User talk:TransUtopian

This user may have left Wikipedia. TransUtopian has not edited Wikipedia since 19 November 2011. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade

Re: Metadata[edit]

That information is added automatically when the image is uploaded. --tomf688^{talk} 00:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Keep section[edit]

Sorry, it took me a while to move it. I was doing some reading on fair use. It's there now at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#Possible_keep --Nv8200p (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Political Graveyard logo[edit]

Thanks for the heads-up -- I posted to the discussion page about that image. Is there more that I need to do to prevent the image from being deleted? Kestenbaum 19:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Stargate Fan[edit]

What's Stargate? ;) Love the show. I've never seen Starhunter. PrometheusX303 14:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love Jack and Daniels little interactions too! The character developement in the show is great. Jack doesn't seem too bright sometimes, but is witty and intelligent when he wants to be. Daniel and Teal'c have their funny moments too. I also like the fact that Jack is a Simpsons fan. PrometheusX303 13:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Gibraltar[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. Sometimes unprotection doesn't "take" for whatever reason. It's fixed now. Thanks again. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block icon[edit]

That is actually Drini's creation. ;)--Shanel 04:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Current Events talk move[edit]

I was hesitant to move it back because I wasn't sure if that was normal or not, and wasn't sure how to do it and preserve history, as I've never moved before. Yeah, I'll probably read up on it eventually. TransUtopian 02:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Most standard moves can be done by clicking the move tab at the top of the page. joturner 02:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your suggestion on current events about the region specific articles being made more prominent. Not sure how to change the template though myself either. Kurando | ^_^ 09:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot2's current events edit[edit]

Simply, it wasn't. The bot had a malfunction when a code edit was applied to the live version over a testing version. The bot was stopped right away and all of the edits were reverted. Sorry about the confusion -- Tawker 04:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the bot will only revert in the main article namespace, unless we start archiving articles, it won't happen :) -- Tawker 19:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits[edit]

Hey, thanks for pointing that out; I guess I've just ignored that ever since I made every edit minor by default in my preferences. I removed the Aung San Suu Kyi photo from the Politics section of the Myanmar article due to objections made by 2 users. I've been trying to gain support to make the Myanmar article featured (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myanmar), and it seems that some users do not feel that the photo be there. If you'd like to argue for the photo, please do so. Thanks. Hintha 03:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work![edit]

➨ **ЯEDVERS** awards this Barnstar to **TransUtopian** for general small improvements that makes us better and makes for a better Wikipedia for our readers.

Show Hide on GA[edit]

FYI - I've left a note on the page where you asked the question, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Show.2FHide_template, cheers. SeanMack 22:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Joe Lieberman[edit]

Your recent edit to Joe Lieberman (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 13:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:I liked it[edit]

Thanx. Yea, I'm healed now, I've just got some little pink spots on my knee and elbow. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 00:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with the Moscow-City page. XAKxRUSx 05:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Cuban transfer of presidential duties[edit]

Thanks for restoring the bottom half of the page. I think I must have been caught by the Google toolbar bug. Cheers! Pburka 15:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The occult and paranormal etc.[edit]

Oops. It's War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy, Mainstream Publishing, 2002. ISBN 1-84018-631-3 Masalai 01:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She meant that the servants were all gay. As to the "quips and humour," well...maybe that has more character, but really: they're pretty bland, don't you think?Masalai 03:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, true, but you ought to have seen how the article looked a while back when it appeared substantially to have been written by contributers to the Women's Weekly, circa 1951 ("She had a never complain, never explain attitude that carried her through many heartaches" and like that). Masalai 04:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wildly committed to the bare-as-bones "Quotations" rather than "Reported quips and humour"; if you think it's really better, go ahead. My effort was calculated to tone down the breathlessness of previous drafts without descending to the mildly silly criticisms that some seem to delight in inserting. Possibly "Reported quips" as a compromise? Masalai 14:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand (not to leave a dead horse unkicked) characterising the quotations as humour, quips, etc. somewhat prevents one from adding un-humorous quotations. I was just about to add the business about President Jimmy Carter kissing her and her reacting that nobody had done that since her husband died. Which is not exactly funny, but is nonetheless entertaining -- especially for those of us who found Jimmy Carter mildly cringe-making when he was in office.Masalai 18:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging down admins[edit]

