User talk:Sp00n17/archive1

Pokemon
Fvw, It looked like 67.84.138.44 was adding in a whole bunch of pokemon. It's weird, I know, that a pokemon would be named "metagross". But ya gotta keep in mind, all pokemon have similarly stupid names.
 * Oh, I quite believed that the article was factually correct, I just don't think "foo is a pokemon" is a worthwhile article and it definately falls under the "very short articles with little or no context" CSD criterion. You can sign your name on talk pages by typing ~ by the way. --fvw *  03:54, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)


 * Yes, besides the fact it lets the world know that pokemon is carving out strange names for their beasts, it has little content. To promote its future completion, I added it to the following list Wikipedia:Pokémon Stubs --Sp00n17 04:08, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

A little help on the word Slubbing...
Like I posted on the "votes for deletion" page:
 * Keep but rewrite. Slubbing is a word --sp00n17 01:35, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Now, the only things I can find about the word "slub" and "slubbing" are from websters copyright 1913. Care to take this one over? I'm not bold enough to enter copyrighted stuff, albeit outdated copyrights. --sp00n17 01:41, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, googling returned slubbing is a word, but that doesn't mean we need to write an article on it now. Actually, I don't think I could say anything encylopaedic about it anyway (dictdefs go on wiktionary). The current article should be deleted, it is not a useful basis for any article that perhaps should be created in that place in future, so whether or not someone wants to rewrite it, this article should be deleted. --fvw *  01:44, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)


 * True, as it is now, it should be deleted.  I guess Slubbing may return whenever somebody wants to add it in I suppose --sp00n17 01:48, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Your test
Please do not continue creating speedy delete candidates like IRWIN. Use Reference desk or Google for searching information. Thanks, jni 13:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Ups, I'm sorry. edit-delete glitch caused it look like you had created it. jni 14:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How do you find out how many edits you've made
How do you find out how many edits you've made? Do ppl use a script? Is there a users stats page somewhere?
 * Try this. Heed the warning on that page though, edit counts say very little. --fvw *  04:42, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Deletion?
So, How is it the article Views_of_Creationists_and_mainstream_scientists_compared is not deleted? After a the vote on Votes_for_deletion/Views_of_Creationists_and_mainstream_scientists_compared is heavily in favor of it's deletion?
 * It hasn't been processed yet. Please sign your comments. --fvw *  02:26, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)


 * Of course. Y'know, this doesn't happen often... but you somehow catch everytime I forget. -- sp 00n  17 :color="#555577">talk 17:13, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Chistian Art External Link
The External Link in the Christian Art Page doesn't have a description next to it. Please provide a description next to the link, as the link that you added doesn't necessarily identify or describe exactly what its aim is and how it relates to the many facets of Christian Art. I've made a concerted effort to keep The Christian Art page as generic as possible and I'm not certain how the link expands this multi-christian-faith perspective on christian art. Does artsandfaith discuss christian art or does it discuss all faiths (e.g. Judaism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc.). Perhaps you could answer this in a brief description next to the link in Christian Art. -- sp 00n  17 :color="#555577">talk 16:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)  -->User_talk:Awillcox

Thanks for your thanks
Thank you for noticing my Christian Art Mediums Gallery. Galleries are very useful where there are lots of pics but not much text. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 15:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Argana.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Argana.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 04:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Sands.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Sands.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)