User talk:Zntrip/Archive 2

Afghanistan afghani
Before you make moves please learn from official government sites of afghanistan or cia factbook. afghanistani is never used in any official government sites of afghanistan and neither is it used in any other official government or official media reports. afghanistani is only used in some places by those who lack education and not in the mood to investigate.--Hurooz (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tony Hawk's American Wasteland soudtrack.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tony Hawk's American Wasteland soudtrack.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 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment
Reading your comment on the Spam Whitelist page, instead of blindly reverting my edit without reading furthur into it, you could have alternatively messaged me about why I removed the link to begin with, instead trying to revert and then complain at a talk page and not let me know about it at all. — Save_Us _ 229 13:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Meiji Period: Use of Japanese era name in identifying disastrous events
Would you consider making a contribution to an exchange of views at either of the following:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan

As you know, WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the < >< < > format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).

In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me. I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it.

The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Air Atlanta Icelandic logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Air Atlanta Icelandic logo.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 (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Section Layout
I've reverted your edits to my use of the details template in the Iowa and New Hampshire sections of Results of the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries. WP:LAYOUT indicates that the use of main or details is the proper style to use here. Wdfarmer (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your idea on moving the discussion; please do so. I'll leave it up to you to create an introduction to the discussion so that others can follow it. I also agree with your idea that, if the link to the larger article is in the section header and not in a details, that the full section title should be used as the link.  I see that user:Psantora has tentatively taken my lead and added several details to Results of the 2008 Republican presidential primaries, while retaining the original links in the section headers.  I think you and I would both agree that having identical links in both the section header and the details is unnecessary and confusing.  The style guide seems to indicate that using details is the way to go, and I personally would go that way instead of using the section header; it makes an explicit indication that additional edits should go in the larger article. Wdfarmer (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for tweaking Template:2008Demprimaries‎. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is solicited
Please see for comment:Wikipedia talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format Thanks, LeadSongDog (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

comment invited
As an occasional past editor at Template:United States presidential election, 2008, your comment is invited at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008 -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing (United States) from primary article titles
For uniformity, do you plan to rename the parent articles also? The current title situation is:
 * Democratic Party (United States)
 * Democratic Party (United States) presidential debates, 2008
 * Nationwide opinion polling for the Democratic Party 2008 presidential candidates
 * Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008‎
 * Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008
 * Results of the 2008 Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries redirects to:
 * Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries
 * Republican Party (United States)
 * Republican Party (United States) presidential debates, 2008
 * Nationwide opinion polling for the Republican Party 2008 presidential candidates
 * Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008‎
 * Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008
 * Results of the 2008 Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries redirects to:
 * Results of the 2008 Republican Party presidential primaries

which is a rather inconsistent mess. I'd find it less confusing if "(United States)" was never used, "United States Democratic Party" replaced "Democratic Party" throughout, and "United States Republican Party" replaced "Republican Party (United States)" throughout. Wdfarmer (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Generation Punk cover.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Generation Punk cover.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. - AWeenieMan (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Template discussion
As an occasional editor to the discussion at Template:United States presidential election, 2008 your input would be appreciated at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008. Thank you.-- S  TX  04:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of divided nations
An editor has nominated List of divided nations, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. - Jameson L. Tai  talk ♦ contribs 04:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Wow, am I glad you caught that vandalism on my userpage last night. That would not be good if that was up there long.

Have you heard of rollback before? It allows a user to revert vandalism much faster than by undo-ing it. I think you should ask for it. I am not an admin, or I would give it to you myself. I just wanted to let you know about the existence of rollback because before someone randomly gave it to me, I did not know it existed. If you ask for it, you should have no problem getting it. Good luck, and may the vandals fail... J.d ela noy gabs adds 15:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 

J.d ela noy gabs adds has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows
Thanks for your past comments and contributions at Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Right now there is a significant vote taking place at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries about whether or not to overturn a previous consensus that each row in the Overview of results table should represent individual nominating events. '''The vote ends at the close of March 19, 2008 (UTC). The vote contains the negative-option that if there is a tie or fewer than 4 total signatures the previous consensus will prevail.''' I invite you to visit the talk page and submit your vote on the matter. Thanks! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The vote has completed. The result was to uphold the previous consensus that each row in the Overview of results table should summarize nomination events, not aggregate state results. Thanks for your participation in the vote! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:I'm Not Okay (I Promise), version 2 screenshot.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:I'm Not Okay (I Promise), version 2 screenshot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Helena music video screenshot.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Helena music video screenshot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Rickroll cover
Greetings. You recently removed info about a remix of Never_Gonna_Give_You_Up from the article because of claims that it is not notable. However, notability guidelines apply only to topics to be covered with an article, and not to content within articles. See WP:NNC. This is why I have undone your edit to add back the info about the remix in question. Z00r (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

re User talk:99.231.188.41
Hi. I would request that you do not continue to revert the above user blanking of their talkpage. Editors do have the right to remove content. The old block has expired, and the current editor may not be the one that caused the original sanction. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

