User talk:Otto4711

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Otto4711, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me or a helper Commander Keane on our talk page. Again, welcome!

If you want to tell me something or if you just want to say hi, leave your message under the Talk Section of | My Talk Page

Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 21:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otto4711

There's a page I want to split but I can't find step-by-step instructions on how to do it, to make sure that existing links point to the split-off page, etc.

What's the page, and what's the kind of splitting you want to do? -- Drini 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Derevko, I want to split the section on Katya Derevko off onto its own page and make sure all the links which currently redirect to Irina get pointed to the new page.Otto4711 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would like to know how to insert the Character chart that's found at the bottom of the Irina page into the new page and how to add characters to the chart.Otto4711 21:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).

I'm not advocating the splitting of the article - perhaps an Alias wiki (that deals just with Alias) is what you are looking for.

To do the split you just create the new article. You would need to check the "What links here" for the Irina Derevko page (available in the toolbox, under the search bar) to fix any links. The "Character chart" is a template available at Template:alias. Any change to the template will affect all pages it's used on - so discuss on the talk page first.--Commander Keane 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I give up

How do I add something to a category page, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_technology

To add a page to that category you do not edit the category page itself. You add [[Category:Fictional technology]] at the bottom of the article you want to add. Check out any article, eg Tai Nam Wan, to see how categories are added.--Commander Keane 07:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TAR

Hello Otto...thanks for your note. I guess the 'issue' about Frankenberry is that there are multiple editors of the page all of whom don't recall this nickname. As I stated, I've just rewatched all the episodes (not because of this!) and don't hear it. If it is in there once, does that constitue a real nickname? If I am hearing Fran N' Barry but they said Frankenberry once...does that truly need to be in the page. I guess that will be a discussion point. As you might have seen I have reopened the discussion on the TAR discussion page. With regards to having to 'prove' this, all the other nicknames are easily recalled by multiple editors thus there wasn't a need to specify an episode/timestamp. Those nicknames were used continously in multiple episodes by multiple teams. KsprayDad 12:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency

I added those comments you made about Claudia to the article, which could give us an indication of what could happen during the series' run, which means we could see more models with related LGBT ties or other personal issues. Robert Moore 18:36 (UTC) 26 June 2006

Production Staff

What production staff are you talking about that have appeared in 2 out of 3 hours of Treasure Hunters?TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The medical guy in episode 2 and the rescue divers and other production people who were hovering around the Browns in Hawaii.Otto4711 19:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this amounts to two whole hours how?TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 19:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been three hours of programming. Production staff appeared in hour one of programming and hour three of programming. I didn't say they appeared in "two whole hours" of the show. That doesn't even make sense.

Production staff are also in TAR a lot. There are production people at a zipline which I think was in season 7. Another instince was season 9 when Fran was having a hard time bungee jumping. Also, the most obvious is also season seven when Brian and Greg flip their van and the camera guy is lying on the ground.TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 20:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that TAR staff are never seen on-camera. I said that the producers take pains not to break the 4th wall. See the trivia section for The Amazing Race where it talks about how TAR goes as far as digitally removing members of the crew in post-production.

Honestly, I don't really care all that strongly about that particular item. I do think it's a somewhat significant difference between the two shows and it's worth including, and obviously I would prefer that it stay, but if it truly, truly bugs you so much to have it in the article then I'm not going to fuss if it gets deleted.Otto4711 20:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of special characters

Why when I edit articles do special characters (arrows, accented characters) sometimes suddenly spontaneously turn into question marks? See for example Treasure Hunters (TV series) in which a minor edit by me nowhere near any of them caused every arrow and accented character on the page to mutate. Otto4711 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's most likely the browser you're using, or the character encoding that your browser is using at the moment. Have you tried changing the encoding to Unicode UTF-8? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 21:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with this redirect -or- Here I thought I was being so clever

So I thought I would cleverly use an existing page to start a new article since the existing page was no longer necessary but instead I somehow both created the article and turned the existing page into a redirect which I can't get pointed to the right place. The Virgin Queen (television) should either be deleted or redirected to The Virgin Queen (TV show) but I can't make it happen. What am I doing wrong? Otto4711 12:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Virgin Queen (television) does redirect to The Virgin Queen (TV show). Repost a {{helpme}} if you can clarify your problem.--Commander Keane 13:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. It was pointing to the film page last night and today on two different browsers on two different computers. Oh well, thanks anyway. Otto4711 13:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just glancing over your talk page. You might have already been told this by now, but Wikipedia uses Squid cache servers which essentially hold a slightly-out-of-date copy of Wikipedia in a computer that stands between you and the database. So sometimes you will make an edit and it is accepted, but the cache server in the middle doesn't get the new information yet and it continues to present an old copy of Wikipedia to you. Next time it looks like you might be experiencing this, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Purge and it should clear up. Later, — coelacan talk — 17:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Playing card symbols

Trying to insert card suit symbols into The Cincinnati Kid and it's not working. I used the notation in the article Yoshio Nakano as my guide and I thought I did it right, but apparently not. Otto4711 02:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you need the semicolons: ♣ ♥ ♦ ♠ (or, &clubs; &hearts; &diams; &spades;). =D Luna Santin 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filing complaint against admin?

