User talk:Rodrigue

Welcome!

Hello, Rodrigue, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Scientizzle 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: CNN Pipeline

If you feel as if they would enhance the article, go ahead - I don't think they'd be of much use, however. --Mrmiscellanious 03:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AXxo

You know this guy is pretty knotable since most of his dvd rips come before the films are realeased on dvd and they are are perfect quality.How does he do it, Is he some insider who gets advanced copies of films and then distributes them?Rodrigue 17:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elves? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what your responce is.what do you mean when you say "elves"?Rodrigue 17:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you asked how he gets the advanced copies, and I honestly can't tell you. Perhaps from magical elves? I strongly encourage you to review the notability link I provided above, if you can make a good case for this gent (or lady) meeting it, I can unsalt the article, but it seems rather unlikely. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Firefox giant.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Firefox giant.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Marilyn Monroe

I completed this nomination for you. If you have trouble completing an AfD nom in the future, check out Template:AfD in 3 steps, as it explains each step. -- Scientizzle 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Articles

When splitting articles, please copy categories also, a GFDL notice is nice, and definitely put an edit summary. I almost reverted assuming you were a blanking vandal. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 16:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not recreate deleted articles

Timeline of the 2007 North American pet food recall has been deleted multiple times under criteria CSD A-1. Recreation of deleted material is a blockable offense, so please stop. Editorially speaking, specifically regarding the content of the article, it does not make any sense to make a sub article that provides no information or context. Sub-articles are only meant to provide an expansion on the topic, so simply copying the relevant material does not make any sense either. Thank you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the deletion criteria I cited. Under that criteria, there is no need to go through AfD. I have deleted thousands of articles under similar criteria without having to go through AfD, and this has nothing to do with the subject of the article or my prior involvement therein. I would actually be happy if someone created as many comprehensive, detailed, sourced, sub-articles as they wanted, but the article you created simply does not meet even the most base standards for inclusion. We have policies and procedures. Please follow them. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming to 2007 pet food crisis

This was discussed at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:2007_North_American_pet_food_recall#Separate_Article_on_China.3F I have no strong position on the issue. Just wanted to let you know where it was discussed. Abby Kelleyite 13:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not abuse the page move function. Because you failed to participate in the discussion is not a reason for moving a page. Attempts at putting it back without discussing it on talk first will be reverted. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My attempts to discuss JOG's behavior with him have been deleted from his user talk. I now think that it is reasonable to begin a request for arbitration and I am interested to know if you wish to participate. I believe that there is sufficient evidence and precedence ([1]) for action to be taken. I plan to request that he be blocked from editing pet food recall-related articles and that his administrator privileges be reviewed. Let me know if you are interested in helping. Jfwambaugh 14:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Action Comics -1 page 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Action Comics -1 page 1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Pet Food Crisis Footnotes

You seem to have taken a number of them away. I miss them. Abby Kelleyite 19:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Despite what you think, I am not targeting you. You are violating policy and are risking a block. You cannot remove NSD tags from images without properly giving the source of an image - Indeed, you are not permitted to upload images without a source. Additionally, you are not allowed to remove tags noting the lack of referencing in articles without addressing the sourcing. Your article on List of most valuable comic books fails WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:ATT. Like I said on my talk page, it is not the readers responsibility to find sources for your poor writing. That was the same problem with your article split at 2007 pet food crisis. If you keep it up, you will be blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... it isn't enough to provide a link to the source. You need to provide fair use justification, which, aside from a plain image of the cover will be hard to establish because CGC owns copyright to the header, DC to the cover, yet it was on a commercial website. The image still violates our policies. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again, about 2007 pet food crisis, Jfwambaugh agrees with me about the inappropriateness of your attempted split, at the moment. You seem to think I am against sub articles for the article. Quite the opposite, I am decidedly for them, although my thoughts on what they should be differ. Nevertheless, we should follow proper Wikipedia:Summary style when creating splits. When you split an article up, you are responsible for fixing references, writing a proper summary, and putting the proper context into the new article. Jfwambaugh, myself, and AbbyKelleyite have been working our asses off there, and we can't be held responsible to try and fix your errors. As we have seen, an improperly formed split causes huge problems for an article of this size, and improper splits, non-consensus splits, or random renaming will be reverted. And it is evident that you have had problems with article splits in the past, and have a tendancy to expect others to do your work for you, which will only lead to your edits getting reverted. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of most valuable comic books

I've nominated List of most valuable comic books, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that List of most valuable comic books satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most valuable comic books and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of most valuable comic books during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Heimstern Läufer 00:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove other editor's comments in an AfD discussion, as you did by removing my remark [here]. You have no right to determine if another editor's opinion on a subject does or does not deserve to be part of an ongoing open discussion.

