User talk:Jason Palpatine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Number of times this page has been vandalized: 3

2+2=5

2001: A Space Odyssey This user thinks 2001: A Space Odyssey is the best science fiction film ever made.


My talk page archives
/Archive 1
/Archive 2


Leave me a message.


Contents

[edit] sig

 -- ~~~~  [[Image:confused-tpvgames.gif]] <small> ''This User fails to understand Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Systematized]] Logistical Projection of its Balanced [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|Policy]] Contingency.'' </small> ([[user_talk:Jason Palpatine|speak your mind]] | [[Special:contributions/Jason Palpatine|contributions]])

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!



(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Your name

Is your name seriously Jason Palpatine? The Wookieepedian 02:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • No. It's my username. It is from a character I created originally for the Star Wars role-playing game. You must remember, STAR WARS is deeply rooted in mythology. Originally, he was the Emperor's rouge son who joined the rebelion. Later, with the release of the prequel-trilogy, his nephew.

-- Jason Palpatine 02:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (speak your mind|contributions)

That's what I thought. I was just checking. (You never know.) The Wookieepedian 03:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] An award! Congratulations!

On behalf of myself and the Kindness Campaign, I'd like to present this barnstar to Jason Palpatine for for high equality editing, numerous images, and contributions to a variety of articles. Congratulations, and thank you! ♥ JamieJones talk


[edit] Remake of Pigs is Pigs

If you ever find the remake of this cartoon, I would like to know.

jjbrother@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.94.31.170 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] RE:List of villains in Ben 10

It is generally recommended that you start a discussion before making a major change. Since the page was altered before the discussion, I restored the page to its default condition to simulate the above situation.

The logic behind this is that the page was in that condition for a longer period of time, so one can assume that the page was generally accepted in that state; contrarily, if a page is left post-edit, one runs the risk of putting off readers and wikipedians not used to that revision.
You Can't See Me! 03:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hehe... I guess I did make that above post seem sort of rule-ish. What I meant was, users tend to start a discussion before making a major change, so I edited the page to simulate that based on my logic in the second paragraph. By no means did I intend to imply that was a solid rule. Sorry about the confusion.
On a side note, I'm curious about the discussion you mentioned on my talk page. Did you mean that the Powers That Be sided with your decision even though it was the minority, or did you mean that you were one of the majority that the Powers That Be forsook? You Can't See Me! 04:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omnitrix

Two reasons:

  1. Small sections don't require pictures, especially when inter-wiki links lead them to those pictures.
  2. The section is so small that a pic pushes the references over, leaving a huge whitespace.

Hope that answers your questions. Also, please don't type in all CAPITAL letters. It's annoying. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Operation Red Card

Hi, thanks for your message re Operation Red Card. The reason I removed the current events category was because there is nothing in the article to say that anything has happened recently to merit changes in the article. It is better if the current events is reserved for articles where things have occurred in the previous month. While Operation Red Card is ongoing this is not sufficient to deserve being in that category. Davewild 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben 10 redirects

Stop reverting the redirects. I'm sorry that you disagree but you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You've seen us reach consensus, you did not do anything to stop it until after the fact, and you refuse to listen to our reasoning for the sake of your own personal enjoyment. Please stop now. You Can't See Me! 07:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus by myself, TTN, and Someguy. The only person to back up your position is Dylan Damien, who has not spoken up since. Furthermore, we should not need consensus because of several Wikipedia policies including:

(WP:WAF)

  • The lack of cited sources on the page
  • The fact that this is an unencyclopedic aspect of the series, yet gets more space than whatever parts of the series are encyclopedic
  • The fact that it is completely in-universe

(WP:FICT)

  • The fact that the articles are almost entirely plot summaries.
  • The fact that these belong on Wikibooks rather than Wikipedia

(WP:TRIV)

  • The fact that the articles have numerous instances of non-integrated trivia.

(WP:EPISODE)

  • The fact that the articles did not break off of the main page due to sustainable secondary-source info, and were instead created on a whim.
  • The fact that these articles were not even broken off of the main episode list due to sustainable secondary-source info, but were also created on a whim.
  • The fact that the plot summaries are anything but brief.
  • The fact that very few episodes have relevance in ongoing story arcs.
  • The fact that these episodes have no critical reviews.
  • The fact that there is only minimal broadcasting and publication information
  • The fact that the synopses describe each scene in vivid detail.
  • The fact that a merge will not reduce the coherency or quality of the final article.
  • The fact that there are no sources available other than the episode itself.

