User talk:Oanabay04

Welcome!

Hello, Oanabay04, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Eagle^amn 06:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Desire Page

I have Rv your edit. Wikipedia is not censored, and you censored a vebatim quote. Best wishes Lion King 18:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you romanian Oana?

-- Bonaparte talk 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Glad to meet you Oana :) I am happy for you please join our romanian noticeboard! Bonaparte talk 12:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year Oana!

The link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board :) -- Bonaparte talk 12:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles on cartoon shorts

Hi, Oanabay04. I wanted to explain my recent reverts of your changes to Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny. You removed the wikilinks (square brackets) from the titles of several cartoon shorts (for example, "Dripalong Daffy"). I reverted because there are several articles on such shorts on Wikipedia already, and there's no reason to suspect that the ones you removed are not valid subjects for articles of their own. See in particular Wikipedia:Build the web. Thanks, and I hope to run into you in the future! — BrianSmithson 14:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Transportation in NYC

Hello Oanabay - I noticed your work on the New York City Subway article. You might be interested in the Transportation in New York City sub article. It tells a fascinating story and it's been nominated to be a US Collaboration of the Week after lots of work over the last few weeks. Check it out and if you like it, please vote for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:USCOTW We need all the votes we can get! Wv235 04:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wonderbug (TV series)

Thanks for your great additions to the Wonderbug (TV series) page I created. You've made good improvements. Travisl 15:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Moon-Spinners

Hi, thanks for adding much excellent material to this article. Could you adjust the commentary to remove personal opinions? On a review website your critique would be welcome, but here we don't review works, we write Neutral point of view articles. This means that one can write about an Oscar-winning performance (or other awards that may have been won), or one highly praised by published critics, but not (for instance) "This boy is a potent source of comedy, without feeling like a forced element or hindering the plot." Even if it's true (and I'm sure it is) it is an expression of your opinion rather than something that can be verified as a fact. --Tony Sidaway 13:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing:

In this edit you added this link, which is dead. Can you provide a WP:RS to verify the death and circumstances thereof? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Hi, I saw you changed the dates in the Sandy Denny article. For instance, januari 6 to 6 januari. If they are in between brackets "[[" you don't have to change dates, they will show up for each user depending on his or her preferences. See also here. I thought I'd mention it to you, saves you some work. Also, thanks for improving that article. Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please Please Me (album)

Thanks for cleaning up the grammer, it's appreciated. btw, if you've five spare minutes, you might want to look at Jimmy Nicol! Cheers--Patthedog 09:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean "grammar" of course (just testing)Ooops! And thanks for looking at Jimmy.--Patthedog 12:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. Anything I can do to clean up an article. Oanabay04 14:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Micro Phonies (Stooges film). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as the text has been restored from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Closedmouth 05:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Retitling articles

It's quite simple really, you just click the "move" tab at the top of the page. The whole process is outlined at Help:Move :)--Closedmouth (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nyuk nyuk nyuk

Hey - just wanted to drop you a line and thank you for the excellent work adding references on Three Stooges. --Badger Drink (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, Badger Drink. The books are out there, and it does not take much to simply sift through a few pages, figures out how to properly put in a citation, and be done. Good stuff! Thanx, again! I appreciate the feedback... --Oanabay04 (talk) 9:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Page Move

Did you use the "move" tab to rename the page Whoops I'm an Indian to Whoops, I'm an Indian!? It doesn't look like it. If you don't do it that way you lose edit history, links, etc. Cut/paste and create a new article is not the way to rename an article. Arthurrh (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

see answer on my talk page - doesn't need to be in two places. Or we can do it here if you prefer. Arthurrh (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Back to the Woods

No problem! I even ensured all the pages that linked to the original one were updated with the new link. Thanks for your comment. Lugnuts (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Yes, flags are slowly disappearing from infoboxes. Admittedly I am trying to help that. :) In general flags in infoboxes are being frowned according to the manual of style Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) and especially in birth at death section. Just the wording United States is more clear than a flag. Plus it helps to prevent really stupid edits. See this edit. Totally correct but utterly pointless. Even for that reason it is better to just remove the flag. Garion96 (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Our Gang shorts

Hi - I think the page you've created already exists at Our Gang filmography. Lugnuts (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Our Gang names

No, it's fine (and preferable) to move them, but like I said before, you have to move them using the "move page" tab or have an admin do it for you. This is so that the page history is preserved. See the request I set up for these articles at Talk:Allen "Farina" Hoskins. I'm pretty sure the request will go through, and a mod will move the pages to name spaces without the nicknames.

But, again, don't do copy and paste moves. :) Thanks. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

See Help:Moving a page, particularly this part:

Help:Moving a page#Page histories

The "move page" function keeps the entire edit history of the page before and after the move in one place, as if the page had always been named that way. So, you should never just move a page by cutting all the text out of one page, and pasting it into a new one; old revisions, notes, and attributions are much harder to keep track of if you do that. (But you may have to if, for instance, you're splitting a page into multiple topics.

Typically, when you move a page, you simply click on the "move" tab at the top of the page, and specify the new name. The article will be moved to the new namespace, and the old namespace will automatically become a redirect. If any other articles redirected to the old page, those redirects will have to be manually re-routed ot point ot the new article name.

If you want to move an article to a name that is already taken (for example, if you wanted to move an article to a name currently used as a redirect, like with Darwood Kaye and Darwood "Waldo" Kaye), you would have to list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. A moderator would delete the redirect, and move the page for you, so that the page history is preserved.

For the current issue at hand, the Our Gang actor articles, just go to Talk:Allen "Farina" Hoskins and vote "yes" for the page moves. A moderator will eventually move the pages him/herself. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Uploading images.

Be careful about tagging images. Some of the images you've uploaded as public domain are indeed copyrighted (Image:SpankySPOOKYHOOKY.jpg, for example, is from Spooky Hooky, the copyright to which is now owned by RHI Entertainment.) The only Our Gang shorts in the public domain are already listed at Our Gang filmography#Public domain. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankie Valli

I just wanted to say thanks for the cleanup on Frankie Valli's page. Looks good. Bbrownlie (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)bbrownlie

Allan Melvin

Hi. You went in and made some edits to Allan Melvin's article, and some edits were in the info-box. I don't know too much about how info-boxes work. I tried to fix this problem, but I could not figure out how to do so. I thought that maybe you would know how. In his info-box (when you are in "editing mode"), it has the following three lines:

• occupation = Actor, Impressionist, Voice Over
• notable role = "Sam Franklin" on The Brady Bunch and "Barney Hefner" on All in the Family
• spouse = Amalia Melvin (1943-2008)

But, when you look at the actual article, that middle line (notable role) does not appear at all. Can you fix this? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

You know, for the life of me, I cannot get the "notable roles" section to actually appear. I have added many infoboxes to celebrity entries. As I am sure you know when in edit mode, there are soooo many different infobox formats; some with little to no info, others with every possible award the person won. Yet, I cannot get the "notable roles" to appear. I believe it has something to do with its placement in the list of entries. Try an wiki editor. Sorry I could not be of better help. Oanabay04 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's very strange ... I certainly cannot figure it all out, that's for sure. Anyway, thank you for your reply. I will post the request for help elsewhere, and see if anyone else on Wikipedia can figure this out for us. So, check back on the page every so often, and you will be able to see whether or not anyone fixed it. When I submit requests for help, it's hit or miss. I either get the problem solved very quickly, or never at all. Hopefully, someone out there can fix this one. Thanks again! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

