User talk:Wikipedical

When nominating an article for deletion, please read the instructions more carefully. An existing AFD discussion subpage should never be edited after its closed. If a second nomination is warranted, then you must start an entirely new subpage. Read WP:AFD for instructions on how to do this. I have tried, as best I can, to clean up the problems created by what was done, and the current nomination subpage is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horace Mann Elementary School (Oak Park, Illinois) (2nd nomination). This is in fact, the 3rd nomination for the article (first was deleted, then recreate, then consensus keep, and now this one). --Rob 05:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Unrelated AFD interference

Can I ask why on Earth you made this edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compound entertainment. That AFD has nothing whatsever to do with Horace Mann Elementary School (Oak Park, Illinois). I can't understand why your disrupting another unrelated AFD. Did you need read the subpage before you edited it? Pleaes show greater caution. In the future, when I see such AFD mistakes, instead of fixing things for you, I may just revert/remove what you did, as this is a major time waste. --Rob 06:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In the interest of promoting a fair elections process...

...I often check to see if people are following the rules. Please read the Voting Instructions, which state:

In order to vote, you must have an account registered on or before September 30, 2005 and 150 edits by the start of the election (January 9)

Since you joined us only as recently as December 28, 2005, you are (in a sense) too young to vote. Thus I'm sorry to inform you that, in accordance with policy, your votes will not count toward the totals in this month's election. All this having been said...

Welcome!

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

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:49, Jan. 9, 2006

Wikipedical,

Thanks so very much for supporting the recent FAC of Cheers. It was successful and Cheers has been promoted! I'm looking forward to hopefully getting Cheers on the front page. In the mean time, please accept this Beer as a token of my gratitude.

Cheers! Staxringold 12:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

HM Record

Hi,

I saw you edit on the Horace Mann School page about the school newspaper. Very interesting, just where did you get the info? Thanks. Wikster72 05:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC) (p.s. its not as if i dont believe you, it just enhances the quality of the article.) once again thanks.

Hey, you can ignore that, I found a source. Pretty interesting information, thanks for putting it in the article. Wikster72 05:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

You failed to list the other parties to your mediation request under "Parties." Please correct this immediately. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not opposed to mediation, but there are WAY more involved parties than just you and I! Please add the obvious ones, based on the debate as formulated so far, and based on the people who voted in the straw poll. Thanks, -- PKtm 05:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

?? So now you've taken me off the list entirely, and added Muhaidib. So the two of you (who I believe agree on this issue) are going into mediation? Sorry, I'm not following. -- PKtm 15:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to be added Wikipedical because I believe I have strong arguments for there being seperate articles. The reason I removed myself was because I didn't want to take the place of those who have had a longer interest in the decision compared with me. As long as i'm not affecting any others wanting to mediate I will gladly take part. --Gary Fothergill 15:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedical, I think you may be misinterpreting the process slightly, but granted, I don't have a lot of experience with Wikipedia mediation. You may be implying (or this seems to be what Gary Fothergill is hearing, anyway) that you're inviting people to help mediate, which is anything but the case. The issue I was raising is who are the key parties on the two sides of the dispute. On the vociferous "no separate articles" side, I believe you can count people like myself, Jtrost, Leflyman, Kahlfin, Danflave, Chris 42. You definitely need to list folks in the two camps, and those people you list have to ALL agree to the mediation. Also, word of warning: please review the Wikipedia:Mediation process very carefully. You seem to be inviting people to comment/advocate on the mediation in the mediation request itself, which will actually get the mediation refused entirely. (There's already a comment on there, from Muhaidib, that I believe would cause that to happen). They insist that there be NO commentary in the mediation request. -- PKtm 19:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Another nitpick on "additional issues": couching the issue as "Can images be used for episode descriptions, especially in List of Lost episodes?" isn't helpful, because the obvious answer is "of course." Images are used throughout Wikipedia. I don't know a better way to phrase the issue succinctly, though. The issue being debated seems to revolve around whether screen captures (specifically) can be used in profusion in an article like List of Lost episodes. Personally, I think this attempts to "pork barrel" the image controversy onto the article controversy, which may backfire, because the one about images butts up against pretty established Wikipedia policy. Anyway, just my two cents. -- PKtm 00:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, as I stated at Talk:List_of_Lost_episodes#Request_for_mediation, I should not be included as a party to this mediation request; I've not been involved in the ongoing discussions on the issue, nor added responses to the straw poll. I may add outside comments to the mediation later. thanks, -Leflyman^Talk 18:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:CarlBarksOlder.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CarlBarksOlder.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - U.S. FAC

Hi,

Thank you for supporting the recent FAC of United States, but unfortunately it failed to pass. However, I hope you will vote again in the future. In the mean time, please accept this Mooncake as a token of my gratitude.--Ryz05 _t 15:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Request For Mediation

Hello, Wikipedical

My name is ^demon, and I am going to mediate the case that you requested concerning the episodes of Lost. Right now, before we continue, I would like to know if you prefer public or private mediation. If you could just let me know over at your request for mediation, I would be most grateful. Have a pleasant evening.