How does one file a complaint or grievance against a moderator who's breaking rules, being uncivil and making false accusations? Otto4711 21:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing you should do is bring it up with the administrator in question. I don't know what the situation is, but it could be a misunderstanding, or someone who is stressed and didn't really mean it and would apologize anyway. I would be happy to look at it. If it is very severe, or that has failed, bring it up at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents. You would need to cite URLs where the offending behavior can be found. —Centrx→talk • 21:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a content dispute. Neither of you should be reverting; and it doesn't accomplish anything. Just talk it out on the discussion page. His comments here were uncivil, but admonishing people and threatening blocks is unfriendly and not productive. —Centrx→talk • 22:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 7 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Willi Ninja, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 18:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Heap

Good comics history, man! Kudos on your edits here! -- Tenebrae 04:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otto4711-

Thanks for the work on Male prostitution in the arts.
I noticed that you removed comments on a few films... why?
Please remember to use edit summaries.

Thanks and keep up the good work- NYArtsnWords 22:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero television programs

One problem with your freshly created category is that some eligible items under the DC Comics and Marvel Comics subcategories are not about superheroes. MadTV (based on the DC Comics publication Mad) is not a superhero program. Men in Black (from a company owned by Marvel Comics) is not a superhero program. Doczilla 08:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Wel done on your recent edits to the Wicked article - I think there's still a lot to be done though!-- Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 13:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment of the day (uhh, my awards review process takes a week, see)

"Because only a jackass..." aaaaaahhhahahahaahaha you slayed me, Otto. It's a good thing I wasn't sipping my coffee when I read that. — coelacan talk — 06:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death By Gluten Afd

Death By Google - what a classic, by far the best Afd quote I have ever seen!! Keep it up ;-) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Bellini and Will Wikle pages

A heads up, as you've edited one and, I think, started the other -- both pages are completely devoid of sourcing, and one included alleged quotes that needed to be removed until they are properly sourced as per WP:V. If you're interested, I'd recommend you take a look and consider helping improve them? NYDCSP 20:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nominations

Looking at some of your CfD nominations (many of which I agree with), it looks like some people raise objections because you do not provide a complete justification. You may want to write in more extended justifications so that people understand the nomination better. You may also want to link to previous discussions on similar categories; links to closed discussions would be better than links to open discussions.

I hope these suggestions are useful. Dr. Submillimeter 10:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFDs

Hey Otto4711 - We sometimes disagree on the CFDs but I wanted to say I appreciate you persistently making relevant points on the current LGBT-related CFDs. I'm really going to stay out of it as much as possible because I feel, strongly, that the CFDs are getting bogged down with a lot of people making nominations to make a point, or to implement their personal philosophies about the significance of particular identities. Nevertheless, even though I'm feeling frustrated with wikipedia process right now, I had resolved previously to give props to people when I could. Best, lquilter 04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation.

Hello, I saw your edits to Gay USA and would like to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies - we'd love to have you on board! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, you just voted on my AfD, you know you want to join... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'd love to have your participation :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for all categories with a common word in the name

{{helpme}} Is there a way to search for all existing categories based on a word or phrase in their names other than the leading words? Otto4711 07:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I read that correctly, you can do that by only checking the category box at the bottom of the search page, like this. --h2g2bob 08:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As goes the Thunderbolt Cat...

Since it's your nom there's a pair of umbrella cats you may want to look at and possibly include:

Category:New Warriors Category:X-Men

— J Greb 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Time For Regis!

Otto, aside from Be Bold, there are stips to not remove the AfD banner from the page. Should I just redirect and nuke the AfD, or let it go? --Dennisthe2 20:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name changes

Please check out: Talk:Amazing Race 5 contestants. --evrik ^(talk) 23:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD: List of films... US Marines

You have commented on the AFD discussion for List of films featuring United States Marines, the discussion can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring United States Marines.

Following support for my suggestion, I have done a userspace rewrite of the article at User:Saberwyn/Films featuring the United States Marine Corps, with the rewritten article in the top half and the current article with annotations as to their inclusion or non-inclusion in the rewritten list.

I would like to request that you review the rewritten article, and if you think it is appropriate, amend your stance at the AFD discussion. -- saberwyn 11:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

grab the rope!

		The XfD Rescue Barnstar
		Hi Otto. =) Your very competent argumentation saved Category:Vegetarians from deletion. Thanks for being a CfD "first responder". — coelacan talk — 05:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting disruption by editor

What is the proper procedure for reporting an editor engaging in disruptive conduct? Otto4711 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am an administrator. What sort of disruptive conduct? Have you tried to resolve the problem directly with the editor you are concerned about? Newyorkbrad 02:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Want your opinion on something...

Found something during our spate of Comics related CfD noms that I need a second set of eyes on be for putting it up.

I checked the parents cats for the two subs for Comics creators by company. Marvel's (Category:Marvel Comics people) is pretty straight forward and should go. It's mostly execs, a few editors, and one artist. But Disney...

First it hits Category:Disney people, but the real bugger is the next parent up: Category:People by company... 58 cats.

Do we want to slowly eat through this or have a revisit of the "Show cast/actors" CfD?

— J Greb 20:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. And very true about Disney. Right now I'll just worry about the comics stuff. Between that and the net works at least a framework can be shown for the more egregious cats. — J Greb 20:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty than delete

We're not supposed to remove categories until they are empty, there's several helpful bots that take care of the emptying bit. The format is pretty simple, just follow my lead ... all of the ones you have been doing will go under Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25, since that is really the discussion that applies. We're just doing the follow up paperwork to the Jan 25 decision. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a vandal.

