User talk:IdLoveOne/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Use the Sandbox please
Thank you for experimenting with the page Tiffany Patterson on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Yamla 21:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Blanking
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Cupido. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. BorgQueen 20:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Astrology
Hi there. I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject Astrology, a coordinated attempt at improving the astrological content on Wikipedia. — Sam 01:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:No Image.png
We have a better general perpose image on commons. I'll dig it out when I get the time.Geni 19:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- see Image:No free image (camera).svg.Geni 14:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Venus
Hello, you recently edited Venus with the comment Venus is the only planet in the Solar System named after a female figure" is incorrect, the Earth is also a female-named planet. This, I don't think, is the case. If you are thinking of Mother Earth or Gaia, these were named after the Earth, not the other way round. — BillC talk 02:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Astrological factors
Hi. I have brought up a discussion regarding the deleted category on the WikiProject Astrology talk page. Comments are welcome. — Sam 19:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Test
Orphaned non-free image (Image:BrannigansHead.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:BrannigansHead.png. 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 23:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Solar system image
No, the sizes are not to scale, and the distances almost certainly aren't. I did my best to make all the smaller planets and the dwarf planets to scale, but the gas giants are so huge that it wasn't feasible. There are some scale diagrams of sizes here For the scale distances, this is a good guide. However, at that distance you wouldn't actually be able to see the planets. The first five planets would be significantly inside Jupiter's orbit.
Space is big.
The Enlightened 00:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: Luffy
Childzy ¤ Talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
- Sorry bout that, I was reverting some past vandalism but I reverted back to a revision before your edits. I shall be more careful in future, thanks for pointing it out! --Childzy ¤ Talk 06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:144planes.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:144planes.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Rachel Ray - + templates
Just some advise, don't go editing templates unless you really know what you are doing. Making changes to templates changes hundreds if not thousands of article. Second check the documentation page of the template, it usually contains all the information you need. See Template:Infobox Chef/doc. I fixed the parameter for displaying the image of Rachel Ray. Nice try though. --pete 20:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's not my fault, there was some kind of flaw with that template. Thanks, I guess I have to practice my Wiki-markup. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
User Category for Discussion
AfD nomination of Kathryn Faughey
I have nominated Kathryn Faughey, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathryn Faughey. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? PeterSymonds (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Forum shopping
I would appreciate it if you would stop posting help with your hostile admin, which violates WP:CANVAS. As for people who are sysops on Wikitionary, who are also sysops on Wikipedia, I've requested one. BoL (Talk) 00:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize, maybe I should've just picked one? The pages are kind of ambiguous... But anyway thanks a million I really appreciate it! --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Its blue because most right wing parties and organizations outside of the united states use the color blue (can i change it back?).--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's up to you, I'm not the one who changed it as you can see in the page history through the link on the top of the template page. ;) --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I will change this user box back and make an alternative rightist user box that is red.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
GA sweeps: 4 Vesta
Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of 4 Vesta, to which you have been a major contributor. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If you are able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Will do, I think the article is nearing feature-worthiness! --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
November 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Scorpio (astrology), is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Will do, I felt obligated to add some negative traits to the signs. To me people trying to glorify their signs and removing negative aspects deprives the article of credibility to me and hurts astrology itself. I'll cite the traits later when I'm less busy and I'm going back for the others later. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick reminder that this article is undergoing a GA reassessment as part of the GA sweeps. It has been on hold for over two weeks, but several concerns remain. If they are not addressed soon, I will have to delist the article. Because it is part of the Main asteroid belt Featured Topic, this would also mean that the Featured Topic would be delisted. There's not much left to do, so any help you can provide would be great. The reassessment page is here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I helped out a bit and made my assessment. If any other issues are pointed out I'll come running! --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- In response to your question, I already performed GA reassessments of Pallas and Juno, and both passed their reassessments. The fourth asteroid is not included in the first round of GA sweeps, as the current project is only reviewing articles listed before September 2007. Thanks for your help. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello
Hi IdLoveOne!