Hi TransUtopian: I noticed your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moogle Mafia about "flagging down" admins. There are a number of ways to get administrator attention, depending on the circumstance. For WP:AFD's, there's no need to contact anyone, they will be closed within a few days: often there is a great backlog that takes a while to clear. For other things, the administrator's noticeboard is a good place to get admin attention, or you can just contact an active admin from this list directly (or you could just contact me :-) —Mets501 (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the headsup. If I looked at AfD's more than a few days past freshness, I'd probably see they're all closed. Didn't think of it. I know some are relisted if there's not much discussion, but I didn't know if some slip through the cracks considering 100-200 per day. I knew about WP:AN but not WP:LOA, so thanks for that too! TransUtopian 15:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Basically no AFDs ever slip through the cracks, because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old is maintained by a bot, saying exactly how many AFDs are still open on a given day. —Mets501 (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Prescott - controversies[edit]

Thank you for renaming the section links; I forgot to do that. BlueValour 16:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ernesto[edit]

Whoops, thanks for changing that caption back. That was an error on my part, and I forgot to fix it. :) --Core des at talk. ^_^ 21:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers of PMs[edit]

I can't cite, because, obviously, it's impossible to prove a negative. But, apart from the fact that it's just never done, it's an essentially silly thing to do with British Prime Ministers — the position wasn't even official until 1905, and before that there is often extreme doubt as to who, if anyone was, Prime Minister, and if certain short-lived ministries or attempted ministries really count. Saying "X was Prime Minister" is sometimes dodgy enough, without being so absolutely certain as to assign a number to him. Proteus (Talk) 15:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: sprotect[edit]

Usually, on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (which is from where I made the protections you mentioned). For particularly urgent cases, WP:AN or WP:AN/I, although if it's that urgent, you've generally been beaten to it. John Prescott has already been sprotected. -Splash - tk 00:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calderon[edit]

No, you first. See Talk:Vicente Fox and WP:AN/I in a few minutes. I suggest you read WP:BLP from start to finish. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 19:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florence pictures[edit]

Sorry, I produce a complete new infobox from a spreadsheet any time, for speed and (I thought) reliability - and I hadn't noticed there was a new image. I'll get it right next time.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 06:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Ann-Richards-Senate-photo.jpg[edit]

An image that was uploaded or altered, Image:Ann-Richards-Senate-photo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Angr 08:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did you locate that image? It's really nice and looks official, but I can't find a link to it, aside from the direct one you provided, in the News section or via search on Senator Dorgan's site. I didn't list it for deletion, but the person who did does have a point. If it can be verified it's a work of the US federal government, it's PD. State governments aren't carte blanche PD, from what I understand. TransUtopian 22:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TransUtopian. If that Senate image is causing trouble, I can create another equivalent image quickly, as a closeup portrait. Let me know. That image of Ann Richards was displayed on a webpage that U.S. Senator Dorgan used to announce a conference event about Women's Health; a similar announcement also occurred at WHWL ("Women's Health ~ Women's Lives") [on the Whwl.org webpage: WHWL-Speakers2005]; however, the similar image of Ann Richards at WHWL is only 7865 bytes, not the same hi-resolution file size as the image on Senator Dorgan's website. The Senate photo seems to be a full-size PR photo perhaps distributed for Ann Richards by her entourage, but I could not find any webpage that claimed a copyright for that photo, and I cannot verify the origin of that photo. Again: I can create another equivalent image quickly from a public-domain photo, as a closeup portrait. Let me know. Thanks. -Wikid77 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your comments on talk north korea[edit]

you said you found info on 2 political parties from the CIA world factbook, I'm not sure what the world factbook is, but isnt the CIA the United State's secret police? how can they be trusted to provide neutral facts on a country the US opposes?--Frogsprog 13:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WestWing-stub[edit]

Your welcomme.--Pixel ;-) 23:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Question[edit]

I use vandalfighter but only for specific purposes, most of the time I use Lupin's scripts, other java scripts and the IRC channel (irc.freenode.net #vandalism-en-wp). Pretty much every javascript can be found at WP:JS. For starters, try to use this script, very useful for anti-vandalism activities. If you have questions feel free to leave a message on my talk page. --Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 04:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too lazy to maintain my userbox page, it's all filled with broken scripts and substituted templates, etc. ;) --Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 13:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two[edit]