99.231.188.41
There isn't a consensus about whether and IP can blank it's talk page, but this is just a friendly note that it's probably not worth it to edit war over this IP talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:99.231.188.41
User seems to be getting pretty agitated at you. ;) Can see where you're coming from, but generally reverting warning removal doesn't lead anyplace good in my experience, and can rapidly create an antagonistic atmosphere. Granted that you were also restoring declined unblock requests and a sharedip-style template, and those are sometimes worth reverting over. Just quickly linking this edit and USER for your edification, in case you weren't aware. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies
Hi Zntrip! Remember that just because I'm editing from an IP doesn't mean I'm not editing in good faith! If you had looked at the article history of social criticism, you could probably have saved yourself the trouble of reverting my edit and commenting on my talk page. --208.81.93.125 (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Black Parade Is Dead! Tracklist
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Offspring- Greatest Hits DualDisc cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:The Offspring- Greatest Hits DualDisc cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to Euro
Zntrip, I will let it go this time, but I am warning you: other editors will fill offended by this edit. Bulgaria for example is doing huge changes in the Euro environment, not only towards adopting the Euro but also towards changing any sort of topics to use Cyrillic alphabet. If I am not mistaken, the new Euro notes already have Euro written in Cyrillic on it as well. I am sure other editors will revert your recent changes, be ready to fight if you feel the contrary. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Regarding you vote for keeping Mo icon, while at first glance someone would say your argument is sound, it actually reveals you don't know what you were voting for. You have just voted in favor of political propaganda, and it's not me saying it. You have many quotes saying it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adriatikus/Delete_MoWiki_! here]. You can also read the previous posts in that 'Templates for deletion page' (it seems you haven't). Thanks. adriatikus | talk  05:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

official languages of the European Central Bank
Hi Zntrip, I saw you reverted my change of the unofficial names of the euro, citing the infobox regulation of giving "all official languages of the European Central Bank". I'm fine with that, but what sources do you have about what the official languages of the ECB really are? Do they differ from the official languages of the EU as a whole? Or are we talking about the internal working languages of the ECB as an institution (so that would most probably be English, German and French)? - I would appreciate if you could give some sources. Cheers. MikeZ (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: 2008 Georgia sugar refinery explosion
I've largely not contributed much to WP recently in terms of content, partly due to being busy and partly due to investing much time on Wikinews. It will be good to get back into things here and that article looks interesting. I will make time for it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for that; it is always good to hear when your work is apreciated. You should see my typo count, though... I dunno if you checked the talk page, but as well as the DYK I have nommed it at WP:GAN. I doubt it'll pass but I never do and they often make it, so we'll see. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Some changes to election pages
I like the box you have created, only I think there should be a space at the bottom of the tables similar to the ones I used, showing whether the particular election was a Rep/Dem/Ind/etc. win (in the case of newly created districts), gain from another party, or hold. The "swing" part of that line can be omitted. Socal gal at heart (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am checking over your proposed template and seeing if I can use some of the election box templates already out there to fit the tables to your proposed one. I will have an example using those templates, with the district 12 special. Socal gal at heart (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just worked out the templates I wanted to use for the revised election tables, and finally came up with one for the CA-12 special, omitting the percent changes and the "swing" part of the bottom line. Socal gal at heart (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a template to bold the information of the winning candidate so we can keep the winner in boldface so he or she will stand out from everyone else. Socal gal at heart (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