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm only trying to explain and to add what some astrologers think. I'm not telling that Ceres is the ruler of Virgo, I'm indicating all time that is only suggested. Ceres has been always more important in astrology than the rest of the asteroids because of his/her mass, and Pluto, as well as the "new" planets, were mistreat from the begining. I also agree in the connection between Ceres and Taurus, but every real astrologer I've asked, opted for Ceres as the ruler of Virgo, and if we go back to mythology and see the relationship between Ceres and Pluto you realise the mythologycal connection, and if you study or consider The Titus-Bode law and the relevants discovers of Ceres in the last years, you can understand why so many astrologers consider Ceres as a relevant planet (more than the rest of the bodies inside of the asteroids belt. Sorry if I erased something, if I did it, It was by mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manisero399 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Re:Planet
There's a reason we have two different planet-themed articles. Planet is meant to describe what a planet is; Definition of planet deals with the controversy and the fuzziness. Regardless, there's no point in turning either article into a solipsistic debate about whether something is or is merely considered to be a planet. You could just as easily say that Queen Mary II is considered to have been a Queen of England or that electricity is considered to be one of the four fundamental forces. At some level, everything is debatable. But this is an encyclopedia; we have to call "fact" at some point. Serendipodous 23:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's your opinion. Many astronomers think the new definition is just dandy. Wikipedia's goal is to report, not to take sides. Serendipodous 09:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Stephen Colbert
Please don't add non-official blogs to articles. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Merger
I saw your commet at Talk:Acrocyanosis#Merger_proposal, and support the merger. I think we have given it enough time... I would support you if you want to execute the merger at this time. kilbad (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Your edit summary
Please do not leave inappropriate edit summaries, as you did here in Keri Hilson. Keep in mind that we have civility and no personal attacks policies, and persistent breaches of these two policies may result in a temporary block. Remember to stay cool. Thank you. — Σxplicit 16:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize about that, I usually don't get angry on Wikipedia (if you've seen my userpage you'll see that I aim for politeness), it just frustrated me that that user deleted my entry without so much as an edit summary of their own. (And on a side note, Keri Hilson's music is pop!) --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I didn't think you were trying to vandalize the page, I just thought that it was a mistake. Just saw Olbermann do a tribute to him, made me tear up. It was a great loss to all of us that love the news, and honestly, it still feels like it was a recent death. Edhubbard (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, actually, I think that it was a rebroadcast of the tribute that he aired last year right after Russert passed away, with some additional quotes. Olberman is a real student of broadcasting, taking his "Good night and good luck" from Edward R. Murrow, and really loved Tim, both as a co-worker at NBC/MSNBC, and as an example of what a journalist should be. After the "toss" to Rachel Maddow, you can see that she was choked up, too, and had a hard time getting started after the rebroadcast of Olbermann's tribute. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Flattered but
It's a truly amazing effort, it should've been nominated a long time ago if it hasn't been yet, and the South America one also looks good. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt you'll get very far. Golbez is sort of the god-father of all these animated territory evolution images and he has high standards for animated images. -- Esemono (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of NNANCONA
Just FYI, I put a speedy deletion tag on this page under WP:CSD#R2 since redirects to the File namespace from the main articlespace aren't used. The image is still at its location, and I must say it is a great one. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've proposed the image if you're interested in adding your thoughts. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
IdLoveOne, thank you for the barnstar. I appreciate it. :) -- Kheider (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia
Dear User: IdLoveOne, I am a university student doing an assignment on Wikipedia. Through your experience writing for Wikipedia, how do you feel they are doing in maintaining a neutral point of view with accurate information on their web pages?
Also, I am particularly interested in the Pluto page that you have edited a few times. Do you feel this page has a neutral point of view and is as accurate as other online encyclopaedias such as Encyclopaedia Britannica?
Thank you very much for time,
Cclar - you can contact me at ce_clark@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cclar (talk • contribs) 18:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
UBX for discussion
An article that you have been involved in editing, User:UBX, has been proposed for a discussion. If you are interested, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – imis☂ 00:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Pluto true color map2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Pluto true color map2.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. ZooFari 05:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Phylidonyris pyrrhopterus crops
Can I ask why you chose to release these under cc-by-sa-2.5? I checked the details of cc-by-sa-3.0, and I don't think that's actually legit. The easiest thing to do would be to release it under cc-by-sa-3.0, the same as the original. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Because of the license Noodle snacks used for the original which, first of all isn't public domain and arguably means the image is not up for featured status in the first place according to the guidelines. Before I submitted the images I clicked the options that roughly said "free to use for educational purposes or on Wikipedia," that was what I got. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Right, there are several levels of wrong here. If you'll hear me out for a few minutes, I've a fairly strong knowledge of licensing on Wikipedia. Firstly, images do not have to PD to be "free"- on Wikipedia, any image that can be used freely for any purpose (including commercially, and including modification) counts as "free"- so, on top of public domain, we accept content that is licensed under some Creative Commons licenses (as Noodle snacks's image is), GFDL, FAL and so on. All of them vary very slightly, but, basically, at their heart, they all allow the content to be freely used. All a potential FPC candidate needs to be is "free"- not necessarily public domain. Your "free to use for educational purposes or on Wikipedia" license will get images deleted, as that licensing does not allow content to be reused elsewhere, apart from in overly restrictive circumstances. Now, as to my original point, NS's image was licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0. The SA part of the license- ShareAlike- means that any modifications (such as your crops) must also be placed under that license, or a compatible one. I checked the "small print", as it were, and I wasn't sure whether it was legit to release it under CC-BY-SA-2.5- to be honest, I was rather puzzled as to why you'd chosen that. So, basically, I was asking for a specific reason why you'd chosen that one over CC-BY-SA-3.0, and, if there wasn't a specific reason, recommending you change it to CC-BY-SA-3.0. If you have any questions about issues like this, I'd be happy to help you out. J Milburn (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I rarely upload anything so I'm not as familiar with the licensing, I'll try to learn the legalese of it better next time. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool
Given your participation in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool, I thought I'd inform you about Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'll check it out, good luck! --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Fuzzy squid crop.png
Thank you for uploading File:Fuzzy squid crop.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I think I put the right one on it. I was baffled when it didn't attach one when I uploaded it and specified that it was PD, but anyway thanks for the help. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Re:FP promotion
Mine wasn't the Titus one, it was the octopus :) J Milburn (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Also, for what it's worth, I'd really avoid closing nominations that you have commented on (and especially ones that you have supported/opposed). There's a lot of fuss about the precise guidelines at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I.. think I fixed that, didn't know how much work went into closing an image =$ so I might've gotten mixed up doing TWO, I see why people just leave them there for someone else to do now! Well, I try not to look biased, but the consensus in both cases was clearly in favor of both of them, I just happened to have been in favor of them. ;) I'll avoid that in the future if it appears to cause a conflict of interest.
