User talk:ViperSnake151/Archive2

Icons
I am not, it is a software bug. See Wikipedia talk:Template_standardisation. Circeus 22:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Dunin AfD
Hi there, I'm concerned that this article is written in a way that produces a misleading impression about how notable this person is. The references that are reliable seem to be about other people, for example his mother and grandfather, and the references that are about him are not quoted accurately and don't support the statements made in the text. Could I ask you to have a careful and critical look at this article, and read through the other comments in the deletion discussion? Thanks, all the best Tim Vickers 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Logos on WKBD-TV
Hiya! I saw you removed the logos for the past 30 years on WKBD-TV's article. I was about to re-add them, when i thought about asking you about their removal. Why where they removed? i thought it would be fair to show former logos that are no longer used... RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 18:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I was also thinking, if there are websites that have the old logo galleries, would we be allowed to link to them so wikipedia viewers can see, too? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 18:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a very old dispute, according to Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines, the image must pass ALL TEN fair use guidelines, and one of the guidelines is " As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." - sure old logos are good and all, but even if they ARE cited, they still can't be used in large amounts. But, when linking to sites containing old logos and all that, I'm not quite sure if fair-use is applied to this, but it may be not allowed under WP:EL since we're linking to stuff that could be in violation of copyright. Everyone else has been deleting logo galleries like this lately ViperSnake151 19:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fair, but since the websites hold the logos (not wikipedia), i don't see that being a copyright issue with wikipedia...wouldn't that be something the other site has to deal with? what if i also were to make a giant image of all the past logos (example: CHEK-TV has one). Would *THAT* be acceptable? I have a few links to TV resources and will post the links ONLY if you request it here, to see them. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Etruscan names for Greek heroes
do YOU think that this would be a useful and notable category? Personally, no, I'm sure that's why CFD decided to create a list and delete the category. I appreciate letting me know about the prod, but I was just following the CFD directive. You might want to let one of the participants know about it. --Kbdank71 19:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:256 sugimori.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:256 sugimori.png. 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 05:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Free IQ
I understand your wanting more time, but I don't see how a website that's still in beta and just started this month could be notable per WP:WEB. If you've got sources that show otherwise, let me know. Thanks, NawlinWiki 19:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that's one blog and two sources from the company itself -- you need independent coverage. NawlinWiki 19:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:256 sugimori.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:256 sugimori.png. 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 02:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Stamp Duties Act 1782
Read Stamp Act; it's not there. But it does show up here. Care to help? - CobaltBlueTony 18:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Bagerlover69
Caught it. - CobaltBlueTony 20:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey there
F*** YOU!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddha12341234 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC) hehe  i love you  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddha12341234 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for putting Budha on vandal list for me :). Aflumpire 01:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Only thing I could do :) ViperSnake151 01:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wghp 2007logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Wghp 2007logo.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 18:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tv-links.co.uk
Tv-links.co.uk, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Tv-links.co.uk satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Tv-links.co.uk and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Tv-links.co.uk during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ryan Lupin  (talk/contribs) 07:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeshiva World news
I did not remove the delete notice - I put up a dispute and it was removed by someone else.

I would appreciate if it is put back up as I spent time writing that and editing it - I added many sources to back up the article.

At least have it disscused - don't delete it. Please comment back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AEFreedy (talk • contribs) 03:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Image-1999.jpg
Hello,

You recently commented on this image in IfD which I put up for deletion review because it was deleted after a its first "delete" vote: the vote of the administrator who deleted it. I felt consensus took a back seat to that administrator's personal bias. You might or might not agree, in any case take a look. Thanks Reswobslc 13:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

'Voting' templates
I have deleted a series of pages from your userspace which you recently created, all of which were "voting templates" (an icon and then a bolded word).

The creation and deletion of these types of templates or pages is a perennial cycle on Wikipedia, and a clear consensus (probably some of the most clear you'll ever find on a meta issue like this) has existed for more than two years now.

The most recent discussion about the templates was here, which was endorsed at deletion review.

Templates like this are frequently speedily redeleted when they are recreated under general criteria #4, and are then endorsed at deletion review as being legitimate deletions. Given the consensus against these types of pages existing and consensus for their speedy deletion, I have speedy deleted User:ViperSnake151/CommonsSpeedyDelete, User:ViperSnake151/CommonsSpeedyKeep, User:ViperSnake151/CommonsKeep, and User:ViperSnake151/CommonsDelete.

Thank you,  Daniel  03:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: verification and other stuff
Starczamora 16:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. It was taken during Willie of Fortune, on the part when Willie Revillame is asking for the "Questunes". The clip can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q-Ty9bDJlI
 * 2) As I stated in my rationale, taking pictures inside a TV studio is not allowed, therefore it is understandable that screenshots would be used for the article about a game show. Thanks!

