User talk:Hirudo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please add your comment in a new section by clicking here. Thanks. Hirudo

Contents 1 Houston Youth Symphony Orchestra 2 Request for assistance 3 perfect article 4 Thangkhangin 5 Seven Days Battles - typo? 6 Did you know? {{prod}} can have a parameter. 7 Date notation in Temple in Jerusalem 8 Battle of Actium image 9 Bad faith AfD noiminations 10 AFD on J. D. Montgomery 11 Requesting Transwiki 12 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 13 Tomato Adventure 14 Deprod 15 Comment? 16 Imposter 17 Treehouse (Drake and Josh episode) 18 Hidden Link 19 Seth Yurdin 20 Treehouse (Drake and Josh episode) 21 User:Burnley Masher 22 Treehouse 23 Call Accounting - Copyright 24 Mary Morstan - Sherlock Holmes 25 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pete smyser-scene-is-clean.jpg

[edit] Houston Youth Symphony Orchestra

Hi, I just saw your copyvio notice on the above page, but you didn't provide the URL with the source material. When tagging a page as a copyright violation, please use the following format: {{copyvio|url=http://www.foo.com}}, where "http://www.foo.com" is replaced with the address of the site that has the original material on it. Thanks! | Klaw ¡digame! 19:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the reply. You can reply to me on my user page or yours; I usually watch a user page where I've just asked a question. Anyway, I wasn't questioning whether it was a copyvio, but was just explaining the procedure. Including the URL is important, as - for example - a misguided editor might try to tag his own edits with a copyright notice. I hope that makes sense. It wasn't meant as a criticism of you in any way. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup it makes sense. As I said I didn't have a URL to put in since I have no idea where the text came from. Is there anything I should put instead in a case like this? And I didn't take it as criticism. It's always nice to get feedback from someone more senior. Hirudo 07:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, OK. In that case, take a phrase from the article - preferably one with some longer words - and google it. You'll probably find the source page at or near the top of the rankings. I just googled "conducted by Clifton Evans" with "Philharmonia" and got two results, one of which [1] is the source for your copyvio! | Klaw ¡digame! 16:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for assistance

I'll need to know the name of the article. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 22:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't really say if it's a copyvio or not from a casual glance, make sure you have the right URL in the notice. Anyway, I have reverted and protected the page, it really should go through the WP:CP process. It appears you did the right thing, thank you. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 22:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] perfect article

Read this Wikipedia words:

• ...is nearly self-contained; includes and explains all essential terminology required in the article, such that someone could completely understand the subject without having to read many other articles.
• ...branches out; contains wikilinks and sources to other articles and outside materials that may add new meaning or background to the subject or give relevant, connected information, so readers may easily understand where they should go for more background or information.
• ...acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject.
• ...is an appropriate length; article size is long enough to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on its subject, without including unnecessary detail or information that would be better suited for a child article ("subarticle")... (AND THAT'S WHAT THIS ARTICLE DOES!!!!!!! - T)
• ...reflects expert knowledge; fact-based and rooted in sound scholarly and logical principles.
• ...is well-documented; reputable sources are cited, especially those which are the most accessible and up-to-date. (in this case the ones with the producers word - T)
• ...includes informative, relevant images, each with an explanatory caption (...) to add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text(...)
• ...is engaging; uses varied sentence lengths and patterns; language is descriptive and colorful while still maintaining encyclopedic tone.