Otto4711, you didn't vandalize at all; I never said you did. All I said in my summaries was that you didn't discuss the change on the talk pages first. I was always taught that major changes should be discussed first. If you thought that I called you a vandal, I'm sorry. You are not a vandal. Acalamari 16:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded with: Listen, I'm sorry if I've been incivil. It wasn't my intention. I hope in the future we can work peacefully. I made a mess of the situation that just happened. I am sorry.

I should also add: I should have been more specific. I was foolish in making that error. Acalamari 17:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cologne?

Just a irrelevant question, are you from Cologne, Germany ? Alf^Photoman 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move request for Boi (gender)

I've gone ahead and reverted your move of Boi (disambiguation) from Boi and moved your move request for Boi (gender) to Boi to incomplete move requests. WP:DAB says that when there is no clear primary usage for a word, then the disambiguation page may be located at that word so your move reason is not valid. Additionally, it is generally a good indicator that if you have to move an article off a title in order to move another article there that the move is not "Uncontroversial". You are more than welcome to submit a proper "Other" move request though. --Bobblehead 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Sorry. The difference between the comment on WP:RM and the message above was more of a timing and not wanting to leave a lengthy comment on WP:RM than an attempt to make your actions appear "under handed". I've gone ahead and rewrote the comment I left on WP:RM. On the other hand, the manner in which you proceeded on the move request is not completely above board, but could very well have been an innocent transgression. Hope you have a better wikiexperience in the future. --Bobblehead 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

Here's some Penguins for you! Penguins somehow in their own strange way promote WikiLove and hopefully these Penguins have made your day seem even better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Crested Penguin 05:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

List of Elvis Presley songs covered by other artists

I've deprodded List of Elvis Presley songs covered by other artists - its chequered history includes one failed prod and two AfDs, so we can't say deletion of it would be "uncontrovertial". I confess I don't quite understand the relationship of the AfDs to this article, so a specific nomination of this article specifically might not go amiss. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mogul

Category:Film studio executives seemed to be the best-supported name. My bad, I mentioned it on CFD/W but not in the closing note. >Radiant< 14:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recategorizing Meher Baba articles

Hi, can you give me please an idea of why you have changed most categorization of Meher Baba? If you have a categorizing scheme I would like to know, and try to work it out with you. Also some of Townsend's works are dedicated to Baba and you have removed the category. Hoverfish Talk 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, about categorizing as "works of" isn't any problem, as far I can tell. I'm sure Cott12 will agree to this. Yet some of the other exculsions were done a bit hasty. For example, the whole Sufi Reoriented was created by Meher Baba. Carol Weyland Conner as the current Murshida is directly related to Meher Baba. If St. Peter is in category Followers of Jesus, then maybe we should use the follower option. For another example, Mandali is a term in relation to this particular group, it is not just religious terminology but a group specific term, at least as far as the article presents it. Also a part of Townsend's work is very much connected, Townsend himself being one of the most famous (to the West world) followers of Baba. Part of his work is clearly rock, but part of his activities and songs are quite within the Baba sphere of topics. If not the parent category, some other related category would be quite appropriate. Hoverfish Talk 20:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Jasper

Good evening (GMT time); you recently nominated the above article for deletion at Articles for Deletion. Further to the standard period of time of discussion, I have closed the Deletion Discussion on the article as Delete.

Kind regards,
anthony^[cfc] 23:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film categories

Speaking for myself, it's not "I like it", although I have doubts when I see isolated actions and not an overall plan. But I understand your point on CfD process and precedent. As said in my comment, I want to get to a useful and stable categorization. I do not want to see subgenre type categories for such groups of films either. I started the WP Films categorization department to get people to agree on what we are doing. This method may not be the most effective, but I think that if we try to work out a scheme that makes sense, we will be able to clean films overcategorization in a wide and relatively undisputed sweep. The problem of users that like creating categories for everything is workable if we have a clear "category-list-navigation" scheme that meets our needs. There is a much more serious problem on the very basics of categorization. Some want to have index-type "primary" categories, and others try to break everything down in specifics. I am trying to find a satisfactory combination of both, but it's not easy. And surely category cruft makes it all worse. If you wish to help me define a scheme, let me please know what you see useful and what you see as cruft in all of Category:Films, and I will try to make a wide proposal it in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Categorization. There are people who can help create a consensus. Hoverfish Talk 19:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Québécois

Hello, I am contacting all non-anonymous editors who participated in the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Québécois. It has been very difficult achieving consensus on the appropriate scope of the article, and the use of the word Québécois in a series of articles proposed by one editor. I am requesting input at Talk:Québécois. Joeldl 23:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Gay Sketch Show

I had noticed the deletion of the cast list, but though the person who did it didn't explain, it looks like they probably did it because that information is also in the info box on the page.--Larrybob 17:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"By city-by occupation" suggestion at WP:OCAT

Hey Otto. After all the recent by-city cfds you nominated recently, I came to realize that there might be a good compromise on how to handle these. I spelled it out at WP:OCAT. Feel free to let me know what you think. Basically the proposal is to use categories like "People from (city)" only as navigational hubs to related occupational categories. For example, Category:People from New Orleans should itself have any articles, but should instead simply be the parent category for navigation of related occupations like Category:Musicians of New Orleans. That would eliminate the "phonebook" of articles for individual cities (ie listing articles by name only) but would retain the more useful subdivision of people by occupation and by city of practice (eg keeping all the New Orleans musicians or Los Angeles politicians as a distinct categories).