On my recent changes, I tried the merging of the total and turnout lines because everyone knows the totals will always add up to 100%, so putting the 100% there seemed superfluous. Socal gal at heart (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

re:Deletion review for Leathermouth
Hi Zntrip. Thanks for discussing your concerns with me. :) WP:MUSIC is a guideline and is not prescriptive. Meeting a criterion there can be considered an evidence of notability, of course, but it doesn't always ensure that a topic is notable (which is why I closed The AfD as delete due to "insufficient evidence of notability"). The article lacks third-party references. Almost all citations come from the band official website - not entirely reliable. In the absence of substantial coverage, a band like this can only be considered as a minor project of two notable people. I believe such topics usually don't have consensus to have a separate article on Wikipedia. Best regards, --PeaceNT (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Deletion Review for Thomas McClelland
I fully understand your request for deletion, however I disagree. I have now put sources in place and none of facts in the article are from personal research. The is also evidence of notability with these references. This article/entry is important, as Captain Thomas L. McClelland lead one of the main Amphibious Groups in the Gulf War, as well as serving in many other commands. Please reconsider deletion. Thanks alot, Afuller2028 (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision history of Timeline of first orbital launches by country
Zntrip, the revision history of Timeline of first orbital launches by country shows you have now twice reverted changes by other users, each time eliminating mention of a well-documented plan of the civilian space agency of Ecuador. Please be aware of WP:3RR. Perhaps a discussion at Talk:Timeline of first orbital launches by country would be a good idea? (sdsds - talk) 05:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bourbon Dolphin sinking.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bourbon Dolphin sinking.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 18:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale
Hi, Zntrip. Could you write a fair use rationale for Image:Bourbon Dolphin sinking.jpg? The current one is incomplete. Also, it seems the source link is broken. Could you fix that? Thanks, --Damiens .rf 13:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits to multiple sections
In the current events portal, you've been editing multiple sections, marking your edit as "minor," and leaving no comment. Can I ask you to please stop that? SkyDot (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: MCR Singles
I think there might be a misunderstanding concerning what constitutes a "single." "Vampires Will Nver Hurt You" does indeed have a music video, but I can find no record whatsoever that it or "Our Lady of Sorrows" were ever actually released as singles. I could be wrong, obviously, but see no reason to classify either song as a single without evidence (other than the music video, of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friginator (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to keep unsourced information out there, but don't want to start an edit war over this. --User:Friginator 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding comment added at 01:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Total valid votes
Hi. I put the "total valid votes" lines in to avoid confusion with the percentages, since the invalid votes are not used when calculating percentages that each candidate received, and I thought that without the total valid votes, some people might be confused, finding the total of the candidates' percentages and the invalid percentages add up to over 100%. Socal gal at heart (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Prop 11
The link to the prop 11 page on Ballotpedia (which links a lot of pages to Wikipedia) would take me to a page asking me to create the prop 11 page but when I'd search that title in Ballotpedia I'd find the page. I ended up accidentally making the page redirect to itself and was unable to undo it. SteveSims (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Vampires Will Never Hurt You screenshot.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Vampires Will Never Hurt You screenshot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:As icon
A tag has been placed on Template:As icon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Za icon
A tag has been placed on Template:Za icon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Zu icon
A tag has been placed on Template:Zu icon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Bh icon
A tag has been placed on Template:Bh icon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<tt>&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude></tt>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Bi icon
A tag has been placed on Template:Bi icon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<tt>&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude></tt>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Channel Tunnel fire disambig
Greetings Zntrip, thank you for your contributions. I notice that you're quite a frequent mover of pages; When taking a page that was uniquely identifiable before (such as Channel Tunnel fire, pointing at Channel Tunnel fire (1996), it would be useful if you could take the time to update all the links and seealso/main/otheruses tags to match that may have been broken in the process.  Many appreciations for your enthusiastic editing. —Sladen (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * moved back from User talk:Sladen
 * I'm sorry about that, I should have known better. I made a lot of edits yesterday and I must have forgotten. I'll see if there's still work to be done. – Zntrip 18:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. I notice you are continuing to add links to Channel Tunnel fire (1996) despite you, yourself having renamed the article a mere fourteen hours earlier to be 1996 Channel Tunnel fire.
 * On a similar note, you appear to have twice renamed the Channel Tunnel fire (2008) article to 2008 Channel Tunnel fire without any edit summary or explanation on the talk page; despite the change having been reverted in the meantime.
