User talk:DesdinovaUK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Adoption
2 Band Notability
3 Re:Aliens
4 Aliens
5 Citing DVD
6 WP:FILMS Newsletter
7 Frank Mitchell (presenter) / Julian Simmons
8 Answer Recent Changes
9 User:Chips303
10 Orphaned fair use image (Image:It film poster.jpg)
11 Orphaned fair use image (Image:CirithUngolLogo.jpg)
12 Orphaned non-free image (Image:Hotmtitle.jpg)
13 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rings of Power GEN ScreenShot1.jpg.gif
14 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dayofthedeadsoundtrack.jpg
15 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rings of Power GEN ScreenShot2.jpg.gif
16 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lair of the white worm.jpg

[edit] Adoption

Hi there Desdinova - would be happy to adopt you. Have a look at my userpage and leave a message on my talk page if that's good with you. Cheers Lethaniol 19:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I have changed the adoptme template on your userpage to Adoptee - if at any point you want another Adopter just put the {{Adoptme}} back on your page.

Now its all up to you - fire away - either ask questions here (I will add it to my watchlist) or on my talkpage. Nothing is tabboo - I can help out with technical stuff, how to the approach policies and guidelines or check any editing if you like. Cheers Lethaniol 13:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Great! I'm having a bit of trouble with Paisley close - the article as I found it was a copy/paste from the bands bio and was correctly marked up as advertisement. I rewrote it to fit NPOV, but looking back I'm not sure if the band are worthy of their own page or not. Could you help?

[edit] Band Notability

The question of Band Notability needs to be addressed with respect to the following guidelines Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Now the band are obviously on the verge of not being notable but if you look at their website [1] they quote a review from Dirty Linen which is likely notable if it is on Wikipedia - and one of the Criteria for being notable is - "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." See if you can find any other notable reviews (not just from local rags or obscure websites/blogs).

If still unsure you can request a discussion for its deletion see WP:AFD - can help set this up if needed. But personally, I generally do not mind included on verge of notable stuff, just leave it alone, add it to your watchlist and carry on with something else. Does that help? Lethaniol 14:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic. I was going to leave it alone unless someone else brought it up, but clarification is always a help. Thanks a lot! Desdinova 14:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Aliens

Good job getting the "releases" section started. I added some "fact" tags where we need to find a source to substitiate the claims. That's the biggest thing, always finding sources. I cleaned up the source for Ebert, I'm going to add a "references" section to the bottom so that it automaticallys drops there. Bignole

Thanks mate, wasn't sure if I added Ebert correctly - now I know! I'll try to keep working at it when I get time. Desdinova 11:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aliens

Please check out the talk page for an updated plot that I added. I'd appreciate your input about it. I don't want to add it to the summary for fear that this "Shadow" guy will get pissed and we'll have more of a problem between the two of us. Thanks. Bignole 14:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I added my opinion - hopefully we'll get the status up soon! Desdinova 14:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion. Shadow is trying to have me blocked for violating the three revert rule, when I didn't intially revert him, but rewrote what he had written. What I did looked nothing like the original text that was there before he came, but he thinks that if you change someone else's words then it constitutes "reverting". Bignole 14:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I read the history - definitely seems this guy is in the wrong. Hopefully when you put the new plot in he'll be okay with it. Desdinova 14:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

