User talk:Ridernyc/Archive Nov 2007

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Resdidents finest flowers cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Resdidents finest flowers cover.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 16:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Resdients vflats cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Resdients vflats cover.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 16:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Residents big bubble.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Residents big bubble.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 17:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Residents ebrmx cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Residents ebrmx cover.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 17:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Residents freakshow.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Residents freakshow.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 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Residents george and james.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Residents george and james.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 19:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Residents gingerbread.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Residents gingerbread.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 19:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Residents god in 3 persons.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Residents god in 3 persons.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 19:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Residents have a bad day.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Residents have a bad day.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 19:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Residents intermission.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Residents intermission.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 19:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Residents king and I.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Residents king and I.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 19:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Residents stars and hank.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Residents stars and hank.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 19:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Residents tune of 2 cities.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Residents tune of 2 cities.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 19:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

A month Later and I'm still trying to fix this idiots bad formating

The articles are not subject to delection, the debate supports keeping. P.S. do not threaten me sucka. Removing all the tags again. P.S. show me where you are the boss of Wikipedia? Can you do that? RBLakes 09:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

after your block is released if you want to talk to me in a calm rational manner I will respond to you. If you come here to argue I will report you again. By the way your whole theory is flawed since the articles were nominated 2 days ago, also it's not up to you to remove templates even if was past 5 days.Ridernyc 11:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with this situation. I made you a thank-you gift. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is the boss of Wikipedia.

LOL, that's awesome. I love the way he keeps saying I was being nasty and mena to him when all I did was use templates. Ridernyc 11:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Residents king and I.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Residents king and I.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 15:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Ridernyc_sandbox

Signshare

I have been trying to talk to you for a little while, I just wanted to apologize for what I said to you earlier, really my content and how I said it, but I still meant everything that I said and please just give me time on my articles because I find out more and more and I make a hell of a page out of, or try to. Signshare October 26, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signshare (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Demondancealone.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Demondancealone.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 05:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Fair!

No fair! I created that Moms (TV show and I really put my all into it? Whatever made you want to delete it? Girl With An Attitude 09:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what the are you talking about? Ridernyc 09:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Humans

The result of the AfD was to keep. Please fix the cites as noted on the talk page of the article. Bearian 15:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 18:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: WP:Plot

That sounds reasonable to me. So far, I have been mentioning WP:N a lot and added WP:SOURCE and WP:CRUFT as back-up. I'll be sure to add that to the list of things to mention.

I do not think mentioning WP:PLOT would be necessary for the current AfDs, but I will be sure to use it for the next ones, thanks. IAmSasori 00:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on your Warcraft AFD comments

I notice that you've cut and pasted largely the same Delete !vote across a sizable number of Warcraft AFDs. As regards these comments, I have three questions which I think would help me understand your point of view on this topic:

Is it your opinion that no plot elements and characters in the Warcraft series of games and books are sufficiently notable for their own articles?
Is it your opinion that any video game series contain characters or plot elements notable enough for their own articles? If so, which might those be?
Is it your opinion that any works of fiction contain characters or plot elements notable enough for their own articles? As a few examples: Should some of the characters listed in Category:Noldor be deleted? Category:Harry Potter? Category:James Bond characters?

Thanks for your time, JavaTenor 07:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my option that WP:Plot states that there should only bne briefs plot summaries with real world context. There no plot elements should ever have articles of there own that do not contain real world context. And yes I do not think that any warcraft character has any notability at all. I think maybe a few of the major characters could have some slight real world context written into there articles. But doubt they are notable enough to merit there own articles. The issue is less about notability and more about the warcraft articles being nothing more then a massive plot summary. Ridernyc 15:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Icky cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Icky cover.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 08:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOTD proposal

You either voted on the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sockpuppet accusation

{{sockpuppet|IAmSasori|evidence=Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/IAmSasori

I found no merit in TheKillerAngel's accusation of sockpuppetry and closed IAmSasori SSP. -- Jreferee t/c 18:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faxlore

Over the past couple days, I have put a bit of effort into sprucing up the faxlore article I created a couple years ago, adding many sources, removing a bit of editorializing, expanding it in parts, adding inline citations, and general cleanup. I hope it's established by now that it isn't something I just made up. :)

At any rate, I'd like to begin to merge the stub at photocopylore to here, and discuss which title is best to comprehensively treat this sort of material. Might be pointless to do that while faxlore has an active AfD. So I thought I'd drop you a note asking if you'd be willing to reconsider. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Your tagging of Hulk (comics)

The article has undergone a humongous rewrite since you tagged it, please review and remove any tags no longer applicable. Here is the appropriate diff to the most recent version. Ibelieve that while 'toolong' may apply still, or may not, given the more OutOfUniverse tone and scholarly works (Citations added a lot of bytes), the cleanup and copyediting tags are probably unneeded. Thank you for this review. ThuranX 14:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is still a problem in that the last year of the Hulks history has more written about it then the entire history of the hulk. 23:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There are also still major problems like the following:

