User talk:Skier Dude/archive/archive Nov 07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Portals to "See also"?[edit]

You did about a zillion portalizations of a template on the 26th, but you put the portal at the top instead of the "See also" section where {{Portal}} says it belongs. You are a clearly a master of automation; do you suppose the task of putting those into their "See also" sections is similarly automatable? CME94 02:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same thing. Some articles already include the portal. It's also too bad that the name of the portal is so long, it takes up a lot of room. 17:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What was that again?[edit]

Um, I think the image needs to be deleted, but you've put the wrong speedy delete info in there. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)`

All in This Tea[edit]

I don't agree. Within the English language there is flexibility for capitalization titles. Badagnani 05:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "in general." Please don't forget that you chose to move the page, then do it again, without using the article's "talk" page. That was very presumptuous and reflects poorly on you. The film's capitalization is quite clear in all its official publicity. It's now time for you to move the page back, use the "Talk" page, and generate consensus for the move--as you should have done in the first place. Thank you. Badagnani 05:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Once Upon a Christmas (film)[edit]

Please refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) before moving pages to an incorrect capitalization. Even if the film uses incorrect capitalization, the wiki article name uses the correct capitalization. The article itself, however, is free to use whatever capitalization. SkierRMH 05:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Then your spelling of "Once Upon a Christmas" does not follow the convention either, since "upon" is a preposition of less than five letters, and therefore should not be capitalized. I'll leave you to fix it, in case I've missed something. Thank you for pointing out WP:NCF — I'm sure I'll find myself referring to it sometime in the future. tiZom(2¢) 06:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Just wanted to thank you for adding fair use to all The Residents album covers for me. Ridernyc 11:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Another Thank You[edit]

I'd like to thank you as well for implementing the fair use template for me on the Under the Jaguar Sun image. I found the situation to be incredibly frustrating and discouraging and what you did not only made me feel better, I now have a terrific example for future reference. Your actions definitely make Wikipedia a better place in more ways than one. Tadiew 21:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the note about the deletion tag! I wasn't aware of such a template.... Clan Cameron eh? Well there's an article that could do with an overhall! Aonaibh ri chéile none-the-less! Thanks, -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: WXC[edit]

Hi there, please remember check the edit history for vandalism before tagging for speedy. Thanks, Punkmorten 09:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Zafar Ansari[edit]

Hi. I've declined the speedy deletion of the above, due to assertions of notability. You may well wish to take to to WP:AFD however. Pedro :  Chat  10:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta FA[edit]

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Input needed[edit]

I seen that you participated in a few TfD that I posted. Could you please review the TfD for Template:Infobox Town TR on the 31st of October and add you input. Thanks. —MJCdetroit 02:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Regarding the article Image:Coellolocation.gif, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "This image is a redundant (all pixels the same or scaled down) copy of Image:Coellolocation.GIF, in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not Commons), and all inward links have been updated", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because there is no such image as Image:Coellolocation.GIF. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:IFD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Doomsters[edit]

Thanks for filling out the free use template. It looks easy now that I see it, but honestly I couldn't figure it out when I saw it initially. --ubiquity 00:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale lists automatic updates[edit]

I'd like to ask for your opinion about the way these lists are updated. I mean:

Currently, the bot only adds the items that haven't been added yet. The reason why I did it this way in the first place is because it allows to remove the images that don't meet the fair use criteria and they are not added back during the next update. The drawback is that one has to manually remove images that were deleted or have fair use rationale added after the bot run which basically means that they grow unnecessarily large when you are not around :-) I could easily change the bot code to keep these lists content updated on a daily basis. What do you think? What would be more convenient for you? Jogers (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The ideal solution would be to make the bot automatically remove images that have been deleted or fair use added but it would be more complicated. My idea is to make the complete list of images with no rationale every day sorted by the date of tagging. It would basically mean printing the contents of Category:Images with no fair use rationale and Category:Disputed non-free images with images other than album/film/DVD/book covers filtered out. Could you clarify why should the bot tag the image itself? Please note that subcategories of "Disputed non-free images" and "Images with no fair use rationale" are already arranged by date and this is how the bot knows when they were tagged. Jogers (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Good. I'll do it soon. Jogers (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It's partly done. I hope you will like it this way because the Jogersbot code is much cleaner now :-) Jogers (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot now filters out anything outside the image namespace. Jogers (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:SkierRMH/List[edit]