 * Could you take a minute or ten and give some background over at Talk:Channel Tunnel fire (2008) so that other editors can more easily understand the thought process involved in the renames. It would be beneficial to clean up the mess (again), or revert the name changes (I think tha latter would be simpler for everyone else involved).
 * Once again, thank you for taking part in Wikipedia. Appreciations, —Sladen (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the confusion about the redirects. I through, judging on what you first wrote, that the page had been moved back to Channel Tunnel fire (1996). – Zntrip 21:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ref changes
You have been changing news references to put the name of the publication in the publisher= field. But the template notes say the name of the publication goes in the work= field, and the publisher= field is for the name of the publishing company. Dhaluza (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If it doesn't matter, then why not follow the template guidelines? Also for an article published online only, then the website is the work, and the publisher is the company that makes it a reliable source. For an article written by newspaper staff, then the newspaper can be the work, but where it is from a wire service, then the newspaper is not doing any "work" on it. Dhaluza (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Vampires Will Never Hurt You Image
Good job on finding an image, but it doesn't look official. It might be a promo, but I doubt it's official. The band logo is different, the Eyeball records logo is different, the band pictures are just screenshots from the music video, there's no copyright, the artwork has little to nothing to do with the song, and you gave no source. Frankly, though I respect your dedication to this article, I also doubt anywhere you got this is a credible source in the first place. If this was simply a promotional givaway, then why is it in a jewel cd case, and not a cardboard slipcase? I may be wrong about this, but I don't think this is real. I have decided to stop redirecting this page, however, because the music video itself might warrant a separate article anyway. -- Friginator  03:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Doesn't look real" was just my opinion, I didn't mean to imply it was a reliable fact. You mention substantial evidence is needed, but still you have no evidence other than a poor-quality photo with no source. I'm sorry, but I will keep changing things back until there is reason to pass this off as true. The reason I haven't brought up "Like Phantoms, Forever" is because I have never done any digging on it, and I KNOW it is very rare. Also, even if the supposed "single" WAS offered as a promotional item, it STILL doesn't count. The template even states, DO NOT ADD NEW SINGLES UNLESS CONFIRMED BY THE LABEL OR THE BAND. If you know a reliable source, by all means please give it. Otherwise I will continue to remove your unsourced information on something that may not even exist in the first place. -- Friginator  04:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that I think the image should be added. It is pretty good evidence pointing towards the single being official.  <font color=#ff0000 face="arial">Orfen  <font color=#FF0000 face="arial"> T • <font color=#000000 face="arial">C 02:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Vampires Will Never Hurt You back cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Vampires Will Never Hurt You back cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Vampires Will Never Hurt You cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Vampires Will Never Hurt You cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Vampires Will Never Hurt You: Reliable Sources
Thanks for the suggestion. I have posted our discussion over the single on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. -- Friginator  01:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: Orfen brought this to my attention. You should check it out. I still have my doubts, but there could be a case for this being an obscure promotional single. -- Friginator  02:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to your last message: I don't know about conclusive, seeing as how the website doesn't exist and therefore can't be cited as a source, but it's definitely enough to keep the images and info up there for the time being. Someone somewhere needs to find out more about this, because there's no official explanation as to when or where this was released. All we have to go on are images, and there needs to be more than that. My theory is that the band themselves made this as a demo cd before they had released Bullets. Again, I'm also not sure if this technically counts as a single, as it was probably just something the band gave out as a promo item at shows and such. I say we list this as an EP, along with Like Phantoms, Forever but I would need consensus. -- Friginator  23:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to your newest message:Pretty much. But if it's not sold anywhere, and wasn't made by the record label is it a single? Eyeball Records is on there, but it's not the official logo and I'm guessing they didn't produce it. I'm not sure what that would be classified as, but singles are meant to measure the popularity of a song before it comes out by how many copies it sells. The cd is worth including in the article, but I think we should wait to put it under the "singles" category, as all the other singles were actually sold and confirmed by record labels and sales figures. I think we should leave the page under "related articles" and avoid messing with the other singles pages for the time being. -- Friginator  01:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: For now, I'm okay with that, but more info is still needed. The main reason I'm worried about listing this as a single is that I don't think we're going to find anything else on it. Nobody seems to know anything about it, and though it's probably real, I doubt there's very much tangible evidence out there. I'll try contacting Eyeball about it. -- Friginator  22:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

