User talk:Matticus78/Talk archive 2006

Hey, how did you manage to go so ling without getting a welcome message? I know you probably know your way around by now, but the spam bellow might help.

(I'm stealth ninja Wikipedian, that's how!) :) Matticus78 23:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Matticus78/Talk archive 2006, 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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- GraemeL ^(talk) 15:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shayne van Vlerken for Deletion

Hi. I noticed that you posted a {{afd}} on Shayne van Vlerken for AFD a while back. Are you still writing the AFD rationale? In case you didn't know, you should follow the procedure laid out in WP:AFD and create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shayne van Vlerken, then link it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 24. Thanks. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry - got my order a little messed up there (apologies, haven't done deletion nominations before!). Should be fixed now. --Matticus78 01:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By the way, for such clear candidates for WP:DVAIN, it might be faster and simpler to use {{db-bio}} than a full AFD. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, noted for future reference. --Matticus78 01:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see another shropshire lad

Hi saw you on the AFD I did for Alex Jackson - I'm a north shropshire boy myself - Ellesmere (middle of nowhere near Oswestry).

--Charlesknight 21:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy there! Nice to make contact with a fellow local Wikipedian. I'm just trying out a few days at the rockface of the Newpage Patrol with such forays into AfD as required. I'm a Shrewsbury lad, but I've been to Ellesmere many a time (probably my earliest memories of a primary school trip, in fact). Ever been to the Boathouse restaurant by the lakeside? They do a mean "huntsman's pie" - a three-layer pork, turkey and stuffing delight! :) --Matticus78 21:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes still there - I know Shewsbury pretty well --Charlesknight 21:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Toe Ring

Britton LaRoche has stated that he/she has no intention at all of removing the libel/slander rings. Additionally, he/she is going after you elsewhere [1]. You will probably need to go ahead and have the offending images removed yourself. IrishGuy ^talk 03:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd question - can you do tell me what the problem with the "images" was? were they photoshops of photos to look like sketches?

--Charlesknight 22:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original image that set her off was a photo taken from a commercial website (an image very easily found by searching for "celtic toe rings" on Google Images), that had had Photoshop's Angled Strokes filter applied to it with only minimal adjustments from the default settings (I was able to recreate the image almost perfectly in under five minutes, despite her assertion that it was a sketch that took her two hours). Having been using Photoshop since version 4 (some seven or eight years ago), you eventually learn to spot the effects of its filters. Getting the image tagged as a copyvio by me provoked her into creating a series of ring images in Photoshop as proof of her Photoshop skills (by following a Lord of the Rings-inspired step-by-step tutorial for making your own "One Ring" image), said rings having the words "libel" and "slander" on them. I attempted to reason with her, saying that attacking and threatening other users is far worse than any perceived copyright infringement, and even withdrew my comments on the AfD as a show of faith, but it fell on deaf ears. Needless to say, the attack images got deleted under CSD:I8 pretty quickly, though I won't deny I found the whole affair a bit unsettling and lost a few hours' sleep over it. I was about ready to jack Wikipedia in altogether. Anyway, it's done with now. Frankly, I don't fancy getting into another war of words over the edits she's done since. ~ Matticus78 22:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I too am familar with photoshop and well you can guess the rest... --Charlesknight 22:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:I'll save you the trouble. In short, the 8th criterion for speedy deletion of an image is an image created solely to disparage its subject or some other entity (another user, in this case). Basically the same as the no-attack rule for articles. ~ Matticus78 22:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Npower (UK)

You created Npower (UK). This article about a company does not meet the standards at WP:CORP. I have proposed its deletion. If you can bring it up to snuff, please do so and remove the {{prod}} tag. GRBerry 14:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I only moved it from another article that had been created by another user but mis-named "N Power" (which I originally redirected to the article on their parent company RWE, but then changed my mind and created a separate but correctly-named article), and expanded it from the original article which was even more lacking in content. I can, however, assure you that npower most definately does meet WP:CORP, as even a few minutes on Google can confirm - they're one of the biggest energy suppliers in the UK (and by the way, I don't work for them or have any connection with them! I was just doing a bit of Wikipedia housekeeping with this article, really...). Anyway, I'll stick in a couple of links to articles on them as justification, and remove the prod. ~ Matticus78 14:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AfD nomination for Identify software

Thank you so much! I'm still not getting what I am doing wrong. And is that what I add to the log -- {{subst:afd3}} ? Usually I just copy the format I see on the log. I'm in a discussion with a Village Pump Technical guy right now on this subject who helped me on my last one this morning.