I have restored my text to the ongoing discussion and will treat any other inappropriate alteration of my words outside of the main namespace as vandalism. -Markeer 03:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of most valuable comic books

Please, stop tagging the article.If you want to know what the source of the info is, go to the First appearance article, because that is where all the content is from and it has the sources.I don't know why you keep editing things that I write.I don't know if it is personall or you just like being a administrator who vandals pages.You can put the links in yourself, I was just too lazy to, but you can't say that the information is not true. Rodrigue 21:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:ATT. The article fails all three. It is not the readers responsibility to find sources for your poor writing. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you said, and I still dont think thats true.If you read the article that I pointed out you will see the references are there.If you dont want to put them in fine, but leave the tags out.Further more User_talk:Jfwambaugh#Problems_with_JOG that page looks pretty bad huh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodrigue (talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unfortunately, it just doesn't work like that. And, yes, that page is just awful because I am an evil human being and blah blah blah. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with your assessment of the article, but it didn't seem to me to fit any speedy citeria. Therefore, I've nominated it for deletion. Cheers, Heimstern Läufer 00:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen, thank you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the Hell??!!.Why did you delete my image that I uploaded.Even if you were right that the image was not allowed, which I still don't believe, the tag said I had 7 days if it was a fair use image or 48 hours if otherwise to justfy it, but you took less than a day!!.I can't believe this, do you mind telling me why you didn't even wait.

Because you have a history of abusing image uploads and ignoring policy. For instance, Image:Firefox giant.png was a blatant copyright violation. Image:Action Comics -1 page 1.jpg was tagged as no source which you simply reverted without providing a source. Finally, in my administrative judgment (of which I have eighteen months), Image:Action Comics -1 June 1938.jpg was an outright copyright violation. Period. Not everything you find on the internet is fair use because you stick a tag on it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And secondly, Its interesting how you saw my image and tagged it for deletion, just like you saw my article on The list of most valuable comic books and my article on History of Firearms.If your not targetting me perpusly tagging and deleting my pages like you said, then why are you looking at everything I do and looking to see if it is ok?.regardless of how right you were in editing the pages, its as if youve watched my edits and waiting to see what I do wrong, how else would you know? Rodrigue 13:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, another administrator nominated the article for deletion when he agreed with my assessment of the problems (although we differed on speedy vs. afd). And it doesn't matter who or where, if I see a violation of policy, I am going to follow up on it, no matter what. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to tell oyu that the only reason I did not put the sources in myself is that I didn't know how to format it into a proper list of refrences , I only kmow how to put external links which is what I did for the article knom, so it is sourced.So if you want to format the refrences properly go ahaid, but don't say its unsourced.

It is unsourced. Period. That hasn't changed. And the links provided don't cover it. But that's only half the problem. The problem with the article is that it is entirely original research. You took a table (an unreferenced one, at that) from an article on superhero first appearances, copy and pasted it into this article, and called it the "24 most valuable comics." You took a seemingly random and completely unrelated list, made a claim, and then completely failed to justify that claim. Even if you found a source to the prices of the books, the whole premise of the article "most valuable" would be thrown out. Additionally, if you were able to find out the most valuable comics sold at auction, you would need to back it up with independent third party sources to support every contention, not just shifty Overstreet listings or stuff crimped from the back of Wizard.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I have to ask that you try to not be so vidulant about my edits.The edit you reverted on Action Comics 1 was not even a justified edit.That sentence was just speculation and should not have been there.I think the eitor was refering to the fact that most people and historinas believe that the book was the beginning of the golden age of comic books, and perhaps a sentence like that would be more appropriate.