No need to reply here - just take a look and post your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Categorization by city questions. Cheers! Dugwiki 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well

That RFA was surprisingly negative, even spiteful at times, and containing numerous WP:KETTLEs. Sorry for putting you through that, it was entirely not what I suspected. Here's one for not giving up.

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		>Radiant< 08:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are decimating Wikipedia

Hello...I'd just like to let you know that you are decimating Wikipedia by nominating any and all categories that you can find for deletion. You and 2-3 people end up deleting hundreds of categories that many people have worked on for a long time, not in the least limited to many of the TV show and family categories. I'd advise you to please end your deletion-mania. --172.164.242.170 13:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT CfDs

I'd like to get your take on why we should keep categories like Category:LGBT businesspeople. I'm not going to nominate them, so you don't assume I'm conducting some type of campaign against LGBT categories. I just want to discuss them. I'd also like to briefly discuss possibly pruning Category:LGBT directors to only include people such as John Waters who make the so-called "gay films" and not people like Joel Schumacher. Then, I'll nominate whichever you and I agree on. Bulldog123 16:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok? :) Bulldog123 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so what about the pruning of the film directors cat? And I'm only considering nominating LGBT businesspeople for now. The rest seem ok in terms of intersections. Bulldog123 02:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association however is the only thing I can see holding up LGBT journalists if those journalists aren't like...writing for an LGBT oriented magazine or something. Bulldog123 02:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I, Eyrian, am happy to present you with this editor's barnstar, for your tireless excellent work in trimming the trivial fat. --Eyrian 19:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whoops, thanks

That's embarrassing! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville

Please note the page was deleted just 3 days ago, and has been deleted several times. Just because someone held an AfD with an article, that wasn't even in the proper naming convention, only had like 4 people discussing it, and is still full of speculation, unreliable sources, and a summary of a season we already have doesn't mean it bypasses the deletion of the proper article. What was created as a content fork, and managed to slip by an AfD because it was improperly named and had limited participation. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TPIR pricing games

What I was hoping to accomplish is to get people actually working towards something instead of just talking. AfD can have that effect: it's a debate, everyone debates, but often people are overly hesitant to take action. I agree, there was some discussion of a retired vs. non-retired solution but that didn't have consensus either, clearly. Hopefully if a discussion can be had where the point is how best to organize the articles, then that can be properly addressed. But none of the hoping for merging will go anywhere if no one actually puts together the more general articles. IMO, that can be done, at first, without redirecting the individual game articles. (BTW, I don't, myself, think the retired vs. non-retired idea is the best. Why wouldn't a simple break-up alphabetically be the best idea? Eg List of The Price is Right pricing games (A-H), et cetera.) Mango juice^talk 19:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thought: some of the games seem to have changed over time, whereas others have "retired version" and "unretired version"s. To me, that distinction seems a little arbitrary. So there might be some overlap among the lists. Good luck. Mango juice^talk 20:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mangojuice is getting confused over Bullseye and Balance Game...there are actually two pricing games with each of these titles, none of which have anything to do with one another.

By the way, nice work combining all the retired games into one page. I think it looks good. -TPIRFanSteve 18:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Category:Gates family

You may want to look at and comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 3#Category:Gates family. Dr. Submillimeter 13:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth in popular culture - pre-DRV request notification

Hi there. I'm leaving a courtesy note to let you know that I am asking the closing admin to reconsider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle-earth in popular culture. My arguments are laid out at User talk:Coredesat#Middle-earth in popular culture - pre-DRV request. As you took part in the original AfD, I'm notifying you so that you can add your opinion, either there or later if it goes to DRV. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category indexing

Please consider the categories before changing the sort key of an article. Your changes to 50 Cent cause that article to sort outisde the established order in all the categories where such an order has been established. For the others, it doesn't matter, but Category:Living people has a standard of using # and so have Category:Hip hop record producers, Category:1975 births and Category:African American rappers. Whether or not the character is "non-standard" has no bearing on the issue. The sort key only affects sorting in categories, and should only reflect that need. --Stemonitis 17:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Trevglaad.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Trevglaad.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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list deletion discussions

Several cast list articles have been nominated for deletion here. While these cast lists are mostly redundant with the information in other articles, some people want to turn these back into categories, which would be really bad. I know that you hate cast list categories more than I do, so I am hoping that you will comment on how these categories should not be recreated. Dr. Submillimeter 08:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie

It has been reanimated, as befitting the undead. >Radiant< 14:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 5

Hi Otto4711,

I've redone the Goetz school article on my user pages and made some other comments at the bottom of the deletion-review discussion (some of which specifically meet your objection on notability). I'm asking editors to comment on the changes I've made because they represent a new development, one I think we can form a pretty wide consensus around. I think the article as I've redone it meets the objections of many editors, and it certainly meets WP:V. Please take a look, but I think this deletion review will close today or early tomorrow, so please don't delay, act now and take advantage of this limited-time offer! Noroton 17:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing down CFDs