Othertimes I've done it without any problem. I've tried to understand all the directions given, but I'm not very technical, I guess. You are saying that the steps should be in this order:

Put template on page.
Then list my objections
Then put article on log

Right? How could you tell what I was doing? (This Wiki is very mysterious to me.) KarenAnn 17:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I thought those tags, like {{subst:afd1}} were choices and didn't understand the sequence of using all three. Your explanation is going to save me much grief in the future. Now that you have layed it out, I won't have to guess and end up hitting or missing randomly. So thanks again! KarenAnn 17:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again -- trying to nominate Pjotro

I filled out the page first Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pjotro. The character was created to advertise a Nokia product, acccording to [2], one of the first few Google hits. I filled out the Editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 7. It shows up in the editing but not on the saved list. I have put it there several times now. Am I hexed? KarenAnn 18:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you once again. I better calm down and try to think things through more. Those tags never seem to work for me but they do for everyone else so I am doing something wrong. I see that darn guy Pjotro is listed now, so I can rest in peace. Thank you so very much. KarenAnn 19:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Success! I just completed a deletion nomination following your directions every step of the way! KarenAnn 20:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rost

Generaly knocking out socks requires cheackuser. They appear to have stoped for now. If you see them start up again give me a shout and I'll see what I can do.Geni 12:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joenabie Gamao

Thanks for the quick help on Joenabie_Gamao. I thought it may have qualified for a speedy delete but I wasn't sure.→Lzy Genius 02:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Pages that are obviously someone's attempt at creating a rudimentary blog or homepage are always a candidate for either speedy deletion or at best moving to that user's userpage (though in this case, because the information was duplicated, deletion was appropriate). If only all cases were so clear-cut! ~ Matticus78 07:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Catch

Good catch on User:Tom O'Shea. He has now been blocked indefinately!! Abcdefghijklm 09:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I actually spotted him during Newpage Patrol duties from a nonsense article he created. Another one bites the dust! ~ Matticus78 09:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the very disturbing article he created!! Isn't it a great sense of satisfaction when you beat a vandal? Abcdefghijklm 09:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC) (P.S. I see you are from Shropshire.. the best county in GB. I'm just across the border in Cheshire!)[reply]

Indeed - very satisfying when the system just ticks over like clockwork. Cheshire's nice too - I used to go to college in Wrexham and made regular jaunts north to Chester and its wonderful city centre. ~ Matticus78 09:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Upton-By-Chester.... the college wasn't Yale by any chance was it? I have been to a few seminars there. Abcdefghijklm 09:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, NEWI, just next door to Yale. It was one of the few places that was doing degrees in Multimedia Computing at the time (of course, everywhere does it now). ~ Matticus78 10:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of God

Thank you for your comment about my article. The Philosophy of God. This is not an essay or research article. This was written from common sense and observation. Every person knows these things deeply but are not willing to say it. By you marking this article for deletion you are saying that you determine what people will know and when. You fall in the category of intellectual believer.--Tunmire 12:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's as may be, but something that is, as you put it, "written from common sense and observation" is precisely what original research is. Any article on Wikipedia needs to be backed up with verifiable sources from reliable third parties. You are welcome to contest the deletion proposal, but you must amend the article to include only verified information. A proposed deletion won't be acted upon for five days, so you have time to make any changes to the article. Don't take it personally; it's not a statement on my beliefs, yours or anyone else's. It's just part of Wikipedia's policies and processes. ~ Matticus78 13:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your afd help - again!