The revert at Action Comics 1 was sourced. Period. It wasn't just some editor. It was sourced. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you can't deny that you saw that edit that I did by looking at my user page, because I know it is not a coincidense that you came across that page and saw my edit, just like my other edits you keep changing. Rodrigue 14:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violation of the three revert rule at List_of_most_valuable_comic_books, history here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, another admin is reviewing my block of you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rodrigue (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Gave a valid reason for my edits and also discussed on his talk page.Administrator also violated edit policy when reverting me, see [2].also see User_talk:Jfwambaugh#Problems_with_JOG

Decline reason:

User did violate 3RR. (don't do 3 reverts to a page, even if you edit elsewhere or discuss inbetween) — Kim Bruning 16:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blocking

you know its interesting how you decided to block me from editing for a day.And you said your reason was that I violated the WP:3R rule, which is true.but didn't you violate the same rule when you kept reverting my edits?.And haven't you also admitted in the past to violating the same rule regarding the pet food crisis article?.its bad enough you violated that rule yourself as an administrator, but then you punish me for doing the same thing as you.And if you say you had good reasoing for it,so did I.I was only trying to put in refrences for the article so it would no longer be unsourced, and I told you I didn't format it properly.I'm just wondering if you can explain what you did, and why your administrator privelages shouldn't be taken away. Rodrigue 18:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I reverted your removal of the {{oringinalresearch}} and {{unreferenced}} tags, which was vandalism because you did not fix the problems the tags pointed out. This was discussed off-wiki for nearly an hour between myself and another administrator, User:Kim Bruning. Reversion of legitimate vandalism is not applicable to 3RR. Second, yes, I did violate 3RR a full month ago (it's an old and boring story now), as did Jfwambaugh, (which I did admited to and apologized for, otherwise you wouldn't even know about it, surprise, surprise) but the admin who was handling the situation, Johntex, chose not to block either of us (not what I would have done, but I am not Johntex). But, of course, that has nothing to do with you anyway. Third, it was not just your attempt to put in the references, it was your refusal to address all the unreferenced info and the original research. Fourth, my actions, including the reverts and the block of you, were reviewed and supported by other administrators. Period. Perhaps, instead of wailing against me you could learn from your mistakes, especially how the last few times how you attempted page splits and it has been reverted or removed by the page's editors or nominated for deletion. Instead of taking to heart what others have tried to explain to you, you are just ignoring them. And it doesn't help that you seem to ignore all the problems brought forth, for instance the image violations I mentioned above, or your vandalism of other user's comments at the AfD). If you keep it up, you will just be blocked for longer and longer periods of time (and not just from me, but from other admins who are aware of you now). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

Follow this link to learn how to properly format AfD's: WP:AfD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. If you do not follow this process, no-one will see the AfD and it will not be processed. Being the nice guy that I am, I have properly formatted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comic book collecting and added it to the appropriate AfD Log for you. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of long-living organisms, however, you will have to do on your own, or it will be deleted. Again, you cannot be expect other people to keep doing your work for you. Please follow the clearly spelled out processes. Thank you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only Warning

In regards to Image:Action Comic -1 June 1938.jpg/Image:Action Comics 1 June 1938.jpg, this is your final warning. When the image was deleted yesterday, it wasn't even deleted by me. It was another admin altogether. This image violates policy. I have repeatedly told you, it needs a source. You repeatedly upload it without one. I repeatedly tell you, it needs fair use justification. You continue to upload it without any. You complain to me that you want me "to wait before [I] delete anything That [you] upload." (Again, its not just me deleting this stuff.) Quote: "I will try to find the proper info for the images if nessesary [sic] soon, you can tagg [sic] it if you want, but don't delete it before I even explain the image yet." Again, It DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. You must provide "proper info" ready before you upload any image. There is no exception to this. As noted above, this is not your first image violation. If you upload the image, you WILL be blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't you huh?Well I'de like to know who the admin was who deleted the image, because right now I have every reason to suspect it still is just you, because I don't think other admins would do that. Rodrigue 16:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really that irrationally paranoid to think I would just make that up? [3] --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, [4] for something non-admins can see. I'm the other deleting admin, and I agree with Jeffrey here. Image:Action1.JPG serves the purpose of illustrating the comic in question better: it doesn't have copyrighted content (from the grading company), a plastic case that can mess it up, and it's a relatively low-resolution image. Besides, there's no proof that the image is actually the comic in question (unless I'm missing something...) Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly want to step in anything here, but the image can actually serve a purpose for the article on the grading company, Comic Guaranty LLC. To that end, I have attempted to beef up the fair use justification as well as note the respective copyrights for DC Comics and CGC. --GentlemanGhost 23:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal denied

