User talk:J Milburn/archive13

This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it, it is for reference purposes only. If you wish to continue a discussion here, please do so on my talk page.

Hi, following your directions I've created a new page for Simply RISC in my sandbox.

Please feel free to correct/update/reject/publish or whatever!

Many thanks, Fafa1971 (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a little too ironic! _{The public face of GB}^T/C 12:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

;-) Twice in as many minutes, by the look of the thread below...! _{The public face of GB}^T/C 12:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha! '''[[User:WBOSITG|<font color="darkblue">weburiedoursecrets</font>]][[User talk:WBOSITG|<font color="navy">inthegarden</font>]]''' (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the only one, look here.. =P '''[[User:WBOSITG|<font color="darkblue">weburiedoursecrets</font>]][[User talk:WBOSITG|<font color="navy">inthegarden</font>]]''' (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Regarding [1], yeah, you are allowed to do that. But your an administrator, so you automatically have approval

Reverted your addition :) - It makes the checkpage a bit smaller and quicker to load. A couple dont make a difference, if we had all 849 admins, it would make a difference

—Reedy 23:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Its alright when you get used to it, just not always too obvious to new users! —Reedy 23:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to change the little lock thingy on your page to the full-protection one. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you erasing the metal band logos? for example in the Moonblood and Kampfar pages? Is it you decision or is it a decision done by a board? In the former case, I dont agree and I request you to revert your changes, in the second case, can you please link me to that page?

Regards,

Diego Torquemada (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I know that there was no sourced commentary in the prose for Aes Dana (band) (the logo), but I thought (and I still think) that the comment under the picture was sufficient: Aes Dana logo background is influenced by interwoven Runes style. This is linked to their choice of subjects for their. Putting the comment under the picture is better than just in the main text of the article IMHO. Hope the re-add will be adequately sourced for you. Hervegirod (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, what do I call an edit - with no talk page dialogue whatsoever beforehand - that wipes away relevant album cover images for the Wikipedia page on the band directly related to said images? If it is not vandalism, what is it? A crusade claiming "a violation of our non free content criteria"? How about instead making a constructive edit instead of a subjective one? A Sniper 00:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be your opinion. The use of the album images is perfectly viable, though perhaps not north of Lancaster ;) A Sniper 00:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

${\displaystyle }$ Please respond to my message on the talk page.--Snowman Guy (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many times I've had to work on this image description. Perhaps you could provide clarification for me as it appears I am incapable of meeting the rather pedantic criteria. Could you please explain to me what you mean by "inline" and particularly "sourced commentary"? What exactly is the problem with this image?

As I have stated in the image descriptions and tags the logo is used for identification purposes. As with many bands out there if you do a search you'll find more than one band have the same name, the logo is the best way to differentiate between these. Do a search for Condemned and you'll see at least 3 other bands by the same name spread around the globe.

If your issue specifically regards the image in the background of the logo, I can replace it with a plain logo which the band makes freely available on their myspace page.

As per the tag I highlight the following paragraph, this is my main point of arguement-

"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law."

Could you define what is meant by "critical commentary"? I am unclear.

I have free images that I have taken of the band myself when I have seen them live. You stated something about this in your commentary. Is the problem the live image in the background? If that is the case I can, as I have stated above, replace the logo with a plain one, I can also provide a free image for the page.

Please do not take my tone in the wrong way here, I'm just getting fed up having to jump through so many hoops for a single image! I had thought it was all sorted the last time this issue arose.