current events
I reverted your edit to current events. The only other privately developed launcher I'm aware of is the Pegasus, but it's not a complete launch vehicle, requiring a huge jet powered aircraft for its first stage. Please let me know if I'm in error. --Duk 04:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How is the Falcon 1 the first privately developed space launch vehicle as apposed to the Atlas V or Delta IV? – Zntrip 04:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Atlas V and Delta IV were part of the EELV program which received $100 million from the government for developement. Both rockets also used a large amount of existing designs, also payed for by various governments. --Duk 05:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:JetX Airlines logo.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:JetX Airlines logo.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Logo eagleair.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Logo eagleair.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 Chatsworth train collision‎
In the 2008 Chatsworth train collision‎ item, the main thing added by the RGI article was the rule that drivers report signal aspects to the guard. Left unsaid is the requirement that guard apply the brakes should anything seem amiss in these reports from the driver (microsleep/knocked out by thown stones/heart attack/etc.)

There are parallels with the Waterfall train disaster, where the guard, noticing (or failing to notice while reading his newspaper/drinking his sea/microsleeping) the ever increasing speed of the train as they all approached an extemely sharp and dangerously low speed sets of curves, could not bring himself to apply the brakes, since this would not be "worth his job" vis a vis the majesty of the excellencyness of the driver who belongs to a different and far more illustriously superior union. Passengers would have noticed the increasing speeds too, though it is not clear if there were any passenger-accessable brakes.

A series of books on rail safety looking at several accidents such as Waterfall wonders why we bother having guards, since they have done little to prevent certain accidents. BTW, guards in the United Kingdom are better trained and do seem to pull the tail more often and for reasonable reasons.

If the guard (conductor) of the Chatsworth trains suffered a poorly timed microsleep and missed the drivers reports for that reason, well, I can understand that, since, as a passenger I have occasionally overshot my stop for the same drowsy reason. If however, the conductor has never been instructed officially by the railroad about what to do if a driver fails to report a signal, then that would put a whole new slant on things, wouldn't it?

I notice that User:Zntrip has removed all reference to Waterfall from Chatsworth, which I think harmful to the understanding of this case.

Tabletop (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see User talk:Tabletop.

Moar ITN

 * Meh, nobody's counting. :P Just one thought; think the title is good? It was the closest I could think of using, though I know it isn't 100% true (there have only been riots in Goma). Thoughts? Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d">Call me MoP! :)  06:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I like your logic. :P Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d">Call me MoP! :)  06:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Referendum Page Templates
You wrote on my page:
 * I appreciate your help with the proposition result templates, but I don’t think the changes were necessary. For example, referendum pending, referendum approved}}, and are basically the same as . The only difference is the check and X images.

Oh Really? Here's the total output of Referendum box begin (have to end it to make it not trail over, however): <pre style="overflow:auto">

Here's mine (if 99 was pending):

Here's how it outputs:

Notice how the values are ignored. Now, here's the original code for the box for Proposition 99:

And here's mine (and I checked, they both do the same thing:)

Except for the fact it breaks across the edit window, mine is essentially one line, and not terribly difficult to read or to understand. And this is what it does:

By leaving empty parameters on the template call for pending all someone has to do after the election is change it to approved or rejected and add the statistical information. Having read this, let me ask you one question: Which of these is easier to write and update (especially after the election), the original... or mine?  I Remember the first rule of computing I learned as a programmer; let the computer do the tedious work, and that's what I think my templates do; moves the tedious work of formatting and checking the box to be consistent from the writer to the computer, where it should be. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You wrote (on my page):


 * I think the first is easier to edit. Most editors, including me copy and paste the code anyway. In the original code, an editor does not have to guess what the parameters are. For example, "nopct" is not as clear as the original layout. I think it is important for editors to easily find the code they want to edit, especially if they are unfamiliar with it. – Zntrip 00:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; I think it is less effort this way then cut, paste and edit the boxes and check. I also think mindless cut/paste makes errors more likely. Further, mine is only two lines to cut and paste as opposed to about 20. :)

I've also marked your comment with fact because I doubt you've taken a survey to find out :) ; and if you did, that would be original research! :) you're presuming the way you do things is the way everyone does. You may be right... or maybe not.

If someone has a template on a page, what I do is go to the bottom of the page where it lists all templates being used, I right-click and open the definition of that template in another tab (if your browser doesn't support tabbed browsing, another page). Usually, if the person wants others to use the template, (or if they themselves want to remember how to use it a few weeks or months later) there's a help file &lt;noinclude>d into the page so that someone looking at it can see how to use it. All three of these attach the help file so those looking at the template would know how to use them.

Also, in the examples I used on the pending pages, I put zeroed examples; which is more likely to be the vote percentage in an example for California and which is more likely to be the vote count? no=0,000,000 or nopct=00.00? (The boxes - which the editor had to have seen before opening the page to edit it, and if they have view on first edit enabled, can still see it from the first time - have a field marked '%' so something must represent percent, and something must represent vote count, and it was my opinion it is clear.)

However, I have taken your comments into consideration. I have changed nopct= to no%= (as well as the other percent display items) in the template, so look back at the example I give above, I've changed it to use the new format. And to keep from breaking the current usage until I can go in and edit them, it will still permit nopct etc. When I wrote them, first I didn't think of it, and second I wasn't sure if % was valid for a character in a parameter name. It is, so I can use it instead.