In an AfD, the goal is to find consensus. The consensus was to delete. Sr 13 17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be more appropriate, in my opinion. Sr 13 20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of most expensive comic books

How about pasting the complete link onto the talk page? That way I or someone else can fix it later. Also would you mind copyediting the page? There are numerous minor style issues. --Martian.knight 00:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link worked for me, so I don't know what the problem was. Will you add it or I? (Also please remember to sign posts.) --Martian.knight 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice this: "this list is an estimate" is not a good way to start an encyclopedia article. If it were a list of the most valuable recorded comic book sales it would at least satisfy WP:V, but not like this. (from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Comics_and_animation). Thought that might make things interesting. --Martian.knight 00:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Yes, but it isn't needed in the article. It was just because Kiefer Sutherland guest starred in GI Doh. It has nothing to do with this episode, just that one. Gran² 16:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just don;t see how a promo shown on one channel for a different episode, has anything to do with this one. But feel free to add in that Sutherland previous guest starred. Gran² 16:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks. Additionally, the problem with Image:Robert Wadlow.jpg is not the tag, but the source. All images must have a source listed, or it will be deleted. Do not remove tags without fixing the problem. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you wish to contest this block, consider it reviewed and endorsed by me. You commited a blatant violation of our No personal attacks policy and therefore the block is completely justified. Cool down and don't resort to name calling again. Phaedriel - 19:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI great image of Wadlow please can you source it -I'm afraid it'll be deleted thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of DRV

DRV is there in case AfD screws up, as an appeal. We don't have any rules about double jeopardy, though, so appeals aren't the way to try something again if it was kept at afd unless you feel there was a procedural error. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

It was in no way a personal attack and I'm not questioning your behavior. Rathar, I am disagreeing with your arguments. I noticed that the kind of arguments you were putting forth were all things that have been covered in Wikipedia's official policy on notability and so I suggested that you go ahead and take a look at that again, especially since two of your recent nominations based on the rationale of notability either were or are overwhelmingly shaping up to be strong keeps. It was just a friendly gesture, nothing more. Please do not take this personally and please assume good faith on my part. Thank you very much. --Hnsampat 20:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Perhaps it would have been better if I had made the suggestion on your talk page and not on the discussion page. I apologize for that. (By the way, I did notice that the consensus favored your rationale on the other two articles and I did comment on it in the current deletion discussion.) --Hnsampat 21:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't think that people are saying that the incident is notable just because Mel Gibson is notable. Notability is not transferable. Nor are people saying that the incident is notable because of the huge impact it had on Mel Gibson's life (i.e. he was almost universally condemned as an anti-Semite). What makes the incident notable is that it was quoted over and over again in the media when other celebrity controversies occurred. As one user pointed out, the incident became something of an archetype for celebrity tirades in the U.S., which is what makes it notable. --Hnsampat 21:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD listing

Hi there. I just completed the listing of C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute for deletion. Please be sure to follow the steps listed at WP:AFD when nominating a page. I find using the preloaded debate button that appears in the window on the page after you add {{subst:afd1}} is easiest. Please ask if you have any questions. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Park

I removed your comment, because it didn't relate to the article. The talk page is not for talking about the show's qualities. Unless of course, you would like to add that information about it's video format and the upscaling to the article, but that wasn't at all clear from your comment. Well, if you haven't already done so, feel free to revert my removal. Just so you know it was well intended.--Atlan (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park IV

No offence, but your lengthy conversation about the articles deletion is really cluttering the page, and I suggest talking perhaps on the other Users talk page that you seem to be discussing with, or perhaps directly tell me what problem you have with my nomination.