Thanks for listing so many connected categories after I nominated the Sean Connery one. I'm impressed with your thoroughness - you nominated all of the ones that I thought were suspect. --GargoyleMT 00:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GDI Storyline AFD

I am pleased to see that you care enough to nominate article for deletion (God knows the mess I have made there needs cleaned up badly), but I will take this opertunity to remind that one of the guidelines/policies on AFD reads "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Personally, I think I am just as happy not knowing about the afd (it makes me sad to see my stuff go, though I know its for the better) however others would probably like a heads up on the matter. Just something to remember. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. That would certainly be appreciated by people who contributed to an article, no matter how rubbish it is/isn't. --Romanski 20:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin D (producer)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Vitamin D (producer), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. KenWalker | Talk 06:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion welcome at deletion review for Plot of Les Mis

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables closed as a deletion, I'm challenging the way the closing administrator acted as in violation of Wikipedia rules. Your participation is welcome at that discussion, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14. Please keep in mind that only arguments related to either new information or to how Wikipedia rules were violated or not violated in closing the discussion will be considered. It isn't a replay of the original AfD. I'm familiar with WP:CANVASSING and I am alerting everyone who participated in that discussion to the deletion review. I won't contact anyone again on this topic, and I apologize if you consider this note distracting. Noroton 03:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prodding

Hello, Thanks for the information about "prodding". I don't consider the article in question to be an "uncontroversial deletion candidate that obviously does not belong in the encyclopedia", so if you want to proceed further I hope you will proceed through the discussion channel. Thanks, Opus33 00:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

{{helpme}} Trying to add citation templates to an article and not seeing what I'm doing wrong. Here is the end result of my attempt. Where is my mistake? Otto4711 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you tried to put a <ref> tag within another <ref> tag. The software doesn't know how to read that. You need to use parentheses or some other mechanism to cite a reference within a reference. Shalom ^Hello 17:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... the second <ref> should be </ref> to close the reference call... Other than that, it looks good. - J Greb 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the first <ref> tag supposed to be <ref/>? —« ANIMUM » 17:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nopr... ref runs <ref> cite </ref>. The only time <ref/> would showup is if the ref hase been named and it's the 2nd call, such as: <ref name="Mult1"> cite2 </ref> and later <ref name="Mult1"/>. - J Greb 17:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think what happened is when I took out the original reference in favor of the template I accidentally took out the closing tag of the template instead of the opening tag of the old reference. Just tried it again and it works. But now what is this about the 2nd call? Because I have multiple notes from the same source. Is there somethign else I'm supposed to do for the second and subsequent cite of it? Otto4711 17:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, please see WP:FN#Citing a footnote more than once for a detailed explanation and examples. Hoof Hearted 18:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An essay I've written

Hello. Since we often express similar arguments in deletion debates, I thought you might want to read an essay I've written, found at User:Eyrian/IPC. I'd be interested to hear any feedback on its talk page. --Eyrian 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Cincinnati Kid

I noticed that you re-nominated The Cincinnati Kid for GA-status. That's fine by me, but I thought I should let you know that someone took it off the GA nominees page pretty much as soon as you put it back. I guess they just assumed it was a mistake since I had already failed it. So you might want to add it back, perhaps with an in-line explanation or something. Good luck. Drewcifer3000 01:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Hi Otto, I have been seeing some of your contributions of late and on digging a little deeper I find that you are not an admin nor apparently has your nomination ever been raised, despite your ample record. So: would you be interested in a nomination? Please feel free to email me. (Btw, you may wish to archive your talk page - getting a bit long...) Eusebeus 11:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, you might want to consider archiving your talk page.

My earnest and sincere apologies; I should have been more diligent in reviewing the above before bringing it up. I can see why you don't want to go through that shit again. The level of abuse you received was totally ridiculous and disheartening. Moreover, based on what I saw, you were essentially sandbagged by a less-than-stellar cast of characters. Eusebeus 12:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I should archive my talk page, but as I'm involved in an outstanding RfC and the evidence was placed on my page, I don't want to bury it in an archive until the matter is resolved).

Please be careful!

Please review this edit you made. You tried to remove trivia from Schrödinger's cat in popular culture, but you accidentally chopped off the references as well. Please, please be more careful in future! Carcharoth 16:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and feel free to remove the trivia. Just don't remove the references and notes section at the bottom. Carcharoth 16:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Carcharoth 17:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7th Heaven - Family Tree

Hi!

Do you know how to edit the Family Tree listed here? The Kinkirk page should list Kevin and Ben's younger sister Mary-Emily (I think the second half of her name is Emily).

Also shouldn't it list their stepfather, Frank?

Star Trek production staff

Thanks for clearing up Category:Star Trek. Was there a specific discussion on this somewhere, or did you do it on general principles? I ask because I intend to create an article List of Star Trek production staff and any discussion on them might be germane. - Fayenatic london (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film lists

Hi Otto. Sure: there were certainly a majority of people arguing for deletion although some of the arguments, especially the "what's next? Film featuring draperies?", were extremely weak. Note also that a few opined that this should be turned into a category which indicates to me that they find some value in the content. However, there's overwhelming consensus, established time and again in CfD that these categories are not a good idea because of category clutter and that they should be listified! I can add that to the closing rationale if you prefer. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 19:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afd: StarCraft story articles.

