Please use a new section when starting a new talk topic. Thanks.
I had the accounts disturbedrcool and immortallord but I only made new accounts because you kept on banning me. Now I relise that I may have made some trouble so from now on I'll keep the edits sensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo legend 00 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your're probably right unfortunately the beauty will have to go. I'll have a look for an image at flickr but I am certain we won't be able to a completely free image for this tall lady for some time. As for the image of the North Korean Dennis Taylor, Kim il jong, i had no idea that the image wasn't free. I am surprised that such "copywrighted" images are acceptable when we can get a free image of him . I thought you would have removed all these from that article too ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 12:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this mate I was kind of calling my bluff. Believe me I spent a lot of time successfully obtaining a free license of aesthetic looking Bollywood film actors from the website Bollywood blog which are a great asset to wikipedia. See Category:Images from Bollywood blog - I managed to negotiate a free license under 3.0 officially which took a lot of effort in contact with the director of Caledonian Publishing on which I was congratulated for..Occasionally I try to get away with an image or two such as Gabrielle which I like but I genuinely admit I shouldn't try to for the projects sake. I know about Kim Jong Il -of course I can't see him being availbale for photo taking in North Korea with all the repression and censorship. At the least though a rationale needs adding to these to make it more acceptable. I didn;t even check that image as I assumed it was free when it clearly isn't. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 12:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you participate in WP:FUR debates. I would like to call your attention to an expedited evaluation request at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#October_5.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for flagging LandBlueBook.comasWP:CSD per notability requirement. I was going to do that instead of just the {{advertisement}} tag, but a recent wrangling with someone over my CSD'ing of their article has made me a little gunshy and less BOLD. I concur with your edit. Thanks! - Ageekgal 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the 'heads up' on this. For some bizarre reason the Category:Fictional universe stubs was included in the recursive list (a 'daughter' of) the Category:Comics stubs. As there was only one subcategory therein that could be strictly considered as a 'comics' related fictional universe, I have removed the link and the fict universe stubs won't be included in lists of comics stubs any more. Sometimes it's these 'goofs' that help fix things that aren't looked at too often (I would never have thought that fict universes would be considered as 'comics' by someone)! I'll go back on the bot tags and remove any that clearly fall into those other fict universes categories. SkierRMH 20:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please tell me why there's no sign of notability in one of the recent articles i've wrote? Thanks! --Eventempty 09:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi pak, i go to insert my site link in commodore 64 wikipedia, u delete my link. You work in Wos, i have tons of material similar, this is a conflict for you ? My site and my material are totally legal.
i wait a fast reply or i go to speack directly with wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.5.219.177 (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sign of notability, either in the article or via Google --Pak21 11:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Pak, you've voted to delete my article about Ricardo Padua because it shows no sign of notability. I'm not the person in the article, but I know him. I think this article is interesting to the graphic designers community, particulary the portuguese / brazilian ones. This person works with names like Pink Floyd, Roxy Music, etc.. and a lot of people in the music industry. Concerning notability, RTPN (the portuguese international channel) have made an interview and a short story about him, telling about his works and he is giving a lot of small interviews in design newspapers. Unfortunatelly, not all of them are available via internet, and google is great but is it the method to show notability? If you search for Ricardo Padua on youtube you can watch the interview and the short story about him at RTPN. If you think the article should stay at wikipedia, please tell the other admin, because, as you've might noticed already, my english is not so good.
All good for you. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.41.102 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, edit conflict. I thought I'd gone back too many pages in the browser and was conflicting with my own earlier edit, if that makes any sense. Anyway, I removed the links you listified as they didn't really seem to add much, especially the latter one, but add them back if you want. Cheers, Miremare 16:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to this comment. Strickly they can get blocked for it eventually...but only if they persist and blocking is the only solution. I prefer a gentler method of correction. I remember a new user I cut slack to rather than following policy. This gave him time to work out what wikipedia was about and turn into a constructive editor. Sometimes seeing if this is the case is worth a bit of AfD time. Luckily in this case the admin-delete button has intervened ! - Peripitus (Talk) 23:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you revert another user's edits, as you have done at Libero it is advisable to always give an edit summary to explain why you are doing this. If not, there is a chance your edits may be seen as vandalism. Thanks - Soprani 18:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Linking an article to a redirect puts added strain on the system, when the simple correct pipe can be used instead it should be. And the terminology which you are using is not neutral, not most commonly used universally and most importantly in line with Wikipedia's naming conventions on articles in relation to it (for example we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Football). The slang American term for it is only used in articles which pertain to the USA only, such as that nations clubs, teams and players. - Soprani 18:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "future" section is based on something I read in a suppliment to F1 Racing magazine. I'll see if I can dig it out. I'm afraid I'm a lot better at finding information and writing articles than I am at citing my sources... Spiderlounge 19:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that; I didn't see that note (i.e. "Note 5") when making my edit. I'll mentally file that away to prevent future embarassment. I am sure I am getting into nettlesome territory here, but has there been any thought given to some sort of rule like this? We use codices in the course of regular writing on the subject in the article, but quotes from Games Workshop merit their spelling? (I can't even bring myself to write it.) --Lloegr-Cymru£ ¥ 13:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