And like I said earlier, part of the reason for my AFD was I also previously created the Jurassic Park franchise article, and so the film article could then be deleted and a footnote about the film and its possible creation could be added there if necessary. Rodrigue 19:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia operates by consensus. Once consensus is reached, it should stand as is. Particularly in regard to Articles for Deletion, WP:Consnesus, a Wikipedia official policy, requires that matters established by WP:AFD stand as decided, and that "editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome." This is intended to prevent editors from taking a second (or third, or fourth or fifth...) stab at deleting an article. The previous AfD on this same article ended with an overwhelming consensus to keep the article as is. I have no reason to believe that you knew the terms of WP:Consensus or that you initiated this second AfD as an effort to overturn the previous consensus. But, by definition, your AfD nomination has that exact intended purpose, intentional or not. Your nomination challenges the legitimacy of the article and never suggests merging the content anywhere else. WP:Consensus suggests that "An editor who thinks that a consensual decision is outdated may ask about it on the relevant talk page, at the Village Pump, or through a Request for Comment to see whether other editors agree." Given that the nomination violates WP:Consensus, albeit unintentionally, and given that there is a well-defined procedure for reversing consensus, I strongly suggest that the nomination be withdrawn and that one of the methods suggested in WP:Consensus be used as a means to gauge support for overturning the earlier consensus. Alansohn 20:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I stated it was wrong because AfD means you think all the information should be deleted. That is the point of an AfD, you think the article should be deleted, which means the information also. Trust me, I've been through this with other articles (most recently Spider-Man 4), and people are constantly doing the "this should be a proposed merger, not an AfD". I even had people voting to "keep", who later returned to the proposed merger page and voted to "merge" the information. It's about what you are trying to do. If you think the information isn't notable, then you do an AfD. If you think that the information is good, just not good enough for its own article, then you do a proposed merger on that page. Notice how the majority of the votes are for "redirect and merge", instead of simply "delete". What I said had nothing to do with the length of time since the last AfD. The only thing the length of time did was educate me on the difference between and AfD and a merger. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, if it's the first time it could be a possible result. But when you are dealing with a second time, on something that actually has a venue to be merged in, it's easier on everyone to just to the "mergeto" and "mergefrom" tags on the article. This AfD will mostly be closed as "no consensus" and I recommend, if you think the info is better suited on the franchise page, that you place the "mergeto" and "mergefrom" tags on the appropriate articles. You'll find many of the same people that appear on the AfD will join the merge talk, and you might more easily convince the ones that said "keep" to vote to merge it to the franchise page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all of the information would be fine to keep, so I would follow Spider-Man film series and have a "Future" section that catalogs all of the JP IV information as it goes down. Once the film actually starts production we can just simply remove the redirect and update the article accordingly. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree that if this had been a mergeto/mergefrom, that this would not be an issue. I would fully support consideration of merger. The problem is that an AfD is asking for consensus to delete an article. The result might be keep (as occurred the first time around) and it might result in a merge, but what you are asking for is to have the article deleted in its entirety. If this AfD ends as a keep, it would seem that there is no consensus to merge the material and its should remain as is in as separate article. Alansohn 01:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point to close it, but it would speed up the process. It's going to end up "no consensus". After that, I'd follow what seemed to be the idea that most believed it should be merged (of the people that thought it should be deleted, and in Alansohn mentioned that he would have supported a merge request initially) and just copy the info and past it on the franchise page (if the consensus is clear that a merge would be best). Also, unless you plan on including things other than the films, "film series" would be the right naming convention for that. A lot of people will vote "keep" just because they assume you want to delete the info. When it comes to films, so long as the "speculation" is reliable, and verifiable, then it's ok. That being said, by speculation I mean Spielberg actually saying something like "I think ....", and not joe schmoe, who happens to be with USA Today, casting his personal opinions of the film. He would normally be a reliable source, but his opinion of the matter is irrelevant; as opposed to Spielberg who is the producer and whose opinion will most likely be made into film law. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be requesting a merge of the content to Jurassic Park franchise? I would suggest preparing that article similarly to Spider-Man film series (but noting the books and the video games, of course) so the future content will not be the only section there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, considering that Jurassic Park video games exists, and there's not a great deal of other media to cover, can I suggest moving it to Jurassic Park film series, in an even more similar fashion to Spider-Man film series and Jurassic Park film series? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic park

Firstly, you do realize that this is by no means the frist article to be nominated for AFd more than once,right?And if there was such a strong consensus to keep as you said about the other AFd, then why do alot of people now seem to want to delete or merge the article?