It's good that someone else noticed that some articles were missed by the original AfD nomination that disposed of the bulk of the articles copied straight from StarCraft Wiki. I'd have put it up myself, but I haven't a clue how to. Any how, mind shoving these up for AfD as well, just so we can clean up everything thoroughly?

StarCraft: Enslavers II - missed in the previous clean-up
Template:StarCraft storyline - completely redundant due to content articles either having been deleted or are also linked to by Template:StarCraft.

-- Sabre 19:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you looked or not, but I managed to find three sources for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarCraft: Revelations and will be working at incorporating them into the article now. Mister.Manticore 20:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPC AfDs

Hey Otto, I mentioned this on Eyrian's talk page as well, but I feel as though we might want to slow down on the IPC nominations. They're getting kind of hard for editors of any opinion to keep track of. CaveatLector^Talk 03:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RiffTrax

I was about to put Category:RiffTrax movies up for deletion when I saw that you had already placed Category:RiffTrax for deletion. Why not delete both under the same CFD discussion? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What were the "keep" arguments at the other CFD? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judd Winick

Hi. There is a discussion about the Judd Winick article's length. Would you mind weighing in with your opinion on its Talk Page? Thanks. Nightscream 07:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grieg's music in popular culture

Please reconsider this AfD. I know you want to get rid of the crap and cruft at WP, and so do I, but this is awful. I made several corrections and cites, fixing up the article. Please reconsider your nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grieg's music in popular culture. Take a look at Grieg's music in popular culture now with my fixes, and consider keeping it per the Heymann Standard. Bearian 20:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Remove person by project category"?

Hi. I'm not sure of the reason behind your removal of Rolf Benirschke from the Category:Wheel of Fortune listing. Your edit summary states that it's "per consensus against such categorization". I'm not clear on what "such categorization" refers to. Could you please point me to the discussion? Thanks. JTRH 14:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! JTRH 16:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

feel free to move this to userspace...

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I, VanTucky, award you, Otto4711, this Deletionist's Barnstar for your fine work in removing listcruft and original research from the Film noir article. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supercouples

I noticed that you participated in the recent AfD that I started. I came upon that article by accident, but then I noticed that there is a whole category full of these articles. I also looked over this AfD and noted your role there. In my opinion, almost all of the articles have to go. The only real obstacle in the way of this is the new "Cultural impact" sections that have recently cropped up. These section create the illusion of notability by quoting trivial snippets from TV Guide and Soap Operal Digest, including mere mentions of the couple in an unrelated context. I have been communicating with the primary author of these sections here, and I've given him a week to improve these articles (though I'm skeptical) but after that I want to nominate most of the supercouples for deletion. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Best, DLand ^TALK 23:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mankiewicz family

Otto, I have decided to list this at DRV myself as I now have sufficient doubt in my decision. The discussion is here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject LGBT studies

I noticed your comment on Talk:Greek (TV series) where you said that you felt the article fell under the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies because "This category includes television series...which deal with or feature significant lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device." I was just wondering if you could direct me to the page that you quoted in that post so that I could take a good look at it myself. I'm considering adding another article about a TV show to WikiProject LGBT studies (Who Wants to Be a Superhero? (Season 2)). The show features two, possibly three homosexual contestants, and while the show doesn't deal directly with their homosexuality, we still think it's significant that such a large percentage of the show's contestants are homosexual. The article doesn't currently mention this (we're trying to make sure we have the correct information, get our sources straight, and figure out the best method of presenting this information before we add it to the article), so I realize that the article may not qualify at the moment, but I think that it may soon fall under the scope of the project. —Mears man 15:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anubis

Hi,

The other reason I didn't PROD the thing is that a redirect might be reasonable instead (to the parent game). I'd suggest that as an alternative. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:RScast.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:RScast.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 21:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabric 01 etc.

I only looked at the first few that you tagged, but they are not speedy deletable with the criteria tagged (WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A3). They have content and they have context. Please make sure the criteria apply before tagging many such articles. I'll remove them if you do not wish to place some other deletion process tag on the pages. Leebo ^T/C 14:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through them all now and removed the tags. None of the articles were eligible for speedy deletion via criterion A1 or A3. Lack of context would be something like "This is an album" with no other info to describe it. Lack of content means that there is literally no information on the page; either there is just a picture or link, or just a repetition of the title. Leebo ^T/C 14:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note; Prods are for non-controversial deletions. A mass prodding is probably not the appropriate way to deal with this series, since the series has its own article and many of the individual discs have reviews (establishing notability). Leebo ^T/C 14:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random category removals

Please stop removing people from categories they fit under. if you think a change should be made start a discussion in the Wiki poker project before undoing the work of many editors. And please don't add incorrect notes. No project discussion has occured. 2005 00:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this now. read the guideline! This is not and "Announcers of the World Poker tour" category! The catorization is in line with the guideline read it! 2005 00:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom)

I've removed the {{dated prod}} template that you placed on European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom) as I disagree completely with the idea that it's 'crystal balling'. It clearly states on WP:CRYSTAL that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". These elections are both notable and almost certain to take place.

I'm curious, why did you put this page up for deletion and not European Parliament election, 2009 (Ireland), European Parliament election, 2009 (Italy), European Parliament election, 2009 (France) or European Parliament election, 2009 itself? Is there some aspect of the page's content that you feel is 'crystal balling'? If so, please bring it up on the talk page, as I don't think {{dated prod}} is appropriate in this case.