Seems that something goes wrong with Characters of The Keys to the Kingdom. I'll look into it. Jogers (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Jogers (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Films awards assessments[edit]

I was wondering if you could use AWB to redo your assessments. Most of those pages are List-class, and need to be assessed as such. Even no assessment would be better than NA-Class, which actually will exclude them from the logs and thus make it impossible for us to see if someone has removed the project banner. As they are in the article namespace, they should not have an NA class in any circumstances. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 19:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I really do appreciate that. Girolamo Savonarola 07:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (video)[edit]


Thanks for your assistance with the category I nominated for deletion. I was not aware of the specific details involved. Colin MacLaurin 08:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Template:MEP image (EP)[edit]

I have finished tagging all the images using that tag. User:NoSoftwarePatents has 185 warnings on his talk page now :/ Every single image he ever uploaded was a violation. Jackaranga 00:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

About Image:Istvan Palfi (EP, 6th term).jpg though User:AnonEMouse will complain because I had already tagged that 1 but he removed the tag because he is dead so it might qualify under fair-use. Did you check all the images you tagged for deletion to see if they are all still alive ? I hadn't but then AnonEMouse made me go over them all again to check (it turned out one of the 130 or so I had tagged was dead). Jackaranga 09:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA again...[edit]

I'd (once again) be delighted to nominate you, especially if you have Wizardman's approval :) Just name a date! Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Film stubs[edit]

Thankyou for the input on 'I live in Grosvenor Square' - I wonder if the same could be added to 'Madonna of the seven moons'? many thanks Excellentone 11:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Future reference on use of portalizing templates[edit]

I have noticed that the portal link tends to throw off the page layout when placed above the lead picture. I don't know what the issue is but to correct it these portals links should be placed just below the lead picture. I personally would like them down in the see also section but that is a page to page decision. Can you post this message at the great portal nexus where all the portal people hang out? I'd appreciate that. Mrshaba 23:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you're on top of it and thanks for the info. If I continue to see these templates placed in the wrong location I'll second your motions for portal placement on the navigation portal page. Mrshaba 01:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Phish album[edit]

CSD deletions don't apply to G4, only things like AfD, MfD, RfD, et cetera do. That said, feel free to PROD it. -- John Reaves 00:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, G4 is based on deletions, not creations. -- John Reaves 01:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Atta Toy[edit]


A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Atta Toy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this 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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Collectonian 00:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Brook Silva-Braga[edit]

Hi, thanks for cleaning that up. Yes, he is not a film. LOL. I was quite tired last night, and copied categories and stubs from another article. Bearian 14:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And now...[edit]

 Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale added to Olden hp.jpg[edit]

Thank you for adding the fair use rationale to Image:Olden hp.jpg. It is appreciated. C.J. 12:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Album/link/doc[edit]

I'm curious about this change. The template in question is primarily a WikiProject Albums template. How is it used in WikiProject Films? I'm not sure it's even worth including in Category:WikiProject Albums templates, as it's a template that's only supposed to be used by other templates, not by article editors. (Similarily, we don't include /doc, /sandbox or /testcases.) --PEJL 17:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that neither Template:Infobox Album/link/doc or Template:Infobox Album/doc qualify to be in Category:WikiProject Albums templates, so why would they be in Category:WikiProject Films templates? And why does the album template need to be in the category to be mentioned in the guideline? I'm worried about possible confusion, because it could look like the films project now controls the album infobox. --PEJL 17:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


How do you accumulate 11,000+ edits in one month? Regards, Rudget 17:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure the correct answer is "skillz" :D Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see a problem in you replying inline to the oppose vote...that's what's generally done in all other RfAs. Just remember to format your comment by starting with #:, then your message. Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