A follow-up. This (below) is what I found out from another user. I thought that you might want to know, as you deal with actor info-boxes a lot. I did a "Help Me" request on Wikipedia, and this was the Help reply that I received. Just thought you might want to be aware of all this. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

This is the reply to my Help Me request:

The problem is simple: the template {{Infobox actor}} does not have a parameter titled 'notable role' and as far as I can see it never has. Thus any value assigned to that parameter is simply ignored. The only solution (if you wish this information to appear in the box) is to rewrite the template. Since the template is both protected and complicated, this probably involved asking someone else to do it. Algebraist 17:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

On close inspection, the field did once exist, but was removed following discussion here. Looks like you'll have an argument on your hands if you do want it back. Algebraist 18:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Three Stooges Collection, Volume One: 1934-1936

Hey, I just wanted to let you know in case you didn't realize, the above article you just created has an image of a Woody Woodpecker DVD on it. I didn't know the filename for the proper image so I didn't want to try and edit it myself and muck things up for you. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that once I saved the article. It has since been fixed. Thanx for the extra set of eyes, though! Much appreciated! Oanabay04 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Monkey Businessmen

It's no problem! I've been a fan of the Three Stooges myself since I was a little kid, so I'm glad to help out whenever I can. ;^) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! The Stooges are a rather unappreciated and unrecognized comedy team in comparison to others, but I'm very happy to see that you and your fellow associates have been working on articles related to the team. As I said before, I greatly admire the Stooges and their knack for physical comedy. Y'know, the day they released the fifth Looney Tunes Golden Collection I was a little torn, since the new Three Stooges DVD was released at the same time; unfortunately, I've not been able to get my hands on either yet. :-/ — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if I remember correctly, the Three Stooges article states that, sometime in late 2007, there was to be a massive DVD release of colorized Stooges shorts by Legend Films. While I have the first wave from a few years ago (which includes Sing a Song of Six Pants, Malice in the Palace, and my own personal faves, Disorder in the Court and Brideless Groom), but so far I've not heard or seen anything else concerning such. Were those DVDs ever released?

Also, the last time I saw the Stooges on television was about one year ago, on Spike TV, during a certain holiday break—in contrast to my childhood, when the Stooges were featured on at least two or three different channels and run frequently. Are there any plans to bring the show back to mainstream television? — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that unsourced info concerning Legend Films' 2007 Stooge DVD release from the Three Stooges article, as that year is now gone and I've heard nothing of the sort. Feel free to re-add it with a reliable source, though. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Duck Soup

I've noticed you're pretty good at adding and cleaning-up sources to articles. D'you think you could help cleanup the footnotes at the Duck Soup article? I've been thinking of ways to make the footnotes look less messy, but I'm afraid I might screw them up. Thanks! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Our Gang

I used ampersands for McGowan & McNamara because they were working as a team. It's okay if you disagree with that usage. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Thanks for the grammar fixes to Once. Just wanted to let you know that it is good Wikiquette to use the edit summary field to note what you've done with each edit you make, even the minor edits. Please read Help:Edit summary. Thank you. --Melty girl (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock

{unblock-auto|1=198.203.175.175|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Aononemoose". The reason given for Aononemoose's block is: "Vandalism: mass redirecting".|3=Rockpocket|4=792946}

My IP adddress must be linked to the company I work for, as this is the second time my IP has been blocked. Please unblock when possible. Thanx! Oanabay04 (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, What a Merry Spring Day!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 03:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Long Island Newsletter Volume 1, Issue 1

The Long Island WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 1 • April 5, 2008 • About the Newsletter
News There is increasingly more members. Please keep checking back at our member list for an updated one.	Features This feature is not available yet. You will be notified when it is.	To-Do Get Suffolk County to featured article status Get Nassau County to good article status Get Nassau County to featured article status Get Suffolk County to good article status Clean out Category:Unknown-importance Long Island articles Click here for more WikiProject Long Island to-dos.
Archives • Newsroom If you would not like to receive this newsletter, list your username here.

Delivered by Nothing444 01:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How High Is Up?

I like the improvements you did on the How High Is Up? article which I created last year. Did you do work on the page for the new DVD sets that are being released? Maybe we can work on an article for the Stoogeum in Gwynedd Valley--Ted-m (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Bad News Bears, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you...

...a UnitedHealth Group employee? You should archive your talk page, btw. 198.203.177.177 (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Marx Brothers / Three Stooges crossover

The second Stooge DVD came out recently, and I got to see We Want Our Mummy for the first time in decades. Early in the film, the three walk into the museum curator's office wearing goofy masks and wigs. They spin 180 degrees, and it turns out the masks were on the backs of their heads - a schtick identical to that pulled by Harpo and Chico Marx a few years earlier in Duck Soup - and which suggests to me the gag is probably a lot older than that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oooooo - I had not even thought of that! Good catch. The fact that Curly refers to the skinny boxer in Grips, Grunts and Groans as 'duck soup" as well tell me the Stooge writers liked the Marxes. Nice catch! We Want Our Mummy is, to me, is a Curly Howard tour de force.Oanabay04 (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Could be a coincidence. "Duck soup" used to be a very common expression for "a cinch" or something easy to do. I worked with someone from Thailand who liked to use that expression. But the Marxes and the Howards-and-Fine were all children of vaudeville, and I'm sure they "borrowed" from each other and other vaudevillians a great deal. I might have mentioned before, that Three Little Pigskins borrows some bits from Horse Feathers, such as tackling the ball-carrying referee. Both teams were great in their own way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the Marxes are held in somewhat higher esteem because of a degree of intellectualism that some see in their work - although I'm not sure they themselves saw it that way. I think one of them said they were "just four Jews trying to get a laugh." The same could be said of the Stooges (three Jews trying to get a laugh) except there was no accusation of intellectualism in the Stooges, it was pure dumb slapstick. But they did it so well. It's amazing to watch them at their best, as in the first two DVD series. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea of an actual Marx Brothers-Three Stooges crossover is one of those tantalizing might-have-beens. One could only imagine what kind of comic destruction these guys could have done together! :) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of crossovers, recently three of my favorite comedians of the day joined together for a hilarious mock fight.[1] I could easily see the influence of the Stooges in this particular fight, which was nothing but pure slapstick humor — maybe not exceptionally witty, but explicitly funny, and that, in the end, is all that matters.  :) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 17:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha! The Colbert/O'Brien/Stewart feud was quite possibly the greatest stroke of genius that occured during the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike. Absolute, crazy brilliance.Oanabay04 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

About Images

Hey, Oanabay! I see you upload images. I've been trying to upload new images for The Colbert/O'Brien/Stewart feud, but so far haven't been able to successfully do this. Could you give me a step-by-step description of how you do it? I've read the instructions, but I still can't seem to get an image uploaded! If you could help me out in explaining it, I'd really appreciate it! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 03:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, here you go:
  • Step 1 - go to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload

• • Step 2 - copy this text into the "Summary (author, source, URL, fair use rationale if applicable, extra tags, etc.):" section:

Publicity photo from the Three Stooges short subject INSERT TITLE HERE. Copyright Columbia Pictures, INSERT YEAR HERE. Used to illustrate film being described. Image is used under Wikipedia:Non-free content rules on the basis of the following:

• Significance
• No free equivalent available
• Respect for commercial opportunities
• Minimal usage
• Minimal extent of use
• One-article minimum

Non-free media information and use rationale – WARNING: ARTICLE IT WILL BE USE IN does not appear to exist! Check capitalization. Enter only the exact title of a single article with no [[link brackets]] or other formatting. It is also possible the indicated article was deleted.
Description	Publicity photo from film
Source	LIST THE SOURCE WHERE YOU FOUND THIS
Article	ARTICLE IT WILL BE USE IN
Portion used	all
Low resolution?	yes
Purpose of use	to illustrate film being described
Replaceable?	none
Other information	see above

• • Step 3 - go to "Source filename" and search for where you saved your picture.

