User talk:The King of Spain's beard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

Contents

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:PZ Myers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PZ Myers.jpg. The image description 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.

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 fair use images 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Thomas C. Sawyer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Thomas C. Sawyer.jpg. The image description 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.

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 fair use images 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent removal of the {{primarysources}} & {{notability}} tags from Americans for Religious Liberty

Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages, as you did to Americans for Religious Liberty, unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. -- weirdoactor t|c 19:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing maintenance notices from articles when the required changes have not been made. If you continue to disrupt maintenance processes you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- weirdoactor t|c 17:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pssst!

El Barba: I AM ON YOUR SIDE HERE. Okay? I'm trying to HELP YOU. Attacking me and violating policy and procedure isn't going to win friends and influence enemies, ya dig? -- weirdoactor t|c 19:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So you can keep up:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy closure, with no prejudice against an immediate trip back to AfD with a nomination by someone who actually wants the article deleted. I'm not going to comment on the bad faith, meatpuppet, and other accusations, but it's generally best to leave an AfD nomination to whoever does want an article deleted. In this case, Pan Dan indicates that he's giving the page creator(s) an opportunity to find sources, so no one seems to want the page deleted, just yet. As such, it is closed per WP:SK.--Kchase T 06:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Americans for Religious Liberty

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of for Pan Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and his meatpuppet Weirdoactor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I don't know why he wants it deleted -- neither of them will say. Instead he just plasters a blue tag all over it and by being rude. The King of Spain's beard 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Dude. Seriously. Decaf. I am no one's meat puppet; and if I were, I can guaran-damn-tee that I wouldn’t be Pan Dan’s. If you knew just how funny that accusation is to me (and would be to Pan Dan as well, I’ll wager), you’d be laughing now. Out loud. Wow. I’m honored to be part of your crazy crusade though. Incidentally; I don’t think the article should be deleted, just properly sourced. Hi! -- weirdoactor t|c 19:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Because I'm enjoying the show. -- weirdoactor t|c 19:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Pipe down, meatpuppet. You'll speak up when I say so. (oops) Pan Dan 19:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • BABY WANTS CANDY NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW!!! And some beer. -- weirdoactor t|c 19:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep and source. Group looks notable enough. --JudahBlaze 19:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • KoS's Beard, just to make clear and expand on what I said on my talk page: I don't know whether this article should be deleted. The reason is, I don't know whether there are good sources out there. I did a cursory look, found none, and that's why I put the tags on the article. It is reasonable to think that the regular contributor/s to the article (in this case, you) are more likely to know where to find good sources than anyone else (including me). The point of the tags is not to be rude or to defile the article but to alert the contributors that they need to find sources. If you understand what I'm saying, please withdraw this nomination, because it is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Pan Dan 20:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This seems clearly to be a bad-faith nomination, although the article might be a candidate for AfD. Is there an admin around? Can this get closed?--Dmz5 05:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

thankyou. The King of Spain's beard 19:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, your fuzzy grace. Now. Withdraw the silly AfD, and stop disrupting to make a point. Hee. -- weirdoactor t|c 20:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One of your edits

Per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, I advise you not to call other editors "pathetic" as you did here. This is especially relevant in this case since although Schlafly does have a tendency to POV push on creationism related matters in this case he was factually correct. JoshuaZ 03:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:VAND

Do not accuse other editors in good standing of vandalism. Specifically see types of vandalism and What vandalism is not. Thanks, Chris cheese whine 02:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)