"Two Strikes" is not (yet) an official policy. It's my personal policy, and one that I've encouraged other admins to adopt. You're correct in that it's a simplified way of expressing "placing the blatantvandal and test4 templates on a user's talk page within minutes of each other and having the person vandalise again a couple minutes later". Template:Two may provide some illumination; note the somewhat informal language. DS 12:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Cole[edit]

Nice catch on the IMDb deletion. My bad. Desertsky85451 19:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarak[edit]

Thanks for the citation. But is it a fact or just rumors? what do you think? :). --TheEgyptian 06:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I never heard about it, neither any of my family members or my friends. But in case that was true, I guess it would be a good subject for the Egyptian media. Anyway, I was just interested to know. :) .

--TheEgyptian 06:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tennessean[edit]

I think I was actually referring to our article on the Los Angeles Times, which used a similar description of political position at the time. Deltabeignet 17:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Vandals[edit]

Many thanks for the helpful advice. Together we will fight the scumbags who vandalise this work !!! Pete Orme 10:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User block question[edit]

Hey, there. The blocking policy is a little fuzzy on the matter, by my understanding -- there are admins out there who will indefblock an account if its first two edits are vandalism, and there are those who treat new accounts just as they would an IP, starting with 24/31 hour blocks. I think in my case, it depends on how malicious the user seems. Which I suppose is pretty subjective. It was once suggested that the real purpose of indeffing vandalism-only accounts was to break up their contribs; if they can only ever get a few edits in before being blocked, no one will ever have the misfortune of mistaking them for experienced users. Or something like that. It rarely ever hurts to report a vandal to AIV -- even if they're not blocked, they'll frequently at least get watched and/or warned. So, with that in mind, it's always good to see somebody patrolling for vandals. :) Thanks for that, I think it's important. Regards, Luna Santin 15:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publicmind.com[edit]

Do you know why this page has been deleted? Why is there not record of notice of it going to be deleted? Thanks. --Zaurus 22:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did you fill this cite template?[edit]

Hi, thanks for adding a citation for the 1988 publication of We in the USSR. That newspaper review was already in the References section, but the one you added had more detail so I copied it there.

How did you fill this cite template? I have been laboriously filling them manually using copy and paste, but wondered if Template:Wikicite and Template:Wikiref are the preferred means. --Jtir 17:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring good edit in Thaksin Shinawatra[edit]

Thanks for restoring that good edit in Thaksin Shinawatra. I had missed that one. Patiwat 00:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

glasnost in the USSR explains the 1988 publication of We (novel) there[edit]

Hi, glasnost in the USSR resulted in many literary classics being published there during 1988-1989:

Tall, Emily (1990). "Behind the Scenes: How Ulysses was Finally Published in the Soviet Union". Slavic Review. 49 (2): 183–199. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |quotes= and |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Far down in footnote 1, We (with the translitered title My) is said to have been published in 1989, not 1988.

--Jtir 15:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Astronomical vandalism?[edit]

Why did you block User talk:198.83.126.254? I don't see any obvious vandalism after 3 October, unless my only basic knowledge of astronomy prevents me from preceiving the vandalism to the various topics today. (If you're wondering why I'm asking, I saw this reported on AIV when I reported someone else, and am surprised/confused by this block.) TransUtopian 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for your enquiry! The reason for the blocking is becuase the IP editor was adding many unsourced and unverified references to astronomical articles, such as [1], [2] and [3] to the Astronomical object article. The reason that these edits are vandalism is because the article doesn't mix hypothetical objects with measured and studied objects. Hypothetical objects should be listed in List of hypothetical astronomical objects instead. The same with this edit, which mixes the now-disproven with the actual objects in the Saturnian system. The reason why this is a block and not a blatantvandal warning is because of the extent of the edits and that the IP editor has received repeated final warnings but has still persisted. If they choose to use the unblock function and can make a reasonable case as to the validity of their edits then the block can be lifted. I am quite prepared to admit fault if the evidence can be presented to me but the evidence that I have shown above leads me to believe otherwise. Regards, (aeropagitica) 18:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that the edits to Astronomical object are antithetical to the first sentence on that page, but are the edits to the other pages also vandalism? For example, the Saturn's natural satellites diff adds a disproven body to one already there. Should that be reverted (it's still top) or the sentence removed? There's several other edits that haven't been reverted that I'm not sure if they're good or bad.