(WP:F)

  • The fact that lengthy plot summaries can be used as substitutes for the real thing.
No, we shouldn't even be talking about consensus here, because Wikipedia policy backs up one side of the argument, and you have little to fall back upon. What we're doing is not vandalism. The first sentence on that page is as follows:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

You may think that we are removing content to violating Wikipedia's rules. In reality you are adding (or in this case, re-adding) content that was removed due to policy violation, which compromises Wikipedia's integrity. You are the one vandalizing the pages.
As if it was not enough, we had a discussion going on. A discussion in which you were clearly outnumbered three-to-one. Quoting from WP:3RR, "If you seem to be the only person who feels that the article should be the way that you have made it, perhaps it is better the way everyone else thinks it should be." But you do not do this. Instead, you ignore our attempts and revert our redirects as though you had won that argument. Your own quote applies here. Directly from what you had just posted on my talk page, our decision was "flushed down the toilet because a [single individual doesn't] like them!"
And once again, you bring in the Pokemon Test. "--It puts hundreds (or even thousands) of similar articles at risk." When will you get it? We agree. It will put those at risk. Similar articles need to be at risk because they too are unencyclopedic and should not be on Wikipedia.
Again, quit trying to shift the blame to us. Everyone wants to be the hero in his or her own story. I'm here to tell you that your "heroic" actions are against consensus, against policy, and rubbing against my nerves. I honestly don't want to make enemies here, but you don't appear to know when you are at a loss. You Can't See Me! 08:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you think before you write?

Rationalize as much as you want. Throw Wikpololicies on the table as much as you want. The action of 3 administrators deleting 39 articles which were created by multiple users here is an affront. You call it a consensus and you cite policy to rationalize it.

Pardon the language, but what the hell are you thinking?! We are citing policy. We are letting you know that you are violating policy. We are adhering to the rules. And we're the wrong ones?! Honestly, we are pointing out everything that is wrong about the articles, and you are going about it saying, "Well, there are a lot of them, so the rules are null and void."

You are perverting those policys. The blanket deletion of 39 articles by a single individual (or 3) (even if they admin) is outright VANDALISM.

On what grounds? At least we are citing rules. You have done nothing but say, "I'm right, you're wrong, change it back you vandals!" As I mentioned before, we have Wikipedia policy backing us up. You have nothing to fall back on. The only reason you think we are perverting the rules is because we are using the rules against you. So come up with a good argument or give up. Please show us that you are capable of debating without reductio ad absurdum and large bold text, or at least show us that you know when to quit. You Can't See Me! 22:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Jason, I'm sorry if it appears that I'm just being mean, and I'd like to apologize on behalf on Someguy and TTN if you feel that way about them too. I don't mean to be harsh, and I'm pretty sure that the others share my sentiments. We are just out to clean up articles so that they adhere to Wikipedia policy, and you have taken to defend that which we see as unnecessary. I'm very sorry if I offended you at all over the course of our debates. I shall try to be more civil in the debate from this point on, but may I ask that you try to be more civil as well? Regards, You Can't See Me!.
Basically, what he said. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Epilogue

No problem, I guess. Sorry again that we couldn't both get our way with this. I hope you like the expansion of the short summaries, though. You Can't See Me! 20:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:TTN

I saw what TTN did to the Ben 10 episodes. Terrible isn't it? Some administrator should block him/her right away. He/she doesn't really contribute anything to Wikipedia, only merges articles whithout even discussing it thoroughly. I'm on the verge of quitting Wikipedia. Anyhow, I just want you to know that I support you 100%. The Prince of Darkness 23:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I to support you 100%. Angie Y. 22:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italics

While's there's nothing wrong with italicizing terms, you do it in quotes, which is pointless. It's used to emphasize a term, which quoting something accomplishes. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Either or, just not both. That's all you need to do. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you even bother to read the DAB guidelines?

It's clear that you don't know (or care) about the purpose of dab pages, or the guidelines surrounding them. You also failed to raise the issue on the talk page as requested, instead preferring to cut-and-paste the previous user's misguided justification without bothering to read my response to them.