• • Step 4 - go the "Licencing" drop-down box. I usually select "Movie Screenshot" or "TV screenshot."

You should be good. Let me know if you need anything else. Good luck. Oanabay04 (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Page titles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to move Helter Shelter (Woody Woodpecker cartoon) by copying its content and pasting it into Helter Shelter (cartoon). This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. This is not the first time you have received this notice. Please ask for help if you are having trouble with the page move function. Thank you. Russ (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello - I used to cut and paste quite some time ago. I have not cut and pasted the Helter Shelter (Woody Woodpecker cartoon) article, nor have I made ANY edits to it since 13:50, 12 June 2008. I am fully aware how to move articles. I am showing that you conmpleted the move today; {{db-histmerge|Helter Shelter (Woody Woodpecker cartoon)}} I am not sure what you talking about, as no cut an paste was done. I will also appreciate the discontinuance of threatening tones such as "This is not the first time you have received this notice." as this make working on wikipedia an unpleasant experience. Thank you.Oanabay04 (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have offended you. It is a tedious and time-consuming task to identify and tag these pages, so it makes my Wikipedia experience less pleasant, too. --Russ (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Stones articles

hello Oanabay04 - thanks for the edits you've been making to various articles about the Rolling Stones. i wanted to explain why i redid some of your changes: when we're punctuating sentences with song titles in them, the wikipedia manual of style (and normal usage as well) requires punctuation to go *outside* the quotation marks (unless of course the punctuation is actually part of the title). you can read about that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(titles) - that explanation is not as clear as it could be, but that is the correct way to do it. so for example we want

"Brown Sugar", "Angie", "Happy" and "Start Me Up" were all released as singles.

putting the commas inside the quotation marks is incorrect.

moving "Happy (the Rolling Stones song)" to "Happy (Rolling Stones song)" was an interesting decision - there are a lot of Stones songs that would need the same change, if there's a consensus on that. it was discussed briefly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Rolling_Stones#conventions_for_disambiguation but i wasn't aware that a consensus was reached. do you plan to change all the other articles that are currently disambiguated as "(The Rolling Stones song)" as well? Sssoul (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved image

Hi Oanabay04. I just wanted to inform you that I moved your very nice image Image:Places.jpg to a better, less generic name, to avoid that others upload other images over it in the future: Image:Places in the Heart (1984), poster.jpg. I have updated the link to it in the article. No action needed from you.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation goes outside quotation marks

To save you (and the rest of us who must revert your edits) some time, here's a friendly notice about Wikipedia's manual of style. Unlike some other manuals of style, WP:PUNC requires that punctuation should go outside of the quotation marks unless the punctuation itself is being quoted. Possibly a minor issue, but one that shouldn't require needless editing if you know about it. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I just read the [[WP:PUNC] and must say, I am appalled at the breathtaking audacity Wikipedia has for essentially rewriting the proper American English punctuation. Every single professional publication follows the rules of punctuation and places punctuation outside of quotation marks wheb appropriate. Who in God's name decided to "make up their own rules"? I must say, Wikipedia's days are indeed numbered if they choose not to follow long-established protocol. I am not faulting you, Ward3001.

I understand that you're not faulting me. And I understand your frustration. But actually I tend to agree with Wikipedia in this case because it reduces confusion about whether the punctuation is part of the quotation. I have seen this method used elsewhere, although it certainly isn't in the majority. Like I said, it's a minor point in my opinion, but I saw no need for you to make changes that eventually would be reverted. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In praise of your Woody Woodpecker contributions

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		In recognition of your successful work in adding information on the Woody Woodpecker film series to Wikipedia. "Ha-ha-ha-HAA-ha!" Ecoleetage (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you! That laugh is the highest form of praise. I am just putting the stub articles in place. I will be adding to them over time, and I hope others will feel free to augment the articles as well. Oanabay04 (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It is my pleasure. I love Woody Woodpecker and the Walter Lantz canon. Keep up the fine work! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pink Panther

• Is there any real reason that you're set on having a large number of useless stubs? I don't know if it is impossible for all Pink Panther cartoons to have articles, but in the very least, the grand majority do not need much coverage. It would be much better if you were to work solely on the episode list, and try to format it after our featured episode lists. The articles can function as redirects instead of acting as perma-stubs. TTN (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am just putting the stub articles in place. I will be adding to them over time, and I hope others will feel free to augment the articles as well. I did this with the Three Stooges and Woody Woodpecker, to great success.

Are you familiar with the notability guideline? If not, I suggest that you read over it. You've been around for a while, so I would assume so, but looking at over fifty of your articles, I cannot see one that even asserts notability. Articles on pieces of fiction and fictional topics require information showing that they are relevant past the main work to require articles. Episode articles are generally placed within lists until such information is shown to exist. I'm guessing that some of them can possibly establish notability, but it seems doubtful for the majority. TTN (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi - yes, I am familiar with the notability guideline. Do not worry; the articles will have information that they are relevant past the main work to require articles. It is just easier to create stub articles as it stirs interest and gives them exposure. In particular, please look through several Three Stooges entries. This will give you an idea what is in store.Oanabay04 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you point out any article out of your three main series that has established notability? I've looked through a number of the Stooges shorts, and I have yet to see anything beyond minor production notes. While it is often very easy to think that a topic can establish notability, that is not always the case. We have and have had various television series where a number of people believe that all episodes of the series are all set (the only case where that is actually happened is with The Simpsons), so a large number of episode articles have been merged, redirected, and deleted over time. If you were to work on episode lists instead, you could build a featured list, and at the same time, accomplish your goal by having the summaries set up neatly. If anyone provides information, they can easily be split out of the list and develop into an article. TTN (talk)