I refer to your message a dozen times a day. It's been invaluable.

Also, you mentioned watching the newly-created articles list. How do you do that? The closest I can come is watching the Recent changes list. Newly-created articles list sounds really interesting. KarenAnn 14:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it came in useful - I've seen your name a few times around the AfD pages and the like, so I could already tell you were settling into the process. The newly-created articles list is at Special:Newpages, and can also be accessed via the small "new" link near the top of the recent changes page for quicker access (that's how I usually get to it, anyway - I must get and put some more direct links to useful procedural pages on my own user page, a trick I've seen a lot of other Wiki editors do). You do see a lot odd things pop up there though - some recent articles I sent for speedy deletion included a page about someone's dog (with photos), and a disturbingly detailed article on "poo racing", of all things. Some people just don't get Wikipedia at all... ~ Matticus78 14:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link ups. I saved a copy of your message when I archived my page (modified a little).

I use my UserPage (front page} for references and I also made two user pages with notes and links. If I find something useful, I make a link to it because I know it will be difficult to find again (bookmark it on my browser. Re: new, you weren't kidding when you said "small" link. KarenAnn 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Patrolled edit

Help:Patrolled edit - do you know anything about this aspect of Recent Changes? I read it but don't understand it. (I'm not a computer person.) KarenAnn 12:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's a feature in the MediaWiki software (the server-side set of programs that run Wikipedia and all other wiki-based sites) that allows users to mark the latest change to a page as a good one (i.e. not vandalism), making things a little easier for fellow Recent Changes patrollers since it's been confirmed that an edit has already been reviewed and approved, so they don't need to look at it again. However, this is entirely a moot point: while the feature is available in the software, it hasn't been implemented on Wikipedia itself (I suppose because it'd be too easy to abuse if left open for any user to okay a change, and/or there aren't enough Administrators (966 at last count) for such a busy site to make it work if it were restricted to Administrator users only). It might be something to look out for in the future, but I can't see it working well on the site as it currently stands. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Just so you know, I now have a new username at User:Seivad. Previously I was known as [[User::Abcdefghijklm]]. _{This message has been left for everyone who has left a message on my talk page}. Thanks for your time, Seivad 21:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

If its so funny then why did it happen to my microwave then? --Clueless, Pathetic and very Annoying 11:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you were okay when you saw this "walking microwave"? Were you on LSD? J.J.Sagnella 12:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is a walking microwave and a angry umbrella offending ppl? --Clueless, Pathetic and very Annoying 12:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no more joke pages for me. I promise. --Clueless, Pathetic and very Annoying 12:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PSentry

Hey, just wondering if you think the AfD portion of PSentry has run its course yet? Will it remove itself? It seems our discussion was pretty well it on the matter. Thanks again. -- Idealistic cynic 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About copyright infringement

Hello Matticus78 I have decided to put two of my articles on my website to en.wiki.x.io so that more people may benefit from them. These are named "oil and gas exploration in turkey" and "geology of turkey". I have put a back-links to the original article so that people can browse through the my web-site for more related articles. However, I received an error message stating possibility of copyright infringement. I am the writer of these articles sot there is not a case of copyright infringement. I kindly request you to remove this warning and enable the pages. Thank you for helping run such a great service! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifia (talk • contribs)

Please see point 2 of the copyright notice - if you hold the copyright to this material, or if you have permission to use this material under the terms of Wikipedia's license, please indicate so on the page's talk page and under the article's listing on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Just put your explanation on the talk page, and it will be reviewed by the closing administrator and the article will be reinstated.

Also, please use four tildes (~~~~) to automatically sign any future posts to talk pages so people can see who left the comment and when. Thank you. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Again Matticus78!

My article titled Geology of Turkey is now reinstantiated but Oil & Gas Exploration in Turkey is not. Can you reinstantiate it as well? --Lifia 16:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's now up to the administrator who closes the report to reinstate the article - unfortunately, it is not my place to do this. If they are satisfied with your licensing claim on the article source, they will reinstate the article in a few days. Sorry for any delay, but the claims have to be checked out and all.

