User talk:Pegship/Feb2008
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Talk:Academy Award for Best Actor - Sortable Charts
Hello. Thanks for your input and suggestions on this issue. I do appreciate them. I responded to your post at the following link --> Talk:Academy Award for Best Actor#Someone is trying to ruin this article. When you have a moment, would you please be so kind as to read my reply to you, and respond back to me accordingly? Thanks. I really appreciate and value your input. So, I'd really like to hear more of what you have to say. Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC))
- Hi. Thanks for your input. I just left the following post at the Talk Page for Best Actor --> Talk:Academy Award for Best Actor#Someone is trying to ruin this article. Just so that you know, I am still working on finishing up / cleaning up the new sortable list. It should be ready very soon. Thanks! This (below) is the posting that I just left at the Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC))
-
- Hello. Thanks to all of you for your input. I really do appreciate it. I have given this a great deal of thought, and I think that I have come up with a solution that should please everyone. All of you have made some valid points. All of which, I have taken under consideration. I can see the desire to keep the old format list, as it is aesthetic and simple and easy to reference. I can also see the desire to keep the new format (sortable) list, as it allows for greater functionality and use. Essentially, I think that Wikipedia is big enough to allow us to have both lists available. There is no reason that we need to choose one over the other. The old format list can stay here, where it has always been. And the new format (sortable) list can be placed separately on a new page (or, less desirable, separately in a new section of this page). I had originally thought that a new separate page just for the list of winners and nominees would elicit a deletion proposal. Then, I noticed that Wikipedia actually already has several similar articles / lists as separate pages. For example, on the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor page, I noticed the following statement: For a list sorted by actor names, please see List of Best Supporting Actor nominees. For a list sorted by film titles, please see List of Best Supporting Actor nominees (films). Similarly, on the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress page, I noticed the following statement: For a list sorted by actress names, please see List of Best Supporting Actress nominees. For a list sorted by film titles, please see List of Best Supporting Actress nominees (films). Thus, in effect, I am creating the exact same list for the Academy Award for Best Actor. After I complete the new format (sortable) list for Best Actors, I will create a new article page on Wikipedia entitled List of Academy Award for Best Actor winners and nominees. And, at that point, I will include a statement on this Best Actor page that will refer readers to the new article page, if they want to see or use the new format (sortable) list. Thanks for your input. I think – and hope – that this solution addresses everyone's concerns. Please let me know what you guys think. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC))
[edit] WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter
The January 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Searching for Dragons
I have nominated Searching for Dragons, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Searching for Dragons. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Searching for Dragons (film)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Searching for Dragons (film), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.windpathfilms.com/projects.php. 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) 04:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of Searching for Dragons (film)
A tag has been placed on Searching for Dragons (film) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jfire (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXI - February 2008
The February 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --11:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dan garvey.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Dan garvey.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
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. Rossrs (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: xbox-stub
Thanks for letting me know. I'll start putting it on pages soon. btw, nice article, that was great. :-) Thingg⊕⊗ 19:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Publishers Weekly list of bestselling novels in the United States in the 2000s
You appear to be the originator of this last article this sequence. I have just added 2006 (and corrected 2005), without reference "directly" to Publishers Weekly (only indirectly). As I assume you have access via the library system to the relevant issues, are you able to check these additions for accuracy. And I assume that the 2007 list has not been published yet, and I am right they tend to publish them about April time. Thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, I'll put it on my to-do list. Cheers! Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Films Award
 |
The WikiProject Films Award | |
I, Lady Aleena, hereby award Pegship the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. Your work on the Films based on books department of WikiProject Films is outstanding. Very good work!
|
- I am not completely back, I am working more on Disaster films and Film series. I just wanted you to know that someone has seen your work and give you some acclamation for it. You deserve it! - LA @ 00:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Books-aj.svg aj ashton 01e.png
A tag has been placed on Image:Books-aj.svg aj ashton 01e.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] data dump format
So far as I know, it hasn't changed, at least in any way that affects me directly. They're not quite so frequently as monthly, but the lack of an update last time was basically just due to goldbricking on my part, and the timing clashes brought on by RL. I've that data available to me now, but it's probably not worthwhile uploading at this point. I see that another one has happened since then, now also a couple of weeks old... I ought to be able to take a stab at that in a few days. Alai (talk) 00:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CommissarDVD.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:CommissarDVD.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. Project FMF (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:FarewelltotheKingDVD.jpg
I have tagged Image:FarewelltotheKingDVD.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. Project FMF (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:AngelsnInsectsDVD.jpg
I have tagged Image:AngelsnInsectsDVD.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. Project FMF (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Strange closures at SFD
Hi Peg - I'm a little confused by one or two of the closures you've made at sfd:
- Jan 4 - iceland-eco-stub. Proposal: rename/upmerge, closed as delete
- Jan 4 - mining stub. proposal: rename/rescope/upmerge. One dissenting voice to keep cat. Closed as rename but keep cat. Cat still has only two stubs.
I'm very tempted to at least reopen the second of those, though the creator of the first did say "delete if you wish", so that's less of a problem.
BTW, since th backlog is so big, I've only been closing these at the same time as action is taken on them (e.g., closing at the same time as deleting or rescoping). It makes it easier to keep track. Not a big deal, but it may explain some of the discrepancies lately. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