I've requested a third opinion to contribute to the discussion. Please respond at the talk page discussion for this issue. Fourohfour 15:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your response

In response to the issues you raised on my talk page

I recived no such request here until this post of yous.

My edit summary in the article history says "Please read the dab page guidelines (linked via your talk page) and discuss on the talk page if you intend putting this back".

Although addressed to Yaharl, it's reasonable to expect anyone un-reverting a change to note any reasons for its reversion in the first place. In addition, the line in question was right above the edit summary of Yahirl's that you lazily cut-and-pasted without addressing the issues.

You might try taking your own advice.

In what respect?

The deletion of data is the more severe error than the prescience of it.

Data is far more likely to be useful if it's reasonably organised. Wikipedia doesn't deal in original information, it deals in presenting other people's information in a useful manner. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; it's organised that way to be useful.

I have always been taught to err on the side of caution.

For the reasons I gave above, it's also wise to be cautious about what we include. That knife cuts both ways, see?

Besides which, much of my criticism was due to information which belonged (if anywhere) in an article, not on a dab page.

It's a small piece of information that a person here may be looking up. Tere is a link to the related article. Such a little piece of info being here is helpful.

Please read this section of "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions".

Even withoiut reading the guidelines page,I know that

You clearly don't "know", that's why you should have read the guidelines.

a disambiguation page is intended to help a user in finding information they may be looking for.

In a specific manner. You clearly still *don't* have a proper idea what a dab's purpose is.

That you are claiming otherwise despite still not having read the guidelines, even though it has already been pointed out *why* your understanding was wrong is both arrogant and downright lazy.

Fourohfour 19:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further response

Regarding the response left at my talk page

The indented-italics lines were all quotes from your original comment that I was replying to. Specifically, the line:

"a disambiguation page is intended to help a user in finding information they may be looking for"

was your own. Not mine and not a quote from the dab page.

IMHO, it's easier and more logical to keep the thread of discussion in one place, with responses indented following the point/comment they address. You're free to ignore my request (as you did) and respond "ping-pong" style instead (i.e. responses on alternate talk pages). This means I have to explicitly quote in a different style (and "cquote" is too bulky for a point-by-point response). As I said, this wasn't my choice. Fourohfour 10:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode images

The template won't display images, and they're not supposed to be there anyway. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate, episode images have been determined to fail fair use guidelines. –Gunslinger47 17:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Wiki

You could if you wanted to, but I don't really see the point. It's something off-this-Wiki that you'd have to do yourself. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, just so we're clear on that. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 16:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Pennsylvania

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 03:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] synopsis needs help at 2001's plot section

If you hadn't noticed (I hadn't), there was significant churn and edit warring over on the 2001 plot section, with an unregistered user making a lot of changes. I suspect the "damage" has been corrected, but the synopsis is still roughly 1200 words. The WikiProject Film guideline on this suggests 400-700 words, and I'm not sure this synopsis can be diluted down any more. Still, if you have the time, you might want to check in on that section and see if you can find an error, or add back in something you thought was significant and worth including. :) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)



[edit] RE: Pigs is Pigs

My "problem" is that on Wikipedia, it's reasonable to assume that articles on relatively minor topics with few references shouldn't be given undue weight inappropriate for the subject matter. Pigs is Pigs isn't particularly notable in terms of Looney Tunes shorts, and the trivia-esque mentions of other television series and cartoons (and in particular the webcomic) haven't been verified as being influenced by Pigs is Pigs. It seems to me that the article engages in a lot of speculation and focuses too much on trivial details and supposed connections.

As it stands, from what I can tell the organization of the article is a mess, doesn't read in a formal/neutral manner and is overly long in its descriptions. As such, this is why I placed the notability and cleanup tags on the article. This isn't about a personal dislike of the subject matter, and I'm sorry if that's how it came across. Just some things that I believe need fixing. 76.18.140.105 (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek: The Animated Series

Dear Jason, This is to let you know that I just added David Gerrold's quoted and REFERENCED views on TAS onto the Wikipedia TAS site. (see the Canon section of TAS.) Gerrold maintains that TAS is certainly part of Star Trek Canon and I have to agree. The show was produced under DC Fontana's guidance with contributions from several TOS writers/producers while the Filmation producers actually got Mr. Roddenberry's prior approval to create TAS. So, everything was on the up and up. I honestly don't understand why Roddenberry later repudiated TAS which actually won an Emmy--unlike TOS. Do you think if it was Richard H. Arnold who influenced him to pull TAS from the Star Trek Canon? Gerrold blames an unnamed 'archivist' working under Roddenberry for influencing this decision and I suspect it may be Arnold.