- Anyway, I think you or another admin will have to add the stars because nothing in the closing procedure gives the proper information for how to do that. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Point five? J Milburn (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- That first tag seems to be only for Commons images, by that I mean it states that the image is featured on Commons, not Wikipedia, or at least it makes that assumption on images that are in Commons. I found the second one and added that to specify for the English Wikipedia. I can't find the template for the little upper right-hand corner star. No matter how I try to edit it I keep getting redirected back to commons anytime I try to put the {{FeaturePicture}} tag. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I added them, it did seem kind've wonky when I did it though. Not sure what the problem was. Also, did you update the FP count when you promoted them? I'm not seeing it. (Per point 3 of closing procedure). Thanks for helping out by the way. And yea, it's generally left to non-participants to close discussions. Jujutacular T · C 20:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Thanks for fixing the feature thing, whatever it was you did, I was pretty stumped by that. Uh, if you mean the archive I added these two to the bottom of the page. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, I mean at the top of the page WP:FP there is a count of the total number of FPs we have. Every time an image is promoted this should be incremented. I just fixed it. Jujutacular T · C 03:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't notice that, and it wasn't in the steps. I would think WP counts those things automatically. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's there, under number 3. Maybe we should put in its own step. Oh an I definitely agree it would be nice if it was done automatically :) Jujutacular T · C 04:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't notice that, and it wasn't in the steps. I would think WP counts those things automatically. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, I mean at the top of the page WP:FP there is a count of the total number of FPs we have. Every time an image is promoted this should be incremented. I just fixed it. Jujutacular T · C 03:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Thanks for fixing the feature thing, whatever it was you did, I was pretty stumped by that. Uh, if you mean the archive I added these two to the bottom of the page. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I added them, it did seem kind've wonky when I did it though. Not sure what the problem was. Also, did you update the FP count when you promoted them? I'm not seeing it. (Per point 3 of closing procedure). Thanks for helping out by the way. And yea, it's generally left to non-participants to close discussions. Jujutacular T · C 20:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- That first tag seems to be only for Commons images, by that I mean it states that the image is featured on Commons, not Wikipedia, or at least it makes that assumption on images that are in Commons. I found the second one and added that to specify for the English Wikipedia. I can't find the template for the little upper right-hand corner star. No matter how I try to edit it I keep getting redirected back to commons anytime I try to put the {{FeaturePicture}} tag. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Point five? J Milburn (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Anyway, I think you or another admin will have to add the stars because nothing in the closing procedure gives the proper information for how to do that. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I tried to fix this as well. The link back to the en:wiki doesn't work, but haven't got time to fiddle with that atm. --jjron (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- We'll get it fixed eventually, but at least for now I think a visitor to that image should get the jist that it's a featured image. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/One Museum Park
I have added a clone to Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/One Museum Park. I could clone any of the other versions if you like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'll be sure to check it out. :) --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Star
Thanks. Let's see what the outcome is... Ty 21:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome, but whatever it is in 33 years it turns in our favor for good! --I'ḏ♥One 21:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Re: Planets
Thanks for the help offer. The guild is just a group dedicated to copy edit as many articles in need as we can, tagged with the {{copyedit}} tag. Feel free to join the group if you wish to help us out. And I'm afraid that the best thing you can do is refrain from editing the page as I'm working on it, to prevent any edit conflicts. Regards. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
VPC
 | You are being contacted because you have in the past participated in the Valued Picture project. The VPC project is suffering from a chronic lack of participation to the point that the project is at an impasse. A discussion is currently taking place about the future of this project and how to revitalize the project and participation. If you're interested in this project or have an idea of how to improve it please stop by and participate in the discussion. |
— raekyT 11:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool
Please revisit Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool and evaluate reshoot.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Editor's Barnstar | |
| WP:VPC --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 06:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC) |
