User talk:TravelingCat

License tagging for Image:Bt dots.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bt dots.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 09:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:JPP album.jpg
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:JPP album.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. HermesBot 15:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of '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. Shell babelfish 04:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Anderson family
A tag has been placed on Anderson family, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. -- WebHamste r  22:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bt en vivo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bt en vivo.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. BetacommandBot 14:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I-Generation
Please note that this was NOT a promotion. It was a tour involving International wrestlers and was never going to be any more than that. The titles mentioned in the results of the pay per view in the US were only ever on that one show in Sydney - I was at the Melbourne show and titles were never mentioned at all. And this show was after the Sydney show (as Hawk was injured and was replaced by a local wrestler). ' !! Just a Punk !! ' 10:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

ECW Hardcore TV
RE: ECW Hardcore TV At least in general syndication Hardcore TV did not use anything other than This Is Extreme as an opener after the first few weeks, with rare one-off exceptions. In the first few weeks they used the same theme from the old NWA Eastern Territory syndication shows (no idea what that was). The only other exception was for the three week period that three of Rob Zombie's works opened, in the final weeks before going off the air. If, by chance one specific market has used a NIN song for more than a few week period (being the main opener), please link to that reference and notate it as a single market opener theme, different than the standard opener used in all other syndication markets. Lostinlodos (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * RE:
 * "This is Extreme!" did not exist until 1997"
 * "  Maybe you're watching ECW on the WWE 24/7 network, I don't know. But if that's the case, then WWE probably just isn't using the original music for licensing reasons."
 * Actually This is Hardcore didn't go into full/national syndication full-time until late 1996. By stating that Hardcore TV used "This is Extreme" I was referencing the time frame that the ECW show used that term for the national syndication. The time frames being just after the split from the NWA where PA and NY stations used the term Hardcore TV, before going to the name ECW Hardcore on the east-coast and This Is: ECW in the Mid-west. When I was working LWF shows in Indiana and Illinois in the later part of ECW's days, they did cross promotions/multi-banner shows with a number of local companies for their Hard-Core TV show (different name, again) that ran in the mid-west and heart land. So, for sake of making things complete, lets include ALL the names we can pull up. You're right that they did use a White Zombie song in some markets during that period, but I still can't find anything from my tape library with the NIN song (which means it probably wasn't used in the Tristate/Heartland regions). I'm not doubting you at this point, it just appears that there was more fluctuation in the show content regionally than I believed. My first thought was that you were a current fan and covering the ECW Television show that the Current WWE uses, which I haven't watched after the first few episodes. I apologize for not paying more close attention prior to making reverts.
 * It looks like probably the best edit would be -1997 to list both the NIN and Rob Zombie song, and maybe one of us could track down the name of the instrumental piece used during that time period as well, (da da da, dada, da da da, dadada.... almost like the Doom song but harder), as no-one I asked could give me a name other than 'that wasn't Extreme' or 'that wasn't Slash?' answers. Looks good and I tweaked the page slightly to add the Rob Zombie openers and closing as well.

Lostinlodos (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Metasongs"
Is this a notable category? And is there such word as "metasong"? If it's a neologism, it's not a very good one. It doesn't make sense to call everything self-referential "meta-". There is nothing "meta-" about songs. They are not a level of abstraction above songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.105.195.14 (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The use of "meta-" in that word is not referencing "abstraction", but rather "being about (X)". IE, a metasong is a "song about songs" just as a metastory is a "story about stories".


 * Sorry if that confuses you, but I can't think of a more concise term for it. I wasn't the one who started that category or wrote the description (I only added the category to the "Media about media" category), but if you've got a better descriptor of it, go ahead and change them.TravelingCat (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the songs in the metasong category are NOT referencing themselves; there is a category for that called "Self-reflexive songs".