If you disagree with what I've said, and still think the page should be deleted, then please setup a WP:AfD so that other users can discuss the premise of the page and its content. Also, when using {{dated prod}}, it's only polite to notify the authors of the page. Thank you. --Philip Stevens 06:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recategorisation of 2 Bit Pie

Can I ask why you removed 2 Bit Pie from the Fluke category please? The project contains the remaining members of the band Fluke and I feel that it should be included under this category. Martin Hinks 08:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fictional Versions of Real People in Jinyong Wuxia Novels

Just a friendly note that an article you List of fictional versions of real people in Jinyong's wuxia novels, has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to participate in the deletion discussion, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_versions_of_real_people_in_Jinyong%27s_wuxia_novels

I have to say the way it is as written is a weak keep for me, and seems a delete for many others. Perhaps it's worth considering moving it to something in the vein of "List of historical figures portrayed by Jinyong", with much more references and wikilinks...a la http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_figures_portrayed_by_Shakespeare Tendancer 04:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on The Garden of Earthly Delights in popular culture

I tried to relist it for you, and i also failed. I removed the speedy to avoid confusion. I suggest you ask at the AfD talk p. DGG (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

afD on Squid

I admit I didnt think it would be there so directly, but i seem to have found the sort of references you have been asking for. DGG (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Science Fiction Ground Vehicles

I've recategorised the Laser Tank and Moon Buggy from Space:1999 into the more relevant Fictional vehicles category. If you want, just edit the Fictional Science Fiction ground vehicles category. As I say this was done in a time when there was a disagreement with another editor and it seemed like a quick fix. I'm hopefully a bit wiser now. Douglasnicol 21:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brecht categories

Otto: The result was to rename the category, not to move or alter the subcategories. There is no suggestion that the Lehrstucke are not plays. Go look at the page on them. Go look it up in a dictionary. DionysosProteus 16:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment of petulance is entirely your own. As is your patronizing pet name for me. Kindly explain why a musical, opera, and ballet count as plays but a screenplay does not, and I will understand your actions. I do not doubt that they were based on your understanding, which is precisely the problem as I have been saying all along. DionysosProteus 17:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the assessment of disruptiveness or madness is entirely yours and belongs to you alone. I corrected an error. Any emotional overtones to that are your projections. DionysosProteus 17:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Python

Normally I would have notified you that I declined the prod, but my internet connection went down shortly after I finished the AFD and has just now been restored. But you found your way there any way. Sorry for the delay. Carlossuarez46 02:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be me that handles it, you may add it to the afd and I'd give a comment approving that if you'd like. Carlossuarez46 02:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caption assistance

{{helpme}}

Resolved

Can someone take a look at Algonquin Round Table and help me figure out why the caption on the image isn't displaying? While you're there, one of the references in the Legacy section is is a little wonky too and I can't figure it out. Otto4711 17:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the image problem; to display a caption, you need to specify 'thumb' as one of the options for the image, to cause it to turn into a thumbnail with a caption. I can't see the reference problem you mentioned, though. --ais523 17:49, 3 September 2007 (U T C)

And apparently I made a rather unnecessary edit doing almost the same thing, after ais523 fixed it; don't know how that happened. Sorry ais523. - TwoOars 17:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to you too, Two. Otto4711 18:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had fixed the link issue. KTC 17:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for your quick responses! Otto4711 17:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Live Lounge covers

Hi. I was just wanting to leave a quick note on this more than anything. You seem to be taking offence when people disagree with you on this being nominated for deletion. The responses left are peoples person opinion on the proposed deletion of the article. They are not intended as a jibe at you personally. The whole point of the AfD process, which I hope you have got by now as you have submitted quite a few, is to gauge users opinion as to whether the article should stay or not. My personal opinion is that it differs from the other list articles and I actually agree with you that the others should be deleted. I just see this as a special case due to the individual nature of the article which makes it not just a list of covers. I am sorry that I disagree with you on this matter I am just trying to express my opinion and aid the AfD process for this article. Chappy ^T_C 18:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we delete this list

Some people are selective they would like to see only lists of their own domination, what do u think does this list warrant deletion or should we let it stay?[1]--יודל 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Esperantists

The above cat is up for deletion review. Input welcomed. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007 September 4#Category:Esperantists here for the discusion. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

taking the liberty

Thought I'd mention that I'd corrected your Canadian expat musicians CfD to what you clearly intended i.e. "Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States and Category:Canadian musicians" instead of "Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States and Canadian musicians". Hope you don't mind; I didn't think it was worth asking first, given it was obvious what you meant. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 21:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of music releases featuring a vocoder

I deleted the above article based on your prod. Just wanted to give you a heads up that I have restored based on a request at my talk page. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books/Works

Do you happen to have the link handy for the earlier debate you mentioned: "I agree that there is little functional utility in separating "novels" from "books" but a proposal to merge the two category structures was not approved..."? I think I remember it from long ago. I support keeping categories for major forms like the novel, plays etc, but would like to see "books" and "works" merged to works. Do you know if this has ever been proposed? Johnbod 13:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for it too but I couldn't find it. I have a vague memory that it was in a portion of the sub-structure, something like suggesting the merger of "science fiction novels" to "science fiction books" or "fantasy novels" to "fantasy books." I would, by the way, tend to oppose the notion of merging "works" and "books" because IMHO "works" allows for useful categorical distinctions. Otto4711 13:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of doing a proposal for comment for either merging book & works, or redefining books more clearly as non-fiction or non-literary. The situation as is seems untenable, with the 2 categories in theory largely identical, in practice treated differently at random. It's books by I have the problem with. I'll let you know if I get it done - it's too big an issue just to launch into a Cfd i think. Johnbod 15:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now open for comment at User:Johnbod/Books v Works. Johnbod 16:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Biggaylogo.jpg

