User talk:T-rex

For older disscussions please view the archives

Image:SwitchfootMTL.jpg

I have tagged Image:SwitchfootMTL.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 09:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an album, cover used in the article on the album, if you really want a rational go write one yourself. I view it as more than self explanitory... --T-rex 02:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Be nice

You have claimed that my edits are nonsense and vandalism. However, they were done in good faith and I included proof as to the veracity of the additions. I request an apology. 66.177.5.252 01:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The first time was in good faith. By the second, third, and fourth times you should have known better. Again, I ask you to end your vandalism. --T-rex 02:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Okay, I'm sorry, but some of the stuff you remove from Switchfoot related pages is good information, but it can barely stay up there at all. There's some good links and information I'd love to see on those pages that you take down almost immediately. The most recent of which is the fact that the single "Oh! Gravity." was #1 on the popular site ChristianRock.Net for nine weeks. Why can't that stay up? I almost feel like I can't go near the Switchfoot pages with any new info because I don't know if it will be there tomorrow. We can't even talk it over on the discussion boards. If it's some Wikipedia policy thing, I'm sorry, but everytime someone brings that up it doesn't seem to explain it perfectly. I don't want to sound mean, and I understand that you're working hard at keeping those articles in good shape, you do a good job at that. I just wonder why we have to see so many things go from the Switchfoot pages. Certain music video links and a fixed up discography have disappeared too, and I just wonder why there's always so many reverts without discussion. Thanks for your time, and God bless.RoryS89 03:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)RoryS89

Well I can't answer for everything, but I can give you a responce to the ChristianRock.net charts. ChristianRock.net is a non-profit internet radio site, and is for the most part insigificant. Posting how a song does on a single radio stations charts is rather insignificant, and just leads to further clutter as every editor then adds how it is doing on their favorite station of choice. It would take something really significant to make it appropriate to mention a specific radio station in the article. As for the video links, a lot of people don't like stuff like that on here. I'm having trouble enough getting people to keep links to official sites like that sonybmg musicbox one. As for the discography I see nothing wrong with it. Don't be discouraged and please keep editing --T-rex 04:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean by it being a radio station and all, but I was thinking of the charts and all. In some cases, that site is all that can be used if it's a Christian band whose music is only played on Christian stations, I just though that the info on Oh! Gravity. might have been notable. But I see what you are getting at. Sorry to get upset and all, I was just not sure of your reasons. Thanks for responding. Oh, and the disography, I just wondered why it turned into a little list of the album titles instead of the chart displaying the RIAA Certification and all. That's what I meant by that. But thank you again. God bless.RoryS89 06:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)RoryS89

Not sure what happened to the certificaions... they were there at one point, not sure where they are now... --T-rex 17:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for trying. Better luck next time... --T-rex 13:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Lean Mean Fat Reducing Grilling Machine

I have no want to make a 3RR violation on a article that wasn't even on my watchlist; so I have to discuss with you about our mutual reverts in the "in popular culture" section of the article. It seemed that I think this article should be tagged with {{trivia}} tag but you doubt it. I based on the tagging on point 5 of WP:HTRIV#Practical steps:

If a section ("trivia" or otherwise) has grown so large as to over-balance an article, consider:

• Working the information into the article, and removing unimportant items.
• Adding the {{Trivia}} tag to the section, inviting other users to help clean up.
• Splitting into sections.
• Forking off well-defined subsections into other articles, but be careful; see #Trivia articles. If you do this, please do not abandon the new article.

And the fact that the section involved is about half of the total length of the article, in which I consider it as over-balanced the article.

So your rationale is? I needed some discussion to improve the article. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 22:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

My rational is that the George Foreman Grill is better know for it's pop culture aspects, than as an actuall grill. As such the article is proportional to what is important to say about the topic. --T-rex 01:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an anon on that article again saying the removal of the trivia section is needed. Discuss there.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 04:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

This is very odd, and reproducible. It will need looking into. Rich Farmbrough, 08:34 18 August 2007 (GMT).

The text was there next to a category. Rich Farmbrough, 08:39 18 August 2007 (GMT).

I figured something of the sort. It not being my bot I figured I just let you take a look at it. --T-rex 02:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:DinoBot

May I please have a copy of the code that it is written in? Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 21:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it's python code based upon the pywikipedia framework. Let me make sure it still works before getting you a copy --T-rex 15:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!!!