2009 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship Qualification Group 2
Thank you for your concerns. I have now removed the speedy deletion tag. Please remember to have relevant content in the beginning edit. Regards, R udget zŋ 14:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of U R MR GAY
A tag has been placed on U R MR GAY, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wcvb open 2007.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Wcvb open 2007.PNG. 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 (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Ofrly.png
A tag has been placed on Image:Ofrly.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ViperSnake151 20:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pba30.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Pba30.png. 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 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Studio 23 edits
I apologize if I offended you by reverting your edits on Studio 23. It just so happen that I wanted to reinstate the section you ommited "Studio 23 Today". In my POV after the history section, it would need a follow up that's why. BTW, I reinstated your edits on the History section because now that I've read it, I think its much better. :) MFGV.3 (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

ZuluPad Image
You marked Image:ZulupadProScreenshot.jpg as being possibly not-free. I made both the program and the image myself, and have released the image into the public domain. I clearly noted this fact on the image page with "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain...". I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do to verify that it is, in fact, in the public domain. Thanks. --Omeomi (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Freeiqlogo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Freeiqlogo.png. 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 (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Icons
I like the new icons that you posted on the Tambayan page. Can you add those on the headings of the Resources, Article requests and Tambayan roster sections as well?-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Impressive work on the Tambayan page. Good job!-- Lenticel ( talk ) 10:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What?
What do you mean "Best AFD ever"?IslaamMaged126 (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You nominated Candy Cane for deletion ViperSnake151 13:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So?Everyone wanted it to be kept.Why is it the best?IslaamMaged126 (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it the best?IslaamMaged126 (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I find it a bit hilarious when I see accidental good-faith nominations like that :) ViperSnake151 21:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I dont understand.IslaamMaged126 15:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IslaamMaged126 (talk • contribs) I don't understand. I am sooooo cool!   17:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsocool! (talk • contribs)

New Year's Eve Celebrations Page Question
I have been collecting information on New Year's Eve on the Internet and several other topics that I have been updating over the past two years. I don't have an account yet, because I am still learning what the goals are here. Some of them are not easily understood.

Regarding new year's celebrations on the internet, I am unsure about what qualifies as being "commercial" and what does not. It's a great surprise to me that earthcam can't be listed as providing internet viewing access to the festivities in Time Square. Earthcam doesn't charge anything to view their webcams and sometimes the views are even better than what is on TV. The TV programming breaks to commercials every few minutes, of course. They have google ads at the bottom of the page when viewing the free cams. Does the inclusion of google ads make this "commercial" then? Almost every page that links to the new years page has some sort of banner ad at the top of the page. Again, is this what makes a site "commercial"?

Please explain what you believe makes a website "commercial". I think it is a disservice to people seeking information here not to be able to view any of the stuff that is happening on the internet. If they can't find anything for free on the net, then they are stuck turning on their TVs to see what is on -- and that is definitely commercial.

I think that "commercial" should mean that you have to pay something to somebody to access the information. Of course, there are situations in the middle where a person might see a company name, like "ford" or "chevy". I think that as long as the person doesn't have to click on them to see advertising, that it shouldn't be considered commercial. A grey area would be if there is some advertising that a person has to watch before seeing what they want to see. Is that "commercial" then? I don't think so, but you might.

I have absolutely no connection to any commercial new year's group and I don't work now or ever for Earthcam. I just think that people should be able to avoid watching what is available on tv and watch something else on the Internet, and especially if it doesn't cost anything.

what say you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.248.200 (talk • contribs)


 * According to WP:EL
 * Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on :linking—one should avoid (with emphasis on the ones I am specifically targeting):
 * Links mainly intended to promote a website.
 * Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a :variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an :article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site :could be deep-linked.
 * I personally think that adding it like that violates these 2 because:
 * This article is not generally about televised new year's shows, this is about the actual holiday. This in my mind, means that it's not
 * I'm not saying commercial links are not allowed on Wikipedia at all, but how you worded it and everything makes it an invitation for spammers, and one of the links you posted I :think could be considered non-notable.
 * I'll try to get a mentioning in a proper Wikipedia style. ViperSnake151 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get a mentioning in a proper Wikipedia style. ViperSnake151 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get a mentioning in a proper Wikipedia style. ViperSnake151 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but by "mentioning" are you referring to Wikipedia Manual on Style? I am certainly willing to learn to improve the quality of my submissions. I thank you for your time in assisting me.

I absolutely share your concern about being a magnet for spammers. On the other hand, there are a huge number of us that stay home for new years eve and appreciate the different views of the actual holiday that are now available to us from around the world on the Internet.

I agree that it's unclear whether the final link will actually be a live view of new years celebrations or whether it will instead be something approximating a regular televised "commercial" type product that is not sufficiently related to live new year's festivities. In that respect, I agree that it would be better to err on the side of caution and not include it.

