User talk:MisterHand/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sandbox

I moved the MisterHand/Sandbox article to your userspace at User:MisterHand/Sandbox. To properly make a page like this, it should be "User:Misterhand/<pagename>" rather than "Misterhand/<pagename>". If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. --Durin 16:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Secret Santa

Welcome!

Hello, MisterHand/Archive 1, 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! . You accidentally deleted most of the Secret Santa article. Don't worry, I've fixed it while keeping most of your edits.--File Éireann 19:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Karateka

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Karateka. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Shanel 05:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry. That was a mistake on my part.--Shanel 05:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Nation of Gods and Earths

My comments regarding the Nation of Gods and Earths edits was based on first hand knowledge, which I know to be a more reliable source than any third party article. All I did was rephrase some of the extremely biased language of the article to give a broader view of the topic than is offered here. It is called improvement, not vandalism. And it is the premise of the wikipedia to provide the most up to date information that way. Is it not? If you would please replace my edits to the article so that people are completely and properly informed. If not my next step would be towards petitioning that this article be removed in its entirety so as not to mis-inform or mis-represent. 69.134.75.242 23:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You need to review the Wikipedia rules. Original research is not allowed here. See Wikipedia:No original research --MisterHand 03:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Image placement vote

Hello, I'm MegamanZero, and I've gotten into a conflict with the Orgy over his needless image placement and excessive quotes on the Iori Yagami page. So, I've decided to hold a vote (like on the Ryu charaacter page) concerning which version should be used. The vote can be found here. Please vote your opinion on the matter and thanks for your time! -MegamanZero 18:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

wikify

Why did you remove my wikify notice to this article? In its current state RKO Pictures is almost unreadable due to poor formatting, structure, tone, etc. In short, it needs to be drastically adapted to Wikipedia standards in style and layout. Maybe you just objected to my use of the term wikify, in that case, a more appropriate tag would be applicable. What do you suggest? -- Rmrfstar 22:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably cleanup would be the better tag, since the article I looked at was clearly wikified, in that it linked significant words to other articles. --MisterHand 01:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I saw the term wikify to make an article into wiki format, in every way possible. Nevermind that, shall we mark the page with cleanup? -- Rmrfstar

I think that's a fair tag for the article. --MisterHand 01:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Oinkness

Hey dude, what's up! I'm liking this Wikipedia system so far. There is still a lot of stuff I can't do, and don't even know about. Thank you for helping me out through my n00b stages, I appreciate it! --Oinkness 18:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey guy, It's ME AGAIN!!! I see you made me my own little section here. This will be useful for when I talk to you constantly until you wish I was dead. I just figured out that to get to your talk page, I click on "discussion" at your user page. I didn't know this was actually your talk page... I got kinda confused... I tried to talk on my talk page but I didn't see the edit button. It's kinda weird that you have to hit edit to talk.... Like instead of just talking, you're editting this whole webpage... It's like we're all sharing an HTML file on a website and we're all making changes to it. It's very odd to say the least. Well thanks for your helps again. I'll stop by again if I need more helps. And whats the deal with pages with more than one meaning, but it only lists one meaning? Is it safe to add the alternate meaning? Like for USBM... I know that as United States Black Metal as opposed to European Black Metal.... but Wikipedia has it listed as some kind of bereu of mining. Just so you know I can't spell Byero.. such a weird word. --Oinkness 19:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Good man!

Thanks for making me laugh. [1]. Blackcap (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William "Duke" Procter

Your comment here was right on the money. Ignore the follow-up accusation. The nom likes to throw out wild NPA claims as a smoke screen to cover-up his own mistakes. Take care. -- JJay 14:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Stable versions

Hi! I don't know if you're aware that currently under discussion is a stable versions policy which seeks to restrict the freely-editable nature of Wikipedia by protecting articles once they are deemed to be "stable" and moving them to a separate namespace. This policy represents a structural change in the open nature of Wikipedia, and inhibits the freedom of users - even logged-in ones - in instantly updating an article, since openly-editable versions of articles will be called "working drafts" under the new proposal. For me, as a liberal Wikipedian, the proposed policy is quite unacceptable. You can express your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Stable versions. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathaniel Lack