Hi T-rex. This is User:Wikipedier, who is now User:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.. I have retired, but I just wanted thank you so much for welcoming me here, and I really enjoyed helping out the project in any way I could. Best regards.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 05:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm rarly here myself now. Glad I could be of help... --T-rex 15:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Your Misinformation on the Switchfootage Page

Fyi, student short films are rarely important enough to be reviewed, especially documentaries. They are submitted to festivals and are either accepted or not. Furthermore, E.E. Kennedy turned down several offers to sell the film out of loyalty to the band because it contained personal footage of the band members and their families. Therefore, the film was never reviewed. Thank you for no longer commenting on the documentary with misinformation. If you would like to criticize it with accurate information, you are free to do so. This would necessitate you having seen the film, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.154.2 (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The film was accepted at multiple major festivals. Almost every film will recieve a review at a festival like that. If Kennedy had any concern over "personal footage" it never would have been shown to anyone. Also it is not necessary for me to see the film to add what other people have said about it. --T-rex 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, TRex, the film did not ever receive a single review. And that is a fact. If you have an opinion or would like to cite someone else's opinion, then you should frame it as such. And there is a difference between a film being screened as a thesis film at a festival (educational exhibition) and a film being released (for sale.) Another fact is that everything to lose was never "released" therefore the qualifier that it was a "miniscule release" does not apply. It was not released at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.154.2 (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Although there is a differecne between a film festival and a DVD, the film was still "released". The fact that it never went to DVD means nothing --T-rex 20:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Darien Lake

Something I wanted to know from the DL discussion page - I'm just curious where you're getting your information from about B:TE being constructed for '08? Thanks! ClarkCT 00:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well the ride itself is sitting on the back lot there, and I have seen it for myself. As for the announcment that they are building it, I believe that they announced that sometime around mid-august, but I don‘t have a link or anything to give you to confirm that... --T-rex 04:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just wanted to see if you had a reputable source. While the ride is still sitting there, no announcements were made for its future. In fact I'm pretty sure plans are still up in the air anyway. Thanks again, no problem. ClarkCT 04:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SwitchfootStars.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:SwitchfootStars.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. BetacommandBot 17:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizm reverted, image is back to being used --T-rex 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Jim Kelly, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you.--Yankees76 (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia? I've been here well over two more years then you have... I havn't edited the Jim Kelly page in days either... you might want to double check this. --T-rex 23:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No offense was intended (though if you've been here that long, you'd recognize that it's a standard template message). However if you haven't edited the Jim Kelly article, please explain these edits [1][2]. Note that unsourced contentious material (negative or positive) added to biographies of living people that does not cite a verifiable source should be removed immediately and without discussion. The material you've added twice does not have a source, appears to be original research and can easily be contended (Steve Young also played in the USFL, and one might argue that Jim Kelly would not even be one of the best QBs in the league today (see:Brady, Manning, Favre) – let alone of all time). Find a source, attribute the statement to someone and re-add it - don't revert and simply drop it back in as is. Thanks. --Yankees76 14:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I would call that "contentious material" or even "original research" either. As for the welcome, I did recognize it as a template message, but have no clue why you would use a welcome template on a user page as long as this one. It should be rather obvious to the whole world that this isn't my first edit to wikipedia. As for the need for sources I don't think that is really needed here. It's not the type of statement that really needs a source to back it up and it's just a part of the intro to the article. If you really need a source just look at the infobox on that page and you'll see that Kelly has almost every passing record their is. Best I can tell you just have a problem with Kelly, and until you're able to convince me other wise, I'll put that line back in. If instead you really do care about having a source, you should just add one yourself rather than delete content --T-rex 00:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to nitpick my choice of template, that's your prerogative - I think it fits fine here whether you're a new user or not - it's certainly not out of line. The real issue here is that you're adding unsourced material that could be considered your own opinion to the biography of a living person which fails to satisfy not only WP:BLP, but also WP:V. Whether or not you think I have a problem with Kelly is just a strawman argument on your part - and I think my contributions to the article over the last 24-hours show you're basing that on nothing. I did do a quick search, and did not find any substantial, reliable sources that say Kelly is one of the greatest QB's in NFL history. Meaning that it's most certainly original research. Even still the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, so if you insist on keeping these statements, attribute them to a reliable source. I'll give you some time to start adding some citations - then I'll pull it again.--Yankees76 06:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you're been here a long time, I'll assume you have at least a passing familiarity with NPOV. Any subjective superlative claim is inherently a mere opinion, and so it has no place on Wikipedia without a source. Someguy1221 11:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The claim (if you bothered to read it) is that he is the greatest USFL quarterback. In case you didn't know that is (was) a seperate league from the NFL. As for the more general claim that he was one of the better ones in the NFL the mere fact that he is in the hall is testiment enough to that. While your contributions to the article do negate my intial reaction some what your claim that every sentance in the intro to an article needs to be sourced is rediculous. The general claim in the intro is based upon the more specific claims in the article, which in turn are the parts that need to be sourced. If you want to have a ref on that line feel free to add one, but do not remove content from the article. --T-rex 17:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is without a source, it's just your interpretation the facts as they're presented there - which is the pretty much the defintion of original research. By your reasoning (that inclusion into the HOF is enough to say he's one of greatest), there's nothing to stop any other editor from saying, for example, that Jim Kelly is one of the most overrated quarterbacks in NFL history, and cite his failure to lead his team to a Super Bowl victory in 4 tries as the proof of that. We both know this probably not to be true yet the point could be made. However if we were to say that "In 2004 sports reporter and columnist Jonathan Rand listed Jim Kelly as the 20th greatest quarterback in football in his book Riddell Presents the Gridiron's Greatest Quarterbacks ^[3], we have attributed this claim to a reliable third party source who is an expert on the subject. Thoughts?--Yankees76 14:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

