User talk:Tatterfly

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Logo intown suites.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo intown suites.gif. 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 15:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tweeterlogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tweeterlogo.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 23:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Template:Infobox Disease/doc worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you.. Previous view has been to keep Template:Infobox Disease small and not add such clinical summary points, but feel free to re-raise this at Template talk:Infobox Disease. David Ruben ^Talk 20:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, talk about a template should be on talk page of the template, not that of the subpage used for creating the documenation. I have therefore moved your thread from Template talk:Infobox Disease/doc to Template talk:Infobox Disease where other interested editors will see. David Ruben ^Talk 20:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of Intown Suites article

I've been following the deletion proposal for the article you created and have edited many times, Intown Suites. I disagree with deleting the article, and I wonder why someone would suggest that. But I do see that the article has neutrality problems. Perhaps you stayed at an Intown Suites one time and really hated it, so you wanted to use Wikipedia to let other people know about that. But that is not what Wikipedia is for. There should be more than one person contributing to this article, and then it would be more neutral. I have stayed at several Intown Suites locations before, and had positive experiences. I will not write about them on Wikipedia, but given that, I may be able to help balance the article. Shaliya waya (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:AmBestVal.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:AmBestVal.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Intown Suites

Hi Tatterfly. I checked out the article on Intown Suites and removed the uncited, unfair criticisms. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed a couple of additions you made to this article; the piece based on a PRWeb press release has been removed, as press releases are not considered a good reliable source, and the Google Street View reference appeared to be a case of original research. The fact that police cars can be seen in a parking lot doesn't really seem relevant to me; I see police cars down the block from me all the time, for example, but there's no criminal intent there - they're just grabbing a coffee. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Tatterfly - please read WP:RS if you haven't already - basically, you can't just add facts that you find somewhere on the web (the Google image) or personal statements (the prweb posting; I had no idea that individuals could actual get them to post things, but obviously this happens).

More importantly, Wikipedia uses the concept of verifiability (see WP:V to decide what's important enough to go into articles. Among other things, if everyone follows that rule, there won't as much arguing over what is "fair" and what is "not fair" content, because we (as editors) let the media decide what is important. That may seem wrong - what happened to truth? - but that is how we do things here at Wikipedia; you options are to go along with the rules, or do your posting at the thousands of websites that are less picky. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:CRITICISM, to help you understand other reasons why Wikipedia takes this so seriously ... richi (talk)

Seizure types

Tatterfly,

Please can you discuss page moves before doing them. You moved seizure types to medical seizure and rewrote the lead. There's no such thing as a "medical seizure" and you won't find the term in a medical dictionary. That article was written as a list of epileptic seizure types, the study of which is a huge area and could easily fill a long article. There are only two important seizure articles: Non-epileptic seizures (I see someone has removed the plural -- which is wrong as it is a plural term), of which (Psychogenic non-epileptic seizures are one type. The second is epileptic seizure, of which seizure types was a daughter article.

Let's discuss this before doing any more changes. I think we may need the help of an admin to move some things back if required.

Colin°^Talk 15:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that medical seizure may work better as seizure (medicine), which currently redirects to it. That is something an administrator would have to help with. Otherwise, I feel that the setup I changed it to makes it easier to find any term pertaining to the word "seizure." Tatterfly (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tatterfly, I think Fvasconcellos and I have come up with a solution over on my talk page. I've also asked for opinion over at WT:MED. I do appreciate your efforts to improve this area, which is neglected. As Fvasconcellos pointed out, we have guidance on disambiguation and discussing these things helps to pick the best solution of many. Colin°^Talk 18:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Tatterfly! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Seizure -> Seizure (medicine)

Tatterfly,

Please stop changing links from seizure to seizure (medicine). 99.9% of such links should go to the article on epileptic seizures, not to an article on (epileptic) seizure types that you have unilaterally modified with a more general lead section. See the latest discussion on my talk page. We should endeavour to name articles based on a simple unambiguous name that is easy and natural to link to. "seizure (medicine)" doesn't fit that rule and for such an important topic, that isn't acceptable. Most of your changes are likely to be reverted. Colin°^Talk 11:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Undo and templates

It is very poor form to undo a non-vandalism edit without leaving a reasonable edit summary, as you did on sphygmomanometer. I had taken the time to explain why I didn't think {{Health care}} was the right template for that page. Even if I was completely wrong, you could have told me so politely.

In general, I have the feeling {{Health care}} is much too broad. It tries to cover absolutely everything that happens in hospitals. If it were to get populated with all articles under its scope it would burst at the seams. I think there might well be reasons to start a separate template for medical equipment, which could then also include ophthalmoscope, otoscope, cardiotocograph, pulse oxymeter and other devices that are used at the bedside. JFW | T@lk 19:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the template may grow one day. If so, we will deal with it then, and consider possibly splitting it. But for now, it is small, and as long as it is small, there is no need to take any action. Tatterfly (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Foods and beverages with health benefits

Category:Foods and beverages with health benefits, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy and Epilepsy

I believe that you definition of the condition is correct. However, you or I can't apply that definition to Kennedy ourselves -- that's original research. Wait for a published diagnosis. Cheers. PhGustaf (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Repost of Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Wal-Mart (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Jon513 (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Responding to your message on my talk page, I'll just let Jon513's speedy delete tag speak for itself. No disambiguation is needed for Wal-Mart, as those are not articles needing disambiguation, but rather related "see also" items more appropriate for such a section in an article itself. Disambiguation pages are only used when there are two or more articles that share the same name (such as Phoenix, Arizona or Phoenix (mythology)). Dr. Cash (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This disambig page I created was just that. For example, it disambiguated Wal-Mart with Walmart (neologism), better known as "Walmarting," just as you described in the example above. I am unfamiliar wiht a disussion from the past, but according to WP:D, it seems to me this perfectly fits the critria. Tatterfly (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

I've reviewed the deleted article and the AFD, and I'm forced to disagree with you. The arguments raised in the AFD apply every bit as much to your version of the page as to the one that was deleted. You are free to raise the matter at deletion review if you continue to disagree with my decision; I will take no offense if you decide to do so. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, speedily-deleted articles are not normally undeleted on request (unlike articles proposed for deletion, which are). I can certainly provide you with a copy of the deleted page if you'd like, but if you want it back in mainspace you'll have to go through deletion review; that's the proper venue for contesting a speedy deletion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Logo intown suites.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Logo intown suites.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Sunday drive

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —LedgendGamer 22:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

it seems a little presumptuous to label his death as from lupus when we are still waiting for the autopsy report. unless, of course, you are the LA Coroner? Rodhullandemu 19:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hello Tatterfly. I got your note on my talk page about the new discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 15#Wal-Mart (disambiguation). I had already made a comment at the new discussion, but thanks for the heads up.

Unfortunately, however, it appears that you selectively notified only those editors who voiced an opinion to "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (3rd nomination). Could you please immediately let all of the remaining participants in that discussion know as well? Otherwise, you run afoul of the strict prohibitions at WP:Canvassing#Votestacking. Thanks very much. — Satori Son 13:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)