And I also spoke to User:Night Gyr on the matter, and he agreed with me as well that there are infact no real policies regarding double jeopardy on wikipedia like I said, and simply renominating a page doesn't mean I violated Wikipedia:Consensus unless I had clear bad intension.So what I did is no different from other pages that have been renominated as well. Rodrigue 23:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what any one admin says or does not say, the text of WP:CONSENSUS is rather explicit in describing the process of undoing established consensus, and this process has not been followed. Whether the contravention of the official policy was inadvertent or not, the clearly-written double jeopardy was violated. Official policy is official policy, and even if you are not the first, the fact that others have failed to observe the policy does not open the door for further violations. I understand that you were unaware of the policy before starting the AfD, but a policy violation is a policy violation. Alansohn 01:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

If you think merging the article with Jurassic Park franchise would help, thats fine.But that doesn't mean the AFD page needs to be closed, the result may not be no consensus, people can come to the conclusion to merge in a AFD. Rodrigue 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merger now and I would certainly oppose it in the future, as the article stands on its own and the reliably sourced material added since the last AfD closed only further supports the articles existence on a standalone basis. On procedural grounds, given the terms of WP:Consensus, I think a mergeto/mergefrom (and not starting an AfD) would have been an acceptable option to try to see if there was a change in consensus. By definition, an AfD seeks to delete an article, and this specific nomination for this AfD never mentioned a merge as an option. While it seems clear that even with this second stab at deletion that consensus is to keep the article, the main change from the original AfD is that there seems to be far fewer people (actually, one person) who believe the article should be deleted. Alansohn 17:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator 4

You know Jurassic Park IV is very much the same as Terminator 4, which was also deleted after several AFDs and for the same reason I nominated Jurassic Park IV, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball.

First of all, do you think it was wrong that Terminator 4 was nominated several times for deletion after the first consensus Delete, or do you think it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, given there is about as much info about it as Jurassic Park IV. Rodrigue 19:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never participated in any of the T4 AfDs, and the lack of an article to compare makes this a bit more challenging. It seems that the T4 article had few if any sources to demonstrate that anything was in the works, while the JP4 has a total of 15 reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. The existing Terminator (series) article targets a rather fuzzy 2009/2010 date for T4, while JP4 has a much nearer 2008 targeted release date. WP:CRYSTAL states that "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis. Forward-looking articles about unreleased products (e.g. movies, games, etc.) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising." The JP4 article meets every single criteria specified: The material is verifiable (with 15 separate sources), and the film would clearly merit its own article if the film had already been released, and it is clear that the article is NOT advertising. I cannot argue the merits of the T4 article. But it is becoming abundantly clear that the Jurassic Park IV article meets all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Alansohn 19:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD nomination

Ok, so you don't disagree with its deletion.But the real issue I was getting at is the fact that it had atleast 3 AFd nominations,and one was no consenusu, 2 were delete, and in the end it was delete.Do you disagree with nominating it 3 times for deletion in one year, because if not then how can you be hypocritical and say nominating Jurassic Park IV a second time was wrong.(Archived Deletions).Rodrigue 16:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what happened to the third AfD for Terminator 4, but there are details for the first two AfDs available through the link you provided. AfD 1 ended as delete. Presumambly, the article was recreated with an attempt to address the issues raised in the first AfD. A second AfD was submitted and ended as a no consensus. I don't know if there really was a third AfD, or how it ended, but another attempt was made and numbered as AfD 4. While I do have issues with multiple attempts to delete an article in general, accepted practice is that an an article can be resubmitted for AfD if a previous AfD ended as no consensus, as was the case for Terminator 4. In the case of Jurassic Park IV, the previous AfD ended with an overwhelming consenus to keep the article as is. Remember that notability, once established, does not dissappear (See WP:N#Notability is not temporary), and that your claim that "[t]his film has not improved in notability since the last AFD..." is not only irrelevant to your effort to delete this or any other article, but is contradicted by the many changes and sources added after the initial AfD. The article only made a stronger case for notability than after the initial AfD. Despite your efforts to draw a comparison to the T4 AfDs, the scenario is the reverse; while there was never an AfD demonstrating consensus to retain the article, a clear consensus was established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurassic Park IV to keep the article as is. In summary, the article is notable, no doubt about it; it was notable, remains notable, and will continue to be notable. Alansohn 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Speaker