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-FASTILY (TALK) 05:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I've added a comment here, but I have added a similar comment in a number of places. Just because this is a picture of x in an article about x, does not mean that it automatically has EV. To have EV, an image has to add something to the article, and when we already have more highly placed photographs showing the same thing, it's not immediately clear what this one is adding. You can't just add an image to an article and claim that it automatically has EV... J Milburn (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Distance diagram of satellite orbital regions
 |
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Atlantic Spadefish PLW edit.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Reply
I really agree with you, but please work hard so that we can we can once again see it alive. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- you are pretty correct but it is closed now so logos wouldn't help. we need make revolutionary changes to VPC, --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
:) --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 01:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Raeky reversed the closure and the discussion's been reopened on the VPC's talkpage if you wanna rejoin. ^_^ --I'ḏ♥One 02:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Quartz/Gold picture
FYI, I changed my vote to “Support” at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dolomite-Magnésite- Navarre.jpg Greg L (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'll keep you in mind if I trip across a particularly good mineral image. --I'ḏ♥One 04:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Dolomite-Magnésite-_Navarre.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
|
- Thank you very much for your attention. I try to contribute as much as possible in the encyclopedia in any language, for bringing us together. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Marquette Building
Given your involvement in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Marquette Building, I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Marquette Building.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Chthamalus stellatus.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Obamas promoted as VP
 |
Answered you there. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Valued Pictures
I have some questions about the valued pictures. What if a picture was featured in another language wikipedia but not english wikipedia does it count? Beacuse I know featured pictures cant be valued pictures. Also Why doesnt Valued Picture get an add on the sidebar news thing on the Wikipedia Signpost? Spongie555 (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with nominating a picture that's featured on a different language Wiki, the rules pretty much just apply from language to language, project to project. Of course, if that picture gets promoted to VP, then nominated at FPC and a promoted to featured it won't be a valued picture anymore. A bunch of users have said they don't like that rule, I decided not to close this until a decision is made on FPC. It's definitely a problem that Valued Pictures doesn't get enough prestige, there's a HUGE discussion about rectifying that on the valued pic talk page, you're welcome to add your own input. --I'ḏ♥One 23:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I dont really mind the rule of it being featured that it cant be a valued picture. Also I think we have to much picture that are older then 7 days. I think we need to close alot of nominations. Spongie555 (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
File:20100801 Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool from southsoutheast-2 cropped.jpg
It seems you promoted the wrong version.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Don't think so, check again, SSE got 6 votes. --I'ḏ♥One 15:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- You missed the rotated and cropped version. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool 2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Meteor_Crater_-_Arizona.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
|
FPC closures
Hey Id♥one, thanks for working on closing some nominations. I just wanted to mention a few things from your last three closures that you are missing, though, :) You can check my contributions for all of the changes I've made to your edits, but I'll explain here.
- On the Template:Announcements/New featured content page, there should only be 15 FPs listed at one time. When you add a new one to the top, remove the last one from the bottom.
- There is a "count" of all current FPs on the Wikipedia:Featured pictures page. Whenever you add an image, increase the count. You've missed it the last three times (it is clearly mentioned in the instructions! ;-))
- Try to give credit based on how the author has credited himself on the image page; for example, I changed the credit for the monarch butterfly photo to match the image description page: [1]
- Don't forget to credit users that have made significant edits. Restorations or significant image changes need to be credited on the WP:FP page (as I added PLW here and you also need to add {{subst:UploadedFP|File:file_name.xxx}} to his talk page for that (I've left that bit up to you). Minor edits don't need to be credited at the FP page, but I generally try to leave a template or a personal message on their talk page anyway, to recognise that their work contributed to the image passing, even if it was probably only a 2 minute job.
- Remember that like headings, capital letters are A Bad Thing. Keep capital letters out of your captions; even animals are not generally capitalised as they are not proper nouns (unless it's like . . . Przewalski's horse, :p).
Guess that's it, keep up the good work! Maedin\talk 01:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm replying here as it's nothing to do with the nom, but it's rather alarming that you don't get this, and it has caused problems, so I think it would be nice if you start to get it now. Please read what I'm saying, don't just discard it because I'm proof of why you don't want to be an administrator.