Thank you for your time. Mojowibble (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cond000007.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojowibble (talk • contribs) 10:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I understand the issue now. If the guidelines/enforcement has changed then I will comply. I'm up to my eyeballs with work the past while, but I'll trawl through the hard disk and see what shots I have of them, I'll see if there's any good ones once I have a few minutes spare. Thanks. Mojowibble (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they don't even have an article on Pokémon (a very notable series - there's so much stuff on Wikipedia which is much more crufty than the main Pokémon article) is an example of exactly why people will turn to Wikipedia instead of Britannica. Wikipedia is dynamic, constantly improving and expanding, and it's engaging in a way that a traditional encyclopedia is not. Not having the 'edit this page' button feels strange, and even impolite to a reader who is used to being able to improve things manually when necessary. Whilst Britannica has a short article on The Simpsons, at Wikipedia, our articles about individual Simpsons episodes (of which there are hundreds, I'm guessing) are probably longer than Britannica's main Simpsons article. It's really not hard to see why people are choosing Wikipedia.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've been doing some patrolling of abuse of non-free images like logos and album covers in musical artist articles lately, and noticed your similar activity along the trail. I just wanted to say thanks for keeping up on this issue and fighting the good fight to keep WP as free as possible. Also, as a favor, when you edit the image description pages of band logo images, could you add them to the categories Category:Non-free musical artist logos or Category:Musical artist logos ineligible for copyright as appropriate? I created those subcategories of Category:Musical artist logos recently to help with this kind of maintenance. Thus far I've tagged all the logos I've found thusly (where xxxxx is the name of the artist), with a defaultsort parameter to help with organization:

{{DEFAULTSORT:xxxxx logo}}
[[Category:Non-free musical artist logos]]

• for any logos tagged as fair-use

or

{{DEFAULTSORT:xxxxx logo}}
[[Category:Musical artist logos ineligible for copyright]]

• for any logos tagged as being ineligibly for copyright because they consist only of simple fonts/shapes.
  

Again, thanks for the hard work! --IllaZilla (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the topic, can you have a look at a few of these logo uses? I've removed them in the past but been reverted, usually by Cyrus XIII, on the grounds that "[the] information in [the] image caption [is] sufficient to assert significance". As none of the captioned info is referenced, and doesn't seem to assert any significance, maybe you can convince him otherwise:

• Cradle of Filth#Early years
• Dark Funeral#1993-1994
• Darkthrone#Early black metal years
• Marduk (band)#Discography
• The Pillows#History

Thanks! --IllaZilla (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one more comment for today. You may want to have a look at User:Navnløs. He has been a real problem editor with regard to fair use logos & album cover images in band articles (we've clashed in the past), and he's challenged your (and my) removal of album cover images from band articles/discographies/etc. as well as replaceable fair-use promotional photos. He's been reverting both your and my image removals from metal band articles, which are his passion. Just a heads-up. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, it's OK. No harm done. :) D.M.N. (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya! I just finished what I wanted to do with User:BOZ/BD&D Monsters‎. You and Baron Taltos have 3.0 pretty well covered, so I'm going to do 3.5 next, and then we'll be good to go! What I'll do with the 3.5 MM is do that last, and I'll just copy what you've done with the 3.0 MM and just reset the page numbers and everything. BOZ (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem man - you can add Libris Mortis before and/or after we go live, no worries. I'm thinking of going with my two favorites from 3.5, Lords of Madness and Hordes of the Abyss, before getting to the MM. Also, I'm aware of the differences between the 3.0 and 3.5 MM and I'll keep an eye out for them. Some also got moved around in the book, like separating the Celestials out into four separate groups, and a small number of creatures were added to the newer book. After I get those books done, I'll edit the index page according to your idea on my talk page. Then (maybe next weekend?) we'll finally be ready to go live.  :) BOZ (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, J! I just finished up my contributions on the MM 3.5 - maybe tomorrow when I have more time, I'll work up some ideas for the index page. After that, if you need help, I'll put some work into wrapping up the 3.0 MM for you. BOZ (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've edited the "main" page using the example you provided on my talk page. I'll agree, that looks a ton better! I'm going to add a few sentences of introductory text for each edition, which of course can always be edited by anyone, but gives a good starting point to work with. BOZ (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it was the first cover of the album here in the UK but the 2 cover on there now are the Christmas special and the new re-issued album cover i know this as i got the album from when it was 1st released.Nez202 (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there only 2 web site on the net that i can find what has the original cover http://www.freecovers.net/view/2/4294fde41587a09923717738d0fc2395/cd.html http://www.allcdcovers.com/show/71278/connie_talbot_over_the_rainbow_2007_retail_cd/cd Nez202 (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well that ok or you could add it as a alternative cover.Nez202 (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm not quite certain who I should speak to about this, but I'm the one whose been adding the unreferenced material to Abby Wilde. All the information added has been correct and true, but I don't know how I should reference my sources, being that I actually happen to BE Abby Wilde. That said, I guess I'm just commenting to ask how I should go about authenticating myself as a source about myself, or whether it would be easier to wait until I'm famous enough for someone else to do it for me. Thanks!