(outdent) You still have only primary sources in In the Pink of the Night. You have the DePatie-Freleng website website, a book written by relatives of Freleng, and the DVD. None are independent of the subject.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we got it. This should more than suffice. If it does not, please let me know.Oanabay04 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We're making progress, because at least these are independent. *grin* What's needed is something that is not a directory listing (IMDb and tv.com are directory listings), not a sales site (toptenreviews is basically selling the DVD), and that shows how the episode made an impact on the real world. For what that means, you might take a look at a couple of featured articles. The Abyssinia,_Henry#Reaction_and_impact section or A_Streetcar_Named_Marge#Reception might be good models. HTH.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I can safely say that if this were the case, then thousands of articles about films/shows that are part of a series would be deleted in a heartbeat. Some films are simply part of an assembly line. Plus, when I think "reception," i think "opinion." I will try to dig up some signifigance on some of these.Oanabay04 (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thousands do get deleted at AfD, and thousands more get turned into redirects. If you want the article to have a chance of sticking around, then showing the real world significance is the way to go.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That is definitely why I suggest working on three featured lists instead. It would be much more beneficial, and if any of the shorts do assert notability, they can be split back out at any time. TTN (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There is something worth mentioning here. The Wikipedia:Television episodes is incorrectly applied to these Pink Panther articles. These are not television episodes; they are theatrical films that later were aired on television. Either remove the tag or replace it with a generic notability tag. Thanx!Oanabay04 (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Even though notability hasn't been shown, there's currently no notability tag on the article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you please actually show how any of these can be considered notable at this point? You've just dodged the question so far. All you need to do is get one of them up to good article status, and that would probably be good enough to allow for improvement. TTN (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I did answer the question. All the articles are notable in that they are part of a notable series of films. Some are more notable than others. As each article is developed, they will become more improved, detailed. nonw are as "notable" as Gone With the Wind" or "The Music Box," with the exception of operhaps The Pink Phink. I am not sure why this is even being discussed. i have added hundreds of articles for films that are part of a series, and at no time was their "nobility" questioned. In fact, some were championed. Oanabay04 (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Being part of a notable topic is not an indication of notability. Each article must establish its own notability and importance by including real world information from reliable sources. See the episodes in Wikipedia:Featured articles#Media for examples. You have not shown any improvement on any of these, so the claim that they will be improved holds no weight at all. We have millions of articles, so it is quite easy for a few hundred to be overlooked, especially stubs in a minor category. You need to actually work on them, not just state that you will. TTN (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My claim holds plently of weight if you took the time to look through articles I have worked long hours on. I have not shown any improvement to the Pink Pantherss because I just added these in last three days. If you took the time to look through my other contributions in the categories I have referenced, you will see that stub articles have grown over time. Monkey Businessmen, Three Little Pirates, Scheming Schemers, A Snitch in Time - all grew out of stubs. Correct me, but I believe wikipedia is an online encylopedia. Encyclopedias are reference books that have articles that can be one sentence. If you are so dead set against an article being added that is not added in completed form, soup to nuts, then let's start tagging about 80% of wikipedia.Oanabay04 (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

None of those are decent articles, and they're all still stubs with no real content. The first two have decent production information, but it seems like it would be fine to place in the history section of the main article if they cannot be improved. You need information as shown in our featured and good episode articles, which includes development, critical reception, controversy, popular culture, and other real world ideas. Over 99% of the articles on this site have various problems, but that is no reason to ignore a small group like this. Again, I really suggest working on featured lists, so that something of quality is guaranteed to be developed. TTN (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oanabay, TTN is right, those episode articles should not have been created (yet). The general notability guideline is pretty clear, you must have "significant coverage from third-party sources independent of the subject". There is currently a proposal for a more specific guideline on fiction, but even that would not support the creation of all of these articles. An episode list should (have been)be your first instinct when creating articles dealing with a TV show's episodes. First, it allows you to have a central location where you can chronicle all of the vital information for each of the episodes. Then, if a particular episode stands out (per the notability requirements) then it can be separated by itself and developed as a distinct article on that episode. Having articles that are nothing but plots is against one of our core policies; it also violates another one of our guidelines, the guideline for writing about fiction. By mass creating episode articles that fails all of these guidelines and policies, you are unintentionally undermining the spirit what it means to warrant having an article on Wikipedia. I implore you to redirect those episode titles to a centralized list, and work to develop that first (I will even help you if you need assistance in creating a viable list article that could easily become a featured list). Then I would search for resources to establish notability on any episode that might have been particularly noteworthy. Source searching should always be the first step, not the last.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Points well taken.FYI, TTN, "None of those are decent articles" is rather accusatory and patronizing. As an editor and not a writer, your claim holds no weight at all. "Oanabay04 (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I have offended you, but you need to understand that these are not developed articles and that there is a chance that none of them will ever develop. There may or may not be few potential featured or good articles within them, but an assertion of notability is necessary to keep them around. Are you willing to redirect these at this point and attempt to create featured lists? TTN (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If that is what it takes to keep these articles around and prevent them from being deleted, then of course. My goal is not to create hard feelings but rather create a comprehensive and reliable source of information with co-wikipedians.Oanabay04 (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The articles themselves will have to be redirected in order for this to work, so they'll no longer exist in that sense. The edit history will still exist, so they can be brought back at any time that notability is established. If that is fine with you, you should redirect them to relevant sections of relevant lists and fill in the information using Template:Episode list. You can ask for help or use featured episode lists as guides if you need them. TTN (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I correct to assume that's a no on redirecting them to the list? TTN (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

no, I just have not started doing it yet. Have not had the time. Also, trying to decide should not be redirectedOanabay04 (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Patrick McGoohan

I removed the recent death tag. Over two weeks is not really recent. The consensus at Template talk:Recent death seems to be that the tag should be up only for as long as the death is in the news. – ukexpat (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, no problem. I did not know what the time frame was. FYI - the death tag is still on Ricardo Montalbán, who died the day after Patrick McGoohan.Oanabay04 (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted from Ricardo Montalbán, thanks for mentioning that. – ukexpat (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem :-) Oanabay04 (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

People's Temple

Thanks for your changes to this article. Overlinking can be difficult to notice in a large article. I was hoping to encourage you to use an edit summary when you are making even minor changes to an article like this. It helps those of us who watch the article to know what was done and avoid having to check through several small revisions. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is one thing I know I am seriously guilty of, it is not using the "edit summary" feature more often. I tend to make a few changes, save them, then go back to take a look. Gotta cut that out. Take care!Oanabay04 (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Our Gang Silent Films

Hello Oanabay04. Thanks for all the work you’ve done. I would like to contribute to the Our Gang articles and notice that you’ve done quite a bit there. Would you object to my expanding some of these articles? Particularly, the silent Our Gang films. I’ve already started on “One Terrible Day.” I don’t want to interfere with one of your projects, so please let me know. Perry Hotter (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Perry Hotter. Oh gosh no, by all means, please feel free to add and expand. Actually, I only really created/worked on the first 18 or so Our Gang films (up to Stage Fright (1923 film). The bulk of the entries were created by Marckd. I have cleaned up a good deal of Marckd's work, as the user's writing style is not the greatest. However, this person did lay the groundwork for these entries, so that is good. Most of the work I have done is really on The Three Stooges' films. Thanx for the kind words; greatly appreciated! And thanx for your help.Oanabay04 (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

New York City Subway

Hi,

I saw your multiple edits to New York City Subway today. You seem to be confused between a line and a service. Many of the route bullets you inserted refer to a service as a line. Please check out New York City Subway nomenclature to help you distinguish between a line and a service. Thanks! Acps110 (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for pointing this out to me. I did not even know a page like New York City Subway nomenclature existed - very helpful. I will definitely remember this moving forward.Oanabay04 (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly! You may consider joining our project at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation. There is a great deal of coordination and explanation there, not just for the subway but all the other public transportation options too. Acps110 (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, there's a cool option for linking an bullet to the correct service page. For example use {{NYCS-bull-small|S|Franklin Avenue Shuttle}} to display an bullet for the Franklin Ave Shuttle. Acps110 (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Great! I was trying to figure out how 2 do that - thanx!Oanabay04 (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen what you were doing with the bullets. I have to respectfully disagree for two reasons: 1). Including the bullets within prose in an article primarily serves as decoration or aesthetic purposes. Per MOS:ICON, this is discouraged. (As for the bullets being elsewhere, like in a subway station infobox, that is not prose and they serve to illustrate the service for that station only.) 2). The NYCS claims copyright to the bullets, i.e. [2]. Wikipedia [specifically, the uploader of the images] says the icons are "in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." I don't know who is correct, but this debate signals to me that we should apply the bullets in careful circumstances. Regardless of the copyright issue, my first reason is my main objection. Tinlinkin (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input.While I agree that the bullet usage can fall under decoration and aesthetic usage, i disagree on that concept for public transit. Those bullets are everywhere in the system. I have found that a great many users of the NYCS Wikipedia pages respond the notoriously intimidating system better with the bullets rather than a letter or number. As the NYCS has been pushing the color/bullet system heavily for the past 30 years, their usage brings more familiarity to each line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oanabay04 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 31 December 2009

