User talk:Scarce/Archive 3

Early June 2009: I Seek To Help & Repair!

I SEEK TO HELP & REPAIR!'S DISCUSSIONS FOR JUNE 2009 WILL BE COMPLETE JULY 1ST

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Beware! This user is a known talk page stalker.

'If you are seeking to leave me a message, You're in the wrong place! Click here to leave me a New Message'

DO NOT EDIT THE CONTENTS OF THIS PAGE!

DO NOT LEAVE NEW MESSAGES HERE!

CLICK HERE TO LEAVE A NEW MESSAGE!

June 2009's Discussions

Speedy deletion nomination of MorphThing

A tag has been placed on MorphThing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. – PranksterTurtle ^(talk) 04:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film) Multi-Reference Page

A tag has been placed on A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film) Multi-Reference Page requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Nightmare

We've had this discussion before. No new information has come out to warrant a new page. There info is all nicely sitting on the franchise page. Your edits, though good faith, are becoming disruptive because it appears like you are intentionally just waiting a couple of weeks and then intentionally reverting the page back. Until this film meets WP:NFF, which means it must meet WP:GNG, then it doesn't warrant a page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

---

First, they can update the franchise page. It's that simple. When there is actual production info to be related, then we can talk. Right now, there isn't. Casting isn't production, that's pre-production. Locations is location, and doesn't say anything about what's actually going on. Writing is something we need. Filming (like filming styles, discussing changes to how a character is filmed in this film as compared to the original) is another that we need. We don't have that, because they aren't talking about it. This movie won't be out for another year, which means there is a long time of waiting and we probably won't get any real information for a few months. There is no need to have a page that literally copy and pastes the same info from the franchise sitting around for 2 months with nothing new. We aren't going to ignore WP:NFF simply because you don't like the location of the info. Other films have to follow that guideline, so this one does too.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

---

If you plan on adding plot summaries (which is what I assume you were referring to when you said "info") then we have a different adjust for the template that is used. The reason being, you should have the same color header for the episode data (writer, director, title, airdate) for each entry. It would look more like Smallville (season 1). Look at how that template does that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

---

With the plot summaries in there, you don't need two different contrasts to separate the episodes. The plot summaries act as a natural separating, so they can all be the same color. BTW, some of these are reading very familiar, like from a website that I was on. If you are getting these from another location, please remember to summarize what is said, and not simply copy and paste (if that's the case). Otherwise, good luck and have fun adding the plot summaries...the page needed them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

---

We do not report on "leaked" photos, because that means we're reporting on stolen information. Secondly, we do not make personal observations on photos (i.e. Freddy is wearing a polo shirt and fedora). When I said we are not a news organization what I was referring to was putting in information we're going to delete later because it isn't relevant to the historical preservation of the article. A year from now we will not care that there was a shot of Haley in a polo shirt pre-burn. We are not Shock Till You Drop, we're not a film entertainment website that posts updates on films. We're an encyclopedia. Yes, we get information when it immediately comes out, but that information is stuff that will continue to be in the article for as long as the article exists. The stuff about the school's pool is relevant now and will be relevant a year from now. The fact that there were some "leaked" photos isn't relevant to Wikipedia now or later. As for the other created article, they did not do anything but copy and paste the info from the franchise article. They have nothing knew.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

RFA

I notice that you've created an RFA nomination here. Are you aware that the nomination is yet to be transcluded onto the main RFA page? If not, you may find it necessary to do so. Good luck! Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If you edit here, you'll see instructions of where and how to transclude. If you're still not sure and you'd like me to, I can do it for you. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you withdraw. With just 6 weeks of experience your RfA will not pass... generally 6 months is considered the minimum to even contemplate a run. Please take a look at WP:NOTNOW---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I echo I'm Spartacus! and suggest withdrawing. You have been on Wikipedia under this username for just barely over a month, and very few (if any) editors are going to see that as an indication that you have the experience to understand and use the admin tools. I recommend waiting a good while (at least several more months) while gaining experience in the various areas related to the admin tools. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I withdrew your RfA per WP:NOTNOW. Do not be disheartened; many of our finest admins have failed their first RfAs. Please follow the advice of those commenting and try again after 6 months to a year of active editing. Very best, and feel free to contact me if you need anything. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:BillSchulz.PNG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:BillSchulz.PNG. 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. 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. J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Iconic characters

