User talk:GRuban

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Karl Josef Weinmair stub

Thanks for making the stub. Good job on finding the info about it. I was having a heck of a time trying to locate anything.--DBEndy 03:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boot Hill wikilink fix

No worries. Thanks for the fix.--Azathar 03:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

I just wanted to speak up and say good job on the Boot Hill (role-playing game) article. The Bearded One 22:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adenture

Noticed your edit to Adventure, diff. I know you are probably new, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary so definitions like that don't go on disambiguation pages. There is already a link to wiktionary on that page. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) has more info about the style of disambigation pages.--Commander Keane 01:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adventurer

Hiya! I'm sorry for putting that redirect back in. I found that page on my vandal patrols, and I made a snap judgment as to what was going on, and to me it looked as if a vandal was removing a redirect to put in an article, so I just went "Bye bye, vandal edits!" and reverted. Sorry about that! Mo0[talk] 20:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kathy Lloyd

Hi! I removed the redlink a while back as she isn't particularly notable (nn = lazy shorthand for not notable) in her field. There's quite a few hits on her name as she's a nude model; there's always lots of hits for page 3 girls, porn stars etc because there's so many porn sites with the same content. But I may be wrong - if you think she's notable, by all means start an article. Regards Proto t c 23:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

I Angelbo award you this Barnstar for your game and RPG related contributions
I Angelbo award you this Barnstar for your game and RPG related contributions

Angelbo 04:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dungeons & Dragons

Hi. I apologise for the length of this post, but I think I'd like to request some assistance. You posted a question on my talk page, regarding my efforts in the Dungeons & Dragons category. I have answered that question, but have since come to my senses regarding the scope of my plans. A few days ago I stumbled onto the Wikipedia pages related to Dungeons & Dragons, and found them .. lacking. They lacked cohesion and content, above all, and while content needn't be my speciality in these matters, creation cohesion seemed feasable. All that was required, I thought, was that someone read every article, and then organise them. I have recategorised a number of articles, making the categorisation of the articles, in my view, much clearer.


What remains is much more daunting, and may require the creation of a WikiProject. I feel that a core of Dungeons & Dragons related articles should be established, covering general concepts such as character classes, armour class and hit points, which should have internally consistent style, and should avoid redirecting internally. Upon this framework, the other articles could be added. Such as articles pertaining to specific monsters in the Dungeons & Dragons worlds, or to specific continents and countries in different campaign settings.

When I started reading, I quickly identified a number of pages that I felt should exist, but were missing. Almost immediately, I found that a number of different articles refered directly to articles for specific character classes, such as cleric. But while the cleric article may mention Dungeons & Dragons, it seems to merely mention the concept, and probably won't grow into a fully detailed article. The creation of a new article seemed warranted. Similarly, the article on Rogue (character class) didn't exist, with most pages refering to the Thief (character class) article instead, which hardly seemed to cover the Dungeons & Dragons Rogue. Again, a new page should be created, but I concluded that it would be best to create articles for all base classes, to set them apart from game classes in Final Fantasy and other role-playing games. The same logic applies to general articles such as Magic-User, divine magic (vs. Arcane magic), which cover anything but relevant topics: They should be found and tagged, and possibly redirected or expanded.

I'll grant you that I haven't given much thought to the actual content of these class articles, mostly because I am not quite sure how much of the game mechanics may be explained through Wikipedia. But creating decent stubs is not a bad thing, I feel.

The more I think about it, the more the need for a forum of some type grows. Perhaps I will set up a WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons. Would you help/join? -- Ec5618 02:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Home and Away

Hi, you have voted in the afd for various Home&Away character articles. I have had a go at combining all the articles in a single article (which I admit still needs a lot of work). You can find it at Current Home and Away characters. I suggest we keep this article are either delete or re-direct the others. What do you think? Thanks, Evil Eye 13:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RPG WikiProject

Hello, I'm toying with the idea of a WikiProject for roleplaying games. I see that you've edited RPG articles and I thought I should ask you what you think of the idea. Do you think it could be done and would you be interested in helping out? I'm a long-time reader, but I haven't hardly edited anything yet, so I would appreciate any ideas or suggestions you might have. I've talked a bit about it on my blog.