Sure, but what would happen if Wikipedia publishes these NYCS pages into a paper encyclopedia? Would you like the appearance of pages then? I agree that the bullets would be helpful from the readers' point of view (as well as the NYCS being an intimidating system to understand), but they just don't work well in prose because they are not conventional. Books I've read about the NYCS usually do not have these bullets in the prose. You wouldn't catch publications like the New York Times doing this even if they have the capability to do so. If any more context is needed for a number or letter service, the hyperlink is there. Tinlinkin (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Books I've read about the NYCS usually do not have these bullets in the prose. You wouldn't catch publications like the New York Times doing this even if they have the capability to do so." Ah, but this is not a book, nor a newspaper; it is an internet link. If this becomes a paper encyclopedia or a newspaper, yes, it looks odd and out of place. Must compare apples to apples. "They just don't work well in prose because they are not conventional." This is Wikipedia, it can be edited by anyone. The polar opposite of "conventional." Thanx for your input.Oanabay04 (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop inserting {{NYCS-bull-small}} into prose. We are here to improve the encyclopedia, not just make aesthetic edits that break other functionality. For example, Wikipedia does exist in hard-copy print. Check out my book here... User:Acps110/Books/New York City Subway System. I still have not ordered my copy because there are many instances of {{NYCS-bull-small}} messing up the formatting. Load the book and either, click "Order book from PediaPress" and look at the preview or download the entire book as a PDF, to see the formatting errors.

Secondly is display in Google Earth. Any station article that has coordinates automatically shows up on Google Earth if the Wikipedia source is checked in the "Geographic web" section. This is part of the standard installation of Google Earth. The pop-up balloon only shows the lead section of the article with very simple rendering. It can only display text, images and links. Templates and any other stuff is not shown. For example "Canal Street is served by the , , and trains at all times." That's not useful. I simplified the display of Marcy Avenue (that version here) (among others), but now Google Earth is displaying your version with no trains listed. (Google Earth only updates from a database dump once a month.) Please stop. Acps110 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Google Earth issue is a very different matter. "Canal Street is served by the , , and trains at all times" is bad. If an edits ruins the functionality of something else, then (Google Earth having a problem), then I will stop. As for the book, I downloaded as a PDF. Looks good; the formatting "errors" are minor.Oanabay04 (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Happy editing. Acps110 (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

R8 SEPTA

Nice work. I've spent the last few days looking this stuff up, no wonder they are the SEPTIC rail. Some of the stations stand, looking at Google, mind that Google is far from CC-BY. Interesting how stupid they are sometimes. (Good work on the articles btw. :) )Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 02:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought I recognized your name from this previous post. Glad to know you are a NYC Subway fan! Oanabay04 (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dogs is Dogs and Pups Is Pups

Thanks for the image uploads! My favorite two Our Gang pictures! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. I have been meaning to upload all the Our Gang title cards and finally got around to. Glad you like it!Oanabay04 (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

One Terrible Day

Oanabay - Thanks for your help on the One Terrible Day page, I need lots of help there. But are you sure the possessive pronoun "her" should be changed to "his?" The sentence is talking about the character Farina, not the actor, Allen Hoskins. I am almost certain that the Farina character is female in this film, as is true in several of the early Our Gang silent shorts, in spite of being portrayed by a little boy. One Terrible Day was one of four "Our Gang" shorts made in Spring and early Summer of 1922 and in all of the others, Farina is a little girl. I watched the film again and actually found no real proof, but I did find a hint. Jackie cuts off her/his pigtail to use for fishing bait. The pigtail seems to indicate a female character. But I also checked with the "Lucky Corner" web site and found this statement:

The 9.5mm copy refers to him as 'her,' but it isn't an original inter-title.

Would you mind if I respectfully request you to reconsider? Perry Hotter (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I must admit; I am not sure. I was thrilled to even see any type of photo from One Terrible Day. I will defer to you on this one. Based on that you are saying with the 9.5 copy, Farina probably was first billed as a female character. They did the same for Buckwheat as first, so it is not surprising. I am not an expert on the silents, since they are so hard to come by.Oanabay04 (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks Oanabay. I'll go ahead and change it back if it isn't already.Perry Hotter (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Running time punctuation

Hi, saw your edit at Teacher's Pet correcting the running time, and wanted to say that minutes and seconds of time are usually expressed as: 20:40. When they're stated as 20'40", it's minutes and seconds as fractions of an arc or circumference, as in longitude/latitude. I'll go ahead and fix Teacher's Pet. Thanks for all your work on Our Gang! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem about the time. I was basing the ' " format off of the one used in calculating times in The Complete Three Stooges: The Official Filmography and Three Stooges Companion book. Funn that you should have chosen Teacher's Pet. I am trying to do screen shots of the title cards from all the films, and of course, Teacher's Pet does not have any titles; just the spoken intros by Beverly and Betty Mae Crane. FYI - I added running time to all the sound shorts up until 1944 using the ' " format. I will go back and convert to : . Thanx!Oanabay04 (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

FAR: Real Love (John Lennon song)

I have nominated Real Love (John Lennon song) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Plotfeat (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Dumont

I don't know if you can cast your mind back to 2006 and this edit. Do you remember what source you had for that change? It now seems that 1882 is indeed the correct year - rather than 1889, which is what most sources say - but it would be useful to find more secondary sources (we have a primary source). Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Selena

Hello! what changes did you imply on the article Selena section "Philanthropy"? Thank you! AJona1992 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hi - no real changes. Just moved the period (.) before the reference instead of after. Oanabay04 (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. I appreciate the new status. Oanabay04 (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Death of John Lennon

I noticed you reverted my changes to this article without providing an edit summary. First of all, it is not necessary to point out that Lennon was shot dead; after all, the article is titled "Death of John Lennon". Second, the bit about the outpouring of grief was unsourced and not germaine to the focus of the article - once again, the Death of John Lennon. Third, there was no reason the enlarge the image of Chapman; it fit quite well along side the text as it was. Please don't edit war, but if you have anything constructive to contribute, please feel free to discuss it first. Cheers.Radiopathy •talk• 18:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hello - I forgot to source the "outpouring of grief" quote. This has been resolved.Oanabay04 (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Please familiarise yourself with what constitutes a reliable source; a link to a site about Marxism is neither acceptable nor funny.Radiopathy •talk• 18:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I beg your pardon. I was not trying to be funny in even the most remote way. Reading into that is borderline sick, my friend. There is no neeed to edit war here. There are endless sources that have said time and time again that Lennon's death created an outpouring of grief on an unparelled scale; it almost goes with saying.Oanabay04 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Victor Garber personal life: section erased.

Was it you who deleted the section in Victor Garber's article about his sexuality and his partner? If yes, what was the reason?Dollvalley (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• No, it was not me. What was erased, the entire section? Not cool. I just looked through the article at it appears that 99.235.196.181 erased the section. I restored it. Oanabay04 (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Image File:West_Chester_1986.jpg

Hello Oana! I am a local railroad employee that works for the West Chester Railroad and I was wondering where you got this image from. These images are very hard to come by and it is the first of its kind that I have seen. Do you have any other pictures of later operations of SEPTA on the truncated section of the Media/Elwyn Line? Thank you. (RCman2626 (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC))

• Hello. This image first appeared in a railway publication from 1999. Feel free to use this image at your leisure. It is true that finding images from the truncated section of the Media/Elwyn line during the 1980s is practically impossible. I am trying to acquire as many images as possible for the Fox Chase Rapid Transit Line as well.