He's saying that any undoing of another persons work, even if it's actually a rewriting of a sentence, is considered a reversion. lol. He won't agree to the new plot because, in his own words used in the "plot edit war" section, "it doesn't have the specifics" of the movie. Bignole 14:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It might have to be shimmied up the chain of command then - we can only do so much before the article, and by extension, everyone's work suffers. Desdinova 14:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh well. I've laid a new possible plot out, he has yet to even comment on it. If I get blocked, which would be wrong in the fact that my initial edit wasn't a reversion, then so be it. I have a 10 hour trip back home tomorrow, so I won't be near a computer anyway. Bignole 15:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you'll get blocked - do you want me to put it in to shift focus from you? And have a nice journey! Desdinova 15:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Admin monitoring says he only proved 3 reverts, which I admitted to doing. The user still believes "specifics" is what the plot needs, and that interpreting scenes from a film and drawing your own conclusions, no matter if they are right or wrong, is ok to do (even though there is that Original research policy). As for the plot, hopefully more people will come by and take a look at the new version on the talk page and give a comment. Oh yeah, good job finding those references. Though I don't care for IMDb, I think it'll be ok to use them since the material is for a past film, and not an upcoming film (they tend to get upcoming films wrong). Bignole 15:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I guess we need a few more opinions to weigh in then to settle it once and for all, same goes for your new plot. I think IMDb is a good source to use as it tends to be less biased and therefore more trustedthan most fansites that get used, and as you mention - it is a past film so we should be pretty safe. Desdinova 16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you have it on your watchlist, but his opinion is that it's a 5th grade reading level and has numerous grammatical errors. IMDb tends to be good for old movies, but they've lost a lot of faith with users for upcoming films. They had Aunt May listed as Carnage for Spider-Man 3. Bignole 16:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I just saw that - if he doesn't give examples I think we should ask an admin to intervene. Haha, I didn't know that about Carnage! Now that would be a great plot twist! Desdinova 16:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be good to get several outside party members to review the new plot. Yeah, another user thought Carnage as Aunt May would be cool, but I have a feeling that many fans would disagree. lol. Spider-Man 3, that's one article that myself and several others are very proud of. It's what an upcoming film article should look like. You should check out that talk page, it get's real defensive when it comes to unsourced information. Bignole 16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow - we need to get that many references listed on Aliens. Though hopefully the talk page won't get as heated! Desdinova 16:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know when I'll get a chance to look at the special features DVD to add citations, since I'm going home. But I'll try when I get back next week. I'll also check on the citation format for a DVD documentary, since we will still need them when we include the information. Hopefully the DVD will shed some light on the production process, seeing as we don't have that section at all. Bignole 16:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Great! It'll be a few weeks before I can watch them again, but it will help with the whole site as far as citations go. Desdinova 16:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. We'll have to separate them via sections of the features, because it would be really long to have 1 source in the reference section. Since it goes (a),(b),(c) each time you use it, it'd probably be through the alphabet and into greek letters or something. lol Bignole 18:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha, it's almost worth it just to see how many letters we can get through! Desdinova 19:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing DVD

Hi DesdinovaUK,

Use the Template:cite video for this - also look at WP:CITET on how to use it. Looks like you are doing good work at Aliens - and keeping it civil - keep it up. If you have trouble the template give us a shout. Cheers Lethaniol 22:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic! That's perfect! Thanks for the help, and the encouragement as well :) Desdinova 14:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FILMS Newsletter

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Mitchell (presenter) / Julian Simmons

Hey,

Just a quick note to express my gratitude to you for having spotted and fixed the above two articles; I've semi-protected the first (we were kindly alerted to the potential libel). Keep up the good work. ;-)

James F. (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I reported one of the IP's as a blatant vandal, hopefully that should do some good as well! Desdinova 18:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer Recent Changes

This is new but the answer is here MediaWiki talk:Recentchangestext#New field in recent changes not defined anywhere. Basically is means the amount of bytes of info lost or gained. So if the number is large it may mean that it is a more major change and deserves more attention! Maybe - but not always!

Remember when asking any question of any user, to link to page in question e.g. Special:Recentchanges, just so that it is easy/quick to find, and avoids confusion. I noticed the same thing with the discussion on your talk page about Aliens. It took me a minute or two to work out which "Aliens" you were talking about. For the sake of a few seconds work it can save everyone including yourself loads of time.

In terms of asking questions - bring it on - if you had not asked this questions, I would not know about this new parameter in Special:Recentchanges. So I learn from the experience too. Cheers Lethaniol 22:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you! And noted about linking the page(s) - won't happen again! Desdinova 11:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chips303

Dunno if you meant it or not, but you placed a template warning message on a user page instead of their talk page. Also, please be sure to use the {{subst:test1}} instead of {{test1}}; this saves on server demand on where the original template is stored and instead references the code of the template and inserts this. FYI. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony 03:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! Yeah, meant to put it on the talk page :( I didn't know about the {{subst:test1}} instead of {{test1}}, I'll use it in future. Thanks for the heads up! Desdinova 11:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:It film poster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:It film poster.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 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 00:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:CirithUngolLogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CirithUngolLogo.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Hotmtitle.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hotmtitle.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. BetacommandBot 16:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rings of Power GEN ScreenShot1.jpg.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Rings of Power GEN ScreenShot1.jpg.gif. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 00:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dayofthedeadsoundtrack.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dayofthedeadsoundtrack.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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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.

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rings of Power GEN ScreenShot2.jpg.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Rings of Power GEN ScreenShot2.jpg.gif. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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.

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lair of the white worm.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lair of the white worm.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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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.