User talk:Banaticus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Diana, Princess of Wales
Thank you for removing the vandalism, but note that User:Edchilvers did not vandalise, he only removed vandalism, study his edits carefully. Viewfinder 01:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're right. I'll go apologize to him. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Banaticus 01:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem, apology acccepted! I've done it myself (wrongly accused peeps of vandalism) loads of times--Edchilvers 23:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] your deletion requests
We do not feature books or theories based on their plausibility, but based on their notability: of course the phantom time hypothesis is almost as much bogus as epsilonism or scientology, but that doesn't mean we'll delete it because of that. The threshold of notability is rather low, see also Wikipedia:Pokémon test and m:Wiki is not paper. regards, dab (ᛏ) 08:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Its notability is exceptionally low -- on the german wikipedia it might perhaps have wide notability, but none of his works have even been translated into English. I fail to see why we're even bothering to give such rubbish the time of day. Banaticus 08:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bot request
Your bot request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BanaticusBot was malformed and did not match the instructions to add a request, so I've fixed it for you. Please review the changes so that you'll know how it should be later if you ask for another task for your bot. -- RM 11:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, RM -- I see that you're authorized to approve bots as per Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals_group. Do you have any further suggestions as to what else should be done to gain approval for this bot? Banaticus 19:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please see several items added to your bot request. — xaosflux Talk 16:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A Serious Waste Of Time
A tag has been placed on A Serious Waste Of Time, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain web site, blog, forum, or other community of web users that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:A Serious Waste Of Time. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mhking 18:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've replied at User_talk:King_of_Hearts#A_Serious_Waste_of_Time. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I *did* apply the hangon tag to contest the deletion and you deleted it anyway. I applied the tag minutes after the speedy deletion tag had been placed and you came along scant hours later and deleted the page anyway. Please revert the deletion so that the speedy deletion can be properly contested. Banaticus 13:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Rainbow cadenza-older.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Rainbow cadenza-older.png. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 08:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edits on A Beautiful Mind
I reverted your recent edits on the page because you added a bunch of wikilinks into the page. Since a disambig page is a "get-in-get-out-quick" kind of page, we try to limit the number of links per entry to just one. The WP:DAB and MOS:DAB discuss this further if you'd like to read more. If you have any questions about what I mean, let me know! - grubber 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Age category
Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:
- Using an age group category, such as Category:Wikipedians in their 30s
- Using a decade category, such as Category:Wikipedians born in the 1970s.
If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 12:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] deletion?
- Copied from Category talk:Wikipedians born in the 1980s
I haven't been able to find the discussion page for the proposed deletion. The article links to Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Wikipedians_born_in_.28YEAR.29 but I don't see it there. Why is this category being considered for deletion? If we have decade categories, why not make subsections under the decades for individual years? Banaticus 22:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