You say that the images are showing the same thing- they're simply not. One is a portrait of a mantis shrimp, one is a full-body shot. Myself and Maedin discussed this a little. By comparison, File:Emoe.jpg and File:Emu portrait.jpg are equally very different things. They show different things, they are useful for different purposes. The portrait is not used in the taxobox, nor would it be. It is the job of FPC to assess the value and quality of an image, and then promote it. We have different nominations for different images. In the case of the mantis shrimp, this is particularly pertinent- the images are used in different articles, and used to illustrate different things. We could have one as a featured picture, we could have both, we could have neither. A very different thing from several edits of the same image where we try to work out which is most accurate or useful.
It is not FPC's remit to decide on different images to be used in an article. Take your mantis shrimp nomination- the portrait of the shrimp is no longer used in the article. It would not be right for the closer to come storming into the article and say "Actually, the gods of the FPC world have decided that this image is now featured, and so you were wrong to remove it". Equally, it would be nonsensical for us to promote the full-body shot and then replace the other image of the mantis, as that image has been used because it is a portrait- it illustrates a section on the eyes of the animal. This is what I mean- two different images, two different purposes. It should be two separate FPC noms, as the EV/quality of each has to be judged independently.
A lot of the rest of what you said is patronising, wrong or even bordering on the nonsensical. The last point I would like to make is about me "just say[ing] weak things like "Nope, don't like where the image is placed."". I have never said such a thing. If an image is used in a place where it adds no value, then I oppose based on EV grounds. I have never oppose based on "where an image is placed", as that is almost always going to be ridiculous. As an example, let's take our portrait of the emu. I would oppose that if it was used only in a list article about animals in a certain country, or if it was used to decorate a section discussing the migration of emus with a caption of something like "Emu in [location]". This is because, in each of those locations, it has no EV.
Honestly, I want to discuss this with you; like I say, it has caused problems, will cause more problems and is horrendously bad practice. If you disagree with or do not understand any of what I said, please explain. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- J Milburn, the purpose of a FPC is for the community to pick an image that visually illustrates the article, sometimes topic within the article it represents, and to pick the best one, one with quality that exceeds the norm. It's totally and completely fair to say "No, I don't think this image does the job," that's the whole purpose of being able to vote oppose or for their even being a voting procedure in place. Raeky even did it on the recent ISS nomination when she said the current featured image of that isn't cutting the job; The main difference was her approach - she posted a link instead of, apparently, scaring everyone with a different or even slightly different image. Why promote an unfit image then go through a whole, long process of D&R when we could just promote a better image representative of that subject right then and there? Your emu example is a good one, but that's not what I'm talking about. Obviously the head of a huge animal is not the best option when we have access to imagery of the whole body of one or more. Take the first Meteor Crater nomination versus the second one, it reveals that people had different views on which type of photograph/imagery illustrates the subject better, some said the satellite view is better, some said a pano was better, but we'd probably never know if I didn't offer a bunch of different images that, to my eye, met up with FPC's criteria. YES, they are very different, but my concern is for the subject, not just part of it. I nominated the shrimp image thinking it was eye-catching, met the criteria yadda-yadda-yadda. If someone wanted to oppose or weak oppose/support and say "No, sorry, don't think it shows enough of the animal," that's fair, or if you or someone else wants to nominate it just as a portrait that's fine too.
- Nextly, no, you have opposed images mainly on placement, which I think is a very weak reason to oppose an image, there's a big difference between an image having been misplaced within its article or poorly captioned and suggesting that that should mean it's totally valueless to the article or has no EV merit to qualify it for a support vote - those are not the same thing and I think it's tragic when a valuable image falls through the cracks because a voter doesn't see that difference. Returning to the example I just cited above, there's nothing in current FPC policy for example saying that an image must be the lead image of an article, I even recently nominated a pretty high-quality, though apparent not the most popular style, lead image and it got shut out, I don't even know what the hell Greg L is going on about when I asked him about it here and it doesn't matter anyway, but it does illustrate why I've never applied for adminship: I know I'm human.
- I love Wikipedia, I respect its policies, I think most of them are generally fair, but I know that eventually I might want to stray from the policies and do my own thing. For example some users I won't name can be real instigators that might tempt me to be uncivil, and then I'm not representing Wikipedia well or upholding policy, which is the job of administrators, and that's what I meant about how you sometimes vote. Of course personal tastes and discretion are allowed to some extent on FPC, and that can contribute to raising FPC standards and getting us quality images that are hard to find on the internet or anywhere else, but at the same time it seems to me that administrators have an extra duty even more so than regular users to enforce the policies, keep NPOV and such anywhere on WP they go; I'm not saying it's easy, I'm saying that's why I didn't try to take the job. ;-) And as an administrator who frequents FPC I would think you'd keep FPC's policies as your primary reference first before your own feelings.