Regards,
^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /02:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Beginning Mediation

Dear Wikipedical,

After requesting the preference of mediation, the consensus appears to be public, with one person not responding (and has appeared to have left the project for the time being), and one person abstaining due to being away for the summer. This being decided, let us begin. I figure the easiest place to centralize all discussion can be the talk page of the RfM. Thanks for your time, and if you'll go there now, you'll see that I've begun a discussion on the topic. Thanks very much.

-^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /11:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

lost.

Can you please leave that Lostpedia link in the article? Lostpedia is far more detailed in the Lost experience than wikipedia is, and it is updated faster with infomation on the Lost Experience. It's also just another way to get infomation on the Lost Experience, in a wiki form. So can you please let it slide? dposse 21:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 Arab-Israeli conflict

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, such as those you made to Template:Campaignbox Arab-Israeli conflict, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Also, make sure to use an informative edit summary for such edits. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. --Pifactorial 03:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy on Roger Maloney

You inserted a speedy delete (db-bio) on the above-referenced article. Articles can only be speedied under these criteria if there is no assertion of notability. The creator is obviously a crank, but unless there's a db-crank criterion I don't know about, it should probably go to AfD. Tell me if I'm missing anything. Best, JChap (Talk) 18:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Endurance (TV series)

Thanks for changing the colours, my eyes were starting to hurt when I read it. :P Fredil Yupigo 02:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What he said. I meant to leave that comment here as well as at the article talk page but forgot. Oops. Again, thank you! —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Informal Vote: Lostpedia Link

Er... thank you for following the requested format? --Reverend Loki 01:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall peer review

Hi Wikipedical,

I have responded to your request for a peer review here. As I asked there I am interested in whether you hope to work on the article yourself. If you are, clarifying this point may attract more in-depth reviews. If not, peer review is not the appropriate place to post your requests for improvement (see the instructions at the top of the page). Please take the time to respond to my question on the peer review page.

Cedars 05:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Your GA nomination

Please make sure to provide a helpful Help:edit summary (per the instructions and big red box) when editing the nominations list in future.  -- Run!  21:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Upon noticing that you've done it again I absolutely must insist that you remember to provide an edit summary when nominating articles; it helps the whole process run a lot more smoothly as we can use the edit history to go to the articles in question very easily and update the Good Articles list very easily. Thanks.  -- Run!  07:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

(for the record, all 22 nominations you have made have been done so without edit summary. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] This is a habit that you really should try to avoid)

Request made for protection of Template:LostNav

See [23]

Figured you'd want to know, given that you've been helping out in the reverts. -- PKtm 21:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed about the semi-protection; I wasn't being specific. It's a shame that people make us all waste our time like this... -- PKtm 22:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well: see [24] -- PKtm 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

the cast of lost

i never said that claire was first added in "SEASON 1.16" -- i said she was added in season 1, BEGINNING WITH 1.16. THAT MEANS episode 16 of season 1. and oh thanks! i know there's a "first and last appearance" box in all of the character pages. but THAT isn't what the season marking refers to -- it refers to the seasons in which an actor has star billing. for example, desmond's first appearance was man of science, man of faith. season 2. but he won't be a credited regular until season 3.

..wow. Jwebby91 13:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Characters of Lost

Please consult the rest of us at the talk page before removing my additions. Henry, Desmond and Juliet are confirmed to be main characters in Season 3, so why did you remove them from the list? --The monkeyhate 12:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

From the article you posted: All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.