(from wikipedia:the perfect article) ... Just trying to make you change your mind about my bat-embargo page. Throw me a word if you want. Greetings--T for Trouble-maker 05:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think that the subject is important enough to spend an article on. In a few years it'll be just another footnote in history and that's exactly the amount of space it's worth. Now don't get me wrong, there's plenty of articles out that that merit deletion more than this one in my opinion (all the individual digimon/pokemon ones come to mind), but just because consensus is to keep that (expletive deleted) around doesn't mean I'll stop trying to keep it clean. Hirudo 05:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thangkhangin

Hi. You tagged this article (Thangkhangin) for cleanup. Wasn't sure what you found wrong with the page (but I made my attempt), and so I will leave it to you to decide if the clean up tag can be removed. Shabbs

Lacks a proper introduction sentence, needs linkifying, and copyedit (trail-blazer should be plural, ZNC needs a comma after it to name a few obvious ones) Hirudo 02:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm now wondering if this article was initiated by the subject, himself, or not. How is this checked, or verified? How much does it matter? Shabbs

I have no idea. I considered putting it up as an Afd, but Google does show some hits for ZNC and there's a few related articles on Wikipedia already. Hirudo 14:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have gone ahead, despite reservations, and made a more serious attempt at clean up. input and feedback is appreciated. shabbs 19:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks a lot better. I wonder if it should be moved to Thangkhangin Ngaihte though, since that seems to be his full name according to your edits. Hirudo 14:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

While researching the subject, I happened to uncover an online article written by Thangkhangin, which included his yahoo email address. Would it be inapropriate to to seek his input on the question of the proper presentation of his name as an article title?shabbs 22:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

all right, the guy turned out to be a relative. According to him, the article, as it appears now, is factual. And he recommended adding "Ngaihte" to the title, so I did. shabbs 14:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seven Days Battles - typo?

In the "opposing forces" section is this bullet:

Maj. Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, having just arrived from his victories in the Valley Campaign, commanded a force consisting of *his own division* (now commanded by Brig. Gen. Charles S. Winder) and those of Maj. Gen. Richard S. Ewell, Brig. Gen. William H. C. Whiting, and Maj. Gen. D.H. Hill.

Shouldn't that be "his own *brigade*", which would be more in line with the other bullets? Alternatively, if the text is correct, perhaps it should be mentioned that his part of the army was as big as the others combined (or his divisions were very small?). Hirudo 17:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Update*: In the Battle of Beaver Dam Creek article it also says divisions, so I assume it's not a typo. I'm still curious as to the relative troop numbers then though. Hirudo 18:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have size info available at the moment, but you can check out Stonewall's OR for more details on the brigades assigned to each of the divisions I cited. Be aware, however, that early in the Civil War about the only unit that was really well understood was the regiment, and all other larger organizations sometimes had sizes that were not directly related to that same type of organization later in the war. Hal Jespersen 19:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know? {{prod}} can have a parameter.

Hello there. You have proposed the article Mithril (runescape) for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 14:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Must have been tired when I added that one. Sorry. Hirudo 15:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date notation in Temple in Jerusalem

Hi Hirudo, thank you for pointing out my inconsistency. Yes, looking at the article's history, I must admit that you are correct. My edit [2] of March 27, 2005 - as far as I remember, that was good old time when I didn't know about the eras controversy. Since then, many things have changed, including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2 (see also [3]). Sorry if my recent edit summary looked arrogant. As you know, anons and new users often unknowingly violate rules. You are very kind noting that "it's been changed long enough ago that a wholesale change back to BC/AD doesn't make sense". Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Actium image

Hi, thank you for the comment on the image. I noticed also that the colors are quite difficult to see on the image, but unfortunately I have lost the original picture with the text layers so I can't change them very easily. I will try to build a better picture soon Sinerma 18:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad faith AfD noiminations

Nonsense. Nothing in the official policy, and next to nothing in the related discussions, calls for this. The speed with which Eusebeus is making these mechanical nominations, his identification of the individuals disputing prods presented as though it was evidence for deletion, and his regular failure to deal with the substance of the prod objections is inconsistent with good faith, and quite a few of the nominations are clearly headed for sound rejections. This is disruptive behavior, in exactly the same way that mechanical, unresearched removal of prod tags it. And where did you get that "very convincing reason" standard, which quite definitely isn't part of the official policy or consensus guideline. Monicasdude 14:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD on J. D. Montgomery