- Anyway, I'll probably be spending more time offline, in other areas of Wikmedia like Commons, trying to promote articles and working on VPC, WP:FP is nit-picky and wishy-washy but it's got plenty of regulars already. --I'ḏ♥One 19:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Your first paragraph seems to be fairly clearly in support of what I've said- yes, I fully support images that are not up to scratch not being promoted, and stronger images being nominated- what I do not support is miltiple unrelated images being nominated in the same nomination. The fact you present the crater as an "either/or" situation shows a rather basic misunderstanding- there's nothing stopping both a satellite shot and a pano being featured pictures, as they both show completely different things, and have value for different reasons- for exactly those reasons, the images should be nominated separately.
- In response to the goose issue, no, I did not oppose based on where the image was placed, I opposed based on the lack of encyclopedic value. It added nothing to the article because it showed nothing not already shown by the taxobox image. It is not the job of FPC to say "support, this should be the taxobox image", and it certainly isn't our job to promote redundant images. Redundant images will frequently be filtered out of articles at FAC and the like. No, an image most certainly does not need to lead an article to have EV, but it does need to add something to the article beyond being "another pretty picture of x".
- I honestly hope you don't leave FPC- we need all the participants we can get with these new rules, and plenty of your nominations have been great. As with anything else, there's a learning curve- my nominations miss the mark a lot, obviously, but it saddens me when I see people making fundamental mistakes. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Reply 2
Yeah, I thought the shell to be replaced by an acorn (an oak seed) with a small flower - if possible - from the middle of the plant. I was retiring the last month but I didn't so I am pretty sure that I will remain for at least 5 months. Happy editing, --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Acorn theme - If for an acorn what about a sprouting acorn for a VP candidate, some kind of oak tree or an oak branch for a pic promoted to VP, a golden autumn oak leaf for a former VP, and just an acorn itself or the cap of an acorn for a failed VP candidate? (I don't think acorns produce flowers) --I'ḏ♥One 22:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- As you like. Or if you want a flower what about a jasmine. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 01:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 |
F and A?
Hi, ILO, I've noted your reviews over the past few months at FPC, and I wonder whether you will consider being our judge this weekend for the FP Choice of the week in next week's edition of The Signpost. It would mean writing a paragraph after the "window" closes midnight Friday UTC (i.e., Saturday or by early Sunday UTC, if possible). Please let me know by email or on my talk page. Thanks. Tony (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I've just read above ... no matter, I hope you're still willing; but please let me know soon! Tony (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I'd love to if you or someone else would explain what you'd like me to do. Thanks for considering me! --I'ḏ♥One 17:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Here's the draft. End Friday midnight, the window closes and we'll have the list completed for you. Hit "View latest issue" and from there at the bottom "Previous issue" to get the gist of what people write. Saturday is good; early Sunday is OK. Then we have to finish it off for the deadline Monday. Thanks. Tony (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, so do I describe the pictures that got promoted, do I to pick one above the others or describe FPC a bit? --I'ḏ♥One 03:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Scroll down here to see the current week's judement para. And here's the previous one. You can keep looking back further. But just select the FP you think is most worthy, interesting, your favourite, and provide the reasons. I'll tweak your text if you wish. Tony (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, so do I describe the pictures that got promoted, do I to pick one above the others or describe FPC a bit? --I'ḏ♥One 03:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Here's the draft. End Friday midnight, the window closes and we'll have the list completed for you. Hit "View latest issue" and from there at the bottom "Previous issue" to get the gist of what people write. Saturday is good; early Sunday is OK. Then we have to finish it off for the deadline Monday. Thanks. Tony (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I'd love to if you or someone else would explain what you'd like me to do. Thanks for considering me! --I'ḏ♥One 17:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Please see here, slightly tweaked.And yes, the window closes UTC midnight end of Friday. Tony (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 |
Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/One Museum Park (2nd nomination)
Can you please stop by at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/One Museum Park (2nd nomination).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
Thank you so much for the barnstar! I really appreciate it. :) Edge3 (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated! now the work must continue :) --Elekhh (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Buildings along Chicago River
Please come reevaluate Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Buildings along Chicago River.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
When you promote an alt, please remember to switch out the usage in the articles. J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Hevea_semillas2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
|
Khanhoo
Hello user IdLoveOne, I was checking you userboxes and I wonder if you could create a userbox entitled: "Khanhoo - This user plays Khanhoo" by using the K card on the article Khanhoo for me. It's for my userpage only. As for the background color of the text, it could be the same as the card color or any other which might come to rememble that one. That is, if that's not much trouble for you to do that... Thanks a million Krenakarore (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I guess I can do that, I'll have to learn a little about the game first. --I'ḏ♥One 13:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- How do you like this?
{{User:IdLoveOne/Userboxes/KhanhooRequest}} --I'ḏ♥One 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- How do you like this?