Mary Ann Jackson

Hello, I am wondering if you can remember what the source of the information you added in this edit to the Mary Ann Jackson article was? We have received an email through WP:OTRS contesting the information concerning Jackson's death. Skomorokh 10:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the information and started a thread at WP:BLPN#Mary Ann Jackson, could you weigh in there?  Sandstein  21:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

As a respected WP editor, you are invited to participate in the following discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyde Lucas (2nd nomination)

License tagging for File:Lewdavis.JPEG

Thanks for uploading File:Lewdavis.JPEG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Phil Collins appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Srobak (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• • This file can be deleted. Thank you.Oanabay04 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • No one was referring to a file. Srobak (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry. My above response was meant for a different inquiry.Oanabay04 (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, Exxolon (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tomatosoup97.

Please remove me from this. I am not involved, though I understand why Oknazevad would think I was involved. Thank you kindly.Oanabay04 (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Delaware Valley Rails: The Railroads and Rail Transit Lines of the Philadelphia Area for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Delaware Valley Rails: The Railroads and Rail Transit Lines of the Philadelphia Area is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delaware Valley Rails: The Railroads and Rail Transit Lines of the Philadelphia Area until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Fox Chase Rapid Transit Line

Well, I'll start off with the fact that "ding dong" its about the most useless statement to call WP:PA over. Second, the article here, plus Fox Chase Line, Walnut Hill (SEPTA station) and Huntingdon Valley (SEPTA station) look like they've been met with a dump truck. I'm currently operating the bulldozer. A number of the photos added need their copyright refined, because asking fellow administrators, I'm failing to find how these are even acceptable. This includes the West Chester photo, all the R8 photos of the 80s, etc. Walnut Hill needs massive quotes removed. Huntingdon Valley just needs scrapping of stuff. There's more that I won't go into here.Mitch32^{(Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?)} 20:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I will choose to ignore your above post since all sentences violate WP:CIV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NICE. Frankly none of what you wrote about can be decipherd because it is all written in slang. When you write sentences that make sense, we can talk. Most of the photos were either taken by myself are utilized from a book, in which they are properly sourced .Oanabay04 (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Walnut Hill 2006 picture

I reverted your edits. PA-TEC is not the source of that picture. I am, as the existing tag indicates. I took it with my camera and released it to the public domain. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

My error. I forgot that this photo has been around longer than the PA-TEC website. That is where soem of these Newtown line pictures are housed most prominently. Thank you for reverting. By the way, do you have any additional pictures of the line when it was dismantled through Lorimer Park? Oanabay04 (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I uploaded everything I took when I wrote the articles about the stations. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Laugh Track Page

The reason the edits were severe is that I systematically cut anything that conflated laugh tracks with audiences. The entire original article is based in old urban legends about how and where laugh tracks were used, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a multi-camera, live-audience show (where they are used only for "sweetening" and there is no consensus about how often "sweetening" is used) and a single-camera show. The original article sidesteps all of this and makes the chronology extremely confused, instead of the simple and true chronology based on shows that were single-camera (and had fake laughter) and those that used audiences.

The essential fact of the laugh track is that it was introduced in TV for shows that did not use live audiences, particularly single-camera, movie-style shows -- the original article conveys the impression that there is no distinction, and has helped contribute to the poisonous online myth that shows today use "laugh tracks" when in fact laugh tracks are all but extinct. (When people accuse Big Bang Theory or Seinfeld or whatever of being "laugh track" shows they often use the old article for backup.)

I am not criticizing the writers of the original article. Much of the reference information they were using is bad. Books and articles for years used "laugh track" interchangeably with audience. But the interchangeability is wrong and is inseparable from the original article. I kept as much of the original writers' words as was compatible with the attempt to get it factually correct.--Giebergolfarb —Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC).

Hi. Thanx for getting back to me. I appreciate the updates. However, I need to see whaty your sources are that indicate laugh tracks are no longer used. Most shows today sweeten on a regular basis, even with a live audience. The Big Bang Theory is indeed live. Seinfeld uses both. Without sources that suggest laugh tracks are no longer, these edits cannot stay. I want to believe this is true so we can keep your edits; however, they need to be sourced. Most sources---particularly the 1966 TV Guide articles---are legit sources. I will leave the edits in for now, but the article may need to be reviewed before we leave as-is. Pls. adviseOanabay04 (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the Philadelphia Wiknic!

In the Azalea Garden, just behind the Philadelphia Museum of Art, near the Fairmount Water Works Sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philadelphia/Wiknic#Interested_Wikipedians.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area this Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 5 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together in the Azalea Garden, just behind the Philadelphia Museum of Art 39.96801°N 75.183156°W / 39.96801; -75.183156

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

Smallbones (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Newtown line

I've been to a forum or two, but none hosted by PA-TEC. We probably haven't met, but I suspect we know some of the same people. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I remember attending a forum and talking about the Walnut Hill Station. Someone had said they snapped pictures of the line in that section before and after the trail. Thought it might have been you. Thanx. Oanabay04 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:Lidsville screen.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lidsville screen.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Laugh Track Page

The more recent deletions were an attempt to keep the article from depending on dubious sourcing (a lot of sources on laugh tracks are unreliable). However, you are right that I went too far in the deletions and except for adding a couple of words to clarify, I have left the "filming without an audience" section intact. The article seems to be what it should be now. Thank you for your help and sorry for the over-aggressive cutting.--Giebergoldfarb

Sounds good by me. At this point, I think we both should get together and finally publish a long-overdue book on the subject. Why not? :-) Oanabay04 (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Huntingdon valley1982.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Huntingdon valley1982.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw that you removed the tag from this file, and it has been replaced. You have not established any evidence of permission for using that photo. Stating on the image page "used with permission" does not constitute as evidence, because any user could take any photo from any website and make the same statement and falsely release it under a free license. Instead of just removing the tag like you did before, please read WP:Permission. An OTRS may be required to establish evidence, but simply stating you were given permission does not. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Simple enough. I know the authotr, so I will obtain his written permission.Oanabay04 (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

My offer to end this silly dispute

Just to see what the answer is (after hours of calming down), here's my treaty to ending this silly dispute over the small tags: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Captions#.3Csmall.3E_Tags_in_Captions_for_Infoboxes. My civility is beginning to get to my head, and this is my offer to end this entirely on the old R3. At least give it consideration.Mitch32^{(Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?)} 00:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

1) You need to learn to mature in your arguements and leave the emotions outside the door. 2) You have yet to make a civil arguement. 3) Take a look a this article = Locksley_(SEPTA_station). The caption in the infobox is clearly the same size as the text. This might be a problem with the station Infobox. Now, for TV show infoboxes for exmaple, you are indeed correct; the text is smaller; see here: The Pink Panther Show. Please advise why caption size changes. 4) Captions, particularly in infoboxes, should be brief and not in sentence format. You have chosen to undo all the edits and re-expand the text. As long as nothing is lost in translation, it would make more sense to leave it. Hope this helps.Oanabay04 (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition, it appears to me that you often lack the ability to WP:DISENGAGE and are bordering on WP:DIVA. Please stop and learn to discuss the issue directly first instead if simply reverting edits that might actually help the article.Oanabay04 (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