He is only notable in the context of the tuberculosis case. Outside that, he isn't. It's the case that's notable, not the person. The article was rightfully speedy deleted by Angr and recreated as a redirect for that reason. He already told you that, but you conveniently chose to ignore him after that. I will redirect again, although I'm pretty sure this will end up in an AfD before long.--Atlan (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Angr beat me to it and protected the page as well. Saves me the filing of an AfD, since you won't be able to revert.--Atlan (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you posted on Angr's page, he responded and you ignored (or maybe you just never checked back on his talk page for the response). That's the order of things. Anyway, you just went back and recreated the article again, despite what other people think. That's also exactly why he's protected the Andrew Speaker page now. --Atlan (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better if you had bothered to actually do some research before making a point on my talk page. Suicidal Hamster patrols pages for spelling errors, as is VERY clear from his edit history. Saying his correction is an endorsement for the Andrew Speaker article is a joke. Also, there is no one on the tuberculosis scare page wondering why the Andrew Speaker article is now a redirect (other than JDG on June 4, but the article was made a redirect on June 5 and he has clearly given up on the subject after Angr's response). If you resort to making up arguments now, then we're done. Anyway, take it up with Angr if you can't get over the redirect. It's out of my hands as well.--Atlan (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by people, I meant Angr, Pan Dan and me. Not quite a community consensus, I agree, but it's enough in this case. Let's let the subject rest now and go on with other stuff, since we both can't do anything about it anymore.--Atlan (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting Faye Turney to 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel

In my opinion, Faye Turney should not be redirected to 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. I think that it is too large to merge, since large subtopics of an article should be given their own article (see Wikipedia:Redirect. Therefore your edit has been reverted. Andrew_pmk | Talk 21:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to WP:BLP#Articles_about_living_people_notable_only_for_one_event, Faye Turney does not qualify as a seperae article, and article size is a weak argument if she isn't notable.I don't know if you used a Bot, but you shouldn't revert my edit so quickly based on your opinion. Rodrigue 21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is fairly vague here. If you want to remove the article on Faye Turney, could you please merge any useful information into 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel? Andrew_pmk | Talk 22:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following your comment on my talk page, I have responded on Talk:Faye Turney. Greenshed 19:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

I redirected the page based on WP:BLP#Articles_about_living_people_notable_only_for_one_event.Its a pretty clear policy. Rodrigue 22:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you merge the info from the old article? --John 22:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty clear policy? Then why are you so passionately trying to defend the Andrew Speaker article based on the same policy? According to you, the policy is clear that the Andrew Speaker article should stay. You even went to DRV about it. And now this? Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.--Atlan (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sorry for the misunderstanding. I think I agree with you here, as far as your reasoning goes. However, practical issues might arise, like article size. If you can merge Faye Turney's information into the larger article and keep all the editors happy at the same time, then by all means do it. You might want to discuss it at both articles's talk pages first though, as this is by no means an uncontroversial move.--Atlan (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pet food crisis

Hey there. You didn't follow the proper procedure for requesting a page move. you need to list it here first, before you add the request template to the article. Otherwise the template is just confusing, because the article isn't even listed. I support the page move by the way, although I don't think it's that much of an issue.--Atlan (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sicko merger

You may need to state whether you're in favour of a merger or not at this location. smb 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigue, I agree. I think you run the (slight) danger of your "vote" being lost in the shuffle if it's down there below the discussion. You realize, of course, it's not a vote so much as a consensus-building exercise. Best, Noroton 21:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Robert_Wadlow.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Robert_Wadlow.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 15:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Canadian dollar. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Gscshoyru 17:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing tags