Adding Desmond, Henry and Juliet has been verified and is of great intrest to the article. If we were in the middle of a season and it is confirmed that there will be new characters next season, then I understand if you wouldn't wanna add them yet, seeing as it could confuse people. But now, the new season is almost beginning, and we know for a fact that these three characters will join the main cast. That is very relevant information, and I think that the article would lose a lot if we didn't include the three new casts. I will wait for you answer before re-adding them, though. --The monkeyhate 19:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

--Opark 77 01:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale request

Thanks for adding the season 3 promotional image (Image:Seasonthree.jpg) to the Lost (TV series) artricle. This a good illustration of the cast and a valuable addition to the article. However, you did not add a fair use rationale when using this fair use image. It will have to be removed from the pages that feature it if no rationale is provided for it's use. For advice on how to produce a rationale see WP:FU and for an example I have written a rationale for the image of Mr Eko and the monster (Image:Lost ep210 12 360x240.jpg). Apologies if you were planning to write a rationale later, I just thought some of this information might be useful if you hadn't done so before.--Opark 77 01:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to be annjoying, but isn't that the uploader's responsibility? -- Wikipedical 02:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry it's a fair question. I have asked the uploader for assistance as well. A fair use image needs a fair use rationale for every article that it is used in. Since you included it in Lost (TV series) you are probably the best person to justify why you think it is fair use for that particular article.--Opark 77 09:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Xfiles

Because your changes remove the top bar (ext. link and ep. guide link which are std in navboxes) and clump the ext. link in wikilinks. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it to the correct place, i didnt realise you'd moved that as well to the correct place. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please

Wikipedical, please, as the edit history shows, I am the main, in fact only contributor to the Tourette syndrome article, and I am about to have two weeks of very limited internet access. I wish you would have checked with me before putting it up for FAC, especially since I am a very active reviewer at FAC, the article is not ready, and I won't be able to work on changes over the next two weeks. The timing is terrible. Please do not put it up yet, Sandy 00:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, I think this article is FA worthy. I'm sorry I didn't "check" with you first, as this isn't 'your' article. But I do understand that it's important for main contributors to be on board. What needs to be fixed, as i think it is FA worthy already. -- Wikipedical 01:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not about whether or not it's *my* article, it's that nominators are expected to respond to all comments on FAC, quickly, and correct them. An editor went through today, and with all due respect to you doctors, TS is not a well-known field, and a couple of errors were introduced (the DSM-IV criteria, for example, was changed, and I'm going to have to fix that). The prose is not yet compelling/brilliant, I have not yet amply covered comorbidities and screening for comorbidities, and I know another editor who can do an excellent copy edit without introducing errors (he is also an active FAC reviewer, very careful to leave inline comments on anything he's not sure of, so I can fix those myself). My prose is not excellent, and I know it. I need someone to run through it again, it's not yet brilliant.

If you put it up for FAC, you will be the one to have to respond to any comments, and the review will be very hard, because I am a regular reviewer, and I am very tough on other articles. I will be able to check in daily, but I am going to be in a remote area, without constant internet access.

Is there a particular hurry, or a reason it can't wait two weeks? It's not that I'm a "main" contributor: I wrote the whole darn article. I know the research and the issues inside and out. I was trying to pack: can we keep the discussion in one place, on your page, as that will be easier for me? Sandy 01:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedical, I'm back, with a lot of catching up to do; I have left notes with other editors who have been helpful to me with the article in the past. [25] It would be my preference to never FAC the article, because of the inevitable coprolalia-related vandalism that will occur with higher visibility, but if you want me to finish bringing it to FA standards, I'll work on it. Sandy 23:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note: I'll keep you in the loop, if you'd like. Sandy 12:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

TS Review

To Dwaipayanc, Xyzzy n, Wouterstomp, Wikipedical, TimVickers, Arcadian, NCurse, TedE, Jkelly: to all who have helped me develop the article Tourette syndrome, I was hoping you'd have a new look. Jkelly has checked the images, I've asked Tony to do a thorough copyedit to polish the prose when he has time, and I've completed the referencing and expanded the Screening section. I think I've done all I'm capable of, and would appreciate any new input you may have. Sandy 23:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

TS FAC nom

The nomination is up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tourette syndrome. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you: you are so kind. Sandy (Talk) 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

Hi WP, you added an invisible comment to New anti-Semitism about a new footnote system, but then linked to the old one (the old new one, the ref system, which the article already uses). Is there another new system, and you just gave the wrong link? Any info about it would be appreciated. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

MM in Lost

Tagged per your suggestion. Oh well. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 16:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Lost

Hello! Please consider joining WikiProject Lost. It's totally free to join and all members recieve a complementory "goody bag" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge of sections in Lost (TV series)