While a mention like that would be a good addition to the article, it's a tad bit wordy to put into the introduction. If you want to add that ref to what I've been adding. I can't see the part on Kelly, so I don't know exactlly what the source says, but thats a fairly short list he's on there which would seem to back up the claim --T-rex 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Scroll down to page 148 to read the section on Kelly - I'll be adding some info from the book soon.

I think claims like these should not be in the introduction though, unless it's a widely accepted fact or sourced very well (see Wayne Gretzky). While the source above is a good start, it's really just one sportswriters self-published book - and it's missing contemporary quarterbacks like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning who have both won Super Bowls and obliterated many of the records set by the QB's in this book. Unfortuntely, I have not yet found a source for Kelly like The Official Encyclopedia of the NHL used in the Gretzky article, but this is closer. --Yankees76 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Page 148 keeps falling victim to the "some pages are ommitted from this preview" for me... And while Kelly wasn't as dominent in the NFL as Gretzky was in the NHL, I really don't think there is any argument about his dominance in the USFL. I can throw a ton of refs on that if thats what you really want, I'm just saying that refs should not be needed as the body of the article should be enough to justify any claims the intro makes... --T-rex 02:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jim Kelly. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --Quartet 01:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I appear to have three reversions over a four day period. I'm not quite sure what part of that makes you feel as if you need to spam my page with templates. Perhaps the more imporant question is where are all you people comming from? Me and Yankees76 disagree over one sentance and suddently every editor on wikipedia feels the need to publically state that they disagree with me... --T-rex 03:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You have 4 reversions since November 29, have reverted more than 1 editor and had your revision reverted by 3 different editors. Note that the above doesn't say you broke the three revert rule, it's intended to let you know that it might be wise to stop and work towards reaching a consensus with the other editors. --Quartet 18:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Great! I'm still no where close to the three-revert rule and still loving the fact that you feel the need to spam my talk page with templates. I'm willing to bet the other editors fell the same way as well. --T-rex 01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good. I'm glad to see my message is loud and clear. --Quartet 03:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DYTM.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DYTM.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been taken care of --T-rex 22:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Switchfoot

I added a contribution to the page Switchfoot, this contribution cleaned the page up from three major headings, which there was no need to have, to one major one, entitled 'Record labels' now, if there is any change in their status it can be put under there, instead of taking up there 'new album' section with nonsense about them changing labels, which has nothing to do with their new album. i did not add nonsense and i was not experimenting, i know fairly well what sandbox is, and i know that i did not need to use that. can you please give me a valid reason why that is classed a vandalism when it is clearly a valuable contribution?

Alex15alex (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that edit is that it is highly redundent to what is already there. At the top of the page you are breaking all the redirects for no apparent reason. And then on the bottom of the page you replicating the band history under the bizare title of "record labels". If you have something concerning the band's history in regards to their record labels or anything else, it should simply be added to the already pre-exsisting section instead of being listed elsewhere in the article. thanks. --T-rex 16:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i didn't do anything at the top of the page, that wasn't me, someone must have added that between me editing the article and you undoing it. can i ask what is bizare about 'record labels', i f you don;t like the title, you can change it. yes record labels is to do with the band's history, but it is simpler to keep the label history in one section, 'record labels' the new album section at the bottom of their biography can't be filled up with things from 1997, so i have put it all in one article. also, there was no need for all those sub-headings with only a couple of lines of text underneath them, so i changed that too. So we can either sort this out between us, or go on forever undoing eachothers edit's, now i'm not saying that you either have it my or no way, im saying that we will both have to come half way into making an agreement. thanks, Alex15alex (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Those sub headings are not needed, but the whole "record label" part is just repeating what is already in the band history. There is hardly even anything about record labels in there... --T-rex 00:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD question: Recombinant text

I have very little experience in AfD matters, and am asking for your input before nominating an article for deletion, because, quite frankly, I do not want to be seen as someone who capriciously nominates articles which do not meet AfD standards.

