User talk:Ecophreek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Not interested
If you're stopping in here about my removal of my information from the arbitration keep on truckin', I'm no longer interested in participating nor do I care about the outcome of said arbitration. I'm just going to avoid the user in question and the articles, the user will do what they want, they'll face consequences, and my involvment is not needed. Have a great life. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 22:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cheryl Kaye Tardif;
Hi, You can withdraw your own nominations by just striking them out using <s> before and </s> afterwards and then writing '''Nomination Withdrawn''' . But, to be honest, I think there's so much work needed on the article that you might well leave the nomination stand. I wonder about the actual notability of this author. Dlyons493 Talk 23:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Whale Song (novel)
Hello, I do hope you don't mind me writing you. Ms Tardif has made it clear she will not engage in exhanges with me. If I may offer a bit of advice, I think the issue of the producer may be the determining factor in the survival of this entry. Ms Tardif's assumptions aside, I do know what of I speak when it comes to film. A great many novels come under consideration by producers - sadly, few are accepted and the public is never the wiser. If this weren't an article that originated with the author, none of us would know of the producer's interest. Ms Tardif is justifiably proud that her book has attracted attention from the world of film, but her claim is unverifiable. I expect that in the happy event the novel is optioned, there will be a major press release. These things are always trumpeted on company websites and in Quill & Quire, the Canadian journal of the publishing trade. Until that happy event, I respectfully suggest she consider deleting references to the unidentified "leading Canadian film producer" and his request that she produce a screenplay.--Victoriagirl 17:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. In retrospect, it does seem to me that I have made a bit of an error in attempting to avoid the Articles for deletion/Whale Song (novel) page. While I recognize Ms Tardif doesn't wish to have any exchanges with me, she has responded to my points. My attempt at a private response is simply not fair to the others involved. I'm so sorry to have troubled you. --Victoriagirl 23:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You didn't bother me, I was out of town :) ←ΣcoPhreek→ 18:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar Award
 |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
| EcoPhreek, thank you for helping a newbie create the above two acceptable articles and for allowing me some time to learn the ropes. Your patience, time and sensible edits and suggestions have been truly appreciated. Have a good holiday! Cherylktardif 16:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] How to withdraw an AfD
I noticed on Dlyons493's talk page you wanted to know how to un-nominate an article for AfD since you don't think it qualifies anymore. Put somewhere at the top of the AfD in big letters that you withdraw the nomination, then remove the AfD tag from the article. Put in the edit summary that you withdraw the nomination. Someone else will finish the dirty work of officially 'closing' the AfD from there. Kevin_b_er 19:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] LG15 and Notable YouTube users
UPDATE This may be something to bring up, but I am actually looking into creating a subcatagory (Users) or (Notable users) under the YouTube parent catagory. The reasoning is this: 1)Obviously the users are notable or they wouldn't pass WP's standards. 2)They are all famous or notable for their videos on YouTube 3)The page is only there to link users that have pages here at WP so what is the difference between this and a Catagory? A catagory would make it easier for people to traverse between each userpage as well and make things neater. It would also end these kind of arguements that "'XXXX' deserves mention because they are notable on YouTube."... Now, 'XXXX' needs to have an article before being included in the catagory and if they have an article, it can be debated in a consenus of editors if the article truely stands up to WP's standards. Thoughts? --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Whale-cover-lg.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Whale-cover-lg.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 18:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cherylsmallgood new.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cherylsmallgood new.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.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