Hello there Hirudo, I'm always welcome to interested parties voicing their interest on discussions taking place on pages. I'm also glad to hear you agree with how I feel about the subject; there's nothing that I would like to see more than Wikipedia to become a standard and accepted (read: encyclopedic) source of information in the future. On a side note, I see that you've garnered a comment from Monicasdude above. I've recently been whipped into the tizzy of his actions on which there's a whole to-do going on at Requests for Arbitration, and I've been trying to mediate between him and Eusebeus, mostly trying to keep heads cool, which is a pretty heavy task. By any means, I just felt the need to encourage you to speak out, be it on talk pages or whatever, and to make yourself heard as part of the community here. :) Cheers, -Kuzaar 04:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting Transwiki

I noticed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XM maintenance that you said you had problems locating instructions on how to nominate a transwiki. To do so, you can tag a page with {{move to Wikibooks}}, {{move to Wikisource}}, or the like. However, bringing the page to AFD is also acceptable and in many cases will cause the move to be faster. Stifle (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks! -- Hirudo 03:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Linda Day Eugene R. Black Eudes of Aquitaine WCWM Naberezhnye Chelny Mineralnye Vody Cherepovets Alf's Hit Talk Show List of Salvadoran Americans Chuvash language Ufa Ulmaceae The Kids Will Have Their Say St. Moritz Robert Smirke (architect) List of Korean ceramic artists and sculptors Barnaul Charles Bannerman Franz Hartmann

Cleanup Al Bundy List of monuments in the United States of America Scrutin de Liste Merge Holmenkollen Retractable hardtop AvtoVAZ Add Sources List of U.S. state beverages Saransk Anthony Cox Wikify Rise of Islam in Algeria Steve DeVito IFRA Expand List of British entomological publishers Belisarius Hagwon

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tomato Adventure

Why does this article need to be deleted? Is it because of the grammer? Is it because it is too minor? Is it because it doesn't have enough good info? Tell me what is the problem with this article? User:Parrothead1983

Because it's just another video game. It's not genre-defining, it didn't have any cultural influence. I don't think articles on minor videogames are encyclopedic. -- Hirudo 01:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Hirudo. Just as a point of interest, I don't think all published videogames necessarily deserve articles of their own (though really, modern published videogames tend to be so large undertakings that they become at least somewhat notable simply because of the money and effort involved), but I do think that videogames created and published by major manufacturers, such as Nintendo, do. It's a little like dealing with music by huge stars -- even if Madonna puts out an album that is completely irrelevant in itself, it's still an album by one of the most important figures in pop music and thus inherently notable. Also, I think that the fact that even relatively insignificant video games tend to be far more widely distributed than, oh, albums by small garage bands or self-published novels is something of a factor here. -- Captain Disdain 01:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Which will get Wikipedia flooded with articles about games which no one will care about in 5 or 10 years... -- Hirudo 02:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Unless you're looking for information about games published by Nintendo, of course, which isn't a particularly unlikely scenario, considering how many people are into gaming. I mean, Wikipedia is already flooded with articles about, say, various types of moss I don't really care about. I don't think you're supposed to find everything personally interesting. Point is, a video game by a significant company automatically has a certain degree of significance, just like a book by Stephen King automatically has some significance, even if it it's one of the ones he squeezes out on the crapper... -- Captain Disdain 05:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Someone might be looking for it" is not sufficient to warrant a Wikipedia article; otherwise we might as well just put up all the cheats and walkthroughs and everything else. I probably wouldn't make too much of a fuss about a List of games by Nintendo article, with a paragraph or so about each game. If people want an in-depth description/review, they should go to a gaming website.

And grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr on your second remark. Heaps and heaps of articles being on Wikipedia that really don't belong is NOT (and I was thinking about using a +20 font on that not) a reason to add more.

As for the remark about being interesting, that's irrelevant. I am interested in things like this and I enjoyed the article (heck I even went looking for more info since it seems like something I might want to play), but that still doesn't make it worth an article.