Also, please don't overwrite comments on talk pages when you write a new reply; leave any existing comments so that the thread of the discussion can be followed easily. Thank you. ~Matticus ^T_C 00:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Kelly

Hi Matticus, I just wanted to let you know that I changed the Todd Kelly copyvio tag to a speedy copyvio. It was created in the last 48 hours and both versions of it were copyright violations so it doesn't need to be listed at Copyright Problems. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that how CSD A8 works? I've always been under the impression from the wording of it that it could only apply to a "commercial content provider [...] directly engaged in making money off the content" (e.g. something directly copied from Encarta, for example, or a news service selling their content to other providers) - in other words, there to get a potentially liable article off Wikipedia as quickly as possible - while something pulled from a free, publicly-accessible site that is simply promoting something went under the usual {{copyvio}} process. If I'm wrong about that, I'll know for future reference though. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had a problem with articles I've tagged for speedy copyvio. The Todd Kelly article was deleted an hour ago. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy

I noticed that we nominated the page Arsebear for speedy deletion literally within seconds of each other! --David Mestel^(Talk) 09:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising - an article with a title like that is bound to attract an NP Patroller's attention! "Arsebear"...honestly! ~Matticus ^T_C 09:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, true. --David Mestel^(Talk) 09:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moving articles

Thank you for the notice, I never noticed that 'Move' tab before. ReverendG 01:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pass-Pirates

Thanks for the heads-up re db-advert. Why does the template exist? It should be deleted. I don't agree with your db-empty however; the article doesn't seem to fall foul of those criteria. --Dweller 10:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the db-advert tag was created by an ambitious user but not debated and accepted into the WP:CSD criteria, so while it was undoubtedly a bold move it was sidestepping procedure somewhat, so got the active portion of it disabled (i.e. adding it doesn't automatically list the article in the speedy deletion category). At the time I added the db-empty tag the article was only one sentence saying it was a forum that gave out passwords for adult sites, so I figured it probably classed as speedy (on reflection, db-group might have fitted better as it didn't "assert the notability"). Frankly I still can't see much hope for the article - it fails WP:WEB pretty hard, having been in existence only for a few months and having no Alexa rank. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Gardner

You tagged Sally Gardner for speedy deletion. I wanted to let you know that the article has now been significantly expanded, and demonstrates that she is a notable English children's author. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 10:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. At the time I tagged the article it certainly didn't assert her notability, but that's a great improvement now. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mass move unsourced imags into CSD

While I greatly apprecite you tagging unsourced images, they will be deleted in time, don't put them in CSD. CSD is for things that are urgent; they arn't. If some image is particuarly a problem, it's OK, but don't do it en masse. You'll just piss off the people (like me) clearing out CSD. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, didn't realise that would cause a problem. Won't do that again. ~Matticus ^T_C 23:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - we all make mistakes. You might add a note to the template clarifying this, and help stop it from happening again. Thanks again for doing the work on images in any case. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Throttle 3

Hi, I've taken Throttle 3 to an AfD since the author of the article removed the PROD. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gershon Iskowitz

Gershon Iskowitz. How do you know the article is a copyright violation? --HResearcher 13:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search showed the text in the article was copied directly from http://www.newzones.com/dynamic/artist.asp?ArtistID=118 , word-for-word. At the bottom of the page is the copyright statement "© 2006 Newzones Gallery of Contemporary Art and their artists. All rights reserved.", and in the site's terms of use is the statement "Permission is explicitly denied for any republication of text or images in this site without the prior express written consent of the Newzones gallery and their artists. This includes publishing in print and on the internet for commercial or non-commercial purposes.". Can't get much clearer-cut than that! ~Matticus ^T_C 13:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Thanks for letting me know. --HResearcher 13:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP autoblock lift request

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Cleared. --Konstable 08:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: MBisanzBot (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting an admin to help you. Be patient for a sec please. Cheers, Daniel .Bryant 08:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I changed the template to the unblock reviewed one, as well. Cheers, Daniel .Bryant 08:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syrfhiss. - good catch