With the changes I've now added I think I have made it even easier to use, and again I must respectfully disagree. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Airliner accident
How did the image_size screw up any pages? Want me to make it an #if parser? Master of Puppets <sub style="color:#7d7d7d">Call me MoP! :)  06:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Everything looks normal, and you can change the size if you prefer. :) Cheers, Master of Puppets  <sub style="color:#7d7d7d">Call me MoP! :)  00:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Columns in tl:Obama Cabinet
Why did you remove the columns in Obama cabinet? Please discuss on the talk page: Template talk:Obama cabinet. Thanks. —Markles 00:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Bot
Sounds like a good suggestion! I'm a dummy for not considering that possibility; I had thought about any instances where there would be a need to retain the original text but obviously didn't think about this one. Anyway, thanks for the note! Master of Puppets <sub style="color:#7d7d7d; cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  13:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Referendum rejected
the images help identify passage or failure of a referendum and thereby help the reader)  The words yes and no help the reader while the icons look pretty Gnevin (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Color-coding the referendum templates
A while ago, I tried color-coding them to make it easier to tell at a glance whether the referendum passed or failed. You reverted my edits because it didn't work in IE, and I'm not sure why it broke. Despite this, do you suppose it's a good idea to color-code them? The icons were recently removed per the Manual of Style; is this relevant to the question of color-coding? Äþelwulf <Small>Talk to me.</Small> 12:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. I think I'll take your advice and not worry about color-coding, although after thinking about it, I do believe it's a bit different from using icons.


 * To be clear, however, about how I don't understand how I broke the template, I used colors <tt>#d5a5a5</tt> [ — ] and <tt>#ebb</tt> [ — ] for "rejected", and <tt>#a5d5a5</tt> [ — ] and <tt>#ebb</tt> [ — ] for "approved", which show up as relatively light pastel colors in Firefox, as they are supposed to. I did check how IE displays them once I realized there was a problem, and I see what you see, but again I don't understand why this is so.


 * Also, who uses IE anymore? :D Äþelwulf <Small>Talk to me.</Small> 23:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

MV Sirius Star
Just an FYI regarding your edit to the infobox: the WikiProject Ships practice for present-day commercial ships is to not display a large flag at the top of the infobox, which is why the code for commercial ships at template:Infobox Ship Begin specifically omits those fields. This practice is in line with the Manual of Style, which cautions not to emphasize nationality without good reason. The field for displaying the flag at the top of the infobox is primarilly intended for military ships, not commercial ships. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Famous Last Words alternate cover.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Famous Last Words alternate cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe this image is needed on this page, and that it complies with all the non-free use rationale guideline. To address the concern that there is already a cover provided for the image I will say this: both album covers were used interchangeably when the single was released and one is only labeled as the alternative cover by chance. A reader is as likely to identify with as with the other. – Zntrip 02:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and on most websites this would be fine, but Wikipedia has a strict fair use policy and it is unlikely to meet that policy. To allow for a better discussion from the Wikipedia community, I will transfer this image discussion to WP:IFD. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Speculation
Please see the discussion at Talk:United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009.—Markles 15:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Helena music video screenshot.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Helena music video screenshot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how you can argue that the image "does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article" when there is an entire section about the music video. – Zntrip 21:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time? Indeed there is a section; however, just because the image is discussed in the article does not mean that it significantly adds to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding — this is a requirement of WP:NFCC. Can I ask you to read that page, and if you come back and still think that the image meets all those criteria, I'll remove the deletion warning tag and nominate the image for IFD instead to get a proper community discussion? Stifle (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Helena music video screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:I'm Not Okay (I Promise), version 1 screenshot.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:I'm Not Okay (I Promise), version 1 screenshot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:I'm Not Okay (I Promise) alternate cover.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:I'm Not Okay (I Promise) alternate cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As per your good-faith dispute, File:I'm Not Okay (I Promise) alternate cover.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  Stifle (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:I Don't Love You promotional cover.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:I Don't Love You promotional cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Don't Love You (alternate cover).jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Don't Love You (alternate cover).jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Election boxes
Please do not include "invalid or blank votes" in election boxes when calculating percentages. There is no precedent for this either in official counting by elections divisions or in Wikipedia articles. Please also refrain from editing articles about elections of which you clearly do not know the full circumstances (i.e., your "invalid or blank votes" total was not only irrelevant but also incorrect). Akwdb (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is incorrect because, as you should see from the official results, only 322453 ballots were counted for the senatorial election. 327341 is the number of total ballots for the presidential election; some voters choose a ballot with only the presidential race. That means the total number of invalid or blank votes is 4730, not 9618. Your new version is fine other than that; the percentages were my main concern, although I still don't think including invalid or blank votes in an election total has any precedent. Akwdb (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my page ...
... I completely forgot to remove what you did, so thanks. Just curious, what were you doing around my page? Regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art
First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject, or I happen to know personally).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia Loves Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there!  howcheng  {chat} 00:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Watchmen- Motion Comics cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Watchmen- Motion Comics cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