Also, the repeated final warnings resulted from ten edits around 01:00 UTC 3 October, such as this one. The IP's talk page history shows no warning or discussion with the user re: the Astronomical object edits. Those and this one were bad, but the others, including one which was reverted, seem like good edits.

I'm also quite prepared to admit fault not being certain the other edits are good or at least good faith, or if there's something else I'm missing, but please consider what I've said. TransUtopian 18:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points. It is possible that not all of the edits are vandalistic in intent or result; it is possible that they were all made in good faith. The point about contributing to Wikipedia is that that the contributions are backed-up by sources, references and citations, where appropriate. The block was made on the basis of systematic inclusion of theoretical astronomical bodies in an article about actual astronomical bodies. The systematic nature of the edits demonstrates intent and subtle vandalism is still vandalism.

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. No one can do everything. What we can do is to check our facts and also ensure that our edits are made appropriately. If you have a question about an editor's decision, you can either ask the editor directly or be bold and confirm or revert the edit based upon reliable sources that you have checked. The burden of proof is upon the editor including the facts. If they cannot supply a reliable source for their assertions then the facts can be questioned by anyone. All articles are open for review all the time. You are not at fault for questioning some edits rather than others. You are also not at fault for either attempting to verify questionable edits or marking those edits as requiring verification by other editors. Regards, (aeropagitica) 21:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Alexandria riot[edit]

Hi there. I'm checking about your opinion about the latest edits by Groggy Dice for the article 2005 Alexandria riot, as you made the latest edits just before him. The refrence says: Three people have died during a riot outside a Coptic church in Alexandria, Egypt, after a protest against a play accused of offending Islam. So it's not an anti-Christian riot...and not "felt", but it's a fact.

Thanks for your concern. --TheEgyptian 00:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Cablevision vandal edits[edit]

Sorry, I was asleep by the time you posted on my talk page. I see that the vandal appears to have stopped for now, anyway. Soft blocks don't always work because the "recently used IP" autoblock can also kick in. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, not that I can tell from the options given. Maybe I'm just being ignorant and stupid, though. If you do find out it's possible, let me know. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Lost characters[edit]

Greetings. Five images of characters from Lost (TV show) were listed on WP:CP. I replaced the copyright tags, and gave a fair use rationale for each. I believe it is a fair use of the images to use them in articles about the fictional characters -- howevery, it is not "fair use" to use the same images in articles about the actors. (This is because anyone could take a photo of the actor and release it under a free license; but a photo of the character would violate HBO's copyright no matter what.) For this reason, I kept the images, but removed them from articles about the actors.

Unfortunately, two of the images, Image:Lost-claire.jpg and Image:Lost-jin.jpg, are now orphans. If these images are not used in articles about the characters, they will be deleted in seven days. (The articles Claire Littleton and Jin-Soo Kwon exist and have an image already each, although the images are incorrectly tagged.) Do what you will.

Just keeping you in the loop. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. You asked why the images of the characters didn't qualify as "fair use" in the pages about the actors. That's a good question, and the answer is complicated.

As you well know, Claire Littleton is a fictional character. There is no way to illustrate her that would not violate Touchstone's copyright. (I assume it's Touchstone that hold's the copyright.) Even if you drew a picture of her yourself -- in fact, even by describing her -- you're violating Touchstone's copyright. That's not a problem, of course, because that would clearly be "fair use" under U.S. law ("fair dealing" in Australia). But the point is, there is no possible way that anyone could create a picture of Claire Littleton that would be truly "free".

Now the actress, Emilie de Ravin, is a real person. Using the image of her playing Claire Littleton would legally be "fair use" under U.S. copyright law, but on the other hand, it would be possible to take a photo of her (or draw a picture of her) and release it under a free license. A free replacement image might exist, and if none exist, one could be created.

Until recently, Wikipedia had a fairly permissive attitude about fair use. But recently, the rules have tightened up. If a free image exists or could be created, then even if it would be very difficult to create that fair image, we can't use a non-free one. We used to keep the non-free one until a free one is found, but not anymore. That's why we can't use the Emilie image to illustrate what Claire looks like.

