User talk:NickCatal/Archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] RfA withdrawal
If you are withdrawing your RfA, it will be de-listed. If you want it to remain up on WP:RFA, I suggest you recant your withdrawal statement and also indicate that you want the RfA to remain listed to gather comments on you. Else, someone will de-list it for "snowball clause" (which I happen to disagree with, but oh well). --Durin 17:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
If you want to withdraw your RfA, please allow for it to be closed and delisted, as this is normal procedure. However, if you want your RfA to stay listed and active for voting, cancel the withdrawal. You can't have it both ways. — JIP | Talk 09:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nick Catalano (professor)
I've noticed that Nick Catalano redirects to Nick Catalano (professor). I think that if there isn't someone else notable named Nick Catalano it's not necessary to disambiguate it with (professor). --Revolución (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Done --Nick Catalano (Talk) 05:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Durkadurka blocked
Hello, I see your user page and user talk page were vandalised by User:Durkadurka. A quick check of his contributions showed that the account had been created two days ago and was only used to vandalise your pages, so I blocked him indefinitely. He won't be harassing you again with that account. — JIP | Talk 18:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Crazydeliciousshirt.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Crazydeliciousshirt.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 04:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- This has been fixed. Thanks OrphanBot for notifying me of my oversight! --Nick Catalano (Talk) 07:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stale Bread
Edited the Stale Bread page. Its accurate now, not a hoax, please take the time to look at it.
- My Strong Delete stays --Nick Catalano (Talk) 06:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rebecca J. Nelson
I unearthed a bit more info on this person, you may want to change your vote from "weak keep" to "keep." Crypticfirefly 05:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nonsense and patent nonsense
Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. There is a difference between nonsense and patent nonsense. Only the latter is speedy deletable. The former is not. Uncle G 09:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the information. I will review these things and incorporate them into my future AfD voting. --Nick Catalano (Talk) 09:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Loyola
What's unverifiable on the Loyola University Chicago page? Rather than just putting the header up there, why don't you put something in the discussion page about what's wrong and what needs to be fixed to make it more clear. Until you do that I am removing the tag. Spikethehawk 20:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Loyola article
Hey. I see that you tagged the article as needing some information verified. I've looked online for some sources in the past, but haven't been able to find anything that meets the WP:V policy. Since you attend Loyola perhaps you could try to find some information on campus. I know there's a HUGE library at the water tower campus. They surely have some documentation on the history of the school. Thanks for keeping an eye on the article. Jtrost 20:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will add the tag again with this information on the talk page. You are right in that none of it is verifiable. --Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- You should submit the article to the Chicago Wikiproject while you're working on it. You may get some more help. If there's anything I can do to help out, let me know. I don't live in Chicago (going to be moving there in the fall), so I really don't have easy access to the university, but I'm willing to help any way possible. Jtrost 00:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Move discussion at Lost
Hey, Nick. I'm just letting you know that there's yet another Lost-related move discussion underway at Talk:Lost. This one is about whether Lost should be a disambiguation page (as it is currently) or a redirect to Lost (TV series), with the disambiguation content moved to Lost (disambiguation). Since you'd voted in earlier Lost-related move discussions, I thought you might be interested in this one. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Febreze
Nick, you could have at least expanded the article some if you were not going to restore the stub-tag. I personally think that brands having their own articles unless they are iconic (such as Coca-Cola) is unnecessary, that an article like Procter & Gamble Brands is more than sufficient. There is a constant tug-of-war between those of us who feel that having articles that place information in context is the best path and those like you who feel that the better path is to have tens of thousands of post-it notes. Again, the least you could have done would have been to add something to the article other than a massive navigational template. Try harder. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- It wasn't like I was looking at an amazing amount of time to expand the article. I added it to my watchlist and was coming back to it today. Thanks for the revision though. --Nick Catalano (Talk) 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