ZWR
When was the Zimbabwean dollar's ISO code changed? I must have blinked when it happened...? — Nightstallion 23:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Seen any official info on the new Zimbabwean dollar's code? I haven't... — Nightstallion 18:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposition 1A votes
The "simple math" of deducing the invalid numbers really constitutes "original research" (not allowed on Wikipedia). But that's not even the major problem I have with your numbers. You are counting 7.6% of the votes as voting for "invalid ballots" instead of Yes or No, and it leaves the Yes percentage at 48%, a plurality. The Yes vote was a majority, because invalid votes are not included in the percentage of votes for Yes and No. Not on California propositions, and not in any other election in the U.S. Omnibus (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think the only real problem is that it was altering the percentages of Yes/No. As long as those are 52.7%/47.3%, as stated in the official results, there's no real detriment in deducing the invalid/blank votes in that way IMO. I actually ended up re-inserting them myself, without altering the original Yes/No percentages. Omnibus (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say the basic format is fine, just that the invalid votes and percentage should be italicized (or perhaps written in grey rather than black). Also the example on the template page should be changed to not subtract the invalid percentage out of the Yes/No percentages, which should add up to 100%.  In all U.S. elections (not sure about other countries), the Yes/No always adds up to 100% at the official sources... as far as I know.


 * As for the 52.62% versus 52.70% discrepancy, I'd be interested in hearing what they say when/if they get back to you. For the Wikipedia pages, we are interested in verifiability, not truth, from a reliable source (and this would be the most reliable we have for this vote) so we have to use 52.7% until they change it, even if we know it isn't true. We could always include a footnote explaining that the math would seem to indicate that the true number is 52.62% and that the official source appears to have it wrong. It's odd that their math is a bit off... for one thing I noticed that every referendum had a percentage like "63.50%" or "67.10%"... the last digit is always 0, which of course is highly improbable for every result to have a 0 in the fourth significant digit. Omnibus (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Vampires Will Never Hurt You back cover.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vampires Will Never Hurt You back cover.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Peripitus (Talk) 06:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting
Why are you reverting my changes to Template:Referendum rejected Gnevin (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry didn't see you'd replied to the discussion,I've replied on the talk page Gnevin (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:District of Columbia elections, 2008
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:District of Columbia elections, 2008, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:District of Columbia elections, 2008 has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:District of Columbia elections, 2008, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:MCR Desolation Row.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:MCR Desolation Row.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Chatsworth Collision
I have reinstated my edit. Will reference the map on the article talk page, but the truth of my statement was self evident. If interlocking trap points had been in place no collision would have occurred. We would be talking of a derailment.--Wickifrank (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Why the obsession with deleting trap points? Their absence is as important as fact that a cell phone was in use. Comments please.--Wickifrank (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

2009 Israeli elections
Hi Zntrip! Is there a reason that you removed the absentee ballots from the article on the Israeli elections when copying the tables into a new template? Please elaborate. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that you have made a mistake. The total votes in the original table included absentee ballots, so now the figures are completely incorrect (this was brought up on the talk page before you created the template...). Unfortunately I have no time to deal with this at the moment, and would appreciate it if you did. If not, I will fix the issue tomorrow hopefully. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel up to rewriting the entire table based on the Knesset website, more power to you! However, please consult with other editors if you are unsure of what the website says. Kadima got 758,032 votes, while Likud is the one that got 729,054. My only original source was Yediot Aharonot, which I still have and so far appears to be exactly like the Knesset website. The table you linked to, based on that source, is also accurate. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 23:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Red River floods
Hello. I noted your entry for ITN. Actually the river's level at Fargo (which is the same locale mentioned in the BBC article) has now surpassed the 112-year-old mark, and is the highest on record. Regards,  Kablammo (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just discovered it was not your entry, but you edited it. In any event, here are real-time date for the river, should you be interested:  Kablammo (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Under Pressure cover (The Used and MCR).jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Under Pressure cover (The Used and MCR).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Under Pressure (MCR and The Used).jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Under Pressure (MCR and The Used).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Message from the My Chemical Romance task force
Hello!

