site) which discusses her eye color; it couldn't be used as a reference, of course, but it is interesting.  As for a straight reference, here's a New York Times article which mentions them.  Shannernanner  10:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for recommending Category: Midget and Dwarf Actors for renaming; I had started a discussion with the category's creator about changing it, but let the ball drop. And as an infrequent Wikipedian, I completely forgot about RfDs. Jjacobsmeyer 03:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. :-) Shannernanner  03:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn
Please stop making ridiculous edits on the Audrey Hepburn page. There is no such film as "We will all go to Monte Carlo" - it's merely a poor translation of the French title and no such film ever existed except on the pages of IMDb. Are you now going to go to the Jean-Luc Godard page and change the titles of all his films into English? I don't think you know much about Audrey Hepburn and especially not about her early career. In fact the whole section on her early career is riddled with errors and bad chronologies, not to mention wild speculations. Audreyfan
 * Please be civil. On the English Wikipedia, English is preferred when an English title is given.  When one is not, the English translation should be placed next to the title in parentheses.  Shannernanner  13:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Help With Permanent Links Archive Method
I was having trouble figuring out how to put my links into a Temlpate:Archive box, so I went to Recent Pages and clicked on the first user who uses the archive template. Any chance you can help me out, as I can't get it to work right. ^_^; -WarthogDemon 04:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. :-) Just enter:   at the top of your talk page.  Let me know if you need any more help.  Shannernanner  05:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've found it, and have tried putting it but it seems no matter what I do, I always get .  I'm sure it's a simple thing I'm overlooking but I've no idea what. O.o -WarthogDemon 06:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I copied what I typed exactly to make sure I had it right, and it created the box with the correct parameters.  If you don't mind, I'll try the box on your page, just to see if I can figure out what the problem is.  Shannernanner  12:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added the box, and it seems to be working. To create the archive, copy the contents of your talk page to the red link in the archive box (you can also add the header  to the destination page).  You can pipe the link to the dates which you archived if you wish.  Hope that helps. :-)  Again, let me know if you need any more help.   Shannernanner  12:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I must be very slow ._.;; no matter what I do (and I think I've tried almost every combination) I can't get my permanent linked archive to show up in the Archives box. And the one time I did, the archive box disappeared.  What exactly do I have to type and where, in order to make my permanent linked archive on my talk page into the Archive Box? O.o -WarthogDemon 01:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to enter the old id into the box? That won't work, you need to copy the contents to the red-linked subpage (it's User talk:WarthogDemon/Archive1).  Shannernanner  04:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. I should move the talk page to a new page, THEN permalink? O.o -WarthogDemon 04:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, you've got it. Shannernanner  04:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Any way to do that without having to copy/paste? I just tried moving it now and it ended up moving everything BUT the archived page.  I was hoping to avoid copy/paste so it can't be vandalized or messed with. -WarthogDemon 05:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Decided To Use A Bot
I decided to use User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto rather than risk muddling my page up more. ^_^;;; Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for all the help. :) -WarthogDemon 05:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * All right, it was no problem. :-) Shannernanner  07:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