I know what you mean, as I'm like that as well. :) —Viriditas | Talk 01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:WikiProject Canada/Assessment[edit]

Thanks a lot! I need to get myself one of those auto wiki browsers to do the rest of the projects. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 18:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Update on "new" bots[edit]

Any image that is still tagged with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} will be re-added during the next update until it is deleted. That's the drawback of the current updating scheme. There is no easy way to keep track of which images has been removed from the list. I hoped I made it clear when I tried to explain the differences between the two update methods. I thought that it would still be more convenient than having to remove deleted images manually (isn't it?). If you think it's worthwhile we could figure out a way to prevent non-qualifying images from being re-added (for example categorize them as "reviewed" or something like that) Jogers (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I haven't missed your RfA :-) Jogers (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia needs more editors like you who properly fix images instead of just putting them up for deletion!

thanks. Thismightbezach (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please try to avoid "cleaning up" obvious vandalism[edit]

If someone inserts "denmark is the best" into an article, the correct course of action is to remove it, not capitalize "Denmark" and claim to be cleaning up the page. Such obviously unacceptable insertions as this should really be dealt with immediately even when only glancing at an article to make formatting changes. Thanks – Gurch 00:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use[edit]

The problem is that the only place a book cover is fair use is in an article specifically about the book. That is, the title and subject of the article must be the same as the book. GlassFET 16:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You've been loved by Redyva[edit]

Crystal Clear app package favourite.png Hey there! Redyva has loved you by placing a heart icon in the top-right corner of your userpage. Don't worry, it's not vandalism, but simply a small way to spread the WikiLove. If you don't really like it, feel free to revert it and make it go away, and no hard feelings; after all, it's just a small token of appreciation. If you like it, just add your name here, but again, there's no need to feel upset if you don't. Love and best wishes, Master Redyva (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect tagging of images[edit]

You tagged multiple images of mine from List of Hunter x Hunter chapters, claiming that I didn't have rational for WP:NFCC#10c. This states that I must link to the page I claim fair use of the image for (as I do for the one page they are meant for), and that I give a reason why their usage there is justified (as I also do - the images are of the book covers for the volumes discussed on the page). If you have any further objections to the fair use rational that I provided, direct your discussion here Image_talk:Hunter_x_Hunter_Volume_04.jpg. Shimawa zen (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Five Tibetan Rites[edit]

Replied on the Fair Use review page. GlassFET 18:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)



My name is Bill Everatt, Managing Director of Celtica Radio Ltd. I note that you have been removing a FREELY distrubtable image that illustrates my radio station on Wikipedia.

The user "Amorphous" has been given permission directly from me to put this image into Wikipedia. I also understand that the various Free Usage statements have been complied with. But for some reason they are then removed.

If for some reason the wikipedia programming won't allow this material to be published, can you please recify it. As a user of Wikipedia, I'd like to point out that it's pretty confusing to create any new article.

If you have any further questions regarding the free usage of CelticaLogo.JPG please contact me at or But please either stop removing the image or fix the fault which is causing it to be put up for deletion, as this is automated vandalism!

Bill Everatt

Managing Director

Celtica Radio Ltd.

A bit of a problem in article Selena (film)[edit]

Hi Skier. I see your name often in my recent edits of the images I've uploaded and have had a problem due to "Fair Use not being article specific." I've think I've gotten to most of the images I've uploaded, what a nuisance.

Congrats on becoming an admin. I'm now in the WikiProject Films.

However, I write because I need your help as an admin. Re Selena, one of the articles I've edited for a long, long time, I've come across a highly energetic new user. In fact, all she/he has edited is the Selena film article. I expect that soon the person will add back their edits. I've never seen such an aggressive editor, hell bent on editing info on a particular article. All their images have been tagged by a bot.

Please see the "Revision history of Selena (film)" for User:EMVRECORDS last edit to see the reason for contacting you.

I will place a note on User's talk page. But I'm preparing for problems.

