User talk:Rhindle The Red/Archive7

Image:Mickey Mouse.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mickey Mouse.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Ilse@ 08:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Ilse@ 08:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Image also listed for speedy deletion, because it has no source or author information and no fair use rationale. – Ilse@ 08:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dolores Fuller.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging

Discussion happens if someone disagrees with the article being merged (with a reason past WP:ILIKEIT). Discussion does not happen when someone feels that there should be a discussion, but has no interest in the article; that is the case with that guy. The reason for that is, with articles like that, there is likely nobody that will actually respond to a discussion. As I said in my edit summary, if he wants to revert due to the fact that he has an interest in it, the discussion can happen. The same goes for you, but please don't pretend to just hold it up or something. TTN 17:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you not read my message? We discuss when someone disagrees with the actual act of merging or redirecting, not because someone feels that there should be a discussion, though they have no interest in the article. Some people like to place merge tags for everything; that is fine. But with a lot of articles, especially those related to fiction, the merge tag does nothing but sit there for a week, leaving the "silent consensus." To avoid wasting time, BRD goes into effect.

After that, someone can revert to discuss, but as BRD describes, that person is the "Most Interested Person." Keenan Pepper is not that person, as shown by his edit summary, which is only interested in a discussion happening. If you note my edit summary, I basically said "If you do have an interest in the article, we can discuss", so I am not trying to bar discussion. This kind of thing has been placed on AN/I multiple times, and as far as I can recall, the person has been reprimanded until they show an actual interest in the the article. So basically, nobody has an interest in the article at this point. The merge discussion is probably going to go unanswered, and we're going to end up in the same place that we could have been if the discussion was not forced, which is one of the points of BRD. TTN 20:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As I explained, his edit summary dictates that he is one of the "I want you to have a discussion due to the fact that I believe that is how it works/should work" people. There are also the facts that he has not made one other edit to the article or its parent article (indicating something like a recent changes patroller), and that he made no further attempts to revert or discuss. Maybe its just the fact that I have dealt with this at least thirty times (and the people that were actually interested usually clarified themselves quickly), but it should be pretty obvious. Due to that, I am not going to take an initiative to start an unneeded discussion. If he had reverted again or started a discussion, we could have gone from there. Its the same deal with anons and random users that have been inactive for two years.

Really, I am not saying that doing it by the book is bad, but would you really feel productive with one hundred unanswered discussions at once? That is what I mean by wasting time. There may be nothing actually wasted, but it is just unnecessary when it can get done right away. Dealing with "respect to fellow editors", taking a couple reverts over starting a discussion that may or may not actually be responded to is hardly disrespectful. I understand where you come from, but this is more of "I'll do it my way, and you do it your way". Anyways, I'll just let that sit for five days, and go from there. TTN 23:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WillisOBrien.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:WillisOBrien.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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 19:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Japanese N64 games

I noticed your one of the people that wished there to be a list of Japanese games online for Wikipedia which I tried to make for the Nintendo 64 a few months ago, but just like when they where added to the orginal List of Nintendo 64 games they are trying to delete the new page List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games here's a link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games to the discussion, how about giving your view. (Floppydog66 16:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

October 2007

I'm sorry for my last message and revert, but your contribution was appearing like a vandalism. Don't take offence, I've seen your message on the latest one ;) Martial BACQUET 04:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

mole men

Thank you. When I did my first set of searches, I found it as a serial somewhere, and kept on going with the template. thanks for giving me some cites for backup.ThuranX 22:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Merv Griffin's Crosswords ("lectern" vs. "podium")

I have reverted your changes in Merv Griffin's Crosswords, where you changed all instances of the word "podium" to "lectern." I understand your reasoning and it is probably correct in the technical sense. However, the host of the show regularly uses the word "podium" throughout the show, so to prevent confusion, I think we should go with the term they use. No one ever accused television-show types of being word-usage experts anyway, though that might seem ironic given the show's central premise. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of a borderline call, in that the host does use the word "podium" several times during the show. I don't know if you've seen the show before, but the cash and prizes that are accumulated during the game are tallied on a scoreboard on the contestant's podium/lectern. The contestant must "defend" that tally by continuing to answer correctly; otherwise, three other players situated behind them may then give a correct answer and "steal the podium." Therefore, the term comes up a lot.

How about this — leave the word "podium" where it originally appears, then add a parenthetical paragraph afterward along the lines of, "(Though Treadway uses the word podium, the contestants are actually standing behind lecterns, because ...)" and you can add the explanation. Will that work? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind adding the reason as to why "lectern" is the correct term? I feel you could explain it better. Jst pt it in there and I'll edit for style as necessary. Thanks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars (Disambiguation)

My understanding was that any article with the term being disambiguated was fair game for the disambiguation page. Since both clone wars series have "Star Wars:" in the article title, I figured that they needed to be included. Under that criteria, they still do. However, since there's no "risk of confusion" per the disambiguation guidelines, it's probably not an issue. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"worst films" page

I disagree and feel that it does belong on that page. Please stop deleting it. What I've seen and read of it is that it's simply called a "special". Since it was 2 hours long and only aired once, it couldn't be a show or a series. Nobody of consequence 02:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

How about our own article on it? [1] It's called a film 5 times in the introductory paragraphs alone (and the rest of the article repeatedly refers to it as a film). It's in the Categories: Star Wars spin-off films, Comedy science fiction films, Science fiction films, Sequel films, Space adventure films. And how about this? [2] It clearly lists in the credits "FILM Editors", and shows one of the production companies as "Twentieth Century-Fox FILM Corporation". Nobody of consequence 05:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete it then. It's definitely not worth all this effort. No hard feelings, let's just move on, eh? Nobody of consequence 17:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Johnrockwell.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Johnrockwell.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 00:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Pinkava

I don't know what makes you feel entitled to question the references to the early part of the article, when there is a full biography available on Pinkava's Czech website, (link available) and these bio-facts are also on the Czech wiki entry about him. I can only presume you do not read Czech ;), but that insularity of vision does not hamper your interventionism, quite the opposite. Facts do not have to be in English to be facts, surely? I also do not see the relevance of listing on the Pinkava entry that Brad Bird is the director of The Incredibles, as if he were likely to be mistaken for another Brad Bird in the particular context ?? And what makes you so well informed on the director muscial chairs situation at Pixar?... Ever heard of Bob Peterson's short stint as co-director? Maybe wait till the David Price book comes out next May and we might all be wiser. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0307265757/ref%3Dnosim/animationblast08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vzjp (talk • contribs) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can't even see the phrase "Following his directorial step-down on his brainchild project" has the word brainchild as an adjectival noun, and the important little word in the phrase is 'project', (which you severed in your critique), then you are quite right to take exception to English that is 'poorly written'. Poorly written, Mr Demagogue, because it was not written by you. You are so right, on all points. Repatedly putting the information that Brad Bird is the director of the Incredibles in the *Jan Pinkava* entry is as superfluous as it is, yes, incredible. Why don't you put Brad Bird's Iron Giant there instead, or as well as? Why not put supplementary references and attributes against all names of people in every article on wikipedia? How beneficial, saves people clicking the mouse on the name to find out more about the person... Right? Anyway, I will hazard a guess that you suffer from an undiagnosed messianic complex. Go save the world. The White House is waiting. "Stupidity is like a reef. All who assail it are wrecked upon it". [Find the source of the quote yourself]. Or, as Buddhism puts it, Only a Fool associates with Fools. So adieu Mr Wiseguy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vzjp (talk • contribs) 09:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fox McCloud

I agree with you completely; do NOT merge Fox. Merging his article into the character list just because he doesn't have enough real world info is complete laziness. I'd really appreciate it if you could help me out with improving Fox's page on the matter. Thanks! :) --AgreeneyedFox (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Polar Boy.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Polar Boy.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 (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Superman serial.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Superman serial.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 (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Story of Star Wars PVD v2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Story of Star Wars PVD v2.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 (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)