Hey there, I saw you agged Nathaniel Lack as speedy delete as reposted material. Just to let you know that to be re-deleted as reposted material, it must be identical to the original article (see WP:CSD). That's the reason it was put up for AfD by myself, instead of deleting it straight off. Thanks, →FireFox 18:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I couldn't see the original article, but saw that it had been deleted twice and recreated by the same person. So naturally, I assumed it was the same thing. -- MisterHand 20:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The Line of Polity and The Skinner.

These two articles have been edited. I hope they are up to standard now! Planktune 09:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC) . The Line of Polity & The Skinner

• Thanks, I've made a note on the AFD pages. -- MisterHand 14:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

{{Sig}}

what are the advantages of creating the subpages and using the template instead of typing the signature on the preferences dialog and using ~~~~ ? -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know, since I can't get the custom signature in preferences to work. I get an ugly php error page every time I try to change it. -- MisterHand 17:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Simon nominated for deletion

Template:Simon has been nominated for deletion. The rationale listed on TFD is as follows:

Template is overly large and somewhat unwieldy, and is mostly full of red links. Discussion on the template's talk page shows a preference for this information to be a simple category, rather than a full template.

Please consider participating in this TFD vote. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Rosie Ruiz

• Nice work on the Rosie Ruiz piece. We kind of did a loose tag team job on it. I think it's up to snuff now. --Doggie Yum Yums 16:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. It's fun to watch an article mature like that so quickly. Great job! -- MisterHand 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles For Deletion

Hi, one or both of the following situations applies to you, and you may therefore be interested in related discussions.

• You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 200 verses of the Gospel of Matthew. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 199 articles at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
• You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 19 verses of the 20th Chapter of the Gospel of John. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 18 articles at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20

You may also be interested in a discussion of whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters, and whether or not they should only use the translations favoured by fundamentalists. This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 17:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Nip/Tuck

Hello Mr. Hand, I am new to Wikipedia, I apologise if this is the wrong location to post my remarks regarding your edit of my Nip/Tuck trivia submission. You seem to be unsure of my observations and their validity, here are some reasons why I believe them to be factual. Matt and his Tranny friend are trapped in a pervert(the father who wants Matt to saw off his friends unit) 's basement, very similar to the Butch /Marcellus Wallance- tormentors in the pawn shop scene, both scenes take place in a dungeonesque basement. Confederate flags are present in both scenes as well, I believe the Pulp Fiction scene was in part, an homage to the 70's Burt Reynolds film Deliverance w/ Ned Beatty (rednecks raping restrained men.) So in effect, an homage to an homage to an homage (Deliverance/Pulp Fiction/Nip/Tuck-Brilliant!) I think the other homage(blatant rip-off?)'s are, the scene where the (armed to the teeth in high tech s.w.a.t. gear) team storms the room where they find Costa tied to the bed defiled and apparently "carved", was a lift from the "S.W.A.T. before Dick's!" scene in the film SEVEN with Kevin Spacey in which the tactical team finds the chidl molestor (Sin was Sloth) strapped to bed after being tortured for a full year. Both grisly scenes where cops storm the room of the person they believe to be their suspected seriel killer, where they both encounter instead, one of the killers disabled victims, (though of course, in the case of nip/tuck the victim turned out to be the actual killer, again Brilliant!). Also, the climax of nip/tuck, has both of the main protagonists chained and being forced to saw off body parts, a direct parrallel to the film "SAW", though in Nip/Tuck the characters are close friends and thusly Christian offer up his right hand as a sacrifice allowing the more gifted surgeon (Shawn?) to lose only a finger, i think the film SAW had the charaters in a race to see who would chop off a limb first to obtain their freedom from the restraints, so again some tweaks on original gore from prior film product. Again, very sorry if this is the wrong spot for this, if so would you so kind as to point me in the right direction regarding Wikipedia correspondence?-Nps4474