Please do not remove tags from images without resolving the underlying problem. You removed the no-source tag from Image:Robert Wadlow.jpg without providing the source. As the time has expired, this image will now be deleted. --Yamla 19:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Area_51.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Area_51.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:OQO_Model_02.PNG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:OQO_Model_02.PNG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing tags

The Area 51 image was tagged as replaceable. The tag says not to remove the tag, but to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} if you don't think the image is replaceable, and explain why on the talk page. It is against policy to remove such tags, and you can be blocked from editing for repeatedly doing so. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Toronto Island.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Toronto Island.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Toronto Island.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Toronto Island.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. BetacommandBot 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Area 51.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Area 51.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. BetacommandBot 19:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Area 51.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Area 51.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. BetacommandBot 16:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piracy Merge

In response to your proposed merger. I disagree with it. One vote by an anonymous user who has never edited before cannot be considered a consensus. I am proposing the page be moved back to Piracy. Sorry I did not see the proposal before you closed it. Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 21:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Guinness World Records 2007.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Guinness World Records 2007.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. BetacommandBot 19:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

aXXo

I saw that you were hoping to get the aXXo article started up again. I've started a aXXo-beta that I hope you can expand and make better -- Esemono (talk) 14:41, 13 January 20==08 (UTC)

Presidents

See replies to your comment: [5]. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polling issues

It's nice to be passionate about editing Wikipedia, but please refrain from making comments such as "Wow, some ppl really don't know how to read" or "If you weren't so naive..."

Please solely comment on the content of other users' comments. The discussion doesn't need to get heated. Thanks. Leebo ^T/C 20:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section

Well, looking back at another of your contributions where you imply Obama isn't eligible to be President and your only objections on the polling article were brought when Obama was listed as being ahead in a poll, it seems to me that you may be more favorable to Hillary or may just dislike Obama. All I know is you seem to show a preference. I'm not suggesting it's intentional.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not implying anything of that sort. However, there were plenty of polls that were not outlier and instead you just started questioning the legitimacy of determining any leader based on the polls. On the other hand you didn't question having a leader when Hillary was ahead by smaller margins. I just find it odd that there seems to be so little protest when Hillary is shown as the leader and then there's an uproar when Obama is the leader. Some people dislike Obama rather than liking Hillary, mainly because they see Obama as someone who's all talk.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're suggesting I'm pro-Obama it's not true. I'm for Ron Paul, though I consider Obama probably the better of the two Democrats and think he's probably gonna win the Dem nod. However, I think they're both more alike than different.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2008

Hello Rodrigue. The top of that article (just like all the other similar articles, 1788 to 2004) use the 'top' of the article, for the person who's elected President & the person who's runner-up. We can't put anybody up there, until November 4, 2008. PS- The Republicans don't choose a presidential nominee, until September; McCain is the presumptive presidential nominee (there's a differance). GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not saying the Republican Party won't nominate McCain; we're saying they haven't nominated him yet. Be patient. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK

Glad to see you're following the Khadr case, as it winds its way not only through Guantanamo, but the Supreme Court of Canada. Right now I'm personally focusing on adding in the final Tribunal details and the OC-1 statement (1-2 more days), then work in the remaining details from the newly-released s:Affidavit of Omar Ahmed Khadr (1 day), and then start working in the Canadian side (Judgment on the release of Canadian documents related to the detention are due by March 26...I actually have the date written on my wrist at the moment). However, if you'd like to "jump the gun" and start adding details yourself to the article, I'd urge your contributions :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 15:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Xie Qiuping

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Xie Qiuping, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Donald Albury 13:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Xie Qiuping

An article that you have been involved in editing, Xie Qiuping, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xie Qiuping (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

AfD nomination of Dede Koswara

I have nominated Dede Koswara, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dede Koswara. 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. A ni Mate 21:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Creme Puff

I have nominated Creme Puff, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creme Puff. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Usage share of operating systems for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Usage share of operating systems is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usage share of operating systems until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Action Comics -1 June 1938.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Action Comics -1 June 1938.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Jurassic Park Adventure Pack.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jurassic Park Adventure Pack.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dennis Galer Goodwin

The article Dennis Galer Goodwin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears only notable for one event WP:SINGLEEVENT, and does not appear to be notable otherwise, failing WP:ANYBIO.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ifnord (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]