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Syrthiss, award you this barnstar for catching an impostor of me trying to recreate deleted content! WOOT! Syrthiss 13:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gytu (talk · contribs)

Can you point me to some edits he did after his final warning (especially tag removals). With his edit history empty I can't check without knowing what the articles are called. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He created a total of five attack articles, beginning with the one warned on his talk page, then after his final warning created four other identical copies of it at various titles (including as templates designed to imitate db-attack (Template:db - attack). All of these have since been deleted at attack articles. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked him anyway as a single-purpose vandal account since there were no helpful contributions from this user. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar

I'm much grateful for your appreciation. - cheers Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation?

Is the "release" provided by User:Dshallard on Osu-Kannon's talk page really satisfactory to prove that permission has been obtained? Bobo12345 12:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I've never dealt with released copyrighted text before (just spotting apparent copyright infringements and tagging them as such), so I'm not certain of the procedure and how claims get verified (I was planning to deal with this properly a bit later anyway). Do you think it should be taken to Copyright Problems for a week instead of just db-copyvio, or what? ~Matticus ^T_C 15:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we should. Anybody could just say "I have permission". The copyright information on the source website looks all pretty tight to me. No mention of GDFL. Anyway, I blanked the page and added the {{copyvio}} template to it and added it to the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page. If User:Dshallard really does have permission then he can follow the relevant procedures. Bobo12345 03:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hee Hee, ravish

Sorry to bother you but I am getting quite a chuckle trying to picture flames "ravishing" something. Cheers. L0b0t 16:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I laughed when I read it too! Ah, the joys of malapropisms! ~Matticus ^T_C 16:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starkingdoms

Please hang on Im working hard on it its been deleted before but there are many other games on wikipedia that are less notable

ThunderGold 11:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to delete

Thanks for the head-up on Stephen Demainbray. I redid an article, but don't know how to clean up the mess, could you see to it, thanks ? Chris CII 18:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spot color photography

Hello. Thanks for the edits, but you didn't go far enough. Upon further research, it appears another article covers the topic. However, I think there are some neutrality issues with the Pop Culture section. The author calls Selective Photography "old hat" and I think that demonstrates a personal POV rather than neutral fact. What do you think? But I am reluctant to tag it as such since it might appear I am taking issue due to my conflicting listing of Spot color photography.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mactographer (talk • contribs) 12:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Doh! I should have checked for other similar articles, really - I should have expected a fairly well-known photographic technique would already be covered. Anyway, yes, I think you're right there - that section is definitely POVish and the language is too informal. It really should be worded more like "the technique has become less popular in recent years", or something along those lines. However, that is still POV, or at least an unreferenced assertion - if there is proof in some third-party source that spot/selective colour processing gained popularity as a result of Schindler's List, then dropped off again, then that's okay and a reference should be added, but otherwise that whole statement should be removed altogether. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FreestyleMax dispute

Hi, just letting you know that I entered the FreestyleMax entry on wikipedia and as FreestyleMax The Snowboard Instructor is a new product, there are hard sources to externally verify my claims. The Canadian Association of Snowboard Instructors (CASI) wrote a one page article in their newsletter to snowboard instructors about FreestyleMax in October 2006. CASI is an independent organisation and they printed an article on page 13 of their newsletter called Boarderline. Snowboard instructors in Australia used FreestyleMax this season and it was officially endorsed by the Australian snowboard body, APSI (Australian Professional Snow Sports Instructors) in June this year. The National Training Coordinator and Technical Director, Jason Clauscen can be contacted at APSI to verify this endorsement. With two snowboard instructor bodies saying they can see useful application of FreestyleMax, I believe makes it worthy of entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freestylemax (talk • contribs) 11:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you very much....!

Sir/Madame ,

1.Thank you very much for so considerately showing me the way forward. 2.I will follow your invaluable guidance so that the article becomes more useful and in tune with the WIKI policies.