I have nominated Category:Iconic characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

hello.

hello. Nice to meet you NoduloMan (talk) 21:27, June 11, 2009 (UTC)

---

are you moderator, how can I start my own page on Hurricanes, I dont wanna edit that one on "Tropical cyclones" NoduloMan (talk) 21:28, June 11, 2009 (UTC)

---

oh, wait.. I think I foun out how NoduloMan (talk) 21:28, June 11, 2009 (UTC)

Userification of A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Hello,

I appreciate that you were trying to help out a new user by userifing this article for him, but in the future you really shouldn't copy and paste as a full edit history is required by the terms of the GFDL. You should have either actually moved the article using the move button, or preferably just assured the author that his contributions were still in the article's history: [1] and could easily be restored when the film met our inclusion criteria. See also this thread on the subject. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting

Since you're listed in the Guild of Copyeditors as having an interest in "all movies ever" (although the interest in horror is obvious), I wondered if after your short wikibreak, if you aren't too busy, you could help me with Aladdin (film) - who recently lost GA status because almost everyone who I asked for help didn't reply. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 03:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

---

The responsible for the GAR wasn't much clear, only on "numerous gramatical and stylistic errors" and that I couldn't do it alone. Take a look at the article and see what needs improvement. As for archiving, I usually just remove some sections of my Talk page. igordebraga ≠ 23:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Illegal.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Freddy

Technically, it doesn't meet WP:FUC on Freddy's page either. Non-free images require critical commentary about them specifically, and there is non on the glove (any of the gloves for that matter). Why don't I edit Freddy, mainly because I'm in the middle of rewriting the whole page to be more like Jason and Michael, so I don't really both "fixing" or "correcting" something I know will eventually be changed anyway. Right now, that page violates half a dozen policies and guidelines. There's just too much to fix, that I'd rather wait till I have time to finish the new page and just swap them out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Appreciate it. I have a book, and the DVD commentaries..I've just been busy with the Smallville pages and Jason and Michael (the latter isn't finished either). Plus, I've been trying (ever so slowly) to finish the Friday the 13th page. You'll notice on the real page I've had to go ahead and start putting stuff in because I got tired of people adding unsourced, irrelevant stuff. But the one that's on the mainspace is no where near as complete as the one in my sandbox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

---

The rationale isn't so much the problem as the actual page. The section the image appears in needs to have text describing the glove, describing why the glove was changed, etc... from reliable sources. That is why WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE refer to when they say "critical commentary". At this time, I wouldn't worry about it. If someone hasn't removed the other images, they aren't going to remove that one. Now, hopefully, I'll be able to (one day) find info on what went into making the original and what went into making the new glove and then use an image of the old and the new together. Until then...  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

---

That's actually on one of the DVDs, so, if it's used then we need to cite the DVD and the feature on the DVD it appears under. We cannot cite YouTube (who is currently illegally broadcasting that clip). I also have the Nightmare Encyclopedia DVD, so whenever I get around to watching that it should be good info.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

---

To the first, YouTube can never be used. If you see TV clips on there then they are there against copyright and thus illegal. Wikipedia cannot promote anything illegal. Also, if the clip is deleted, as often happens on YouTube, then the source is gone. If you are citing a Leave it to Beaver episode, and using the YouTube clip, then just cite the episode itself. LITB isn't out of print or anything, so it can easily be sourced by viewing the episode on DVD.

---

To the second, the "In mass media" is separated for two reasons. 1) I always separate out individual states until I'm ready to weave them into coherent prose. That's why you'll see on the Friday the 13th sandbox that some of it is prose and some of it is still bulleted out. This helps me to gather my thoughts before I start blending sentences to find the best way to say something. 2) I also do that when I don't have sources for something, and in this case there isn't a source for any of that information, and so I want to remind myself to find a source for it or drop it completely if I can't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