• Hi, Nps4474. While all of your points have merit, it sounds like it is original research on your part, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia (see WP:NOR). However, if this is incorrect, and you can cite an interview with the producers (or another source), then it would be allowable. Also, feel free to message me at any time with any questions. (I will put this message on your talk page as well.) -- MisterHand 01:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please dont ignore a request to discuss removal on a talk page

This discussion is regarding Congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 3 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase deficiency

Assuming good faith, I asked you for an explanation of your removal. You simply reverted. I have never run into you before. Is this your typical interactional style (or avoidance thereof)? Please justify your desire to remove information on the article talk page. alteripse 20:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't revert. I simply went back and restored my earlier cleanup, and left the previous deleted section there (albeit with a slightly different title). In the latest revert no information was removed, things were just moved around a bit. I hope this clarifies. I'll add a note about this on the articles talk page as well. -- MisterHand 22:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Curtiz

While Curtiz was unquestionably a Jewish American, what I'm doing is trying to de-populate the category "Jewish Americans" (which had quite an overwhelming amount of people in it yesterday) and move all the people in it to the sub-categories. It just seemed a bit tenuous to have such a huge category for people whose only connection is their ethnicity/religion - at least a sub-cat makes it more specific and one can find a common cultural connection between certain writers, etc. The only appropriate sub-cat for Curtiz seemed to be "Jewish American history" - as Curtiz was an important figure in the 1930s-1950s era of Jewish moguls and foreign-born immigrant directors making classic American films (which was a "phenomenon" directed related to Jewish-immigrant history of that era) Vulturell 20:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, except that Category:Jewish American history is both a parent and a child of Category:Jewish Americans. -- MisterHand 21:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well.... Do you think I should just make a "Jewish American directors" category, and have it also be a sub-cat of the already existing "Jewish film directors"?Vulturell 21:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that, if we need to get that detailed. -- MisterHand 21:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Edit on Bonaventure

Dear MisterHand,

You changed the reference to Hugo of St. Victor, to Victor Hugo. They lived in different centuries and were entirely different persons! Please put it back the way it was.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 21:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. The link was point to a dab page, and I made a bad guess as to what Hugo it was referring to. I've fixed it to point directly to the correct article, and added a link to Hugo of St. Victor to the dab page to avoid future confusion. -- MisterHand 21:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Amy Adams

Is it really a stub, since there isn't all that much more info available on her? JackO'Lantern 02:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hard to say. It does seem a little sparse compared to her German page. -- MisterHand 03:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Mein gosh, someone up there in Germany must really like her. Well, at least I now know the German word for Mormon... JackO'Lantern 06:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Love Hewitt

I've removed the headings again, as per Wikipedia:Use subheadings sparingly. Such a short article really doesn't need them, especially the one-sentence section. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• The MOS article you linked too doesn't actual give any guidelines of when or when not to use sections. "Use sparingly" isn't the same as "don't use them at all." I personally think the article looks a lot better (and is easier to read) with sub-headers. I'm going to put the matter on the talk page of the article to see what other editors think. -- MisterHand 18:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

True — I'd remebered it as saying more. The guide to layout included this: "Just as for paragraphs, sections and subsections that are very short will make the article look cluttered and inhibit the flow. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading, and in these circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points."

Soul Patrol

Oops. Thanks for merging Soul Patrol into Taylor Hicks, but I noticed something while I was looking at what links to the latter article: Soul Patrol also denotes a film starring Sadie Frost. I undid the redirect, not because I think there should be an article about Hicks' fan club, but because I don't want fans of Sadie Frost to be needlessly redirected to Taylor Hicks. A quick and dirty stub exists now at Soul Patrol... feel free to review & edit. -- SwissCelt 00:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Taylor Hicks

Please tell me why you keep insisting on removing links from the Taylor Hicks page and yet you leave the link to "Sir Links A Lot" - pretty infuriating really. Do you consider "Sir Links A lot" the final authority on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.251.82 (talk • contribs)