--Abby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.157.237 (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've come across this with a musician in the past- basically, you should avoid editing a page about yourself (as per this guideline, so as to avoid a conflict of interest) though you are of course welcome to make suggestions on the talk page of the article, or, now that you have made direct contact with me, you can contact me and I will edit on your behalf should the request seem reasonable. And I am afraid (though this may sound completely illogical) that your own word on here does not count as a reliable source; instead, it counts as original research. Everything on Wikipedia must be cited to reliable, third party sources, though, in a few cases, first party sources (your blog, official websites, that sort of thing) may be cited. However, everything said in an article must have been published elsewhere before. Looking at the additions you made, the excessive details about your character aren't really needed (they would be more suited to an article like List of characters on Zoey 101) and the trivia is just that- trivia. If it's mentioned in some sources somewhere, it could find a nice place within the article. The details about your family life are relevent, but as per our policy regarding the biographies of living people, shouldn't be included without a source. Last thing- the homepage section in the infobox is reserved for a personal homepage; IMDb doesn't count as that! If you want to help the article, which we absolutely welcome, then finding a few reliable sources about yourself, and maybe uploading a picture of yourself (you'll have to create an account for that...) would be some great ways to help out. Feel free to drop me a line here if I can be of any further help regarding this article. J Milburn (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much--I completely understand your revisions and appreciate your taking the time to explain them for me. There really is only one thing I would like to have put back, if possible. There was a line in the career section regarding my current work on the film "Family of Four"--being that it is still on the article pages for Alexandra Paul and Yousef Abu-Taleb, and as an added bonus, that information was not added by me but rather by a producer of the film, I was hoping that would be acceptable.

Yeah, ok, sure. I can't see there being any problem regarding that, I'll add it back in now. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You just stripped the cleanup tag here for aesthetic reasons. While I appreciate that some users dislike the look of cleanup tags, they add pages to cleanup categories and to my knowledge they're still an approved way of flagging article issues. As for the justification, the intro is currently so scant that readers who weren't already familiar with Dungeons and Dragons would be pretty lost, as explained on the article talk page.