If you have time, please take a look at this article. It was created by the person who—as the intro asserts—is the very person who coined the term. Most of the edits are by that person. Most, if not all, of the sources link back to this person. I mean, at best it appears to me to constitute OR, at worst, self-promotion. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. What do you think?

I selected you and many other editors pretty much completely at random; I picked one day's AfD archives, and clicked on the talk pages of the first two or three dozen editors' talk pages I came across. I hope that in using this selection method, I will get editors who are well-versed in AfD policies, yet who also represent a good cross-section of AfD philosophies. I will monitor your talk page for your response. Thanks. Unschool (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if this issue has been more than taken care of. --T-rex 15:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Jon Foreman's Fall EP reviews section

Hello! I was just curious why you decided it better to remove the other reviews? They are all "professional" reviews, and offer more perspective on the EP. I see a lot of other albums with a lot of reviews too. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joberooni (talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

They really arn't "professional" reviews. Typically as a rule of thumb I'm only for including reviews that are notable enough on their own that the site/newspaper has it's own wikipedia article, and things like "The Album Project" don't and probably never will. --T-rex 17:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

oh ok. cool. thanks. what about local online newspaper articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joberooni (talk • contribs) 05:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

normally no, but it would depend on the type of newspaper it is. If it's something that specilizes in music and such I might consider it --T-rex 22:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SwitchfootMTL.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SwitchfootMTL.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SwitchfootStars.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SwitchfootStars.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SwitchfootWAOT.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SwitchfootWAOT.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SatudayRockAction.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SatudayRockAction.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Appetite For Construction Tour

There is absolutely everything special about this tour. The bands went on tour for a good cause, Habitat For Humanity, and raised over $100,000 to donate to that cause. It's tours like these that deserve attention, not some other tour of just big names. They weren't even on tour to promote their albums or their singles--they were on tour to make difference in local communities. If that's not considered "special," then I don't know what is. Switchfoot, Relient K, and Ruth are great bands, and are taking action in changing the world around them, and this tour, along with the song "Rebuild" are big steps in that direction. Please re-consider deleting this article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joberooni (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

More BetacommandBot

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SwitchfootStars.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SwitchfootStars.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:SatudayRockAction.jpg

I have tagged Image:SatudayRockAction.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:SatudayRockAction.jpg

I have tagged Image:SatudayRockAction.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SwitchfootLogo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:SwitchfootLogo.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) 02:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Switchfoot Singles

Um... those songs were singles on "Christian" radio. Same thing with Head Over Heels (In this Life), a song whose eligibility and validity as a single has gone uncontested. Those old singles (Gone and More Than Fine) just got lost in the shuffle because Switchfoot was all over radio back in those days, and news tends to get forgotten/lost. They were indeed huge hits on the Christian scene, and are still played at Switchfoot shows almost routinely. They deserve their own articles, and deserve to be recognized as such. The Christian music scene may be a minority, but it shouldn't be totally disregarded, (although sometimes I wish I could) because these Christian singles are pertinent pieces of Switchfoot history. Please consider them as such.

single does not mean "they play it on the radio". Although there is often a corolation between the two, simple because some obscure radio station gives a song a few spins does not mean that the song is a single. In fact given the lack of support from the band for Head Over Heels, I'm not too sure about that one either. Also you can't be adding chart numbers without any indication of what chart they belong to. That just makes no sense. --T-rex 22:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

first off, the charts do say where those songs hit No. 1. CHR is a valid, Radio And Records Christian Hit Radio chart. Secondly, they were impacted to Christian radio, which makes them singles. Even if they weren't think about "Stairway to Heaven." It never was officially released as a "Single" per se, but it is one of the most popular songs of all time. I'm not comparing the CCM singles to Stairway, of course, but they are significant enough hits.Joberooni (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Stairway to Heaven not being a single, while still being popular really has nothing to do with this at all. The mere fact that they are not singles, should be reason enough to not list them as singles. As for this imaginary CHR chart I have yet to see any existence of it anywhere. What you refer to as "sources" are just news articles and best I can tell don't mention the chart anywhere. If this chart really does exist you need to point out a few things, notably who maintains it, and where can it be found. Otherwise you're just making up numbers. --T-rex 22:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