I don't want to start anything without following through, and I want to avoid starting something I can't finish. But a WikiProject would be a good way to coordinate efforts, and it would be easier to attract more people to improve RPG articles, don't you think? Jonas Karlsson 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

And now I've started it, after getting enough people interested. It's over here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Role-playing_games. The project page is still a mess, but we'll get it up and running soon. Jonas Karlsson 12:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marcelle Karp

Great job on the Marcelle Karp article! Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Feminists

Thanks for your work on The Feminists, but it probably isn't the best choice to add an expansion request for to the Systematic Bias template. There just isn't more stuff on Google about them - I looked fairly extensively. The article is incomplete, but without off-web research, it's going to stay that way. I suspect there are more productive articles to expand to add to the CSB template. GRuban 16:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Do I understand you to be saying that CSB should only look into topics that are already well-covered on the Web? As one of the people who started CSB, I can say without qualification that one of the main goals of the project was to improve coverage in areas that are not well-covered on the web. That is precisely one of Wikipedia's systemic biases: if something is not already on the Web someplace, it tends to slip through our cracks. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
(suitably humbled and abashed) Well, um, no, your excellency, sir. This unworthy one was merely daring to suggest that other articles that are at least somewhat more covered on the Web might be more productive, in the sense that if we added them to the template, they would actually get expanded, while The Feminists, no matter how worthy, would quite possibly stay more or less the size it was until Ti-Grace Atkinson joined the Eagle Forum. But please forgive my presumption as youthful inexperience, your plenipotentiaryness, and I shall not speak of it again. Jmabel is always right. I will work harder. (pounds head on floor repeatedly, and backs away on his knees) GRuban 13:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to ask you to apologize for the tone of that, but I am going to say that if you continue to address me in that tone, expect to make an enemy. I don't know about you, but probably a third of what I do is from print, and I doubt that I'm the only Wikipedian who still knows how to read a book. If you want to remove that particular request of mine from the template, fine. But if you want to argue that Wikipedia can become a first-rate general reference while writing only on topics that are already well-covered online, I think you are dead wrong. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi GRuban, I just wanted to drop you a line after seeing yet again CSB request that you've filled. It's appreciated. Cheers, BanyanTree 15:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the appreciation! It's, umm ... appreciated! GRuban 17:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awzal

Thanks for giving Muhammad Awzal a start! I think I put his name on the CSB request list somewhere in November or December and quite frankly I didn't expect something to come from it, at least not that soon. It's really great to see WP:CSB work! Keep it up, — mark ✎ 20:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! Unfortunately, I couldn't find much more about Muhammad Awzal than what I wrote, so someone else will have to do the expansion. GRuban 21:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you'd better try to ask for a help in Wikipedia:Translation_into_English. Vermondo 09:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I did. Looks like there are a number of Italian->English requests pending there, though, so it might take a while. I hope I'm not reduced to using the Google translation to work from. GRuban 12:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mao Zedong

Hi, could you possibly re-edit the page? You still have one try left before you hit the 3Rs rule. It would also add support to our case against that guy if he reverts again. John Smith's 19:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

All righty. GRuban 19:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexa Dixon

Thank you for working on the aged requests page. There are a number of requests that probably don't actually deserve articles, such as Alexa Dixon. To keep them from being relisted the important thing is to remove them from the main request page, because it is from those pages that the list is regenerated each month. - SimonP 14:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casca Rufio Longinius

Sure, no problems. On review of the page, it actually seems quite reasonable. At the time that I tagged it, it was somewhat confusing, and I didn't understand the apparent signifigance of the character. None the less you have made a good job of the article. Thanks for the great contribution. Bobby1011 00:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Liberty Dollar

After further research and reflection, I've come to believe that the Liberty Dollar entry should be merged with "Private currency" or "Community money" and redirected accordingly. This merge would help put this controversial topic into a broader context it desperately needs. Thank you for your participation. BrianGCrawfordMA 18:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Java/RMS

If you want to say "RMS doesn't program in Java," that's fine. The nonsequiteur and unfunny joke about the island of Java is nonencyclopedic. It doesn't particularly matter to me whether RMS put it there or not -- his puns are just as inappropriate in an encyclopedia as everyone else's (except, of course, for those in the pun article. :-) Nandesuka 06:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psionics (role-playing game_s_)

Please, join me at Talk:Psionics (role-playing game) and help me to understand this page move. -Harmil 21:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 : I'm going to be bold and move it back. The article is about Psi in all RPGs, not in one RPG, and most of Category:Role-playing game terms uses the plural. This is my one "revert", I won't continue a revert war without discussion, but I think this was just a well-meaning mistake by the mover. GRuban 22:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm really sorry. I had thought you were the person who moved the page. Thanks for moving it back, and sorry for pestering you. -Harmil 22:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad Awzal