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Biggaylogo.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|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 the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 17:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book you may be interested in

Dear Otto, I notice that practically all of your keep votes tend to be in gay themed articles. Anyway, with that in mind, I am reading a scholarly history journal that has a review for a book that may interest you: David K. Johnson's The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004) reviewed by David F. Krugler in The Historian 69.3 (Fall, 2007): 547-549. The review was more a report than a critique, but it could be useful as a source for one or more of the potential articles possibly related to the topic and I figured it might be worth bringing to your attention. Kind regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio help

Not sure if you do any work on copy vios, but you may wish to compare Alfonso esposito with this page. Anyway, if there's a place to take that or an appropriate tag, please do so (assuming someone else doesn't get to it first). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pesky colon

oops, thanks! I think I'm coming down with flu, I'm dropping stuff everywhere. Johnbod 23:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of Category:Homophobia

Greetings, Otto. On Sep. 12, I posted a cfr suggesting that Category:Homophobia be renamed to Category:Anti-LGBT activism, which you closed very quickly, citing the fact that the category had been nominated for deletion twice recently. Two things: first of all, my posting was completely unrelated to any other nominations of this category, and actually stemmed from a discussion that another editor, Orpheus and myself had about an article in that category. Secondly, the talk page for the category listed my proposal as a CFD, when it was a CFR. We came to the conclusion that, while community support for deletion was quite low, many users had expressed support for renaming the category. We would like to post this CFR again. What are your thoughts? Citadel18080 05:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are that renaming or otherwise changing the category is unnecessary and I would not support it. Otto4711 13:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Tonstant Weader fwowed up"

Regarding your recent edit to Dorothy Parker, since you seem to have access to at least some reference material (The Portable Dorothy Parker), maybe you could clarify one small detail here. Your edit changed her quote to "Tonstant Weader Fwowed Up". However, unless that phrase was the title of something (article, essay, etc.), then it should be capitalized as it was before (like the title of this section.) Could you say which it is? (I'll watch your page here for replies.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote appears with all words capitalized in The Portable Dorothy Parker which is the source I cited. The original review was published in October 1928 in The New Yorker; since I don't have access to that I'm going by the source I have. Otto4711 00:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

This comment crosses the WP:NPA line. Please limit your discussion to the topic and not your fellow editors. And no, this is not an instance where WP:SPADE applies. FeloniousMonk 03:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Dotstamp.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 04:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject recruitment for WikiProjects

Otto4711,

Would you be interested in trying to make your (proposed) WikiProject becoming a succes by actively involving yourself in a recruitment agency aimed at establishing an active base of participants for a WikiProject?--Daanschr 10:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fwwmcover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fwwmcover.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 04:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat

Are u going to nominate all musician categories for deletion? West Coast Ryda 13:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:T.I. is nominated for deletion. West Coast Ryda 13:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Playgirl dera l.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Playgirl dera l.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 02:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Homophobia

I noticed that you participated in the recent CfD of the category "Homophobia" [2]. It has been re-nominated for deletion, on the same grounds as before, and I was making sure you had an opportunity to present your interpretation of policy on this matter. The discussion can be found here. Best. --Cheeser1 14:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus King

I know what you mean. Roi makes me look like an exclusionist by comparison, and I'm probably the second most liberal guy in the discussion. I've been here since a little before "Let's get out of here in popular culture" or whatever it was called, and I've learned the ropes a little bit more in the last few months. Most of the articles nominated for deletion don't belong here, although there are a few that represent a good concept. I look at Wikipedia as a privilege akin to having your work published... before a decision is made on whether to reject it. As such, it's hard to get too upset if an article is deleted. I couldn't have imagined something like this 20 years ago. Mandsford 20:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you (Otto) need to blow off steam about him, then I suggest email. Doing it on-wiki is problematic because everything is publicly logged. This is not to preclude bring up problems that need to be addressed in the proper forum on-wiki.--chaser - t 22:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour block

For these two edits.[3][4] You've received a variety of previous blocks and warnings for similar behavior, including late last month.[5] If you need to blow off steam please do so in private chats. It only sharpens disagreements to toss these barbs on-wiki. Durova^Charge! 23:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first word of my response rhymes with "duck" and the second rhymes with "chew." What you choose to make of those clues is on you, not me. Otto4711 23:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Block extended to 72 hours for continued incivility. Durova^Charge! 01:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historical people portrayed as villains

Well, we've agreed once. Bearian 19:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Another editor put this message on your user page while your talk page was protected. Regards.--chaser - t 02:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character Redirection

You recently redirected Katie Vasser and Dan Vasser to the Journeyman (TV series) without any discussion on the talk page or a proper AFD. After review of the articles, I do agree that there was not enough information or sources to make the characters notable, but please discuss major changes like that before editing. Acidskater 16:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture

Might want to check on this. Dannycali 23:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]