T-Rex, check the CHR article at the top of the charts. If not, here is the link to those charts. Have fun. [4]

Well the article Christian CHR that you liked to is a music format not a chart. However the other link should be usable. However are there archives avalible anywhere? And that chart seems to indicate that Columbia still had it hand in Head over Heels, which may need a mention on that article. --T-rex 22:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that they parted ways but it looks as if that discussion as to how it effects Head over Heels may need a second look. --T-rex 04:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking for archives, but several articles have indeed mentioned that Switchfoot swept the No. 1 spot on CHR for all the Beautiful Letdown singles. I'll try to find them again. I think the chart mentioned Columbia on Head Over Heels (In This Life) because it was on an Oh! Gravity. release. But the single was released after Switchfoot parted ways with Sony. Thanks! Joberooni (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

T-rex: While I agree with most of what you say, my pre-order of Oh! Gravity. did arrive with a sticker on the front, stating that the album contained the singles "Oh! Gravity.", "Head Over Heels", and "Awakening". I have no idea whether that means anything or not. --3M163//Complete Geek 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? Thats interesting, but I'm not sure how much stock to put into that given how that falls on the timeline. --T-rex 23:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BetterDays.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BetterDays.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Switchfoot has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. HokieRNB (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any edit summaries to that article recently that aren't straight forward. If however the use of a template is preventing you from getting across what you are really intending to say let me know (as I doubt you were really looking to mention the sand box as well) --T-rex 21:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You've either simply "undone" the editing work of others (see here, and here, for example), without any discussion whatsoever, or used "rv v" (see here) when no vandalism had taken place. You've also violated the three-revert rule. HokieRNB (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That second edit was after you left the message so I doubt thats what you had in mind, and the third edit was vandalism. Sorry about the first edit, that was a few days ago so I didn't think that what you had been talking about but in all fairness I had mentioned it earlier --T-rex 22:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That second edit was exactly the sort of behavior that I had in mind. Just because you did it after I initially brought it up in your talk page doesn't negate the fact that it's bad editing conduct. You reverted on at least 4 different occasions without spelling out your reasons either in the edit summary or on the talk page. You simply "undid". The time that you used "rv v" there was no vandalism apparent on the page. What you reverted was a good faith edit that was attempting to span the gap between what you thought was "trivial" coverage of an individual concert, and what other editors see as evidence that the band is keeping its Christian slant despite covering a song that might seem to indicate otherwise. It may not be the best way to make that point, but it's a far cry from vandalism. However, removing it the way you did multiple times does constitute vandalism. HokieRNB (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A far cry from vandalism? No, the repeated reinsertion of bad content to the article is vandalism. Just because you want Biola to be mentioned in the article doesn't make it not vandalism --T-rex 00:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care one bit about Biola or about its insertion in this article. I do care that you have carelessly reverted other people's edits and alleged vandalism when none existed. Please see Heimstern's comments on what constitutes vandalism in this article. HokieRNB (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't lie to me. Furthermore that is vandalism, regardless of what Heimstern's opinion is. Not blatant vandalism, but still a form of vandalism. --T-rex 01:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You are quite relentless aren't you? And not terribly civil. Please assume good faith. HokieRNB (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not too civil to accuse me of not being civil, mot assuming good faith, and not knowing what vandalism is. That said I'm not too easily offeneded, and really more ammused than anything. So go ahead and keep it up, you should have figured out by now that I've spent enough time on wikipedia to know better than back off whenever anyone threatens me. --T-rex 02:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You've admitted yourself that you don't understand the Wikipedia policy about vandalism. (As a refresher, vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.) To label those edits as vandalism is not assuming good faith. And specifically to accuse me of lying to you is considered uncivil. Why would you think I'm lying to you? HokieRNB (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never said that I don't understand Wikipedia's policy on vandalism. So I guess you have decided to continue to lie to me (please don't do that). However even by the definition you just provided the edits are marked as vandalism still are. You got anything else? --T-rex 05:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Switchfoot. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Who are you? --T-rex 22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm the editor who just reported you for violating WP:3RR. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And then you go and start reverting yourself? That's funny. --T-rex 22:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning 3RR and vandalism

Since that noticeboard is not for dicussion, I'm bringing this here. Note that the policy page of the 3RR says this under its "exceptions":

reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking – this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself.