Thank you
Thanks for the fix in the Tom De Haven article and also for letting me know I'm not the only De Haven fan out there. Nitpyck (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I have Walker on my book shelf (love the wasp women) and have always enjoyed it, and am holding onto It's Superman until the next time I'm stuck on a plane. Nitpyck (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Audio theatre an article to audio dramas
Please if you have time and you know anything to it (I have seen that you have made edits in the article area which owns relations on it), please look on the article Audio theatre, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. after we have had a merge discussion. It would be interesting what you would say to the merge and the delete discussion. )-: --Soenke Rahn (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrestling
Being a life-long wrestling fan (been watching since @1983), I understand the historical importance of pictures like that. :3 TyVulpine (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a citation for how you identify this wrestler Big Tom Towers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wrestling_-_Sikeston,_MO_1938_-_1.jpg 140.147.152.96 (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Blues Traveler
Please explain why you reinserted material into this article that had been removed because it lacked reliable sourcing. Doing so would appear to be a violation of WP:VERIFY. If you feel this material should be included despite the lack of sourcing, you may wish to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Batman: Knightfall
Thanks for your addition of another source here from CBR. The Denny O'Neil interview alone, the way it is worded, seems to imply that the idea was developed out of a two-part Milligan-penned story, rather than a pitch. The text didn't seem supported by that one source alone; your addition clarifies it, though. Grandpallama (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrestling?
While I agree with your edit at the top of that article, there is no way it is a minor edit per WP:MINOR. Please consider not marking such edits minor in the future. Thanks! &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 06:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I originally was only editing the unnecessary capitalization in the link, and had checked the minor edit box for that. Then I noticed that the description preceeding it was really in need of better wording, and changed it. Forgot to uncheck the box. No biggie. TravelingCat (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's "no biggie" if it's an isolated incident, which this is not. I rarely complain about WP:MINOR problems unless they seem pervasive so, before I mentioned this, I looked at your contributions, where and saw several questionable Minor labels:, , , , or . I was trying to be friendly when I left you the earlier message; I was surprised when you blew me off with the flippant "no biggie" comment.


 * My suggestion is that WP editors avoid the Minor checkbox unless there is absolutely no doubt. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 13:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "No biggie" was meant to indicate not "I'm not taking you seriously and am choosing to be flippant" but rather "no hard feelings" . Believe it or not, the wording of your original comment reads as rather stiff and smug.  My first reaction was rather offended, but I realized you probably write things like that about 15 times a day, and that it really was more civil than unfriendly.  I was not 'blowing you off'.  Perhaps I should have actually typed "No hard feelings."


 * The WP:MINOR page lists these as qualifying as a minor edit:
 * 1) Spelling and grammatical corrections
 * 2) Simple formatting
 * For the first example you mentioned, that was a one-word change that did indeed change the meaning of the sentence; having read the standards for a "minor edit", I now know I should not have marked it as minor, but I did include a descriptive edit summary. Example [2], however, was four changes, none of which changed any wording and were only formatting: three changing bolded text to either be in quotations or brackets, and one modifying a dash to an emdash -- absolutely no change in meaning. (The minor edit designation also has nothing to do with the number of changes made -- fifteen formatting changes in one edit is still a minor edit, because it's formatting, not meaning.) The same with [4]: there were several instances of improperly-formatted titles of television shows which needed italics instead of quote marks, some wiki piping, and some bad text that was the result of some copy-pasting gone awry; no change in meaning there either, only grammar. (There was one instance of a removed phrase which I felt was extraneous. In the future, I'll put that in its own little edit.) As for number [3], it involved the addition of 'and' and the removal of a comma in a serial list, plus the swap of 'competed' to 'performed' and 'performer' to 'competitor'.  I'd hardly classify the changes in the first paragraph as anything but minor, but in the second paragraph, I could see a potential case to be made for a change in the underlying meaning (but it's a stretch), so it would probably be better not check the Minor Edit box there. Noted.


 * But not only is example 2 perfectly in line with the minor edit standards, you couldn't have possibly seen it before you originally posted on my talk page (it was done on December 13). This indicates that you are just reaching for examples without actually analyzing them, which to be honest makes me feel a bit harassed.


 * I'm one of the good guys. I never purposely try to ignore WP standards.  I'd estimate that a majority of my edits are generally fixes of either very poorly worded material or outright vandalism.  I'm not trying to cause a problem.


 * I won't use the Minor Edit checkbox anymore. You've accomplished what you set out to do with your original post; it's been acknowledged with no actual disrespect. It's over. Please move on. TravelingCat (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited John Popper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rebelution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Batman: The Lazarus Syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Killing Joke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Airheads, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hijack. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of artists who have expressed their support for File Sharing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public Enemy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rick Green, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Frantics ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Rick_Green check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Rick_Green?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from The Residents into Penn Jillette. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bt en vivo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bt en vivo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Professional wrestling for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Professional wrestling, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Professional wrestling until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Metasongs has been nominated for deletion
Category:Metasongs has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)