School Year Tags
Shannernanner, once again you're removing content from a page (List_of_Gilmore_Girls_episodes) that you, and you alone deem inappropriate. I actually was not the person that added the descriptions of "Rory's freshman year at Yale.", "Rory's sophomore year at Yale.", etc. to the Gilmore Girls Episode list in the first place, but I do find them useful, so I added them back. Now you've seen the changes, deemed them inappropriate, and reverted them. Please explain your rationale (most likely some sort of Wikipedia policy, which you're extremely well versed in). As you've most likely surmised, I'm of the opinion that more is better -- Wikipedia is an electronic medium and it doesn't hurt to provide some extra information. I suspect you come from the minimalist camp -- more is distracting, and a page should only contain the minimal amount of content. I would hope we could reach a happy medium, but I suspect that you'll win out since you're continually editing on Wikipedia and I'm only a periodic visitor. Alchemistmatt 07:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you concluded all of that about me from one edit; I removed the information because the episode list is meant to list the episodes, as well as there are both the Gilmore Girls and Rory Gilmore articles which could better contain such information, especially the latter, as it could explain the extenuating circumstances which cause her to not actually be in one full grade each year, all year. As well, it implies to a degree to one not familiar with the series that it revolves solely around Rory, as no details are given about other characters.  Shannernanner  14:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good points about the potential for misleading the casual viewer of Gilmore Girls, but I still think the school year tags are a good way of reminding viewers familiar with the series about which season the given episodes refer to. Although Rory isn't the only character, following her progression through school and college seems to me to be a reasonable method for providing a one-line tag for each season.  In terms of editing preferences, I did not conclude the points I made from your one edit, but from both the previous time that we disagreed over content (Kirk Gleason), and from glancing through your extensive edit history, which is comprised of numerous revert edits and "not notable" comments.  I appreciate your enthusiasm and I'm amazed that you are able to spend so much time editing Wikipedia pages.  My concern is that you often revert people's edits or remove valid content (that is factual and represents NPOV) without proper consideration or discussion as to the worthiness of the content. On the flipside, I do recognize that you are performing a good service of keeping pages clean and concise and reverting vandalism. It's the method of reverting factual, yet possibly non-notable information, that concerns me. Alchemistmatt 06:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that is the best place for them, as well as not being a part of the recommended structure for episode lists. Too, as well as their being other articles in which her school career could better be expanded upon, due to the season plots she does not begin her school year at the beginning of each season, but often rather several episodes in (beginning with the summer).  There is also the case of her taking part of a year off.  These issues can and are better addressed in the short synopses on the episode list, as in this season's, which refers to her starting her school year in episode four (what year she is in is not mentioned, but it could appropriately be added).  I assure you that I do not revert edits without duly concerning their value.  I'm not sure what you are trying to imply regarding my "editing preferences," though I can say that upon myself viewing my contributions I don't see an overly large amount of summaries which cite the comment "not notable."  Shannernanner  06:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiro's
Just curious, before you went on the merging and relinking spree, did you aat all notice the title discussion on the Talk Page???? EnsRedShirt 08:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The correct title is "Hiro's." Shannernanner  08:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility what?
YOu left a civility warning on my page, but left no clue about what it may be in regard to. given that I've been quite civil, I've got no clue what it's about, and suggest you either clarify or revert. Thank you. ThuranX 20:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Diff, policy. Shannernanner  20:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Audrey Hepburn. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Irpen 17:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. Your refusal to engage into a civil discussion at talk page and preference to revert warring speaks poorly about your willingless to work with other editors towards consensus.
 * Now that you finally started to use talk, I will continue it there. --Irpen 18:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not revert three times within 24 hours, nor did I "refuse to engage in a civil discussion on the talk page." I placed comments on the talk page as soon as it was requested, and was not in any way uncivil.   Shannernanner  00:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You were clearly revert warring at Audrey Hepburn producing 5 reverts within 2.5 days:
 * 14:08, October 26, 2006
 * 18:14, October 25, 2006
 * 13:58, October 25, 2006


 * 12:38, October 23, 2006
 * 04:26, October 23, 2006

Of which 3 latest ones where within 24 hours +10 mins. 10 minutes make little difference as 3 RR is not an entitlement or a quota. Giving preference to revert wars in favor of discussions is disruptive and may lead to blocks even while the editor stays technically under 3RR rule.

At the same time your accusing me of revert warring (I did make 3 reverts for that article as well) is like Pot calling the kettle black. It would probably a better idea if I added an explanation to a talk in addition to edit summaries, which I thought were self-explanatory, even though I also did not technically break the 3RR. But in any case you were in no way in a position to leave standard revert-warring warnings to other editors if you yourself were clearly revert warring. Having said that, I am glad the talk page discussion started that will hopefully resolve the differences. I will respond there on the disagreement itself. --Irpen 01:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that you say that "[I was] clearly revert warring. [emphasis added]" You reverted three times within 17 hours; I believe that is "technically breaking" the three-revert rule.  Shannernanner  01:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you are mistaken. WP:3RR prohibits from reverting "in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in the case of obvious, simple vandalism."''


 * And of course this is neither an allowance nor a quota. I stopped reverting you at once, as you started to explain yourself. I came here only in connection with your leaving an inappropriate warning at my talk because I did not break 3RR (by itself does not preclude the possibility of rv warring but), you were not in position to accuse others and, finally, the generic templates created to deal with newbies are plain offensive when used at the talk pages of established editors. In respect of the last matter, I am guilty of the same mistake too. Angered by seeing the newbie template, I responded likewise. Anyway, let's put this behind and discuss the image choice. Tbc at talk:Audrey Hepburn. --Irpen 01:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So, to clarify, you left it out of revenge? Interesting.  Shannernanner  01:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, "he hit me first" is a bad and childish defence but we are all human. I was annoyed by being falsely accused in 3RR violation and, especially by your using a generic template. The good thing, however, this is now behind and also you will now know the letter of the policy better. As for its spirit, we both were on the edge. --Irpen 01:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Why Delete the Play Family article?
Why Delete the Play Family article? Wel, you called it a merge, but there is almost nothing from the list that I spent so long making. Many people specifically collect the Play Family line (and not the chunky or realistic looking Little People line) from Fisher-Price). I know that Play became Little I created that article as a resource using the Play Family toys that I have collected over the years (using the copyright dates, {60's 70's and 80's} and toy numbers straight from the boxes... do I reference the box, or do I need to go buy a price guide and quote from it?).  Should the article be titled something else besides Play Family? Like List of Play Family toys or something?