Thus, only simple and obvious vandalism is exempted from 3RR. I point this out to you not because I feel the need to win this dispute, but rather because it is important that you realize that this is how blocking works here, that no admin is going to accept your claim that your reverts were exempt for this reason, and that if you do this again, you are likely to end up blocked. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow wikipedia policies close enough to see that. Regardless my assertion stands that it was vandalism. I was never contesting the 3rr anyways as much as I was defending myself against the accusation that may edits were malicious and not "removing vandalism". I guess it really doesn't mater at this point, but thanks for the clarification anyways. --T-rex 02:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BetterDays.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't I do this already, like two weeks ago? Whatever, I'll throw something else on there to make you happy. --T-rex 23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot activity

I was going over the list of bots and noticed that DinoBot (talk · contribs) has not edited in a very long time. Is this bot still active and if not, would you object to it being de-flagged? Please post your comments to Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Dead_bots since this is a rather widely-posted message. MBisanz ^talk 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

no reason to de-flag my bot. It isn't running, but if that account ever is used again it will be for bot activity. --T-rex 03:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

random threat from annon

I hate to tell you this, but just because a couple people agree on something doesn't mean no one else can change it. I'm a noob and I know policy better than that. A consensus involving a SMALL amount of ppl really means nothing. You all seem to think that you own the article and no matter what someone else does you can revert away and say" goes against our consensus" "vandalsim, that isn't what we want in our article" and so on. It is completely and utterly ridiculous. You all need to take some time and familiarize yourself with policy. 123.242.230.161 (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry but I do know the policy. Apparently way better than you. A number of people agreeing on something is called "consensus" and is how decisions are made. Just because one person disagrees doesn't mean that they can just delete whatever they feel like. And in this particular case the discussions have been long and involved to come to the current arrangement. Furthermore, for the record, I was never even a part of that discussion anyhow. Also unregistered editors repeatedly deleting what everyone else has agreed upon is the very definition of vandalism. --T-rex 03:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

St. Vincent languages

T-rex, can you tell me what I'm doing wrong in the St. Vincent languages section for you to keep undoing it? Everything I've added can be verified with the sources I cite. Do you disagree with the content? Or am I doing something wrong in the way that I'm adding it? I'm new at this, but I've read how to add content and feel like I'm doing it right. Help me out here. (Nrp0450 (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

Sorry for not posting sooner, but I didn't notice this was here right away. I've been undoing the addition of Vincentian Creole because it's not remotely close to being true. The vast majority of St.Vincent speaks English and only English. While this might have been different a few hundred years ago, it is not the case today. --T-rex 20:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What St. Vincent have you visited? Ride a van to Georgetown or sit on a street corner with a group of guys in Sandy Bay and Vincentian Creole all you hear. It's a different pronunciation, different vocabulary, and different grammar. Granted, it's not immediately obvious to an outsider because of the stigma attached to the language. When speaking to an outsider Vincentians will speak their best English. But within their own people it's very definitely the majority language. Would you say the situation is different from Jamaica? Jamaica has a language subheading that describes the situation much the same way I would describe St. Vincent. And Jamaica and St. Vincent have pretty similar histories. Same thing for Belize and Guyana. Why does Wikipedia recognize their Creole languages in the country writeup but not St. Vincent's? (Nrp0450 (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

I can't say anything about Jamaica, but as far as St. Vincent goes, it's straight up English. --T-rex 21:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Where have you lived or visited in St. Vincent? What are you basing this on? --Nrp0450 (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been to pretty much the entire Island (it's pretty small). I guess I can't speak for the smaller islands, but the main island is still around 90% of the nation's population --T-rex 23:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So you've been to the entire island and have never heard things like, "Ah pah yu deh?" (Where are you?), or "Me ah cum jus now" (I'm coming soon), or "Ah mek aayu pickney ah-dem na go a school?" (Why are your(plural) children not going to school). These are just examples, you would hear similar phrases in conversations everyday all over the island. Would you say these are English?

Google "Vincentian Creole" and you'll get back several published papers on the language. I have three books that all mention the language here on my desk: "An introduction to Pidgins and Creoles" by John Holm, "West Indians & their language" by Peter Roberts, and the "Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage" by Richard Allsopp. There's also a wikipedia stub article about it (which I did not start). The educated world knows there is a creole language spoken in St. Vincent. Most Vincentians I met during the two years I lived there readily admit that there is second form of speech too. The majority call it 'dialect', although many call it Creole or Vincy Twang. If you doubt this, call any Vincentian on the phone right now and ask them what 'dialect' is, ask them if it's 'straight up English' as you say, and not one will say that it is. They might call it broken English but every one of them will say it's different from standard English. This is 100% typical of a situation where a creole is in contact with it's superstrate language. The Creole is looked down on and regarded as degenerate, see the 'Creole language' wikipedia article.