Hi, I merged the sections in Lost (TV series) because they could be fitted under the same banner and for the fact that some of them were stubby. I have no qualm with you reverting back the Mythology and thematic motifs sections, I am not bothered as they're only summaries, however, the others including music can be fitted under one section per a comment on the FA nomination page. SergeantBolt 20:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tail Section Flasbhack, questionable

Here are the two (short) discussions I found regarding the topic: season 2 template, and episodes article. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 23:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Live Together, Die Alone: Part 2

Can I please ask where you have ever seen something that states there is a Live Together, Die Alone: Part 2? As far as I am aware, it aired as a single episode in the USA, it will air as a single episode in the UK, it was released as a single episode on the USA DVD release, and will be released as a single episode on the UK DVD release ... so where do you keep getting this falsified information from? SergeantBolt (t,c) 08:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Aha, I see :D. I'm afraid TV.com as well as IMDB.com are not credible sources due to the fact that they are user-operated, and are unofficial - they've all been wrong in the past. Whether or not it aired seperately in Germany is irrelevant too - if it aired as a single episode in the USA, which is where it airs first, it should stay as a single episode, perhaps with a note in the trivia that it aired in different parts in Germany? I'm trying to stick with this format with Exodus as well, as it only aired as two episodes in the USA. SergeantBolt (t,c) 16:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Lost mediation

The Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience is awarded to you for extraordinary patience and perseverance in achieving a successful unanimous resolution to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes. Thatcher131 04:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I too would like to offer my thanks for your participation in the mediation. It's my hope that we'll now all be able to put our differences behind us, and work together towards our common goal of providing high-quality Lost articles on Wikipedia. And I'm excitedly looking forward to our having a front page featured article on Monday!  :) --Elonka 21:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Lost: Featured article

		The Lost WikiProject Award
		Congratulations on Lost (TV series) making it to main page featured article. Your hard work on the Lost project is appreciated! --Elonka 00:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hostiles (Lost)

The article Hostiles is nominated for deletion. Please, don't redirect the page before the discussion is closed. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hostiles. You can leave your vote. (On a side note: I found the message you left on the creator's page a little harsh - Wikipedia:Assume good faith.) --Bisco 23:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Re Lost FLC

Because it is not a vote. A single, well-reasoned oppose can derail a nomination regardless of how many support votes it has. It is a similar process in FAC, though over there debates can become too virulent sometimes. The "three supports" requirement in FLC is there to ensure enough eyes see the list before it is promoted. Regards. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Lost nav

Sorry about my last edit on the Lost Nav template; I was sitting on my laptop and forgot to resize my (smaller-than-desktop) browser windows, and therefore thought there were some linebreak problems. --Santaduck 09:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute (especially to the Lost articles!) without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 19:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yikes

How do you always know when I'm preparing to travel :-)) Now I have to copyedit and fully reference four articles in one day arrrrggghhh !!! (Well, maybe not four, two of them are ready to go already ... ) Sandy (Talk) 02:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Lost episodes

Hiya, when you have a moment, could you please pop in to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#Name suffix, to confirm that we still have consensus on the agreed guidelines? Thanks, --Elonka 14:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, I was actually surprised by your stance on the RfC. So you think that we should use a split system, having (Lost) appended to some articles but not all? Or was the question confusing? --Elonka 05:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, sorry to have to go against you at the Move poll, but I'm trying to stick with the guidelines that we came up with at the end of the mediation. I'm also still a bit confused as to your stance on this, and a bit distressed that the steady progress we were making after the unanimous agreement at the mediation, seems to have pretty much stalled. I'd like to proceed with article conversion, but not unless I'm sure that we're all still on the same page. Can we talk about this? --Elonka 20:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what our mediation accomplished and the guidelines we produced; however, I don't recall making any naming guidelines for the episode articles, and it is at this point where I think editors, and I, disagree with your stance. What I think- having (Lost) at the end of each episode article does not make it any easier for the reader. And since we've agreed and worked together in the past, I definitely want to hear what you have to say too. -- Wikipedical 23:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, looks like a miscommunication then, at least between the two of us. :/ My own view of the mediation at that point, was that though I wasn't thrilled with some of the provisions, such as the 500-word limit, I was interested in some of the other guidelines, such as the naming issue, which had been difficult to get discussion on before. So when I wrote things up at WP:LOST/Episode guidelines, linked it from the mediation page, had our mediator edit it herself, and we all agreed that all episodes were to include those guidelines, I guess I assumed that everyone was okay on those guidelines, since they were clearly being used as a central point of agreement, even though not every single line had been specifically initialled.  :/ We also proceeded slowly and carefully after that point, talking things over at the Guidelines talk page, and I made sure that there was a clear "mediation checklist" which showed both that articles needed to be moved, and that plot summaries and whatnot needed to be edited down.[26] Work then proceeded steadily, with no opposition, for weeks[27], until the edit wars with Ned Scott started.