Thanks, Antmusic 15:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort you made in creating the article, but listing each toy version which came out is not generally encyclopedic, and the only other information included in the article I merged into the main article. If there were any particularly notable releases (i.e., which signified a certain change in the line, or were unique in their design), it would be great to include such in the main body of the article.  Thanks.  Shannernanner  16:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The New and Improved Carl Morrissey
I'm a bit confused about why you moved the article. It's true there's no need for disambiguation, but adding (x episode) after articles about individual television episodes seem to be very standard.

See, for example - Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes and Category:Star Trek: Voyager episodes.

Every other 4400 episode is also named in the same format.

If disambiguation was the only reason you moved it, would it be okay if we move it back? --`/aksha 04:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The guideline states that if there is another article with the same name, the series name should be added in parentheses; otherwise it should not. I did not fix all the other episodes at that time as I was working on that particular article.  Shannernanner  13:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * hmm, i see. I didn't realize guildlines specifically addressed this existed. In light of this, i'll give my support to removing all the unneeded disambiguation. --`/aksha 12:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

4400 pages
If you'd like to change the format of 4400 episode pages please suggest your idea at the project and please dont add extraneous lines... makes viewing hard. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are referring to. Shannernanner  23:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You removed the tidy referenes.. you also removed the brief synopsis, the pages are designed to be as easily readable as possible and hence the brief synopsis is also included.. you also readded the 10+ lines to the references. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Tidy references" according to you; I was not harming the page as you seem to imply, but returning to the template version which does not support your version. The credits are included as part of proper citation style. Please provide a Wikipedia guideline page which supports a "brief synopsis" in addition to the main synopsis, where it is included almost word-for-word. Shannernanner  23:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You also renamed "Summary" to "Plot" - the article is not supposed to provide complete plot information just summarise key/significant moments. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is supposed to discuss the plot, not simply summarize it, which is why the wikiproject recommends that as the section name. It currently summarizes the plot, but if the name is changed to "Summary" it will have less room for future improvement.  Shannernanner  23:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Unsourced" picture?
Hey, you left an "Unsourced" tag on the image to the right, but it says it's a screenshot from the film. I'm not familiar with the requirements on images, but does there need to be another source? - JNighthawk 23:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It has a license stating that it is a screenshot from a film, but not a source stating what film it is from. If you would like to add it, there is an information template available, with an example here.  Just copy and paste the template and fill in the information.  The image also needs a fair use rationale; you can just copy one of the examples listed there and paste it to the image description page, filling it in with the proper information.  Hope that helps. :-)  Shannernanner  23:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't upload it, but I'll go fill in the info I do know. The thing is, however, a fair use rationale is already there in the form of the film screenshot template. I've filled out what I can for the info table, but I honestly think it doesn't add much. I think it would be better to just have a short description of what the image shows. What do you think? I've also removed the "no source" template, as it now has a source. - JNighthawk 02:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see your message until just now. You're quite welcome.  I know the template seems to justify its use in articles, but according to the fair use guidelines, a rationale must also be provided.  Thanks for adding the source. :-)  Shannernanner  18:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