As an Aside, do you feel Paramount's decision to release a remastered version of TAS in late 2006 signals that it is more open towards including more references to TAS or some of its episodes in their Star Trek franchise--or perhaps even placing TAS in the Star Trek canon in the future? In my opinion, Paramount's move here can't just be a money grab; after all, if they hated TAS, they wouldn't have even bothered to remaster TAS in the first place. As I recall, only Paramount can make a decision on the canonicity of certain Star Trek shows since they hold the series' rights. Personally, I like startrek.com's more open approach to TAS where they created a separate online section for TAS--perhaps to recognise its place between TOS and TMP without calling TAS 'canon'. This seems a good compromise. What do you think? With kind Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)




[edit] 2001 article

Just to let you know that the draft has been put into the mainspace: Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Groupthink has disputed the sources and content, so your input would be welcome in that discussion. Preliminary details on the dispute are in the section above.Dreadstar † 02:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)




[edit] Interp 2001

Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey has been unprotected, so improvements and additions can resume! Dreadstar † 22:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)



[edit] Keir Dullea

I reverted placing the image for the same reason as I stated before. Per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Non-free content images of living people are not allowed in infoboxes per the criteria. Garion96 (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. Image is not free content.
  2. Image is of a living person therefore deemed replaceable. See criteria #1.
  3. Image is not discussed in article. See criteria #8.

To sum it up, despite some exceptions, non-free content images are not allowed in the infoboxes of articles about living people. Garion96 (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phillies WikiProject...?

Not sure how involved you are with Wikipedia as a whole, but here's something you might find particularly interesting: here EaglesFanInTampa 13:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Duke Bluebeard's Castle

Hi, nice to meet another fan, and high time the synopsis got some more attention. Re your comment "She does not beg": I would think she does, in her final lines: "Kékszakállú megállj...Hallgass, it vagyok még! Kékszakállu nem kell! Jaj, jaj, Kékszakállu vedd le." Admittedly my command of Hungarian is very shaky! Perhaps there's another way to characterize these? Regards, Sparafucil (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have the opereta on video. She says nothing as he dresses her and then marches into the seventh room to join the others. --Jason Palpatine (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Which video? I hate it when the subtitles obviously fail to keep up, but it's not that uncommon! Here's a translation of dubious copyright status (hence not linked from the article): [1] Regards, Sparafucil (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The opereta was performed in english without subtitles. I don't remember the exact year it was broadcast, but it was probably 1990 or early in 1991. Information about the video can be foound at http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/schoenberg/videv006.htm. It is not yet available on DVD. --Jason Palpatine (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Psychopath (film)

The article was deleted because it was proposed for deletion and nobody cared enough to object. I'm restoring it as I write this. east.718 at 17:15, April 23, 2008

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nostromo144.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nostromo144.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) 12:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nostromo190.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nostromo190.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) 12:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nostromo197.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nostromo197.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) 12:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nostromo259.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nostromo259.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) 12:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:NOSTROMO14.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:NOSTROMO14.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) 12:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ron Cobb Nostromo(Bridge) Book of Alien.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ron Cobb Nostromo(Bridge) Book of Alien.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) 12:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ron Cobb Nostromo(ship-ramp) Book of Alien.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ron Cobb Nostromo(ship-ramp) Book of Alien.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) 12:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:93454 bg.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:93454 bg.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) 12:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tatooine

Why did you put back the picture of Tatooine animals? If you ask me there shouldn't be a pic there @ all. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Because the article is about a group of Star Wars characters of whichthey are a part. --Jason Palpatine (talk) 05:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

True, but why specifically them? If you have a pic of them, you might as well have a pic of all of them. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

You can have a pic of Tatooine animals, but don't make it the main title pic. Put it in the Tatooine section. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC))