User talk:Renamed user 3738539gjcwjnsw/Archive 4

The Books of Baldur's Gate

Hi Zenosaga,

Just wondering what all the files under User:Zenosaga/The Books of Baldur's Gate (e.g. User:Zenosaga/The Books of Baldur's Gate/History of Shadowdale) are?? Is this content from the Baldur's Gate series of games? --Stormie 22:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I am making an archive of the books from the games for some reason that doesn't make sense. Have a nice day. --Zenosaga 14:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Because you're a serial copyright violator, presumably. Please remove all of that immediately or I'll ask for speedy deletion on copyvio grounds. Chris Cunningham 12:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but if there are numerous game FAQs that contain that exact information, why can't I have a subpage that contains it? I don't see a problem. --Zenosaga 14:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The copyright-infringing status of "numourous game FAQs" isn't relevant here. Wikipedia policy dictates that anything on wikipedia be appropriately licenced or available under fair use. Large chunks of text taken verbatim from in-game content does not fall under fair use. Please remove all infringing material immediately. Chris Cunningham 14:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The information is on my user subpage, and not on any article. Why would it matter? Can't one use their own subpage to place notes for later use? --Zenosaga 16:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't "notes". It's voluminous bodies of text you don't own the copyright to. This is not your personal web space. If I have to report this, I'm going to make a general point about your copyvio history (which is extensive). Chris Cunningham 16:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Subpages deleted. Please note that hosting copyright violations isn't acceptable, even in userspace. Thanks for tagging them for deletion. alphachimp. 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Tanarukk

In the Tanarukk article, you added that there was errata that stated tanarukk's have the orc subtype. Where can I find this errata? —Sledged 22:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, as I found it on everything2, and I haven't been able to verify it. But I just checked the Tanarukk update in Races of Faerun (2003, which is much later than the "Addendum") and it says they count as both "native outsiders" and "orcs" for rules purposes. I'll fix the article in the meantime. --Zenosaga 23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:674370.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:674370.jpg , has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Tenebrous 22:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:PharodWormtail.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:PharodWormtail.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 02:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Pak.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Pak.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Zenosaga/Neanderthal theory

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article User:Zenosaga/Neanderthal theory, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (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 [[Talk:User:Zenosaga/Neanderthal theory|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. Calton | Talk 23:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically, it is not an article, but a user subpage. Therefore, it is not a true part of the encyclopedia and an entirely different set of rules apply. It is not meant to be an actual article, but an experimental pet project. When the theory sees publication by its original author, then it may graduate into an actual article. But currently it is not one. Alex Bakharev has already removed the template for similar reasons. --Zenosaga 15:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:126.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:126.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 05:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Time to reintroduce the Neanderthal theory

Read this guide entry at the BBC webpage: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A21057077

I think this should make the theory notable, and thus suitable for article space. Tell me what you think. --Rdos 07:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Article was once again speedy-deleted, for no apparant reason. Look and comment the deletion review here: [1] --Rdos 08:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

While the entry has its merits, the Powers That Be don't exactly agree (pardon the rhyme). If the theory itself was published in a major American periodical (since the en-wiki is primarily American English) such as Time or Discovery, then I wouldn't be surprised if it was then finally accepted. Personally, I think you should publish your findings in a book or somesuch, if you haven't already; then, at least, it should certainly qualify as "notable." Aside, the theory has huge implications on the study of human evolution and the autism spectrum, or at least it would if it was more widely recognized. Likewise, while Geico's interpretation of Neanderthals (called "cavemen" in the ads) is certainly humorous in many ways, perhaps it is less fictitious than many people think. --Zenosaga 23:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bbrp43.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bbrp43.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. BetacommandBot 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Genestealer Rationale

I originally put the Magus behind the patriarch listing because the Magus and the Patriarch were combined together for sale (a Magus standing next to the Patriarch's throne). I personally feel that brood brothers should go last because they are human. The order was taken from the list in the original Tyranids codex. I hope this makes sense. SanchiTachi 23:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)