By default, captions in infoboxes are already put into a small size. So having <small>Small text</small> is not needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm afraid they are not small. Take a look a this article = Locksley_(SEPTA_station). The caption in the infobox is clearly the same size as the text. This might be a problem with the station Infobox. Now, for TV show infoboxes, you are indeed correct; the text is smaller; see here: The Pink Panther Show. Please advise why caption size changes. Thank you.Oanabay04 (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Reading78.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Reading78.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

completed. Article discussed.Oanabay04 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Concordville_8.25.77crop.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Concordville_8.25.77crop.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Permission has been received from author. Email sent to permissions-enwikimedia.org. Thank you. Oanabay04 (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Media Penn Central March 75.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Media Penn Central March 75.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see discussion page. Image has reason to stay; do not delete. Thank you. Oanabay04 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Newtownlocal.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Newtownlocal.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see discussion page. Image has reason to stay; do not delete. Thank you. Oanabay04 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

File:10thstreetOceanCity.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:10thstreetOceanCity.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see discussion page. Image has reason to stay; do not delete. Thank you. Oanabay04 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Jrsmith.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Jrsmith.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, you removed the tag without actually adding the source. You added a source but then removed it, so I don't know if you did that on purpose, so I've retagged the image as deletable (perhaps you thought the source wasn't correct or derivative of the English Wikipedia image). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My error on this one. I added the source (review the history) but I received an "edit conflict" note and attempted to re-add the source. I have since resolved and added the proper source. Please let me know if this is satisfactory. Thank you. Oanabay04 (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Please stop. Continuing to remove file deletion tags from file description pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. You are an established editor here and should know better than to remove deletion tags from file pages. If you disagree with the nomination, than you may state your reasons, but removing the tags is very immature, not to mention pure vandalism, and will lead to being blocked. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Immature is not an appropriate term for such an action. First and formost, WP:ATWV. Poor way to start a discussion. Second, my actions were based on past experience of resolving issues with photos. Photos are tagged appropriately and are added using WP:AGF. The constant tagging of legit photos is both a waste of time and energy. Given the constant tagging, it makes me suspect you suffer from both WP:ZEAL and perhaps WP:HUNT. Please do not threaten me with being blocked: the only purpose of blocking, banning, and other sanctions is to protect the encyclopedia from harm. I disagreed with the WP:ZEAL nomination, stated very clear reasons and the issue was resolved. Wiki clearly states "But when meaningful contributions are made, it is important to WP:AGF in the contributor and not to rush to "get rid" of someone else's writing. Even if it does not follow your own interests, it was written by someone for a good reason." In the future, instead of taking the easy way out an simply tagging a photo, how about contacting the uploader directly for further understanding as to why the photo was loaded and what purpose it serves, rather than assuming? How about "I noticed you added x, y and z photo. It does not seem to add to the article. Your thoughts." It really makes life easier for both editors instead of logging on and finding a slew of messages saying "your photo is about to be deleted." It appears to me that both you and Mitch32^{(Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?)} lack the basic WP:ENJOY tactic. Thank you.Oanabay04 (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

What you did is vandalism. I am not going to sugarcoat it. WP:ATWV says that "vandal" should only be used when appropriate, and in the case of your actions, it certainly was. As listed at WP:VANDTYPES, your action was considered "Avoidant vandalism". Unless you are a new editor and the tag was removed by mistake, then it is clearly a case of vandalism. I don't go around randomly deleting or tagging images because it makes me feel superior or anything like that; I do it because some of these contributions (not just yours) do not follow all of Wikipedia's guidelines and/or policies. You have been an editor here for a long time, and I honestly think that your actions were inappropriate. I hate to send warning messages to established editors, especially ones I have personally dealt with before, but it was entirely necessary. I am sure that if you removed deletion tags nominated by another editor, you would have received the same warning from someone else. I don't know what kind of "past expedience of resolving issues with photos" includes, but deletion tags should never be removed by the one who made the initial contribution or upload (unless it is a prod tag, but that's different). Removing deletion tags does not solve any issues; as you can see, it only creates more problems. You have made some useful contributions to Wikipedia in the past, but I honestly do not feel that you completely understand the non-free content guidelines. Not to target you specifically, but we tend to edit similar articles, and some of the inappropriate non-free images I have come across have been uploaded by you. So far, three of the four images you uploaded that I have nominated in the past for deletion have been deleted, and I can guarantee that the fourth will be deleted as well. Some images, such as File:West Chester 1986.jpg, were great non-free contributions, but they are only appropriate in one article, not three or four similar ones. It is very seldom that a non-free image is used in more than one article to begin with. Other images, such as File:Reading78.jpg, have very vague and generic rationales, which makes it difficult to pinpoint exactly what it satisfies WP:NFC. It is nothing personal, it is just a matter of overusing non-free images when a) there are plenty of free images available (WP:NFC#1) or b) the non-free image's subject is not specifically identified in the article and does not add any additional context, and therefore is not necessary (WP:NFC#7). All I'm saying is that you may need to familiarize yourself with the guidelines and don't take things so personally. I don't want to see anymore of your uploads get deleted either, and you won't have to worry about that if the guidelines are correctly followed. As an editor, I am only here to do what I think is best for the encyclopedia as a whole, and not target anyone specifically. Sorry if there have been any hard feelings. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I have read your response, and do agree with you on many points. I personally believe that the recent round of images you tagged served a very good purpose, but in the grand scheme of life, it is not worth making a big deal about. Every rule on wikipedia can be interpreted differently, and that is to be expected with any policy. Admittedly, I do get carried away on occasion. I will review the policy again (I had reviewed in the beginning, but have not refreshed my memory in a while), just to myself up to speed. It is definitely true that we edit similar, if not the very same, articles. I think we can call a WP:Truce. I will try not to over use non-free images as long as you try to contact me first instead of marking for deletion. no hard feelings whatsoever here in WikiWorld.Oanabay04 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aftertheball-title.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Aftertheball-title.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gongwithpink TITLE.JPEG

Thanks for uploading File:Gongwithpink TITLE.JPEG. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pantrypanic TITLE.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Pantrypanic TITLE.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Reading78.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Reading78.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:M_arketfrankfordline951978.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:M_arketfrankfordline951978.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Photo from family collection; own work. No copyright info needed.Oanabay04 (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Manuyunkbridge85septa.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Manuyunkbridge85septa.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Photo from family collection; own work. No copyright info needed.Oanabay04 (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

  Copyright info is needed for all images, no matter where it came from. But your image already has copyright info, so that's not even the issue. You need to state the source of your images, even if it's from your personal collection. I've seen many users upload images from random websites and stick a {{PD-self}} tag on it just for simplicity's sake. Obviously, an established editor such as yourself wouldn't do something like that, but you need to at least state on the image page where you got the image from. Also, you should be uploading your free images to Commons so they can be used on other Wikipedia sites. A few of them already been tagged with {{Move to Commons}}, so it's much easier to just upload them there to begin with. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I am not sure how to upload an image to the commons area, and would like to do so. I would greatly appreciate if you could point me in the right direction. Thank you.Oanabay04 (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

=Orphaned non-free image File:Baby brother TITLE.JPEG

Thanks for uploading File:Baby brother TITLE.JPEG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sink Pink

The article Sink Pink has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The cartoon does not meet the general notability guideline as a stand-alone topic.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Notability and references have been added to this article.Oanabay04 (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pink Ice

The article Pink Ice has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The cartoon does not meet the general notability guideline as a stand-alone topic.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Understood. Notability and references have been added to this article.Oanabay04 (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cock-A-Doodle Deux Deux

The article Cock-A-Doodle Deux Deux has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable episode