Thank you once again Sir/Madame Coolcoolcoolest 14:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I do not know a lot about Indian politics or academia, but I am experienced enough with Wikipedia to provide useful guidance for new contributors. If you have any further questions, leave a message on my talk page and I'll do my best to help out. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wotton

I would have loved to have left you a message about this but your colleague has deleted my page Michael Wotton. I feel this is unfair - I had no chance to explain his importance. - ronnierosenthal—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnierosenthal (talk • contribs)

If you wish to appeal against the deletion, you can add a message to Wikipedia:Deletion review, explaining why you believe the person in the article is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. I tagged the article for deletion as there was nothing in there to explain how this person is noteworthy - all it gave was a few details about him, like what football teams he supports and so on, which clearly met the criteria for speedy deletion A7, not asserting notability. Wikipedia has clearly-defined guidelines on what constitutes a person notable enough for an individual article here (these guidelines are referred to by the shortcut WP:BIO). There is statement there related specifically to sportspeople, requiring the person to play at a professional level or at the highest amateur level and have a significant enough presence and following to have reliable third-party sources of information about them (this is very important too, as all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable). I hope this explains the reason for deletion clearly. If you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask me, or place the {{helpme}} tag on your talk page and a member of the help patrol will assist. ~Matticus ^T_C 16:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will add all this in next time I submit an article on Michael Wotton, i.e. when I have the time to write such an essay.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnierosenthal (talk • contribs)

A newly-created article need not be a huge, multi-paragraph biography of the person. A lot of really great articles started out as mere stubs and got expanded as the original author and other editors added to them. For biographical articles, just a few sentences saying who the person is, why they are notable (important!), where they live/work/play for, and so on will suffice. The important thing is to cite sources though, so that the information can be confirmed. ~Matticus ^T_C 17:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebell2

Well i just added this to my talk page but how do i get an image of homer simpson onto my wiki without violating a copyright (if there is one). Well you know i just joined like the 1st of this month so please help. You can either tell me on my or your talk page--Ebell2 01:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks Matticus you have got to be the most helpful page patroller. However reading what you said i don't think i'll be adding a picture because i _{my self saying this text} could risk getting myself banned. About my deleted page i meant for that to be my user page sorry for waisting your time with that junk.[reply]

Your requested diagram for Evolution of the eye

File:Diagram of eye evolution.jpg

Hello. I noticed you put a request for a diagram of evolutionary stages of the eye on WP:RP a couple of weeks back. Well, I decided to flex my illustrative muscles and put together something that I hope meets the requirements of the article. It's similar in some respects to the Strickberger image you linked to in the request, but I kept it quite simple for the sake of clarity. Of course, I'm no biologist, so if there are any mistakes I've made, or any improvements you can suggest, I'll revise the image to make it suitable. ~ Matticus78 16:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow. That is absolutely perfect, and absolutely gorgeous. Simple and clear, but informative, is indeed ideal, and you've pulled off the combination expertly. o_o; It's even better than the source images in question, as its use of color makes the parts stand out much better for viewers. Thank you so much!!! The only possible issue I can see is finding the ideal way to make the image large enough in Evolution of the eye to clearly see the text; perhaps we should even consider cutting the image into six pieces and placing them throughout the "stages of eye evolution" section so that enough space is given to showcase each stage and more fully appreciate the detail of the job you did. :D Great work! -Silence 17:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Matticus78, yes that is great work! --HResearcher 13:05, 9 September 2006 Jvbishop 15:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

SVG is preferred

Good job, but... If you could provide this image in the scalable SVG format, I'd be happy to propose it for Featured Picture status. --Janke | Talk 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could have a look at the archive of featured pictures, and check the criticism given other diagrams at [3], look at the nomination pages (accessible links on the images' pages), and work accordingly. Also, diagrams tend to be improved on during the nomination period, with many suggestions given. Sometimes criticism is harsh, but that's part of the game! ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If not SVG, a PNG would be nice. -Ahruman 13:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]