User talk:In Defense of the Artist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Dawn

Hi.  :-) Just to let you know I have found and responded to the issues you raised on the talk page of the Dawn article, and have removed the section of text in question.

If anyone does think that this point should be put back (hopefully with a better context, unless I am misinterpreting the intended reference), then they can replace it. More info is on the article's talk page.  :-)

Thanks. Leevclarke 02:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clabbered

FYI, although I removed that section from Guacamole, clabbered is an actual word. It means "curdled", being derived from the curdled milk dish known as clabber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben James Ben (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In Guacamole, you re-added the sentence "In New Zealand and other areas of the Oceania Pacific, guacamole is often combined with beaten egg whites creating a clabbered texture and has become an increasingly popular serving with spaghetti." I removed it from the article because I suspect that it was vandalism. Are you saying that the statement is actually true? --Ben James Ben 13:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I reverted your edit to Guacamole, the one where you re-added text that I previously identified as vandalism. Please see the Talk page for details. I just felt that intentionally leaving vandalism in the article was not the best course of action. --Ben James Ben 03:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikifacist

Thanks, but even though I tried adding it, it only took about 5 minutes, and then it got deleted once again, and I got a warning by some jerk, that I'd be blocked if I added it again.. But this is a good entry though: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikifascist

And this one is too: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=deletist KnatLouie 10:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how to report a deletist. But even if I did know, I'm sure my requests would be ignored because I'm not an administrator of this site (ie. I have a life ;). KnatLouie (talk • contribs) 13:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Vestibule (bathroom)

A tag has been placed on Vestibule (bathroom), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Camaron1 | Chris 15:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Python and Palin

I reverted your adding text to the Michael Palin article. When you decide to merge some content from other articles, please make sure the information there is not double. Like it is in this case. Or like you did in Monty_Python's Life of Brian, see this discussion about that. The same btw for Eric Idle and I assume every other Python member. Garion96 (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you do it immediately, no problem. If done good of course. But since Monty Python's Life of Brian has double info already two days I did not had high hopes, so I reverted. Also bear in mind that Michael Palin is a good article and Monty Python is a heavily watched article, it is advisable (not mandatory though, WP:Be bold is valid) to first discuss big changes like this on the talk pages. Garion96 (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As said before, I did not had high hopes of you fixing it, I assumed actually you saw the double material since you added it to the articles. Therefore I reverted because right now I don't have the time/interest to fix it and I had no idea when you would do it. Reverting in this case is better than having a bad article. Garion96 (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on. You made about four decent articles look pretty darn stupid with that double info. Just do it correct immediately. No one expects everything to be perfect but this is something else. You btw are the hack-and-slash editor editor here, I just restored the results of your hacking and slashing to its original state. Garion96 (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying you are a bad editor, you just need to pay better attention. Besides, my reverting is also very easily reverted. Just revert my edit and start from there, but this time don't let the double info in there. Or you could create your own sandbox where you can do whatever you like and when it is ready put that in the article. That's the way I often do it, see the two sandboxes on my userpage. Garion96 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much the complete second paragraph of the material you added is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. See [1]. Garion96 (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Countdown edits

Philosophically, I agree with your removal of the section headers, but I think that, for current editing purposes, they should remain in place for now. Once the season is concluded, there will more than enough time to tighten up the article in the way you have prescribed. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it better.i think there will be more opportunities for clean-up after the series is concluded. Good work, btw - don't know if I said that before. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, I think that a lot of this will sort itself out once the series is concluded, for the simple reasons that what the central plot points and themes will be made clear. What I would suggest at this point is to bring up on the article discussion page the idea of arranging them not by grouping but by theme. Since there will be a few who think that this is speculation or OR on your part, you will need to think about how to approach that. Currently, the article is arranged around the characters, which almost copied the format used in the comic book (the red text on a black background as a segue). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Francesca Dani article up for deletion

This article that you created is up for deletion for notability reasons. The deletion discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca Dani (Unknown nomination). --Oakshade 18:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Notability of Rush Rehm

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Rush Rehm, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Rush Rehm seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Rush Rehm, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot 08:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

as the reviewing admin, I declined the speedy, because 5 published books are asserted. But it needs to be shown further by reviews--see the article talk page.DGG (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:The_Birthday_Party.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:The_Birthday_Party.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jusjih (talk • contribs) 01:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests

An editor has nominated List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Dark Knight

Did you read The Dark Knight (film)#Release? It covers, with citations, the marketing conducted by the studio. The lead section is a summary of the article body, so it usually does not need citations there (except for in cases of controversy). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Best of Luck

I read your user page and just want to tell you I support what you're trying to accomplish here. It is frustrating to come up against the people who delete based on the "Because I'VE never heard of it" principal. I'm not familiar with everyone on the list you posted, but I am with some of them. And all that tells me is you're a better source for that information than I am. Keep up the good work. J. Van Meter (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National Association of Performing Artists

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of National Association of Performing Artists, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.artmatters.info/theatre/kenyatheatre.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cycling panniers

Hi there,

I've restored much text to Pannier that you previously removed. I wanted to let you know in hopes that you won't come across it and be upset by the restoration. I've made a note on the discussion page, please feel free to contribute to discussion so we can improve the article! —siroχo 00:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Lifeboat.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Lifeboat.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 (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:The nodd is dug.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:The nodd is dug.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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The nodd is dug.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:The nodd is dug.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by an adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)