So long as cleanup tags are still an approved way of performing article cleanup, I'd appreciate it if they were left in place. I use them to keep track of most of my cleanup projects, and removing them on the basis that they "spoil" the article makes things more difficult for me. If there's project-wide consensus to stop using cleanup tags like this then I'm happy to find alternative solutions, but I don't see why they shouldn't be used if they're there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the dbMotion page that was deleted two weeks or so ago, I'd like to resubmit the contents. I've revised the text to lose what might be perceived as marketing language. After some discussions within dbMotion, we don't understand what would make other competitors in our space notable and worthy of listings, and why we are not, e.g.Intersystems. Also, previously I was logged in as marcdb - I've brilliantly forgot my password so I've had to recreate a new username. Thanks very much for your help!--Marcdb2 (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've done some more reading and I see no reason why dbMotion can't be listed as a stub in the categories Category:IT_companies_of_Israel, and Categories: Information technology companies of the United States (offices in both Israel and the US). Would that be ok?--Marcdb2 (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Adminship	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing J Milburn/archive13 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- SMS Talk 20:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Over the Rainbow (Connie Talbot album) , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bobet 22:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at the revised text and see if you have any problems with me posting this as a stub in the listed categories? User:Marcdb2/Sandbox Thanks!--Marcdb2 (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much - I appreciate your help!--Marcdb2 (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, J. I'd like to get this thing moving along, so I'm going to finish up the MM for you and then you can copy/paste it to my userpage - or you can do that in reverse if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem - we all get busy.  :) Thanks for the work and interest that you did put into it though! Athach was put up for deletion, and I did tell them that I would have these lists up before the AFD was through... so I don't want to be a liar.  :) BOZ (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of just moving the pages (as discussed at User talk:BOZ/List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters#Wrapping it up, getting ready to ship) to mainspace when I'm done, if that would be easier. If that's not the right move, please let me know.  :) If you get a chance, also, could you look around at the current pages and see if there's anything that we really really need done before I set them up? I'll try to finish up the MM list today if I get a chance. BOZ (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, thanks for the advice. I'll finish up the 3.0 MM, then head it on out either today or tomorrow. When we get it live, other people can help to fix the pages up. :) As for merging the content from your sandbox into the page, it should keep your attribution to a point since you added it yourself - which is why I asked you to do it rather than doing it myself.  :) BOZ (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you know I will!  :) Heh, just kidding, I could really care less. Just as long as we get this stuff in there... Thanks again for your time on this, and I hope you will continue to contribute in the future when you have the time. BOZ (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The main problem is a £50 copyright fee demanded by the website. I replaced the chillenden one with a small picture from the BBC. The Barham article is poorer without the pictures, but I'll just have to live with that for now. Mjroots (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about the placing, as you will see from both my pages, I like to keep things organised. I collect (& deal in) old postcards, and will have loads of pictures to upload in the coming months. got a forthcoming house move to get through first though! :-/ Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Reynolds picture. I reuploaded the picture to Wiki. COuld you please fix it so it displays. I made it completely public now. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procopio14 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, sir.  :) I did it more out of need than want - in fact, I think I've said it before that this should have been done a long time ago. I mean, we have lists of dieties, modules, etc - but no monsters? The main reason it hasn't been done before is because no one wanted to put that much work into it... and now I'm feeling the reason why.  ;) BOZ (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected all the AFD-ed monsters I could find. Per the D&D Wikiproject page, I've started merge discussions on over a dozen monster articles - this will help us build consensus and avoid they "hey, you redirected my favorite article!" sort of complaint. BOZ (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example: [2] BOZ (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, the navbox is a good idea, but it would be nice if it (and damn near every D&D article on here, but I digress) were less 3E-centric, especially with the 4E-change coming up, and especially with putting it on very un-3E pages. BOZ (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it's not terribly bad, but maybe we could cut out listing at least some of the fey, elementals, and dragons individually. We could switch that out by adding links to say beholders, mind flayers, and drow or something? BOZ (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey J, what happened to the picture associated with the Andrea Nagy article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealPanaman (talk • contribs) 18:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for doing that for me. I didn't know there had to be another summary of the photo if it's already on wikipedia. Thanks for enlightening me. BT^C 18:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For this, I thank you. I would never have noticed that otherwise. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really?? Well I didn't know that!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new agreement has been made with India FM so replacing it shouldn't be a problem ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bollywoodblog agreement was revealed to have some flaws in it which meant that we couldn't assert that they could be used completely freely. As there were some doubts in the end the whole agreement with that site was wiped out and blacklisted I think. If you want to replace it speak to User:BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ who made the new agreement ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it up for speedy again, Trust me on this the agreement with Bollywood blog was wiped. I was the one who originally asked Riana to OTRS it, this is a stray image that should be speedied ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could ask Riana to restore the deleted Sekondi-Takoradi images where I have made a flickr agreement which hasn't been validated. I can't seem to get through to her ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thankyou. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:45, 20 Well she said that weeks ago but didn't. Why she can't speak to me god knows. I'm certain it would take minutes ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just a quick thanks for correcting it for me! Ironholds (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the image from the particular site (www.bollywoodblog.com) only after i found that this particular image from the same site has been permitted in Wikipedia: Image:Asinclear.jpg. Hence I thought images from this particular site are permissible-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 14:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the copyright infringements on the Wendy Oldfield article. Thank you for removing them. I will update the article with new pictures as soon as I'm able to take a photo of the artist in question myself. Jordan Busson (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you mentioned in your edit summary that these images had no source, but they state that the source is the Cook County Assessor's Office which is not part of the Federal government, therefore the licensing is invalid and I9 does apply. Polly (Parrot) 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you declined my speedy on this article. I write for two reasons. First, you mentioned something like "decline speedy again". As far as I can tell from the edit history, nobody other than the original author ever removed the db from the article in the first place. What do you mean by again? I must also confess error in going with a db here. It seems he performed on at least one song that charted. That does seem to meet WP:MUSIC notability. As always, I'll try to do better next time. Erechtheus (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please help me access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted? The name of the article is Architectural intentions or Design values. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gutt2007 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The talk pages tagged for speedy deletion seem all to be about cephalopods. Could you add {{CephalopodTalk}} to them rather than delete them? --Eastmain (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about earlier. I agree to uplaoding those pictures and putting them as my own work was wrong. I just wanted the page looking neat. How easy is it to upload something that wasn't yours?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtyharry1994 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you watch the talk page but I thought I'd invite you nonetheless. --Bardin (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice you deleted the Greg Mortenson picture. Do you know if any of the past images of Greg Mortenson were okay? How does one get approval for insertion of one? It was nice to see a picture of him with the article. Thanks, Renee (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. I'll work with the editor who posted it to find a suitable photo. Renee (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please kindly repost the said deleted page so that i can change any unecessary buggy issues it had, i'm pretty new to this and i know that my ignorance of the issues is not an excuse, i'm still trying to familiarize myself with all the important features wiki has to offer. Any comments or suggestions are greatly appreciated. Hoping for your kind consideration. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryujin yuna (talk • contribs) 18:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hi again thank-you for your comments about my images, I have fixed them up now. I'm just wondering how do you get articles to become good articles? Is it hard? Do we have to look out for copyright? Add more text? Dirtyharry1994 (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice you have deleted the image GubbioMadonna.jpg. I had reuploaded it yesterday as I had provided information on copyright and source. I understand this is not sufficient? Would you be so kind as to let me know what information is still missing? I will wait for your advice. Thanks, Mark Troedson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.95.200 (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source wasn't satisfactory- the website was a deadlink. Feel free to upload again if you can find the source of the image file you are uploading. If you scanned it from a book or took the picture in a gallery or something, that's also ok, just say so! J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your quick reply. I downloaded the picture from that website (i.e. the deadlink) a few months ago. I now see that the old site has been disconnected, and text and images moved to a different one, so I am going to upload the picture again with the new details, as suggested. Many thanks for your input...if you have further comments just let me know. Regards, Mark Troedson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.232.2.8 (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing the page back, I'll try to sort out anything that needs to be done, and by all means, your suggestions/comments about how i can improve the page would be greatly appreciated, please take a look see. Thanks again. --omae wa yowai ... naze wa yowai ka? 10:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I need you to delete the page User:altenhofen/HUGE!, thanks!