rev in case that is not vandalism
Also keep in mind my comment about reversing revisions. Using rev is only to be done in case of vandalism and not to be taken lightly, it is not a tool to enforce your opinion. But you are right I am done editing that page for the day, however the war may not be over... :) Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bansal (talk • contribs) 03:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC).
 * I replied on the talk page to your similar comment. Shannernanner  05:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * see my comment as well -Bansal 05:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility vs. Constructive discussion
Please remember the difference between constructive criticism and personal attacks. Also you may want to discuss comments with someone before leaving a civility warning, the comment you found offensive wasn't even directed at you. -Bansal 08:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Uncivility does not always mean a personal attack; please see Civility. A comment does not have to be directed at me to be uncivil.  I don't find the comment you made constructive, nor civil.  Shannernanner  08:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I find your generic template response with no discussion or explanation to be uncivil as well -Bansal 08:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The template is not uncivil by Wikipedia standards, as it is a standardized Wikipedia response. If you had asked for an explanation, I would have provided it; as it was, I did reply to your comments with explanation.  Shannernanner  08:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No you provided no direct explanation about the comment as to why you felt this was uncivil. By posting this on my talk page you were personally attacking me as being uncivil and permanently branding me as uncivil without giving a direct reason.  A more appropriate response would've been to respond in the original forum. -Bansal 08:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You did not ask for a direct explanation; from your comment that "it wasn't even directed at [me]" I thought you understood what I meant. Your interpretation of the template and a "more appropriate response" are your opinion, not Wikipedia's.  I certainly was not "personally attacking" you; that is more than an overstatement, and something which would not be endorsed by a Wikipedia template.  Shannernanner  08:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your opinion that I was uncivil is yours as well, and not Wikipedias, your response was not a Wikipedia template, but the generic civility response you use, that is the one I'm referring to. If you find someone's comments uncivil please respond in the original forum and explain why you find the comments uncivil instead of personally attacking someone as being uncivil.  I had no chance to ask for an explanation because you decided to personally attack me rather than to respond to my comments in the forum.  Please read the section Management of incivility during the mediation process in the Civility article. -Bansal 08:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you got that idea, but that template was created by someone else nine months ago. It is a generic Wikipedia template, not just one "[I] use."  Your comment was uncivil, yes, in my opinion, per the Wikipedia policy.  I did not personally attack you; please do not make unfounded accusations.  Shannernanner  08:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Calling someone uncivil without explanation is a personal attack, and you did in fact do that so it is not unfounded. If you find someone uncivil please use Wikipedia mediation guidelines to arrive at a resolution rather than personally attacking someone.  Thanks, have a good night!  -Bansal 08:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not call you uncivil, I called your comment uncivil, and I will say this one more time: I did not personally attack you.  That is a serious accusation; please read the Wikipedia page regarding such.  I used the proper procedure per Wikipedia guidelines for urging someone not to make uncivil comments; if you have an issue with that particular template, or the implementation of like templates, please take issue with them on their talk pages, not with me for using them.  Shannernanner  08:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You did not even refer to the comment, as you are aware from my comments on my talk page, I initially in fact thought you were talking about something else, all you did was leave me a personal attack that called me "uncivil", and apparently disagreeing with you is all that it takes to be uncivil. I find it interesting that you try (unsuccessfully) to stick to Wikipedia policy when it comes to civility, but use your opinion do justify your improper use of reverts, see Talk:Milo Ventimiglia. -Bansal 14:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not originally define the page on which the incident occurred as it is not a parameter of the template. As I said, if you had simply asked instead of assuming, I would have said what I was referring to, and as it was, I did anyway.  I was not hiding anything.  Please cease to accuse me of a personal attack, as that is untrue and a very serious accusation.  Shannernanner  18:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is then you shouldn't use the template. Accusing someone of being uncivil is serious as well, and shouldn't be taken lightly.  You should try to resolve the original source of your complaint in the original forum, and if no resolution is reached there, then try to resolve it on the individual's talk page giving specific reasons for your complaint.  Immediately putting this on someone's talk page with no discussion or explanation is a personal attack, the fact that you don't think it is because it makes you look bad doesn't change that fact. -Bansal 19:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a far leap from warning someone of a moment of uncivility and accusing them of personal attack, and as I did not personally attack you, do not make that statement. Shannernanner  15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said don't take it lightly. This template should be used only as a last resort, when you use it without any discussion or any attempt to establish that incivility actually occurred, it is in fact a personal attack, and I do view it as such.  Your view that I was uncivil is no less a "leap" than mine. -Bansal 18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Shannernanner, not involving myself on the merit of the accusations of incivillity, please note that the user above is not the first one to point out to you that your habit of using generic templates to communicate your grievances towards established users is unpleasant, to say the least. --Irpen 08:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not the point he/she is making that I know of, and to be clear, you mean you were the first, and only, one. But thank you for your kind input.  Shannernanner  08:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion that editors should take their complaints about your usage of the templates as a substitute of human communication to the templates' talk, it seems you are not getting the point. Templates were specifically created to be used when communicating to newbies. Many Wikipedians find their usage for any other communication inappropriate. Moreover, as per your recently expressed erroneous perception of the 3RR policy, your expertize in the policies is not perfect either. Instead of insisting that your actions were proper and invoking policies and such, just accept that users do not appreciate the templates being posted at their talk pages. If you have a suggestion or complaint about someone's being incivil, a revert-warrior or whatever else, come to that person's talk with a personal message not written by someone else. And, also, make sure you are in a position to chastise anyone on the particular issues, that is your own behavior in this respect is exemplary. For instance, if you run revert wars, don't accuse others in revert-warring. If others reasonably perceive you tone borderline, don't preach civillity to others but reread your own entries. --Irpen 09:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reference for your assertion that these templates may only be used in "communicating to newbies." There is no reference to this end on any of the templates  template's templates' pages, nor on their collective pages, that I see.  You are the only one who "does not appreciate" it as a whole, though I notice you did not complain when I posted about the image missing its fair use rationale; apparently that kind is okay.  I don't feel that your suggestions regarding my conduct on Wikipedia should supercede Wikipedia's.  Please don't accuse me of uncivility without proof; I do not believe I have been uncivil.  Shannernanner  09:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The point he/she is trying to make is that it is disrespectful to us to use a generic response as we are not newbies and fully aware of Wikipedia's policies. You ask him not to accuse you of being uncivil without proof, yet you had no problem doing that to me.  You simply left me a comment attacking me as being uncivil, did not refer to the original comment and did not make any attempt to describe why you felt I was being uncivil.  Perhaps you should at the very least follow your own guidelines, as we don not feel we were being uncivil either.  -Bansal 14:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not a point you seemed to agree with until the user brought it up. I did not "accuse you of being uncivil without proof;" I said exactly what I was referring to.  Neither did I attack you.  If neither of you can find any instance of my being uncivil, do not make such accusations.  I never said that Irpen was uncivil.  Shannernanner  18:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I concede that you did not accuse Irpen of being uncivil, it seemed from his comments that you had. See admitting you're wrong is not the end of the world... :)  However I never disagreed with your point, my whole point has been accusations should not be made without proof.  I hope in the future you will not send your civility template to other users without first trying to resolve in the original forum and specifically telling people what you are upset about. -Bansal 19:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As well as any other generic templates to be placed on talk pages of the established users which is an outright rudeness even if you think it is OK. As to why I did not react to your repetition of the same action, (image deletion template), first you supplied it with a rather polite edit summary and, most importantly, I got tired of communicating to you at that time. Besides, I did not have time to engage into the discussion at talk:Audrey Hepburn about the merits of the dispute and, finally, even if by the time I return to the subject you succeed in deleting the image, I know where to find it and reupload should I feel I can take any more of arguing with you (pretty unpleasant, I must say) for the sake of the imrpovement of the AH article which is not on the top of my priority list. --Irpen 19:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion, not Wikipedia's. As for the image, I was not trying to delete it, I was trying to supply it with a fair use rationale.  Shannernanner  15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Miley Cyrus
Thanks for notifying me. Looks like you caught me while I was sleeping though, but another admin beat me to it. :) Thanks again. -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ /?!  18:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. :-) Shannernanner  15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Administrator abuses
Dear Sir,