---

ANIghtmareOnElmStreetFilms.com is not the studio, and thus it is illegal for them to post clips from a DVD they do not own the copyright to. That website is an independent company, it's not New Line. If you look at the disclaimer at the bottom left of their webpage, they indicate that they are not intending to infringe on the rights of New Line with their posts. That's cool, but we still cannot cite YouTube. Their personal website is good for finding info, but we really need to find more reliable sources that talk about what that website has (e.g., They list X-merchandise, so we should try and find a third-party reliable source that discusses merchandise-X).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Well, you shouldn't have created it first. You should have gone to the WikiProject to find out who would be interested in starting a task force. If it's just 2 people (you and myself) then there isn't enough editors to support a task force.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

---

You can, but you also need to put a notification on the Horror WikiProject talk page requesting the task force. You cannot create a task force for another project without them knowing about it ahead of time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I think the original was better, because you get more of a sense of the sweater's color, whereas the current one you have the sweater looks like it's black. That's why I didn't choose that particular version from the same website before.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Appears green to me? Saying "green and red" but with it appearing to be black and red doesn't help the situation. This one might be better at showing the green, or one of these: 1, 2.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Pages are not created, or kept, simply because people choose to ignore our policies and guidelines. Otherwise, the same theory could be applied to the idea that if someone continuously adds unsourced trivia to pages that we should eventually just let it be because it's never going to stop.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's 99% the same as the franchise section. Adding a designer's name, or an actor's opinion thoughts on what the plot will be doesn't constitute production information. The film is a year away. The same issues existed for the new Friday the 13th and Halloween II. F13 didn't get a full article until about 7 months before release, and this is how much we had before when we created the page. Halloween II was only created about 2 months ago, and this is what we had for it. There probably will not be enough info for Nightmare to warrant a page for another 2 or 3 months...unless they just start flooding us with info here in the coming weeks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI

This is a courtesy note re: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:I Seek To Help & Repair!. –xeno^talk 17:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Sorry, I meant to inform you but was looking for a template to do so. Just a bit concerned, is all. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Thank You X2, ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 00:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:MorphFriends.PNG

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

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of MorphThing

I have nominated MorphThing, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MorphThing. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Nightmare wikipedia.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nightmare wikipedia.gif, 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. Oren0 (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

eh

I see you've been coming up against a lot of deletion processes and this must be disheartening in ways. Anyhow, stick with it. You're clearly here for the right reasons. By the way, your signature was fine before. If there had been a user named "Sought" then it may have been an issue, but you can go back to the old one if you like. –xeno^talk 00:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your concern. I kind of like the new signature, more personal ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 00:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Neat!

I didn't know I was a notable Wikipedian. Thanks! Lychosis ^T/C 06:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I Seek To Help & Repair!, Lychosis has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The contribs link in your sig is missing the ending exclamation point. Lychosis ^T/C 09:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Freddy Krueger Copyright

So, each one is adds to the article in a way that words could not? All of them add to an understanding of the article subject in a very significant way? It's not about the number of images used- articles do not have a certain number of images they are "allowed" to have- it's about whether each one truly is needed. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

---

If the change in his appearance is truly important. Is there sourced discussion of the change? Different styles of makeup, what critics thought, etc? J Milburn (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Discussion in the article prose? J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure how this is ambiguous. I mean sourced discussion in the article prose concerning his change in appearance. For instance (made up on the spot, I've not seen the films) "Critics responded positively to the change in appearance, which focussed more on the supernatural nature, taking Krueger further away from his human form. The change was achieved in part due to heavier makeup, whcih was said to take up to three hours to apply, and in part due to heavier use of special effects." See what I'm saying? J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I'm still not convinced. What's the purpose of this image, for instance? It just decorates an unrelated section about a supposed suicide attempt- nothing is mentioned about proms, promotional pics or how the characters look. J Milburn (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

---

If it's not important, remove it. What's the purpose of the Dream Demons image? The Dream Demons are mentioned only in passing, and what they look like seems unimportant to fully understanding the character of Freddy Krueger. The image of the baby seems completely unimportant- again, the baby is mentioned only very briefly, and how it looks is not important. What is the purpose of File:Freddy vs jason promo.jpg? Freddy's appearance in that film is not discussed at all, though the film itself is. I can see the purpose for the New Nightmare Freddy, but what about his claw? The claws are not discussed, the image seems superfluous (esecially as you can see the claw on the Freddy image). Also, looking at those images, I'm a little concerned about the use of the non-free images, often without rationales, on related pages. If you don't want me to come knocking on them, I reccomend you clean out unneeded uses there. Also, I reccomend you tie the captions of any remaining images to the prose- for instance, for the New Nightmare Freddy, instead of "Freddy Krueger from Wes Craven's New Nightmare.", something like "Krueger's appearance in this film is more in line with what Craven had imagined for the character originally". J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