Thank you four your appreciation of the article I wrote on it.wiki. Unfortunately in this moment I'm quite busy and have no time to translate it into English. Anyway, I wrote a call for translators in the talk page of it.wiki and I hope you'll find someone who can help. Later on, I'll look at the English page, and if the work is not yet done, I'll consider translating the page myself. Good luck --Vermondo 16:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted vandalism to my page

Hi there, thanks for sticking up for me. I have a very short memory. Have we met before? Cheers. PizzaMargherita 13:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

HI ja'! -- GRuban 13:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL, I told you I have a short memory :D........ By the way, have we met before? PizzaMargherita 14:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austin Purfleet hoax

Hi George. I've rolled back and reverted all their edits apart from the creation of the Tromlitz article. It was mostly manual work, but I think it needed doing! User:81.6.228.171 is also part of this nonsense, as is User:Chrisman66, although the latter has yet to do anything other than comment at the deletion page and create his own user page. Presumably these are all sock puppets of a single person with two much time on their hands. I've given them warnings (other than User:Chrisman66) that they'll be blocked if they carry on. Keep your eyes peeled! CLW 17:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And a splendid tale, was Purfleet's. Will it be archived anywhere, or lost forever? I might write the book one day. --JamesMcFurlong 22:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] charities accused of ties to terrorism

I left a note for the guy who moved charities accused of ties to terrorism to charities accused of ties to terrorism.

I blame him for the loss of the article's talk page. -- Geo Swan 13:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the vote of confidence. -- Geo Swan 20:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation

I appreciated your comments regarding La Convivencia on my user talk page. I'm thinking it might be nice to start an Esperanza type of editor base called La Convivencia to really hit home the need for such a spirit. Netscott 20:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan

You expressed interest in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan, and I think your view would be helpful since you edited Charities accused of ties to terrorism. KI 21:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh, my. I hope my asking to be notified if there was an RFC didn't bring it into being. I commented, but I'm not at all sure it was what you had in mind. Please, de-escalate, sheathe your weapons, return your bombers to the launch bays. It's over. Please. Go edit Chad articles, I've read some you've written, they're quite well done, and as a WP:CSD member, I'm quite happy that someone is editing them, we need more articles on the third world. But please stop the litigation, it's simply not constructive. You want GS to leave you alone? I'm sure he will, as your RFA expires today. Done. No more. Please. -- GRuban 21:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, and an apology

Thanks for your help. I appreciate your attempts to remain neutral and talk sense to KI and I.

Yes, you were correct that, barring a last minute flood of supporters, KI's candidacy was almost certain to fail. But I reached different conclusions about whether there was reason to keep trying to state my concerns over their candidacy.

You were absolutely correct that I planned to stop talking about my concern about KI when his candidacy came to an end.

So, that apology. Later, on April 7th, I realized that although I remembered important talk page exchanges -- they had happened on my personal talk page. I was almost certainly completely mistaken about that

I was in the midst of acknowledging that mistake, when I was shocked to see he had filed a complaint against me on the Administrator's noticeboard. After two notes on their talk page, which I still consider were civil, triggered that unexpected escalation, it didn't feel safe to do what what I should have done -- acknowledged the mistake as early as I discovered it. I overlooked how the acknowledgement might concern you. Sorry. -- Geo Swan 01:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:CarolynLilipaly.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CarolynLilipaly.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your article, Lavastorm, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On December 25, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lavastorm, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 09:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Engaruka

Thanks for creating Engaruka (now almost a year ago). I came across it while editing Sonjo language. Your work for WP:CSB is appreciated! — mark ✎ 14:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:BootHill.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:BootHill.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 insure 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. ShakespeareFan00 13:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Image prior to policy... ShakespeareFan00 14:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pigasus Awards

Wanted to let you know I nominated the Article for Deletion, since I see you created it. Horrorshowj 00:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:BeverleyTurner.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:BeverleyTurner.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 09:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Casca01.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Casca01.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 will be deleted after seven 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 00:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


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

Thanks for uploading Image:Don Kingsborough.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 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 (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Thanks for uploading Image:JusticeInc.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 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 (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Thanks for uploading Image:WorldsofWonder.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 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 (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Thanks for uploading Image:Wow logo.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 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 (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Don Kingsborough.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Don Kingsborough.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) 06:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Non-free promotional discussion

Hello, GRuban. Since you recently contributed to the lively deletion discussion for Template:Non-free promotional, I thought I'd let you know that I've continued the discussion about this template at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Template:Non-free promotional. The result of the deletion discussion was to keep the template, but there are still some questions about whether the current template serves a useful purpose and how to prevent its misapplication. Please contribute to the discussion if you are interested. —Bkell (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Thanks for uploading Image:TrailOfTheGoldSpike.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 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 (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hitler's War Metagaming.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hitler's War Metagaming.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 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 (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lands of Mystery.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lands of Mystery.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 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 (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


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

Thanks for uploading Image:SteveLong.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 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 (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:CatherineMcCord.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:CatherineMcCord.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:ToniFrissell.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:ToniFrissell.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Anrie (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wallace_tahnezh.jpg

I have tagged Image:Wallace_tahnezh.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Kelly hi! 23:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Lisa_Fugard.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Lisa_Fugard.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Yet another barnstar!