Are my comments/rationale in the Talk:Selena (film) of the Selena article correct? Should the Selena article be protected for a week or so? If you can help, thanks very much. Luigibob (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:California Freeway and Expressway System[edit]

Sorry for not explaining properly, but I had already populated Category:Freeways in California and its subcategories with the appropriate articles. For instance, California State Route 91 is in Category:Southern California freeways, and none of California State Route 32 is built to freeway standards, so it should only be on the list. What's the easiest way to fix this? --NE2 14:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The ones that already had it before your AWB run should have it; the F&S System category should have been removed rather than replaced. The easiest way may be to revert all then remove the cat. --NE2 14:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; can you now run the bot to remove Category:California Freeway and Expressway System? (or are you doing that semi-manually?) --NE2 03:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why have you deleted my images?[edit]

Hi, I had some Bananarama sleeves, but now you have deleted them. Are these images not "Fair Use"? Could I try to upload them?EncicloCharlie 1:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: AWB[edit]

Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that 500 was the total number of edits. Now that I have >500 edits in the main space, should I resubmit myself for approval? Thanks, — Yavoh 22:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


HI I just found out you are now an admin much deserved and great to have another admin from films!! Bravo!! I turned down adminship long ago as SPECTRE as a terrorist organizion is free of government restraints. I'm sure you'll do an excellent job and continue with your editing which at present is making Baldy look like a lazy git! Your edit count is about to surpass mine I think. Keep up the great work also I am always impressed by how many articles you have covered and not just in films. Also thanks for helping mi amigo Luigi Bob - I created a series of templates to make navigation between the American films articles easier and eventually connect each page to e.g American films of 1934. Feel free to help me fill in the pages some time! Saludos from the Bald One ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 20:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page categories[edit]

Greetings! I've recently been tidying up Category:Star Trek novel stubs and Category:Television stubs and I have a suggestion. The Skier bot adds this template to talk pages of articles which are tagged as television stubs:

{{Stubclass|assessment=Wikipedia:WikiProject Television|project=Wikipedia:WikiProject 
Television|template=TelevisionWikiProject|category=Television stubs}}

However, this places the talk page, not the article, into Category:Television stubs. Since this is a WikiProject tag, I have been going round and correcting the category thusly:

{{Stubclass|assessment=Wikipedia:WikiProject Television|project=Wikipedia:WikiProject 
Television|template=TelevisionWikiProject|category=Stub-Class television articles}}

which places the talk page into Category:Stub-Class television articles, which is overseen by the project. Personally I think the talk page stub-class tags are redundant to the stub tag itself, but my philosophical differences aside, the talk page should not end up in a category that is in "encyclopedia space". Hope I'm making sense. Can you tweak the bot so it won't do this? Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • No harm, no foul. I'm glad it's not an ideological issue. (What? on WP?!) I didn't make it to the meetup either...maybe someday...! Happy Friday - Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2007 Newsletter[edit]

The November 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


I didn't see where it was on the talk page, but you killed my favorite template. --evrik (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice Evans[edit]

Hello, congratulations on becoming an admin. I'd like to get some advice about Alice Evans. There's a "cold" edit war going on there, with people adding and deleting the picture in the infobox about once a week. It happened again today, you can check the article history for details. I'm not even sure the picture is free use in the first place; I think it got deleted at some point and then re-uploaded. I don't know what I can do, but I'm not a good conflict solver, so could you please help me on this one ? (Please note I won't be back online before Monday 8am UTC.) Thanks, have a nice day. Rosenknospe 16:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SUS logo.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SUS logo.jpg. YesY done. SkierRMH (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Confused about how to post a picture that won't get deleted[edit]

I'm new to editing on wikipedia and still figuring somethings out. If a picture is from an archive that has no author and is available to the public, isn't it fair use? I'm having a hard time figuring out how to load and correctly label the copyright of pictures on wikipedia. I originally chose the wrong copyright category then couldn't figure out how to change it so I added another. Is that why my picture was deleted? What should the picture be listed under?

I just realized I said facebook instead of wikipedia on my original post. I was reading things in both and it has been a long week. Sorry for the confusion.

My comment is a response to a picture I posted last week of Lovett College. That will give you a better idea of the context of my questions. Thank you for your help.

Eef2387 21:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)