---

No issue with the description pages, the issue is explained- what are the images illustrating? Why are they needed? (We'll focus on this article at this time.) J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Further, I don't think the issue is with my explanations, it's with your understanding. When you failed for so long to understand what was meant by "discussion" of the images... J Milburn (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

---

An explanation of the importance on the description pages would be nice, but, right now, I'd like you to explain the importance to me, to give me a reason not to just remove them right now. J Milburn (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Ok, we are agreed on the main picture, and on the New Nightmare picture. First of all, the claw. Simply stating that it is important does not make it so. If it is so important, how come it is not discussed in the main prose? Further, why is an additional image needed, when the claw is already shown on the image of Krueger himself? Seems a pretty clear violation of minimal use- two images are used, when one suffices. The Freddy vs. Jason pic- what is it actually illustrating? Again, simply claiming it's informative doesn't make it so. I can't see what it is illustrating, or what it adds to the article. The baby picture- if you feel it should be removed, please remove it. A discussion about its use on other pages can be had, but there's no need to leave it lying around on this one. J Milburn (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

---

The claw is shown on the Freddy picture. Why is that not enough? J Milburn (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

---

No, I mean in File:Freddy Krueger New Nightmare.JPG. J Milburn (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

---

The point remains that the change in the claw is hardly mentioned- the use of a whole non-free image to illustrate it is overkill. J Milburn (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Freddy Krueger.PNG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Freddy Baby.PNG)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Note that I have also tagged File:New Nightmare Claw.JPG and File:Freddy and Nancy.PNG as orphaned. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Fictional isn't needed. The fact that it isn't linked to indicates that it isn't referring to the real Springwood. Jackie Earl actually shouldn't be listed at all until the film actually comes out. The section is for "Appearances" and to claim that title the film needs to be released. Who said he was German? Caucasian isn't "American", see Caucasian race. Also, the fact that he kills a multitude of people in a single outing makes him a mass murderer. If he killed one or two people over time, then he'd be a serial killer, but he kills too many in single spurts to be classified as such. Mass murderers don't have to stop after one mass killing, it just defines the number of people they kill in each event.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Actually, the page should be "Freddy Krueger..... In the original film, the character is known only as "Fred Krueger". "Freddy" didn't come about till the sequels, but it's the most commonly known name (hence why the article is titled that). This "Frederick Charles..." stuff is purely fan trivia. He isn't known by that name outside of a single film, that's it. It's always "Fred" or "Freddy". My assumption is that because of his last name that it is assumed he has German...but that's not established in the films (as far as I know) nor is it relevant to understanding the character any. The reason "Caucasian" is listed is because it's associated with being "White", and with his burned face you technically cannot assume he's white be appearances alone. I cleaned up the Ash infobox. As for the claw stuff, I can try. I've been busy trying to finish the reception section on The Last House on the Left, but I can watch the development of the section as you work on it and assist where you need.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I don't know, because I don't go to the IMDb page. Since that page is user submitted, it could be that the person that did the Wikiquote page also did the IMDb page. Or they could have copy and pasted. Since Wikiquote isn't bound by the same rules as Wikipedia, it doesn't really matter all that much.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of KidsPedia

I have nominated KidsPedia, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KidsPedia. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cameron Scott (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your GA reviews

Hi there! I noticed you have done a lot of GA reviews lately, which is great, but are you sure you are reviewing each article thoroughly enough? Seven reviews in an hour seems like a lot. The nominee should be carefully checked against WP:WIAGA criteria before being passed. Also, while not mandatory, I think it's a good idea to leave concrete suggestions for improvement if the article does not pass muster. Regards, decltype (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I'll have a look. I just think it's important that we try to maintain quality and treat the nominee fairly by giving a thorough review. However, I am not a very experienced reviewer, so I have started a discussion at WT:GAN, where a lot of good reviewers hang out. You may want to join the discussion there. Regards, decltype (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Lois