I'm probably not going to convince you, but you at least have to admit there is evidence in support of there being a Creole language that is widely spoken in St. Vincent. How can we compromise? --Nrp0450 (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've never heard any of that. Like I said only English, every part of the island, every person I saw. I'm not claiming that the language doesn't exist. All I am saying is that it is not regularly spoken in (modern day) St. Vincent. Like I said, not just mostly english, but 100% english. --T-rex 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So how do you explain the preponderance of evidence saying that there is a widely spoken Creole language in St. Vincent? I have explained that the reason you may have not heard it is that Vincentians don't speak it to foreigners, or in front of them sometimes, because of the stigma attached to speaking it. And in most formal situations Vincentians would always use English even among themselves. --Nrp0450 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no "preponderance of evidence", there is instead just you. I'm really not buying your stigma claim either. Even if you aren't making this all up, above you just said that "in most formal situations Vincentians would always use English even among themselves" if that isn't saying that English is the primary language I don't know what is. --T-rex 23:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned three books above and I cited two sources when I originally posted the paragraph. That is five saying there is a creole language spoken in St. Vincent. How many have you cited saying that it's 100% English? I believe you are the one that is just relying on your own 'knowledge'. It's fine with me if you want to call English the primary language, it does have the status of being the official language of the country. What I wrote, and what you undid, said that Vincentian Creole is the mother tongue (the first language you learn, usually from your mother) and is used in informal domains (home, friends, sports) while English is used in formal domains (government, church, meetings). That is all I would like to have in the article. I'm fine with you saying English is the 'primary' language. Did you read the wikipedia 'Creole language' article I mentioned above? It clearly talks about a stigma against Creole languages at the end of the 'History of the Concept' section. Read the 'diglossia' article as well, it talks about the same thing. --Nrp0450 (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What I said stands. I'm not going to waste my time arguing semantics --T-rex 18:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Korea under Japanese rule

Hi, I reverted your recent edits on the article since they messed up all of the non-latin characters. I reverted the vandalism you'd removed and removed a misplaced or irrelevant ref, but if I missed something else you had meant to change, please let me know, thanks. - Bobet 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I don't have too many non-latin fonts installed, so thats probably what messed it up. Sorry about that. --T-rex 21:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. We've covered this before... rv v means that you are removing obvious vandalism. Removing a legitimate and sourced edit, regardless of how much you don't like it or disagree with it, is not vandalism. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You enjoy going out of your way to undo every edit I make. Anyhow, I've already posted my defenition of vandalism for you, and it covers this. --T-rex 04:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, and after that you go and then mark my edit as vandalism? Within a whole minute of saying this. --T-rex 04:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You've removed the same legitimately sourced edit on the following occasions:

• 00:56, 25 February
• 22:42, 17 March
• 03:33, 25 March
• 18:26, 5 April
• 02:09, 8 April
• 04:35, 9 April

However, I am now forced to agree with you that your edits, however poorly intentioned, do not constitute vandalism. Per the page on Edit warring, "content disputes, even egregious POV edits and other good-faith changes, do not constitute vandalism." I retract both of my former edit summaries, but maintain that you still are not justified in removing this material, and more to the point, are totally out of line to label the addition of this material as "vandalism". Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Three revert rule? Thats 6 reverts over the last 3 months! I barely have one revision in the last 24 hours, let alone four. Can you please just go edit war with someone else, and stop wasting my time. thank you --T-rex 18:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No thanks, for now I think I'll just keep restoring this one edit that you keep removing. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, have you utterly failed to read the text of the warning, which explicitly states, "Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule." I think it could be just as well argued that you have wasted other editors' time by needlessly reverting perfectly legitimate edits, and labeled them as vandalism to boot. I also noticed that you prefer your own "defenition" of vandalism over the established criteria for what Wikipedia calls vandalism. That's probably going to aggravate other editors too. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

actually you seem the only one aggravated by it. While I know the spirit of the rule is more important then the letter, the fact that you feel the need to post that here is a bit ridiculous. I've been editing here for years now, I know the basic policies. --T-rex 21:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, you will be blocked from editing. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, mind if I but in? Using templates on regular users is considered ill-mannered, likely to raise hackles and might be considered threatening, considering the level you've taken them to. In respect of your differences, please Don't template the regulars, but discuss content issues on the relevant talk pages. Involving other parties will allow you both to establish a consensus for your edits rather than indulging in edit wars. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a template. However, it is a gentle reminder that incorrectly labeling your edits as "rv v" is contrary to civil conduct and assuming good faith. One would hardly find cause to template you if you made your edits after consensus was achieved in the talk page. HokieRNB (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would I care if you use a template or not? What is insulting is thinking that you feel it is needed to tell me that in the first place. I've got nothing against the proper use of templates at all. --T-rex 14:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nathan Gerbe