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Reel Pink'

The article Reel Pink has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable episode

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Understood. Notability and references have been added to this article.Oanabay04 (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

pink panther

I am PROD marking your episodes, as they are non notable, and have no references. For a series like this, I think a single page of "list of episodes of XXX" page is more appropriate, where you can give a brief summary of each episode all in one. As a collection they are notable, but there are not really going to be any references etc for individual episodes. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• There is already a list of episodes page. Many series' have individual pages for each entry (The Three Stooges, The Simpsons, Our Gang, Tom & Jerry, Looney Tunes, Woody Woodpecker). The Pink Panther was quite a significant series and the entries derserve their own pages. Thank you.Oanabay04 (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

TfD

Lugnuts (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of pink panther pages

I see that you are reverting some of the redirects on the pink panther articles. Any reason for this? They were redirected via an AFD process. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You are redirecting significant entries in the series. please link the AFD process to this page for further review. Thank you.Oanabay04 (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Le_Cop_on_Le_Rocks Gaijin42 (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The AFD discusses the Ant and Aardvark and Inspectoe entries. However, there are conflicting thoughts on the Pink Panther entries. Feel free to redirect the former two series' but refrain from the Pink Panther entries. Thank youOanabay04 (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am a fan of the series, but I do not think that the inidividual episodes/shorts are individually notable. They all have the exact same content (except for the very short plot summary), and the exact same references. That is a strong indicator to me that it is group notability. If you know of sources that are discussing the individual episodes in detail, then those references would strong as a good counter argument( I would however, qualify that a book, etc which discusses every episode, does not show notability of any particular episode.) The distinction you are drawing (excluding the panther articles) is not made in the AFD, however, in the spirit of cooperation, I will renominate the pink panther episodes to see if the community distinguishes them. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi - I made some comments about this on the AFD page.Oanabay04 (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not see a comment there, you may need to re-edit. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You made a comment on the old AFD discussion, which is closed. You would need to comment on the new AFD I just created. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pink_Pest_Control#Pink_Pest_Control Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That's true, he's right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariannan (talk • contribs) 10:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments added to new AFD. Oanabay04 (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

<--Belatedly: I saw this and other edits: please don't undo redirects that have been decided on. It's a blockable offense. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of Ant and Aardvark pages

Can you work at the Ant and the Aardvark articles, and add some pics about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santre34 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would be happy to.Oanabay04 (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I would just point out that the articles in question are ones that did not survive an AFD, and that you agreed were covered by that AFD (but you contested and said the pink panther should not be covered) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I had assumed that all individual entries were deleted already and I was going to work on the series page only - The Ant and the Aardvark.Oanabay04 (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

they were, but this user (mariannan's sister) recreated some of them today. Ongoing CSDs. Of course feel free to add info to the main article. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanx for the head's up. I was unaware. I would say to simply keep the first episode in the series (The Ant and the Aardvark (film)) and the rest can be redirected.Oanabay04 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Bewitched, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leon Ames (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Pink in the Clink, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Porter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Hoot Kloot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bob Holt

Love 'em and Weep (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Finlayson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Cheers cast 1982 bw.jpg

I believe that you have not read the rationale, have you? You failed to contact me about the above image, so I have reverted your images. If you plan to Please upload your image at its own page and creatively type your own words of rationale without interfering my images again, please contact me next time before I permit you to do so. --George Ho (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Ho - few things. 1) remove the accusatory tone or you will be blocked for WP:CIV; a simple "why did you change my image" would have been more civil2)this was not your image, but rather an image that you found that you chose to upload. 3) there is no requirement to contact other users when their image is being modified, but was rather done as a WP:AGF. 4) the new image has the complete first season cast, which is more appropriate for this article. 5) the comment "without interfering my images again" rings of WP:NPA and can lead to your editing privileges being revoked. Your talk page indicates that you have overreaacted to other people's edits on mor than one occasion. By definition, your work will always be edited, so expect it. Thank you.Oanabay04 (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know; I prefer the pre-"series premiere" cast because... it helps people realize whether Norm Peterson was intended to be permanent or not or maybe the casting of Norm Peterson was still under development. Haven't you seen Season 1? Norm got one leading storyline, and then he was put to background during Season 1. By the way, I have reverted your edits. The "no requirement to contact" doesn't imply that you would go to my images and do something without my permission... I give up convincing you. Just discuss in User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions. --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Too much detail for an encyclopedia article; more suited for a book on the subjext. Most readers will simply want to see the first season vs a later season (the M*A*S*H does a good job illustrating this. Remember: an encyclopedia article is to give an overview of the subject; it is not intended to go into every little detail. That will bore the casual reader. For info like whether "it helps people realize whether Norm Peterson was intended to be permanent or not or maybe the casting of Norm Peterson was still under development. Haven't you seen Season 1? Norm got one leading storyline, and then he was put to background during Season 1," that is something more befitting of the diehard fan, which is where a "further reading" section comes in. Most viewers will see the first season and witness Ratzenberger and Wendt in nearly all episodes. For that reason, a full season one cast picture is a better representation of Season 1. Please understand that I did not go to your image to consciously remove it, but rather improve it. And again, the only images that are yours are the ones you created yourself. Do not exert ownership on a copyrighted image.Oanabay04 (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
      • ...I give up convincing you something. I noticed that you replaced that image with File:Cheerscast1982fullcastwendtratz.jpg, and I'm pleased that you did not interfere my page. Still, I'm casual, and I'm not bored by the image, but were you? I did not mean to say "my" for images that I uploaded, and I can't say "my" because... well, I sound less smart to say that, thanks to your accordance. Look, I'm not speedily deleting my image; rather I nominated it as "orphaned and replaced" because my language looks more complicated. I tend to forget how to speak civil to everyone because I take my edits so seriously and because I read deletion warnings of your images. To be honest, I did not intend to personally attack you, did I? I was shocked and did not expect such. I stroke my OP message because the tone was addressed; nevertheless, I tend to overreact because I take my edits so seriously without considering civility toward others. --George Ho (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Look at the difference between photos besides Wendt and Ratzenberger. Take a look at Colasanto in "your" image. Is that an image from Season One, Two, or Three? In One ("my"), Colasanto looked average. In a few more seasons, he looked... different. I suspect that the image did not come from 1982. Maybe 1983 or 1984? I hope this is not an attack or anything else against you; I just noticed. Casual viewer wouldn't believe that this image was created in 1982, would one? If you want to change year, try "circa 1983 or 1984" --George Ho (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• You might be onto something. Colasanto was definitely thinner in Season 3. This photo was taken from the book The Show Must Go On, which dealth with his passing. The caption under the photo said it was from Season 1. To me, it looked like it could have been the same photo session as the one you had uploaded, without Ratzenberger or Wendt. To address the attack issue, perhaps I overreacted as well. Email and online sites lend themselves to misinterpretation.Oanabay04 (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Green Bay Trail, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Right-of-way and Jens Jensen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Awful tooth TITLE.JPEG

Thanks for uploading File:Awful tooth TITLE.JPEG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please delete. Thank you. Oanabay04 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

RIP Davy Jones

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is for gnomish work cleaning up Davy Jones (musician) ~~~~

Nice cleanup on things like dates. I'm sure you'll add citations for the {{fact}}-tagged statements soon. Regards Tonywalton ^Talk 01:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanx. Yes, once he passed away, I took a look at his wiki page and realized it needed some clean up. I have all the sources; just need to remember to keep adding them. Thanx again. Such a tragedy...Oanabay04 (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)