Thanks for the GA review. You've been going hog wild on those things lately it appears. To me, it looks like you're showing a lot of initiative in trying to gain that experience for potential adminship (I saw when you were declined). That's good. GA reviews are good and all, but I would suggest venturing over to the WP:AfDs and reviewing articles for deletion and giving your opinion on those. Admins are the ones that determine consensus of AfD discussions (might want to review WP:DELETION and WP:CONSENSUS as well), so that's an important piece of the puzzle.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I have no idea what you are talking about. The only time I have ever been anything other than cordial with you is when I have to repeatedly go back to the Nightmare remake issue with you. You have never once gone to the franchise talk page and asked "Is this info good enough to separate the page on its own", or anything of the sort. You have ignored just about everything I have said with regard to that film page, and repeatedly just recreated it (in various titles) without consulting anyone to every see if it was ready. There comes a point when being bold becomes disruptive to the encyclopedia. Other than that, that's the only thing I can think of that you have done that has made me address you in anything other than a friendly tone.

The infobox information should be pertinent in understanding the character, per WP:WAF. If I remove stuff it's because it is generally irrelevant to understanding the character on a basic level. The infobox needs to be to the point, and not contain extraneous details that are better left to other parts of the article. I believe that I have worked well with you when the issue of the infobox picture came up, even supplying possible alternatives that we could use and allowing you to choose from them. I feel like I always thoroughly explain my edits/reverts/deletions with you when I do them.

Hell, I even rushed to thank you for reviewing an article I put up for GA immediately after I saw you had reviewed it (something I don't have to do), and noticing your edits lately I commended your effort to be proactive in gaining more experience and even offered you a tip on other aspects to focus on that is often brought up in an Admin nomination (i.e. when I said you should look at the policy on Deletion and take part in some more AfDs.). In my above comment: "To me, it looks like you're showing a lot of initiative in trying to gain that experience for potential adminship (I saw when you were declined). That's good." -- You'll note that I clearly say "That's good", meaning I think it's good that you are trying to gain more experience for potential adminship. Now, if you find all of this hostile, I apologize for the misunderstanding, and I'll just mind my own edits and not bother to clarify anything anymore...so as to not create potential future misunderstandings.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources

We cannot use that fansite as a source. If they say, "According to ...." then you need to click on the source they are getting it from and cite that one. In this case, we should be using The Times and not ANightmareOnElmStreetMovie.com.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the request for the other page to be deleted so we can move the sandbox over. Now that I've cleaned up the page, it's looking nicer than I thought it could at this particular time. It probably still doesn't warrant a page to itself because of its size, but it's pretty organized and has good sources so I'm willing to back off my original stance and support the separation. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Nightmare remake doesn't necessarily need to be mentioned on the 1984 page, except to put a hatnote at the top that says "This is for the 1984 film, for the upcoming 2010 remake see ...." As for The Birds. Just create a section entitled, "Remake", at the bottom of the page, below all of the stuff directly pertaining to the original film. As far as I've heard, there currently isn't a film being made for The Birds. They want to make one, but apparently they are having trouble actually coming up with an original script for the film. As such, they may never actually make the movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hello. I saw your name over at the GOCE. Could you take a look at the article Fritz the Cat and see what kind of work you can do on it? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

I like it

Great new name. Oh, by the way - I made a nifty little ubx randomizer, in case you're interested (displays a random userbox of your choosing). {{Ubxdisplay/random}} –xeno^talk 03:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying it out! It seems that it can't accept templates with parameters (such as {{User contrib}} and {{User Wikipedian For}}). There is a workaround I described in the template documentation. You also have to write the whole name of the template for userboxes that begin with Template: –xeno^talk 15:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Nice name! Abce2|AccessDenied 03:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What they said! I don't think there was nothing wrong with your old name, but I'm glad you found a name even the pickiest of editors can't disagree with :) Jafeluv (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I got it

I mean Qui. Abce2|AccessDenied 10:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just got it. Abce2|AccessDenied 10:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, just now.Abce2|AccessDenied 14:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)