--Altenhofen (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found it on google, i don't understand all the complicated names for the licensing so i didn't put anything, for the cat, it is on multiple websites and I saw it used on a message board. How do I ad the information?I sourced them both, the dog was from myspace (i think it was myspace), the other (the cat) was on like 5 sites. I don't think either are copyright..Altenhofen (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if I edit them on my computer can they be considere my own work?

is there any way i could possibly keep them?--Altenhofen (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I would like to recreate a page that you recently deleted by another user. I would like to attempt to create the page Pretty Baby (band) according to the wiki guidelines, and I do not want to break the rules by trying to recreate the page without your approval. Can I proceed? Here is a link to the deleted page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pretty_baby_%28band%29&action=edit&redlink=1 (Rainmakerartists (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the info! I started a private subpage and I wanted to make sure I was on the right track as far as format and information. Here is the link to my subpage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rainmakerartists/Pretty_Baby_%28band%29#References Suggestions are welcome! I want this page to be informative and appropriate, so I will make any and all necessary changes. If you approve my material I can add more. (Rainmakerartists (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Could you tell me why you deleted the image off the Andrew Schofield page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Schofield

I took the photograph in August 2007 and gave it permission to appear on Wikipedia. I believe I attached the correct copyright release. --Jess Liverpool (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me why you deleted the image off the Jessica Schofield page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Schofield

I took the photograph in August 2007 and gave it permission to appear on Wikipedia. I believe I attached the correct copyright release. --Jess Liverpool (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a logo from this template because it was unofficial. Looking at the history of discussion on Template:University of Virginia, and specifically at the logo discussion, it appears that in the past official logos were specifically proscribed. What is the project to do here? It appears that you've made a significant change to a template that appears on almost 100 pages on the basis of personal preference ("image huge and distracting"). I'd appreciate the opportunity to discuss this further with you. Right now what I'm going to do is revert your change until we get some consensus on what should be done. Tjarrett (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not me As you can see, I did not insert that db tag, rather User:80.103.132.85 did. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]