You may be interested to know that the WikiProject My Chemical Romance has recently been transformed into a task force of WikiProject Emo. Please visit the task force page to see what's new. This move allies the task force with a larger WikiProject that handles much of the administrative overload, thus allowing task force members to focus on the most important activity: article improvement.

The project's membership list has also been moved to the new task force page. If you see that your username is in the "Inactive/former members" section, please do not take offense; this is because you no longer appear to be active on Wikipedia. We may also take the liberty of removing the member userbox from your userpage if it appears there, to prevent you from automatically appearing in Category:My Chemical Romance task force members. Of course you are free to rejoin the task force and re-add the userbox at any time if you would like to become active again.

For active editors, it is our hope that this change will help spur you to improve articles related to My Chemical Romance. You may have noticed that the old My Chemical Romance project userbox on your user page has automatically changed to the new task force userbox. We may take the liberty of fixing the template link on your userpage, to avoid redirects.

Thank you and we hope you will continue to support the My Chemical Romance task force!

--IllaZilla (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

2008 US Presidential election in California
The main reason why I changed the map back to the SVG is due mainly to the fact that these are the standard maps used to display election results. Furthermore, I've been looking around and I have found that the PNG is inaccurate in displaying how each county voted (albeit by one county), this therefore makes it incorrect.



Furthermore, how is a PNG map any easier to read than an SVG map?

Think777 (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

2008 California elections
I am wondering - how did my changes to the chart mess up the table? Perhaps it is because we own different screens at different resolutions, so it may have showed up differently on your side. But none of the computers that I've checked it on showed an messed-up chart. Please explain; I've reverted in the meantime. --haha169 (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Zntrip. Your edits are being discussed at WP:AN3. If you revert this article again, you will probably be blocked. You are welcome to leave your own comment in the AN3 report. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

California Presidential Election
Ok first off a list of candidates is not needed because the list is in the statewide results table. Second, the electors section is messed up. What do you think?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're being ridiculus no offense. I work very hard on every other state election article on wikipedia from 2000 to 2008. Please try and work with me to avoid an edit war. The California article we're talking about is too big and has way too many irrelevent things on the page.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks much better now. Please tell me whats wrong before undoing it.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You present very poor arguments. Number 1: Do you think people are dumb enough to not already know information already stated in the title of the page and the table? Number 2: The "statewide results" must be distinguished from the county results. You present no legit argument not have that section title. Number 3: Anyone who has accessed that page will have done it through the main page, and even if they didn't they can go the main page to find out basic information about the candidates. The section is totally not needed. Can we please agree with at least one thing?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Really I think the article looks much better know don't do anything to it.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Incoherant entry?
There wasn't anything incoherant about this entry. I reported what the speech said. The speech is what didn't make sense. I went to the trouble to read that speech and report it, and I think it was rude of you to remove it. --Chuck Marean 18:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Salad
I'm assuming that your revert was in good faith, but that was vandalism you reinstated; salad wasn't really invented by Jonathon Salad. --VinceBowdren (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Monroe
Thanks for your message. The article has assertions of importance – a lower standard than notability – since it said that he had exhibited in various places including the Royal Academy of Arts over a 30 year period. It is therefore ineligible for speedy deletion, but you are welcome to nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD. Regards, BencherliteTalk 07:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of the protection policy, thank you. It says "Administrators should avoid using creation protection as a pre-emptive measure, as it is intended to be a response to actual events." Here, the actual events are that it has not been recreated since it was deleted through the AfD, and the overall frequency of creation is low. I chose to leave a strongly-worded explanatory message for the editor in question.  Let's just wait and see if anything further happens, eh? Protection is not justified at this time. Regards, BencherliteTalk 06:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Deleted, salted. Thanks for letting me know. BencherliteTalk 06:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Noida ATS Shootout
Since the creator objects to the redirection of the article, your next step should be to discuss on the talk page, or bring the article to WP:AFD - not to participate in a protracted edit war over the disposition of the page. Please note this was raised at ANI here: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 14:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijani constitutional referendum, 2009
Hello, I must apologize for my late reply, I overlooked your comment at first. Its very nice to see your working on this article, I'll jst quickly jump to answer your questions. Lehinə refers to people who voted for, Əleyhinə means people who voted against and Etibarsız means vote invaled - this last one is used when its not clear what the person voted for (if he voted for multiple choices, etc). If you have any questions, please ask. Baku87 (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sam Meranto
Hi. Thanks for tagging Sam Meranto for speedy deletion, I deleted it. For some reason you tagged it as G7 but it was an A7 (list) which confused me a little bit. And the writer did not receive a talk page notice.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)