In issue #377, David revamped the Hulk again, using a storyline involving hypnosis to have the splintered personalities of Banner and Hulk synthesize into a new Hulk who has the vast power of the Savage Hulk, the cunning of the gray Hulk, and the intelligence of Bruce Banner.
In the 1993 Future Imperfect limited series, Peter David and George Perez introduced readers to the Hulk of a dystopian future. Calling himself “The Maestro”, Hulk rules over a world where most of the heroes have been killed, and only Rick Jones and a small band of rebels fight against The Maestro’s rule. Although The Maestro seemed to be destroyed at the end of the mini-series, he has appeared since, returning in ‘’The Incredible Hulk’’ issue 460, also written by David.
In 1998, David followed editor Bobbie Chase's suggestion to kill Betty Ross. In the introduction to the Hulk trade paperback Beauty and the Behemoth, David said that his wife had recently left him, providing inspiration for the storyline. Marvel executives used Ross' death as an opportunity to push the idea of bringing back the Savage Hulk. David disagreed, leading to his and Marvel's parting ways. His last issue of Hulk was #467, his one-hundred and thirty-seventh.
Also in 1998, Marvel relauched the The Rampaging Hulk title, this time in a standards comic book format, instead of as a comics magazine.

Sometimes the history is referred to in years, which is a good thing, sometimes in issues #'s, a bad thing since the number is somewhat meaningless. The next section is also hard to follow because someone has broken the flow of the prose witht hat tacked on and un-needed "Also in 1998.."

The someone was me; I was looking for a way to distinguish that that event was outside the publication history of the regular comic, but contemporaneous. I did a major overhaul of the page, which is clear from examining the history. Here's a diff, which now includes some of your suggestions. here. Please review again, and if you've got a better suggestion for phrasing that part about the revamped rampaging Hulk in the article, please share it, so I can get those tags off, and start towards a GA review. ThuranX 04:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a pretty major gap in the history is the first thing I notice. The article jumps from 1971 to the 1990's. The amount of detail and coverage given to the more recent storylines is also an issue I have with most comic book articles. The Planet Hulk and World War hulk section should probably just be cut out, theres no real world context and seems like to much emphasis is being placed on a current storyline. Moving on to the character analysis secretions. The first paragraph of Bruce Banner is fine, the second paragraph crosses the line into unreferenced original research. The Hulk section needs major work, much of this seems like it should be and is covered in other sections of the article, again it also is losing itself in details. It also suffers from the problem of no flow since it seems like it's just somewhat random paragraphs that different editors have tacked on. This section is also starting to cross the line to being just a plot summary. All in all I think there has been major progress since the last time I looked at it. But the article still has issues. Ridernyc 06:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn' jump that way at all, just the headings. Unfortunately, Comics also suffer in general from teh problem that only in the last 10 years or so has analysis of the form come into the area of legit research, so examinations in the literature tend to focus on the genesis of a character, or recent events as relate to wider social change. Finding good references to the 1980s stuff is tough; Hulk's easier in fact, because of Peter David's long run, but filling in what came before is not; lots of writer turnover and episodic stuff doesn't get as much examination. I'd like to shorten the PH and WWH, but that's such a magnet for recentism writers that removing or shortening it causes edit wars, consensus is it's got to be there, no matter how much i'd love to fold it into one small section. As for unreferenced original research, no, I've given examples and such throughout, it's just a matter of finding external references, if needed, which the other four reviewers didn't feel was needed. As to the Hulk section, I was tryying to balance brevity, a non-need for persona by persona litanies, and so on. I wrote all of those, so it's not 'tacked on'. Tryign to write about a character with MPD over 40 years in a wikipage requires some cuting and brevity. If you've got some actual suggestions, I'd love to hear them. ThuranX 13:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you don't want an honest review then don't ask for one. Just so you know everything needs references. Ridernyc 21:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want an honest review, but not one that spends time just insulting my efforts. Only things which are contested, or controversial, need citations. And I AM asking you for help, not just a list of things you think are wrong, but suggestions for actual improvement. I'll work on sourcing the character, and on the 1980s, but if you've actually got ways you'd see it changed, I'd like to either see you trying to institute them directly, or explain them here for me to work on. Thank you. ThuranX 21:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did you down the line dismissed all of them. Ridernyc 22:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Your recent peer review request (Concept album) is incomplete. If you wish to get feedback you should complete the nomination procedure (see WP:PR). Thanks. DrKiernan 11:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Problem Solved

You read the talk page? You followed the links given on the page?

Just letting you know I'm removing the {{prod}}. Cheers. Alastair Haines 11:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ridernyc, it's still in need of getting fleshed out, but I assure you I'll be working to get it up to par. The "see also" section has a relevant similar shirt. This t-shirt generated a lot of controversy for its implication of violence against women and was withdrawn from thousands of stores. but more to come on that.... :) ~Eliz81 ^(C) 22:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Gedlek Nadine

Nice work !! Pedro : Chat 12:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

found one just going through new pages, then noticed how many pages he hade made for products from the same company. Ridernyc 12:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I've deleted the article by the sockpuppet as well. Pedro : Chat 13:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you look the main article that they all linked from has been edited by a ton of sockpuppets/meatpuppets. Ridernyc 13:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burmese film

Hi Google is a very useful friend but not as complete as you might expect. Burma is missing content from the Internet for a reason as you may know or may not. Apparently the country has had a major film industry with the Myanmar Academy Awards held annually since 1952. According to imdb the country has only ever produced 1 film. In fact in truth it had produced several thousand. This is where a Burmese wikipedian (User:Ekyaw) comes in useful. Often there a lack of distinct Internet sources on this subject ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Warrior Epic

Hello, I am trying to figure out what it is that I need to do to the Warrior Epic Wiki to make it conform to the standards. The "editor talk" is over my head, please assist. 16:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)