Many thanks! Much appreciated.  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of "academy award winning" from film article leads

Per WP:PEACOCK. Let the article show the reader, don't tell the reader. Also fringes on POV violation, showing an American bias. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Then I think you have it wrong. Read the example in that very page:

Peacock term:

   * Brazil has a vigorous economy.

Better:

   * According to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, Brazil has the ninth largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity (PPP)

We're not writing "The Godfather is a great movie". We're writing "The Godfather won the Academy Award". I think that's exactly what "show don't tell". I also don't agree that it shows an American bias - if we were writing about a movie that won a notable French Award, that would be equally appropriate to write in the lead. --GRuban (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There probably needs to be a discussion about this then. I know for a fact I'm not the only one taking this view. See this and this. While I understand it's of the utmost importance to properly portray the obvious importance of a film that was won an Oscar, the term "award-winning" doesn't seem the least bit necessary, if the awards are properly established elsewhere in the article. And I know it isn't a valid argument but probably 50% of the pages I looked at (Best Picture Winners) did not contain the 'award-winning' note in the introductory line. You're obviously approaching this from a good faith stance, and know your Wiki-policy, so I'd be interested to hear how to move forward. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to discuss the general case - do you have any suggestions as to where? But for the specific case, you'll notice in the article edits you link to, the Academy Award is mentioned in more detail later in the lead, and the second comment says as much. In The Godfather, you took out the only mention of the Academy Award in the lead. If you want to move it to a later sentence with more detail, that seems more reasonable. --GRuban (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I added a sentence about the 3 Oscars in the intro. I will look for the proper place to ask for clarification regarding the issue at large. Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at this. Looks like there is a direct MoS reference. I understand what Jim Dunning is saying. I went back through the edits I made, and I think I've come to a good compromise. The issue is with having 'award-winning' or 'Academy Award-winning' in the intro sentence, which I think we've avoided now. All articles I edited now have at least a direct Oscar reference in the lead paragraph. I also understand his argument about Oscars being US-centric (which I had made note of in my first reply to you), but I guess that's a fight for another day. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks!

RfA: Many thanks
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Althea Flynt.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Althea Flynt.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bond RPG Adventures.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bond RPG Adventures.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Assata Shakur

As the FAC has failed, I have copied your comments to the talk page. Savidan 02:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've re-read the NYT archives related to the article and substantially expanded it, with particular emphasis on other details about the trial and shootout. I hope that these have at least softened some of your issues with the article. Please give the shootout and trial sections a new read through and let me know where we stand. Savidan 04:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to give thorough and specific comments. I think the article has improved greatly from your input. If you think that I have not resolved any of the issues you brought up you can reply in the embedded format and/or by starting a new section. Thanks again. Savidan 20:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you restate your remaining comments (if any) in a new section? I think it's getting a bit hard to read. Savidan 23:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm pestering you; if you don't have the time to list your remaining comments now thats fine. Could you just let me know if you have any issues remaining with the article? Thanks, Savidan 06:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't have as much time as the article deserves, no. I will say three things in general, though - 1) the article is much improved since the FAC - 2) if you're dying for my comments :-) take a look at the ones I've already written. I noticed that in a number of times I came back, you hadn't completely responded to the earlier ones, for example from the first batch one about the convictions of her rescuers, from the second batch one about using a spell checker, etc. 3) the fourth time I come back, I will likely have similar comments to the third time - read the whole thing over, find the the sentences that seem broken or out of place; put them in the right place. Good luck! --GRuban (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll re-read your comments, but I guess at the end of the day no one call tell if your comment has been remedied except you. I have added information about the conviction of those you participated in her escape, for example; maybe it wasn't as much as you wanted, maybe you just haven't noticed. Anyway, thanks for all the time that you've put into the article already. Savidan 18:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have finished re-reading your comments and decided to renominate the article. Just a heads up. If you find yourself with more time, feel free to comment anew. Savidan 22:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Circle of Chalk

Fast, good work there, GRuban-- Thanks! Dekkappai (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Circle of Chalk

Updated DYK query On 1 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Circle of Chalk, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)