All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. One more thing. You'll note that the Emilie article contains an image of her playing Brenda in The Hills Have Eyes. Why is that okay, you may wonder? The answer is that the image in the article is obviously not being used to illustrate what the actress looks like. It's in the "filmography" section, not the lead. It isn't in the actor infobox. It isn't even large. So yes, it would be possible to use the image of Claire in the Emilie article so long as it is clearly being used to illustrate the character, and not the actress. (It can't be in the infobox, or at the top, etc.) This may seem like a fine line, but the principle is that you can't use a non-free image to illustrate what a free image could illustrate. Make sense? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Could be created"? Can you link me to the policy update for that please? TransUtopian 14:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It's at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria (included at Wikipedia:Fair use), right there at the top of criterion #1. Discussion is here. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College closeness[edit]

Hi:

I finally responded to your post from Monday. Sorry to have taken so long; Real Life^TM keeps intruding on my activities.

— DLJessup (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks re: rvv user talk pages[edit]

No prob. Thanks for reporting him (although someone else or myself would have reported such a troublesome person with glee). I honestly can't stand people like that ^^. Anyway, your welcome and happy editing! --Sasuke -kun27 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crustaceans[edit]

Wow, blast from the past! I forgot about that... :) Zagalejo 14:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panthera[edit]

Hi TransUtopian. Once you corrected my edits in lion. thank you. Can you have a quick view on Panthera, if that what I wrote is grammatically right? I changed something in the introduction, because the hyoid bone is not the reason for the ability to roar (Walkers mammals of the wordl). Thanks a lot.--Altaileopard 17:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Serena St Germaine.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Serena St Germaine.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 02:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London/Glasgow[edit]

Yep, sorry, my mistake - I realised I had put it in the wrong place after posting, but was unsure whether it was acceptable to edit talk pages after making a comment. Feel free to move the comment if that is allowed. Yeanold Viskersenn 03:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RV[edit]

Thanks for explaining that appreciate that!(Sparrowman980 04:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

TransUtopian[edit]

Hey, do you watch Starhunter (and is your username derived from the show)? Matthew 08:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Dresden files is pretty good, I'm just hoping they renew for a second season. I like Starhunter as well, at first I hated it, but it's grown on me over time. Hehe! Matthew 13:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Hatnotes[edit]

Who said my edit was vandalism? Do you have proof of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiwan88 (talk • contribs) 21:33, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

CSS template exclusion[edit]

I've fixed your user CSS setup. This was accomplished by fixing the code slightly and moving the page to the intended title, User:TransUtopian/monobook.css. Note that this code will only take effect while you use the default "monobook" skin – if you want to use the Modern skin or other alternative you'll need to copy the code to modern.css or an equivalent. I was only able to effect this change because I have administrative privileges; only you and administrators can edit your .css and .js files. If you have any further problems, feel free to let me know. Nihiltres^{t.l} 04:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A special thank you for the code fixing, administrative page moving and explanation! TransUtopian (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your Message[edit]

Text adventures + Doctor Who, what could be better? ^_^ Thanks for your compliment! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 21:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Feel Sunny:)[edit]

I just thought to say hello - before we start to argue on WP news portal:) I would also propose we discuss some points more privately and with more goodwill and not starting edits war.FeelSunny (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:RE: Blagojevich[edit]

Copied from my talk page, no response required

Hey folks, since there's two users in this talk I'll just thread this here. I promoted it to ITN on the reasoning that the removal of a state executive is, IMO, notable whether the subject himself is or not (though I'd figure it is inherent). Seemed obvious to me that this was more than Wikinews, which is why I skipped the discussion phase.

As to the portal, thanks for letting me know, I was not aware of the duplication being needed in the editing, I thought it was transcluded. Learn something new every day ;)

And lastly, I still think that it should be on the main page. While I can understand Spencer's logic in that it needs more information to make it encyclopedic and not just news, I personally don't think that anymore should or could be added to the article on the Blagojevich scandal at the time and it is a pretty descriptive article.

No matter it all, thanks for the input and the learning opportunity from all three. Keegan^talk 06:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Television program[edit]

Television program has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 17:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Astley jones.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Astley jones.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please remove the tag.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]