My own feeling is that the naming issue was one of the key elements with which I was willing to accept the final compromise of the mediation. Without it, I no longer have much desire to support the other guidelines that we came up with. :/ Which may or may not be a problem, since one editor's opinion isn't that important in the big scheme of things. But, for awhile there, I felt like we'd made some good and serious progress with a unanimous agreement out of the mediation, and I was going to do everything I could to support the battles of the other editors in the mediation, so we could all be on the same page, and present a united front. Or in other words, I'd really like to get back to that sense of "shared purpose" that we all had, since I think the Lost articles will end up stronger for it. --Elonka 00:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"I agree with what our mediation accomplished and the guidelines we produced; however, I don't recall making any naming guidelines for the episode articles" it seems, you recalled right. At least, according to this:

"The Lost discussion didn't happen off-site, it didn't happen at all. What did happen was that the results of the mediation were copied to a sub-page of the Lost WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines) by Elonka [28]. When Elonka did this she added a section on episode titles, and then rationalized that when everyone agreed with the mediation results they also agreed with her addition." - (quote Ned Scott from WT:TV-NC)

--`/aksha 01:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ned's assessment was not correct. Our mediator was the one who added the results of the mediation to the guidelines page [29], and then the guidelines page was further tweaked by myself and others (both in and out of the mediation), as we worked on a consensus version. Feel free to step through the diffs yourself. --Elonka 08:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

(followup) Just checking, Wikipedical, to see if you'd had a chance to further consider the situation? --Elonka 10:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

(reply) As I see it, one of the core issues is whether the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) guideline should be enforced as policy on all episode articles around Wikipedia, or whether WikiProjects should be allowed to determine their own guidelines. At the very least, even if you and I disagree on what those guidelines should be, I think we agree that the Lost WikiProject should have the authority to decide reasonable guidelines for the articles within its sphere of influence, yes?  :) Otherwise the whole mediation that we went through seems like a bit of wasted effort, if anyone can come along and say, "Well, the general Wikipedia guideline says something different, so your WikiProject guidelines are meaningless." --Elonka 01:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Our mediation is continuing to be discussed at the new ArbCom case. If you have a moment, could you please pop in to participate? I realize that you have reservations about the naming issue, but what I hope that we still both agree on, is that we had unanimous agreement on a compromise at the end of the mediation, and that at that time, there were no objections to the naming convention as listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines. Would you say that that's a fair portrayal? --Elonka 21:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Indigo

See a section further up Template talk:EMSpectrum for info about indigo. Georgia guy 00:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tainted poll?

Hi. Sorry to bother you. You participated in a television episode article naming poll which now lives at this location. Some feel that wording changes have compromised the results of that poll. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at what is there now and add a quick note at WT:TV-NC#Looking for anyone who objects to the last poll to say whether your feelings on the matter remain the same? Of course you can feel free to read over the entirety of both links for more information. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:DesmondDischarged.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DesmondDischarged.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Oden 19:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

GA nom for Alexander Litvinenko

Can you rescind your GA nomination for Alexander Litvinenko. There's still a lot that needs to be fixed, and articles of this length usually go for FA, not GA. If you give us some time to fix up POV issues and citations and such, I think it will be good enough for FA status (hopefully). Nishkid64 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:All That

I woud really appreciate it, if you would let me know about any further major edits that you may do on the All That template, before or after making them. Seeing how I was the one that created the template in first place. Quasyboy 16:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Ethiopian involvement in the Somali Civil War

Thanks for nominating this as a good article. It might be a bit premature though, as we still have to see how the events play out in real life. But maybe you'd like to explain a bit on the article's talk page as to why you've nominated it. I'm quite curious myself, being quite new to WP. Feer 23:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:New60minutes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:New60minutes.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 05:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy note about ArbCom proceeding

Hiya, just wanted to drop you a courtesy note to let you know about a current ArbCom proceeding where your name is briefly mentioned: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions. No action is needed on your part, though if you would like to participate in the case by offering a statement, evidence, or comments on the workshop page, you are more than welcome. FYI, Elonka 05:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)