If somebody removed the "Sir Links a Lot" page I wouldn't shed any tears (I didn't add it). I haven't removed it because it does provide links to several fan pages. When it comes to fan pages, the guidelines say it's preferable to have one link to a page that lists several fan pages. The Sir Links a Lot link provides that service. Wikipedia is not a web directory, and we can't have everybody who wants to promote their personal blog and/or fansite adding it to the page. See WP:EL for the guidelines. -- MisterHand 21:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Christian Science Hymnal

I added the category Christian Science, the list of links below it provides the different spelling of Christian Science for different languages. Jonamerica 14:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand how Interwiki is supposed to work, but I thought that the links we put there were for the corresponding article in different languages? -- MisterHand 15:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right, I'm new to all this. -- Jonamerica 21:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Walmarting

There's a move to delete this article. Thought since you had worked on this article, you might want t weigh in. --Beth Wellington 04:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Straw Men

Good work on breaking the Straw man article down into several coherent pages, and thanks for removing the "merge" tag I capriciously added at the outset of your efforts. Draeco 04:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoops...I didn't even see the merge tag, I must have been so busy moving things around that it got lost in the shuffle. -- MisterHand 04:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking for articles to work on?

Hello, MisterHand. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 14:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

AI 5

I left you a reply at American Idol talk page. Va girl2468 05:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Episodes of Lost (season 2)

No worries. I thought that may be the case but hadn't seen it documented in the articles. Rillian 15:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

More contribution, less reversals

Could you please lay off everyone else and contribute yourself?

Special:Contributions/MisterHand

I see very few contributions in this list, and tons of reversals.

I am trying hard to refrain from giving you an alternate name.

Don't worry so much about citations. Most of wikipedia is not cited and it is doing very well, I am sure not all thanks to you.

With time, what is true will remain. So do some actual research and stop holding everyone to your standards; standards you are not needing to conform to very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holon67 (talk • contribs)

• It took me a minute, but I realized that this was about the "Themes" sub-section in the Munich (film) article which I removed. While I appreciate the frustration of having an addition heavily edited or removed, perhaps reading Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research may shed some light on why I took it out. Thanks for your time, and happy editing! -- MisterHand 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why don't you "edit" this? Alan Moore . Where are all the citations? Facts? Is this encyclopedic enough? Ask the authors to conform? Change your perspective; realize the world has changed since you were coloring in between the lines. Try experimenting with something new. You might like it ") Holon67 07:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • There are over a million articles on the English version of Wikipedia. No editor can be expected to be actively editing each and every one. I'm not sure what you want from me. -- MisterHand 13:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Greasemonkey Scripts

Any luck getting them working? (See Wikipedia talk:Tools#Wikipedia Animate)

-- Nmagedman 23:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me?!

Why did you go to my talk page and insult my contributions to the Larry H. Miller article like I'm some kind of vandal or troll? His father is Howard West, and therefore, he was born Lawrence West, and it is impossible for him to have been born Larry Miller since his mother was not married to Frank Miller at the time, just like how William Blythe could not have been born William J. Clinton. I'm not a newbie to Wikipedia, I've been here for over three years and this is my username for non-controversial topics. If you are going to accuse another user of vandalism, at least look at the user who you are going to criticize before you start accusations. Regards.--Folksong 20:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• I never made any accusations of vandalism. You've just illustrated, however, the importantance of edit summaries and citations when editing articles. -- MisterHand 02:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry for being too hasty on jumping the gun, I just wasn't too happy to see the same "experiment message" pop up on my talk page that does whenever I visit anonymously and see that some dork using the same IP as me vandalized a page. Oh well, looks like I gotta start using the edit summary box. Happy editing.--Folksong 08:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Then Came Bronson wiki page

• Hello. You gave some great advice on my edits to the TCB page. Now someone has added a whole lot of POV info to the series overview. Can you give the page a look-see and since I'm a newbie I can learn how you deal with the whole deal. You dealt with me super last time. Thanks Luigibob 07:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Marathon