Regarding books by Stephen King, my opinion there is the same as for singles/albums/bands. Significant books/singles/albums should get their own article, insignificant ones by a significant author/singer should get just a mention on the author/singer's main page (or a list of works by... page if the main page gets too long)

(I'm sure I don't have to tell you that all the comments above are obviously my opinion only. I believe that most of my opinion is a valid interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines, but I realize all to well that plenty of people disagree with it) -- Hirudo 11:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, no, you misunderstand me. My point is most emphatically not that just because we already have crap, we might as well have some more. That's one attitude that I seriously dislike. I'm just saying that just because I personally don't really give a damn about a lot of the articles on Wikipedia, that doesn't in any way mean they are about non-notable subjects.

But, y'know, the funny thing is, I find myself very often talking about notability and whether it's a valid criterion for inclusion -- and I think it's a very important criteria for inclusion, because otherwise I might as well write an article about my left big toe, as long as I could prove it exists. So really, on that level, I agree with you 100% -- it's just that where we appear to disagree is the level of notability that is required for inclusion. You seem to demand a comparatively high level of notability from the subjects of Wikipedia articles. That's where we disagree, obviously, but having been in exactly your relative position very often before, I honestly find myself very sympathetic to your view here. =) -- Captain Disdain 20:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I know the "I don't care about it so it shouldn't be here" attitude, and I think/hope I've been mostly successful in not acting that way.

As for the required level of notability... that's why there's Deletionists and Inclustionists I guess :) My main concern is that the more cruft gets in, the harder it will be to find the real information. I'd much rather see Wikipedia have 100 articles about schools with something special about them (and yes "something special" is rather vague) than those 100 articles and another 10000 about schools where the only difference is the name and location. I think I'll update my user page in a bit with my thoughts on what I like to see in Wikipedia and what not. -- Hirudo 23:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have much to worry about on that front, really; you make it clear enough that your problem with Tomato Adventure, for example, isn't that you don't care about the topic but rather that you don't think it's important enough for inclusion.

Anyway, personally, I'm not a big fan of the whole deletionist/inclusionist split; it seems like a pretty inaccurate generalization to me. I mean, I've put up a lot of things for AfD and I've voted to delete many articles. Does that make me a deletionist? Maybe it does, but it's a silly label in that it implies that I want to delete everything, when in fact I'm all for keeping most of the articles that are in Wikipedia at the moment.

Generalisations aren't always bad, as long as you don't get caught up in them. I think one of the reasons why a deletionist label fits me pretty well is because I'm (at least for the moment) more interested in improving Wikipedia by cutting out the warts than by adding new content.

I think it is, at least to some extent, an issue of credibility. If I read an encyclopedia, I expect it to be accurate and meaningful. If I see articles about some guy who lives down the street, that doesn't really fill me with confidence towards the publication I'm reading. It's not that I mind an encyclopedia containing obscure items (quite the contrary, really), but there's a huge difference between obscure and insignificant...

One of the things that's probably getting me into some disagreements on Afds is that I believe Wikipedia should be a general encyclopedia. In other words I think for example that there should be an article about the TV show Friends, and perhaps if the main one gets too big one about the major characters, but not full episode lists or pages about each episode. Those should go into a TV-oriented wiki. Ditto for all the pages about individual characters in video games and all the pokemon stuff (with a few exceptions perhaps)

Of course, as we often like to point out, Wikipedia isn't paper. Listing information about, say, somewhat obscure video games and whatnot isn't really a problem as such; it's not like we're going to run out of space here. Personally, I think I have a lot more problems with listing passing local fads (which tend to be extremely subjective by their nature) and projects such as bands that exist for six months and then fade away and never really manage to be anything but obscure and insignificant, at least in the eyes of the world at large. At least with published products (books, games, movies, whatever) there's something concrete there that is rather easily handled.

Sounds somewhat like the old "how important will this still be 5 or 10 years from now" attitude; slightly modified perhaps. I'm all for that.