I think that in the future, more and more entities such as cities and private individuals will provide non-commercial new years coverage that can be viewed online by others. Previously, it was too expensive for anyone other than network media to provide. At that time, I believe that these broadcasts should be evaluated for whether they are 1) commercial or non-commercial in nature, with preference being shown to non-commercial ventures) and 2) If the broadcast is still commercial in nature (i.e. Rockin' New Year's Eve, which is absolutely commercial); whether there is still signficant public interest in Wikipedia maintaining a link to the broadcast because the event has risen in stature to almost being a tradition.

Please let me know what else I can do to make the information available again to others.

Thank you again for your very insightful suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.248.200 (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for me to re-write the online celebrations section with the changes made that you have mentioned? I will be adding to the new year's songs section also. I have a great deal of information about that particular topic.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.248.200 (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nintendocore
Just to let you know, this afd is the 4th and is pretty new. -- neon white user page talk 15:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Newmywufx.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Newmywufx.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 (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

why did you delete Taylor Law info?
I had a bunch of difficult to find info about the Taylor Law, and you deleted it without explanation. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.245.67 (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That info you put was redundant as it was already stated in the rest of the article. ViperSnake151 23:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:On permission licensing
Great. Why are you telling me this? I already know this. I'm an admin here and on Commons and process OTRS permission images. MECU ≈ talk 16:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dance Dance Revolution games template
I reverted your changes to Template:Dance Dance Revolution games template due to the confusion that the parent Dance Dance Revolution SuperNOVA article was causing. The North American and European release of Dance Dance Revolution SuperNOVA and Dancing Stage SuperNOVA for the PlayStation 2 are different games from the worldwide arcade and the Japanese PlayStation 2 version (which is a direct port). I also reverted to keep the one-word style of the list in order to keep it from becoming too large (fleshing out "Oha Suta" and and HOTTEST PARTY without touching the others didn't make any sense anyways).

I also moved your proposal to break off the North American PS2 song list into a separate article to the Dance Dance Revolution SuperNOVA (North America) article where the list now resides. I also made a note on that page's talk page in regards to my views and plans on song lists in DDR articles. I just wanted to fill you in on what's going on so you didn't think I was trying to screw up your work. These pages need a lot of attention (Which is why they are now riddled with cleanup notices) and I'm the only person I see actively restoring these articles to Wiki standards. If you feel like helping I'd greatly appreciate it. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Peachez
I started a one sentence article about Ms. Peachez. The watch page indicates that you requested speedy removal. My rationale for creating the page is that Ms. Peachez is just beginning to get covered by the mainstream music media, and I think s/he will become more popular very quickly. I would not include her work on a list of great books, but I do think that it deserves an article at this point. She was noted by George Clinton in Mojo, and the popularity of her videos on youtube indicates that she is becoming widely known. I plan to edit the article more when I can find time and insert links and other references, but I don't want to do anything more until I am able to verify everything. So far, one sentence summary I have posted seems to consist of verifiable facts only, and I am completly willing to keep an eye on the article and delete any questionable content as it comes up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfred Lord Tenniscourt (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Unplugged(album)
I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Unplugged(album). The reason is:
 * Unnotabl album not covered by any CSD

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME
You seem to have restored the Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME article in a non-GFDL-compliant manner, and your edit summary for doing so could be construed as uncivil. (See the history page.) I'm not sure whether this is worth a formal warning, so consider this a gentle reminder (I am not very experienced with Wikipedia, but I have made a significant effort to read the relevant policies). Anyway, if you wish to have the history of the article restored (along with other related articles deleted by the same administrator), please go to Deletion review. 131.215.159.196 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification: Sorry I did not look for an existing DRV discussion before writing the above comment. In order to request history-only undeletion of Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME, either make a comment in the aforementioned discussion or post under the designated History-only undeletion section; I'm not sure which is more technically correct. This is only a procedural reminder; I do not have any opinion about the discussion. 131.215.159.196 (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Recyclebinempty.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Recyclebinempty.PNG. 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 (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

iPod Touch Fair-use imagary
Hey

I appreciate your effort to remove images from Wiki that can have a free image made of them, however I can't really see how that is possible for the iPod Touch. I am happy to make the image smaller, but given that it wasn't taken by a tripod the image is blurred so it would make it very difficult to read. Though if needed I will resize the image. Eraserhead1 (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Deal or No Deal Fancruft
I see that you've added a whole bunch of fancruft to the Deal or No Deal (US game show) article. We usually don't add "that" much fancruft to an article. ViperSnake151 02:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You’re probably right in that regards. But you know what, Deal or No Deal isn't your typical game show.  It's in the ranks of such shows like The Price is Right and Jeopardy!.  A lot has been made about those game shows in their respective articles.  TPiR was even praised as a good article.  Their amount of content, especially the fancrufts, is not that much different from DOND.  On top of that, DOND has been around for three seasons on prime time.  Other than Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, which lasted the same amount, that's more than any other game show in prime time, and that speaks volumes.  Most likely, DOND will surpass Millionaire in that department.