You meddled with the Marathon page, removing links to London Marathon and Boston Marathon, ostensibly because they are already linked to. However, Boston Marathon wasn't already linked to. If you are going to meddle, don't do half a job.
I shall put in some horizontal lines here so you can satisfy yourself with removing them. Have fun.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.34 (talk • contribs)

• The Boston Marathon was linked to in the "Marathon races" section -- MisterHand 21:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

United 93

Hi. Are you sure you want to delete the information about experienced actor Christian Clemenson being in the film? Critics found it noteworthy. Also, I deleted the citation for the non-professional cast because this is common knowledge. Jonathan F 02:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• I suppose if something special could be cited that shows that Clemenson's performance was particularly noteworthy, then it would apply. As for removing the citation, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, nothing is common knowledge so there is no reason to remove an existing citation (my opinion, of course). -- MisterHand 19:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Clemenson was noted not for his performance but for being an exception in a cast of non-actors. Sorry for removing the EW link. I still think it is used unnecessarily as an in-line citation and that one should generally resist the urge to cite facts that are everywhere agreed upon and stand nearly no chance of being disputed, just for the sake of completeness. I would have instead included it as an end of article reference. Jonathan F 01:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers

Oops, I totally forgot about that. Cheers for the reminder. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:44 UTC (2006-05-14)

Fair use rationale for Image:Guy Goma.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Guy Goma.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles 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 fair use images 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. Tim 11:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, I neglected to put either a source or fair use rationale when I uploaded. I've gone back and added them now. -- MisterHand 13:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Mrfriendlylost.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mrfriendlylost.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. 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• It's not my image, but I'll go ahead and add the info nonetheless. -- MisterHand 15:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, MisterHand! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other

I looked through your contribs and I did not see much anti-vandal work. However on your talk page you show a very level head, which is important for anti-vandal work. Welcome to the world of effortless vandal-killing! =)

moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. mboverload@ 04:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, MisterHand! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. mboverload@ 05:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Foot race cats

Hi. The foot-race category seems inappropriate. Many entrants are in wheelchairs. Unless the intention was to seperate wheelchair entrants from those running on foot and have two categories for each distance: "Wheelchair middle distance races" and "Foot middle distance races", etc. Such a categorisation is possible, but as such cats would be tagged onto the same articles, then it starts to look unnecessary. Also, it seems awkward to have a category Running, and also have a category Foot races, which seems to cover the same thing. It looked to me that it was more helpful to have the category Running broken down into distance: Middle distance, Long distance, Marathon, etc. SilkTork 07:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Would you care to review my most recent edit to United 93 for value? The reversion that followed it seemed to have been motivated by my removal of a quote Cubdriver had added (first discussed here) which, despite its problematic usage, was never improved. I also argued for my edit's value here. I would prefer a full revert to my version but wanted to see what you thought. Jonathan F 18:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually have no real preference, both versions seem appropriate (although I agree that the quote about Ben Sliney having "star presence" doesn't match the source). I just don't want to see an edit war (which it appears is starting to happen). Perhaps we can try to get consensus on the talk page, and if that fails take things to WP:RFC? -- MisterHand 21:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Since my posting to your talk, someone reverted to my version. However, I agree an edit war is occurring, mainly over that external link, which will likely require arbitration in the forms you've mentioned. Jonathan F 22:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Colbert 300.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Colbert 300.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but its not my image. I just lightened it slightly since the original version was hard to see. -- MisterHand 01:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

United 93 reviews

Howdy, you removed a link to a review on United 93 (film), stating that "links to individual reviews are not necessary when we have the rotten tomatoes link". I was just curious why you only removed that one- there are a few other review links down there as well. Qwe 15:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the article again and I don't see any other reviews, just commentary pieces. I could be wrong. If there are any other actual reviews, they should be removed too. -- MisterHand 15:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Kenneth Lay

Rather than continue to edit war, I invite you to discuss the item over at Talk:Kenneth Lay and try to come to some sort of consensus. -- MisterHand 15:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have done as you have asked. Rrude 15:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned comment