That said, I must admit that if I see an article about a book, I'm more likely to take it seriously than I would an article about a self-published CD from a random garage band, so it's not like I can claim to be completely unbiased here (though being aware of my bias, I do my best to at least be fair about it). I do think that any situation where a legitimate and serious researcher is looking for information about a topic and can't find it on Wikipedia is an unfortunate one and should be avoided where possible -- and to get back to games like Tomato Adventure, here, I can think of a situation where someone would have a serious and legitimate, quite possibly professional interest in a game published by one of the most famous and influential video game companies in existence, whereas it's far, far less likely that someone would have a similar professional interest in the self-published CD by a random noninfluential garage band. Clearly, not all publications are created equal.

Guilty as charged on that kind of bias myself as well, with the awareness as well. Assuming Tomato Adventure really is genre-defining (though I somehow doubt that wacky RPG is a real genre), I'd agree with you. Still it's debatable how much information someone should be able to find out about it. I'd argue a full article for the really important games, a paragraph in a page with a list of game for lesser ones, and just a sentence for the forgotten ones.

Anyway! I'm just thinking out loud here. It's an interesting topic. Thanks for indulging me and sorry to bend your ear. =) -- Captain Disdain 00:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to reply this time. And yes it is interesting, and probably also the topic of much of the heated and uncivil debates that rage here occasionally. It's good to see it doesn't have to be that way :) -- Hirudo 22:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It is genre-defining. It carried out the wacky RPG genre into the next era of gaming. It was also created by the same creators of the Mario & Luigi RPG series. User:Parrothead1983

That's not the impression I get after reading the Gameplay section. But you're more knowledgable than me about this so I'll assume you're correct. -- Hirudo 03:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Bitter & Twisted, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have merged this album back to the band article at Area-7. In the future, if the band page becomes too long, the history of Bitter & Twisted might be useful. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it, as Proposed deletion is only for non-controversial deletion. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Mangojuice^talk 20:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with a redirect. -- Hirudo 21:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment?

Did you see the comment on my talk page? Thetruthbelow ^{Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif(talk)} 00:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I was offline most of last night so just took me a while to reply -- Hirudo 13:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imposter

My first imposter! Thanks for the heads up. This vandal has been indef blocked. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Treehouse (Drake and Josh episode)

The page better be recreated before the episode airs. Or I will do it and revert any vandalisim by any user. This is the worst and I mean the worst article for deletion I have ever seen. There is no reason to delete it. Can you think of any? ForestH2

Not aired yet, non encylopedic to begin with, not important enough to have its own article. Someone really should put up the rest of that series on Afd as well, or at least get it merged into an article per season (which really should happen to a bunch of other series too)

But on top of that, since the above is my opinion only, the article went through Afd which decided it should be redirected. If you disagree with that, fine, bring it up on Deletion Review, but don't subvert the process by unilaterally putting back the article. -- Hirudo 03:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

When it's aired I'm going to put it back. --ForestH2

Why do you have a problem with following procedures? If you want it restored, bring it up to Deletion Review as I suggested. I find your attitude of "I know what's best for Wikipedia no matter what everyone else says" rather disturbing. -- Hirudo 03:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden Link

Hey just saw your message. Actually, before they were the size of a "period" but no one was finding it. To tell the truth, the link is more of a signing space then a hidden link. Thanks, Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 23:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just being a smartass. I think it's pretty cool actually -- Hirudo 01:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man, I appreciate that. Trust me, I know alot about being a smartass ; ) Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 01:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Yurdin

Ok, thanks for letting me know. Cheers! The King of Kings 22:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Anytime. Now, at the risk of sounding arrogant, how much bigger do you think I need to make the notice at the top of my talk page before people will actually notice it? :) -- Hirudo 22:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Treehouse (Drake and Josh episode)

My reply: Put all the rest of your comments on the Treehouse (Drake and Josh episode) talk page.