Unless he has played professionally already, and if he's still with BC then he hasn't, he doesn't pass the WP:ATHLETE guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He should, no problem. He was a Hobey Baker finalist this season, and was named to NCAA All-Tournament Team last season, and AHCA All-America First-Team Honors this season. He had a hat-trick in a victory in the NCAA semi-finalas a few days ago, and could well end up with a national championship by the end of today. Additionally he has been drafted by an NHL team. He won the 2005 IIHF World U18 Championships, and had the second most points of any player in the tournament. If this isn't significant independent coverage, I don't know what is. --T-rex 20:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable American Presbyterians

I reverted your edit to PC(USA), see its talk page for the related discussion. Actually, I like your change it's just premature. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left a response on the talk page --T-rex 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

RE; [5], i think i've done this once or twice. FYI--Hu12 (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I probably was getting a tad bit too copy-paste happy --T-rex 16:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot request

Just a quick note to ask whether there has been any progress on the bot you said you were looking into for the WP:INDIA auto-assessment. It's just that I have managed to code an AWB extension and can file a BRFA later if you haven't got anywhere. Thanks. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 11:02, May 24, 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. It sounds like you will be able to have yours up and running well before I do. --T-rex 14:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA

Hello there. With one week allowance, there was no substantial efforts in addressing my comments for Nothing Is Sound to reach GA status per criteria. I failed it; please refer to the article's talk page. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello t-Rex. I just read your response in the article's talk page today. Sorry that I forgot to indicate that the article needs sourcing. I failed it, not just because of that, but because there are remaining comments you did not address. If you consider it a mistake, please renominate it in WP:GAN. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on the article page, but I'm starting to wonder why. --T-rex 13:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can only be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing! In your case (because of the edit warring a few months back), I'd be extra careful when going to use rollback. Happy editing, Malinaccier (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you --T-rex 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I don't meen to be rude, but it seems you forgot to sign one of your afd comments. Thanks, NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 01:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone back and signed it --T-rex 02:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Query

I need help renaming about 200 articles. Doing this by hand would take me all day.

Can your bot rename articles, or be adapted to do so?

If so, please contact me.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    22:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't currently have any code for moving or creating pages, which would be needed to complete this task --T-rex 22:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Quest VIII characters

Please note that since your post there, I have made and am still in the process of making a number of changes ranging from grammar fixes to asserting notability to referencing out of universe content, etc. see for the active efforts to improve the article. Please therefore keep in mind Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state and Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Thanks for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built can't really apply when the house should have never been built in the first place --T-rex 17:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:SwitchfootStars.jpg

I have tagged Image:SwitchfootStars.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of a template is not required. Regadless it appears as if User:AWeenieMan has now added one --T-rex 17:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed correct. A template is not needed. But at the time I tagged the image, the rationale that was there was incomplete. Hence why it was invalid. For future reference, WP:RAT is a good link that shows what kind of info is needed with rationales.--Rockfang (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}} --T-rex 15:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hindu Literature

Dear T-Rex, in regards to your opinion in support of 'Deletion' of the article Hindu Literature, the entry being non-OR Hindu text, please consider the following and offer your comments/explanations:
Hindu text and Hindu Literature are entirely two different entities. Texts are partial manifestations of Literaure. Literature involves far greater dynamics than simple Texts. Texts can not have periodization, but Literaure can have. Texts can not be analysed in respect of general patterns and themes, while Literaure is amenable to such analysis. Further, Hindu Literature has a great degree of oral tradition, which can not be classified under Hindu texts. Thus, the two entries possess separate and independent standing. Thus, Literaure must not be confused with Texts. The ways of looking at things are different when dealing with Hindu Literature on one hand and Hindu texts on the other hand. Hence, the current article on Hindu Literature should neither be deleted nor merged with any other entry.
Thanx. -Softdynamite (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your !vote at my RFA

Thanks!

Thank you, T-rex, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Taser controversy AfD

Thank you for your input on the recent AFD on Taser controversy. The editors involved with that article would like to continue the discussion on how to proceed and invite you to join the discussion at Talk:Taser controversy. The latest discussions include Talk:Taser controversy#re:Globalise and Talk:Taser controversy#Renaming this article?. Flatscan (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)