- Great, but the text should be all in plain black color. The best would be if you'd make use of the K card found on the article - K as in Khanhoo...:) !
Thanks a lot for your help, and I thank you once more. Krenakarore (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)- The king you mean? I was going for a red/black theme, but ok whatever..--I'ḏ♥One 16:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, perfect ! I prefer the background color like the color of this card because it's already blue, red, black and yellow, so the text should be black written on a background which might resemble the color of the card. If the background color were of a dark type the image would look heavy and I wanna make it light so that everyone can see it clearly. Wonderful......:) ! Thanks once again. Krenakarore (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- The king you mean? I was going for a red/black theme, but ok whatever..--I'ḏ♥One 16:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Great, but the text should be all in plain black color. The best would be if you'd make use of the K card found on the article - K as in Khanhoo...:) !
You're ingenious ! It looks great. I've made a few changes as for the colors in my Sandbox, but all in all it looks the same. I'll scan a higher resolution image to make it shine and get back to you. I have no words to describe how happy I am. Thank you......................................:) ! Krenakarore (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 |
help
I know your good with images and i need help. Latly i got someone from Polish Wikipedia to help me with making images but we dont know if they are licenced properally. Could you look over them and see if they are ok licence.,File:US Chula-Vista flag.svg and File:US Chula-Vista logo.svg. Im hoping they can be in a public domain. Spongie555 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I asked about this here. --I'ḏ♥One 03:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Odds are good that they are but it seems to be a bit of an uncertain area. --I'ḏ♥One 19:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think you could get away with slapping {{Template:PD-CAGov}} on them. --I'ḏ♥One 03:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Also thank your for my first barnstar and closing my first VP nomination which was promoted so my first VP Spongie555 (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think you could get away with slapping {{Template:PD-CAGov}} on them. --I'ḏ♥One 03:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Odds are good that they are but it seems to be a bit of an uncertain area. --I'ḏ♥One 19:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Invalid promos
Neither Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Elizabeth Elmore and The Reputation nor Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Soldiers and Sailors Monument (2nd nomination) had sufficient support to promote. 4 supports are required last I checked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know, but no one seems to care. My idea, which you can see on my userpage, is just let a pic be considered promoted if it's not opposed in 25 days. We have like 90 nominations just sitting around and less than 200 valued pics. If no one has enough of a problem with one we may as well just consider that a passive support and move things along. I was going to close the nominations made from Aug 15 onward. --I'ḏ♥One 02:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Individuals do not set promotion policy and if you choose to pursue that policy, it could singlehandedly invalidate the whole WP:VPICS process and lend great support to arguments to shut it down. Under no circumstance should you promote any article, which do not meet the current standards. There is already serious consideration of shutting the whole process down. Individuals running around willy-nilly promoting stuff because they feel like it is not going to help. Please do not promote any articles that do not have 4 supports. Please undo any that you have done including Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Soldiers and Sailors Monument (2nd nomination).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Notocactus_minimus.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:PowerStation3.svg and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Glaucus atlanticus 1.jpg
Those closes really are a bit silly. The images unambiguously fail our criteria and the very point of featured pictures (they are not used in the article space...) and have done the entire time the nominations were ongoing. Note this discussion, where everyone but one agreed with the common sense delisting, and this ongoing discussion about these particular cases. J Milburn (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just following the the procedure and it called for 5 votes, they had been sitting around for hours and I knew that since Maedin had voted she wouldn't be closing them, thought it wasn't a problem when no one contacted me about it yesterday. Should I re-open them and put them in "Older nominations requiring additional input from users"? --I'ḏ♥One 13:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you were following the process and can't be criticised for that. I'd like to point out that the reasoning J Milburn has given is not entirely valid because, as Diliff and I have said here at the talk page, the images do not necessarily "fail the criteria"; the situation is a by-product of them having been edited, and nothing more. Considering the differences of opinion, I think your idea is fine: relist in "older nominations" for additional input, remove the red "voting period is over", and add to FPC urgents. Then wait for people to swing by and vote, and job done! :) Maedin\talk 14:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, it's done. Hmm, expiring D/Rs seems to be quite a big issue. --I'ḏ♥One 14:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Maedin, those files (which is what I meant by "those images") most certainly do "fail the criteria". Another, similar file may or may not- that is debatable. J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Fail the criteria how? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Maedin, those files (which is what I meant by "those images") most certainly do "fail the criteria". Another, similar file may or may not- that is debatable. J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, it's done. Hmm, expiring D/Rs seems to be quite a big issue. --I'ḏ♥One 14:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you were following the process and can't be criticised for that. I'd like to point out that the reasoning J Milburn has given is not entirely valid because, as Diliff and I have said here at the talk page, the images do not necessarily "fail the criteria"; the situation is a by-product of them having been edited, and nothing more. Considering the differences of opinion, I think your idea is fine: relist in "older nominations" for additional input, remove the red "voting period is over", and add to FPC urgents. Then wait for people to swing by and vote, and job done! :) Maedin\talk 14:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