EXCUSE ME! I am not trying to vandalize your article, I simply would like to bring something to your attention and am not aware of any other way to do so. I beleive that you continue to revert the article "OOT: Ending" to a form where the only change is a comment being signed. I humbly request that you stop. I am the one who wrote the comment and do not like having my comments signed. Many people, not just me, would agree. I simply don't want anyone else to sign wy work. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.108.197 (talk • contribs)

Continued vandalism by 72.24.69.2

I notice you also have given 72.24.69.2 a final warning for vandalism. He is back at it. If you are an admin, this is an excellent example of a user needing an immediate block. His contributions to basketball-related articles seem to be in good faith, but he can't seem to control his hatred for Democratic party members. A short block would be educative. If you aren't an admin, I'll take this to the administrators' noticeboard. Cheers, Kasreyn 16:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Laura Harring.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Laura Harring.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. meco 18:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Help with publicity shot

Hello MisterHand! I'm new at this, and I found you uploaded a publicity shot for Felicity Huffman. I'd like to know how to do it. I mean, I have the account on Commons... and I've tried to upload some pictures, but I never seem to get the copyright deal correctly. In the summary I add the correct type of picture... but what do I have to select on the dropdown box? It's a picture just like Huffman's. It has the same copyright.

"This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit."

Can you help me out? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crunkier21 (talk • contribs)

Hello. Fair use images should only be uploaded to Wikipedia. Commons is limited to free images. I don't see promotional photos on the list of fair use images on the drop-down box anymore -- however you can add the tag yourself by using the {{promotional}} template. Be sure to include the source of the image, and the fair use rational. Let me know if you have any further questions or problems. -- MisterHand 21:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't Do Images

so its like this i can't get the grasp of doing images ive read the instructions and have tried but i can't, i saw ur name on The Others discussion so i came 2 u i would be grateful that you could include each picture by the others name, please and thankyou --Maestr06 17:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:AI5ElimHist

I have tagged Template:AI5ElimHist for deletion because it appears the template is to be used only for American Idol (Season 5). The article must make an extra call to the server to render the template. Since it is only one article that is calling the template, it is better to substitute the content (the contestant elimination history) into the article. See Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits. I am not saying that the elimination history should be deleted, only it should have been constrained to the AI article and not made into a template. You are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:AI5ElimHist. Thank you. Tinlinkin 08:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

more to censor for you

here you go fuckface:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonelygirl15#Themes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.44.151 (talk • contribs) 

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Huffman2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Huffman2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Walmartaes.jpg)

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

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Parisb.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Parisb.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. 13:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mandisah.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mandisah.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 that provides substantially the same information. 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, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, 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 fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ed g2s • talk 22:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sara Hickman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sara Hickman.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 that provides substantially the same information. 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, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, 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. —Angr 07:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Fate Screenshot.jpg)

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

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. --MisterHand 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Raceforthecurelogo.gif)

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

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 05:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Mathom RfD

a redirect created by you. --83.253.36.136 17:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Boston Marathon

You have dumped the good links (all but one) along with the one bad. The essential course map, elevation profiles, etc. are gone. Why? Was this inadvertent? I will try to reconstruct the section, minus only the recent spam. Please be more careful! Hertz1888 13:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Course map and elevation information was already available on the official site. I don't see a need to link to it multiple times. --MisterHand 14:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not the same map and profile - less detailed versions. Even so, handy to have the information available directly rather than have to dig down for it. Sometimes a little redundancy is a convenience. I see you have left the original links - that's good. Also thanks for the consolidation.Hertz1888 14:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Marathon

Hello, Mr. Hand. An external link many of us find inappropriate for the Marathon article (you were the first) has just been added for the third time - these folks are persistent. You may have the honor of deleting it again. Is there a way to exclude it permanently? I have not been here long enough to know. It remains on the Boston Marathon page, which I believe is appropriate, though not on the list of references - from which I have moved it. The Marathon article seems to attract a disproportionate share of vandalism. Should it therefore be given semi-protection? Thanks in advance for your reply. Hertz1888 23:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've removed the link once more. -- MisterHand 14:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)