TheronJ has repeatedly been vandalizing the Clint Curtis page, including the deletion of well cited sentences, paragraphs, the insertion of obvious bias (including the summary of a Wired news article that was completly skewed to slander Curtis's biography). Today he deleted quotes and citations from the Orlando Sentinel.

If you do an intestigation, he is a political activist that vandalizes negativly the profiles of Democrats by deleting information that can be considered positive and adds negative content and does exactly the opposite to Republican profiles. TheronJ insists that this is "balance." If you look on the Curtis page, you will see that Tom Feeney's response to Curtis's allegations has been twice as long as the section that describes the allegations. Under a campaign issues section, he adds Feeney's response to Curtis. It is wrong because the issues do not mention Feeney at all. Not only do these NOT reflect balance, it is a serious violation of Wikipedia's standards that requires action.

TheronJ is abusing his power as a Wiki manager and has had repeated warnings in the discussion page of Clint Curtis and now his user talk page. These flagerant abuses deligitimize Wikipedia and places it in a difficult position of dealing with slander against a living person.

In his last edit, he completly vandalized the "links" section.

Please take whatever action you can to take see that these abuses no longer continue.

Thank you. Rememberkigali 22:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps you intended this for someone else's (an administrator named John's?) page? Sorry I can't help you. :-)   Shannernanner  22:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not an administrator; if you feel some action should be taken, please contact a user who is, or go through the proper Wikipedia procedure. Good luck.  Shannernanner  23:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)