VPC
Is it fine if we close some nominations with 3 support votes instead of 4 beacuse some have 3 support votes but they cant get 4 for some reason. Spongie555 (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also could you review Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Maple Bacon Donut again. You asked a question on notability. Spongie555 (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Roger Mooking
A tag has been placed on Roger Mooking requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. intelati1(Call) 16:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok the article is a stub. The Questions are why is he important. If you give the answer I think you will, Everyday Exotic Gives no reasoning for the importance. Thanks--intelati1(Call) 17:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- You are allowed to make a sandbox in you User space Like User:IdLoveOne/Sandbox to originally write your articles and avoid this problem. I have three sandboxes with articles in varying degrees of doneness. just a suggestion. Sorry for the rushed CSD, I couldn't see the importance of the article--intelati1(Call) 17:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Back on the original subject. Roger Mooking is fine for now, but the Everyday Exotic makes no claim of importance. That one article is integral for the "safety" of Roger Mooking Thanks--intelati1(Call) 17:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, more stuff added. --I'ḏ♥One 18:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's circle logic now. One article claims notability because of this article and vice versa. What Everyday Exotic needs is several strong references that show it's notability. thanks--intelati1(Call) 18:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Spice Goddess
A tag has been placed on Spice Goddess requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Your valued picture nomination was prmoted
 |
Triple crown nomination
I'm sorry to say it, but I've looked things over and I don't feel that you qualify for a triple crown. First of all, what you are claiming as a DYK credit doesn't appear to belong to you. You merely created the article Parodia tenuicylindrica as a stub (one sentence and a taxobox), and other people expanded it and ran it through the DYK nomination process. Simply creating the article is not enough. Likewise, I'm not entirely sure how much credit you can claim on your GAC and FAC since you appear to have been a reviewer on both reviews. To get credit, you usually submit the nomination and do most/all of the clean-up. I'd have to look closer, but since the DYK credit doesn't hold up, I'll have to fail the nomination. Keep trying, though! (P.S. - Please reply here.) – VisionHolder « talk » 04:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, I actually hope to promote some articles and try to work on the WP:GAN backlog when I feel I understand the processes more and the difference between a GA and an FA (or if you or someone else could explain them I'd appreciate that). Can a stub be nominated to DYK? --I'ḏ♥One 14:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. I don't mind helping out. Let's start with the DYK question. The DYK rules spell out what is required of an article to be accepted to DYK. Once you meet the article size and referencing requirements, etc., you nominate it and follow the nomination for a week or so (answering questions and making requested changes) until it appears on the main page. You must nominate it and follow it through to the end in order to get credit.
- Good article criteria are fairly straight-forward. Just find any article that's not already GA or FA and expand it in a way that it covers all the major details and be sure to carefully reference it with reliable sources. Otherwise, just make sure that it's well-written, factual (and verifiable), broad, and neutral. (I'd stay away from pages with a ton of controversy for starters.) When you're ready to run it through GAC, just nominate it following the instructions at the top of the nomination page. (Reviewing does not give you credit for the GA, but it will improve the chances of your nominations getting reviewed. Likewise for FA.)
- As for FA, before you even try to nominate an article for FAC, I would try to do a peer review. Once you start going this route, requirements get a lot stiffer, almost to the point of being anal. Also, the article will have to do more than hit the important points, but move on to be comprehensive. (This is a lot harder than it sounds.) After passing GAC and a peer review, then read the FA Criteria, do whatever tweaks are needed, and submit it. The GAC, peer reviews, and FAC reviews can take a long time and require a lot of daily attention. In the case of GAC and peer reviews, it could take weeks before someone decides to review your article. Be patient.
- All-in-all, it's worth it. I strongly encourage you to become a content creator as well as a regular reviewer. Personally, I learned to do reviews by first running articles through GAC and FAC, and then once I felt comfortable, I started doing reviews. Just pick something specific that you absolutely love and have always wanted to know everything about, and then hit the libraries or whatever reliable sources are available for that topic, and treat it like writing the comprehensive term paper from school. If you want a sample GA to learn from, you can look at Saadanius, one that I recently wrote as soon as the fossil primate species was discovered. I even wrote to the discoverer and was able to get him to release images for use on Wiki! It was a very rewarding experience. Some sample FAs of mine include Subfossil lemur and Silky Sifaka. Hopefully those will give you an idea as to what is required. Just don't get discouraged, and make sure you pick a topic you absolutely love. If you start to burn out, try something different and then come back to it later. Best of luck! – VisionHolder « talk » 13:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)