 * Now about these “fancrufts,” if the reader cares less about these meticulous details, they don't have to read it. Simple as that!  There's a table of contents' link at the top of the article that they can use to jump to what they want to read.  If they just want to know the basics of the game, it’s all at the very beginning of the article.  They don’t have to scroll down that much.  When they're finished, they can just leave the article.  No harm, no foul.  But I know there are people out there who are bigger fans of the show than I am.  They are like Trekkies, but for DOND.  They would want to know everything there is to know about the show, and they will take the time to scroll down and read everything word for word.  I'm not afraid to share what I know, and there is more that I want to share.  For example, I have a log on all the dresses the models have worn.  What color they were, what material they were made out of, the high heels they had on, etc.  But I do agree with you to some extend that some details are just too meaningless to mention, and so do I exercise restraints on them much to of my dismay.  I'm not doing this for money or any of that.  At least I follow the rules when I write my contributions.  I leave sources where I can.  I present most of them in readable spreadsheets.  I reorganize the structure of certain articles.  I made the whole DOND article look as if it was edited by an English professor, instead of a third grader.  I don’t write about one particular contestant more than another.  I’m an equal opportunity writer.  I do have my personal favorites, but that’s beside the point.  I keep things neutral.  Any personal comments or feelings that I may have about any contestant, situation or outcome (and I do have a lot of them), I leave them out of this article.  If I see anything that resembles one’s personal opinion, I edit it out.  There are blogs where one can go and speak their minds.  This isn’t one of them.


 * If it wasn't for me, any one of these DOND fans would do the same thing I did to this article, and they had in the past. I read the discussion page and the history logs.  I've seen what other editors wanted to put on here including yourself, ViperSnake151.  You want to do a table format for "notable" stats.  If you say that people care less about the special games, themes, or prizes; what makes you think they would care plenty about who won the most or least amount money, which cases got picked the most or the least, highest or lowest bank offers, number of contestants who had the million in their chosen case, percentages, etc.?  I don’t want to say that you’re hypocritical on your comments.  It’s not in my nature to talk down on people, but I had no choice but to go in defense mode after you said what you wanted to say.  And sometimes one cannot deny the obvious.  I’m not afraid to speak my mind when I see something that is out of line.  Personally, I don’t understand why you’re attacking me over this in front of everybody.  I should be the least of your concern.  There are editors out there who are obnoxious and will write whatever comes out of their derriere.  I seen all the nonsense, gibberish, and clutter they left on the DOND article, and I took the liberty of cleaning it up.  Believe me, it was no walk-in-park doing all this proof reading.  The Lucky Case Game article was a nightmare, so was the Million Dollar Mission.  Editors wanted to write down every single detail about every single contestant who appeared during these missions.  So instead I just gave the basics of the mission, and a cliff notes version of what happened in that mission.  Simple as that.  That’s why you see my screen name so many times on the history list.  And there are times when I even clean up my own mess, if I know I can improve on what I write.  Of course, all of what I’m doing right now is just a hobby.  I wouldn’t do it if I had the time, but fortunately I’m in a situation where my work allows me to be on the computer all the time.  So most likely, you’ll be seeing a whole lot of me around the DOND article often.  I don’t like to consider myself the owner of the article, but I definitely police it.  You can try to kick me out.  But you know what, I’m very resourceful, and I can always find a way to get back as you probably notice already.  That’s not a threat, just simply a fact.  But I’m not here to raise hell.


 * Now all things set aside, I personally would like to see what you got statistically for this article. I would like to read it.  I would do it myself if I can.  Unfortunately, I didn’t start keeping a log until this season.  So if you want some help, I’ll gladly contribute if I can.  Just let me know. S3884h (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

afd?
Hi. Just curious, why did you afd this when it was prodded? -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert of UIRA edits?
Hi, Why the bad edits of UIRA?

Examples

 * 1) "Shutdowned" is not a word.
 * 2) Description for Flame was reverted to something incorrect.  Flame no longer supports SVG, but your edit now states it does. (It doesn't)
 * 3) Removal of useful listing the only alternatives people have (OpenOffice.org and Flame).

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.179.27 (talk • contribs) 12:57, February 14, 2008

CommentVote
Thanks for making and adding that!   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  00:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
This is your only warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Hal Turner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Will (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP
BLP is a non-negotionable policy. It trumps WP:BLANK easily. Will (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Drummania
Many thanks for cleaning up the article on Drummania. However, can you bring the article to B-Class standard? I already sent the article for reviewing. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireblaster lyz (talk • contribs) 05:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)