Hmmm...I don't see how it's inappropriate. But I think because of this very unneeded and maybe even stupid discussion I've had enough of this encylopedia ForestH2

Because there was a consensus on Afd to redirect. I'm not sure what's unclear to you. If a consensus is reached on Afd or similar pages, rejecting that consensus is not something an individual user should do. If you want the page to be restored, you should seek a new consensus, not ignore the current result -- Hirudo 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore I think this encylopedia is going no where at all, and I hope maybe sometime I'll think different. I am quite fed up with why we need this page deleted and I'm about to think about leaving Wikipedia. ForestH2

I almost agree with you. The amount of non-encylopedic stuff that is in here nowadays (such as articles about individual TV episodes) is discouraging. -- Hirudo 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hirudo, give me links to where I can ask that the page be restored please. ForestH2

WP:DRV and/or WT:DRV appear to be the best place for it. You can read here for a discussion about challenging a redirect after I asked a few admins for input -- Hirudo 16:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Burnley Masher

(italic part copied from Zoe's talk page)

Could you please take a look at Special:Contributions?target=Burnley Masher (ok so that's not how you can link to a contrib page apparently. this link should work) ? His only contribs seem to be adding links to one specific site to a heap of WW1 articles. While the site may actually be appropriate for a good deal of them, it still smells like linkspam to me, and out of place in at least the Treaty of Versailles article (which is where I first noticed it). -- Hirudo 14:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

:Nevermind I guess, Shimgray already reverted all of them -- Hirudo 18:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The link would seem to be appropriate at World War I, but spamming it all over the place seemed excessive, as was the advertising he was using to describe the link. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Treehouse

Material getting used again for newly created article Season 4 episodes for Drake & Josh See List of Drake & Josh episodes for more. Just wanted to let you know. Your message is covering my message. ForestH2 | + | √+ | √ | √- | - 21:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection against the new article or the inclusion of Treehouse in that article. I assume you took care of adding/changing the appropriate redirects. Great work. -- Hirudo 13:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I just did some minor cleanup on the new article, mostly removing redundancies. -- Hirudo 13:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And, if you want you can help by going to List of Drake & Josh episodes and redirecting them all to Season 2 episodes for Drake & Josh and Season 3 episodes for Drake & Josh I'm busy right now but after my trip I'll redirect them unless another user does. ForestH2 | + | √+ | √ | √- | - 21:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call Accounting - Copyright

Hirudo, I notice you tagged the Call Accounting article as having a copyright violation. I went to the site that had the similar text and was dismayed. What I know for a fact is that the original text is from wiki and the other site seems to have copied and pasted the text onto their site. I know this for a fact because I was the one who revised the paragraph. You can verify that it is the other site that is copying by comparing how the site describes "Call Parking", "Call Conference" (and maybe other terms) and then compare it with the respective articles in Wiki -- the same wordings. I don't care too much one way or the other how this gets settled, but it is setting a dangerous precedent where a site takes from a Wiki article and then the wiki article gets banned from using its own words. Vincehk 09:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you bring up this issue on the Wikipedia:Copyright problems; I'm not sure if the copyvio procedure allows you to revert the page in the mean time, but if it does please go ahead.

The best way to avoid this is probably to make sure the sources used to create the page are clearly mentioned in the article, which wasn't the case here. Without those, I think it will be hard to avoid similar incidents in the future since there's no way of knowing who copied from who. Hirudo 17:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Morstan - Sherlock Holmes

Took your tag for merging Mary Morstan into Doctor Watson off, as no comment for over six months, and I believed, by virtue of her position as a key character/client in a Sherlock Holmes adventure that she merits her own position. However, the article could, I agree, do with some sorting out - which I will apply myself to. All the best Stevingtonian 21:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No objection Hirudo 18:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pete smyser-scene-is-clean.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pete smyser-scene-is-clean.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) 07:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

File history shows it was uploaded by you on April 24, 2006, it replaced another fil uploaded under the same name earlier in April. Could you have editted the image to like crop it and then uploaded it? MBisanz ^talk 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a long time back lol. Yes it was most likely a crop then. Thanks for looking into this. Hirudo (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)