Misplaced Pages

User talk:Otto4711: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:38, 24 September 2007 editILike2BeAnonymous (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,861 edits →"Tonstant Weader fwowed up": new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:58, 12 October 2024 edit undoZ1720 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators29,806 edits Joan Crawford listed for good article reassessment (GAR-helper) 
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT]
==Welcome==
'''Welcome!'''


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the ], where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type '''<code>{&#123;helpme}}</code>''' on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 22:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
Here are a few good links for newcomers:
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 02:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me or a helper ] on our talk page. Again, welcome!

If you want to tell me something or if you just want to say hi, leave your message under the '''Talk Section''' of

] 21:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

There's a page I want to split but I can't find step-by-step instructions on how to do it, to make sure that existing links point to the split-off page, etc.
:: What's the page, and what's the kind of splitting you want to do? -- <small> ]</small> 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:::], I want to split the section on Katya Derevko off onto its own page and make sure all the links which currently redirect to Irina get pointed to the new page.] 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Also I would like to know how to insert the Character chart that's found at the bottom of the Irina page into the new page and how to add characters to the chart.] 21:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, take a look at ].

I'm not advocating the splitting of the article - perhaps an ''Alias'' wiki (that deals just with ''Alias'') is what you are looking for.

To do the split you just create the new article. You would need to check the "What links here" for the ] page (available in the toolbox, under the search bar) to fix any links. The "Character chart" is a template available at ]. Any change to the template will affect all pages it's used on - so discuss on the talk page first.--] 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

== OK, I give up ==

How do I add something to a category page, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Fictional_technology

:To add a page to that category you do not edit the category page itself. You add ''<nowiki>]</nowiki>'' at the bottom of the article you want to add. Check out any article, eg ], to see how categories are added.--] 07:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

==TAR==
Hello Otto...thanks for your note. I guess the 'issue' about Frankenberry is that there are multiple editors of the page all of whom don't recall this nickname. As I stated, I've just rewatched all the episodes (not because of this!) and don't hear it. If it is in there once, does that constitue a real nickname? If I am hearing Fran N' Barry but they said Frankenberry once...does that truly need to be in the page. I guess that will be a discussion point. As you might have seen I have reopened the discussion on the TAR discussion page. With regards to having to 'prove' this, all the other nicknames are easily recalled by multiple editors thus there wasn't a need to specify an episode/timestamp. Those nicknames were used continously in multiple episodes by multiple teams. ] 12:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

==]==
I added those comments you made about Claudia to the article, which could give us an indication of what could happen during the series' run, which means we could see more models with related LGBT ties or other personal issues. ] 18:36 (UTC) 26 June 2006

==Production Staff==
What production staff are you talking about that have appeared in 2 out of 3 hours of Treasure Hunters?]<sup>]</sup><small>]</small><sub>]</sub> 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:The medical guy in episode 2 and the rescue divers and other production people who were hovering around the Browns in Hawaii.] 19:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
::And this amounts to two whole hours how?]<sup>]</sup><small>]</small><sub>]</sub> 19:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:::There have been three hours of programming. Production staff appeared in hour one of programming and hour three of programming. I didn't say they appeared in "two whole hours" of the show. That doesn't even make sense.
::::Production staff are also in TAR a lot. There are production people at a zipline which I think was in season 7. Another instince was season 9 when Fran was having a hard time bungee jumping. Also, the most obvious is also season seven when Brian and Greg flip their van and the camera guy is lying on the ground.]<sup>]</sup><small>]</small><sub>]</sub> 20:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::I didn't say that TAR staff are never seen on-camera. I said that the producers take pains not to break the 4th wall. See the trivia section for ] where it talks about how TAR goes as far as digitally removing members of the crew in post-production.

Honestly, I don't really care all that strongly about that particular item. I do think it's a somewhat significant difference between the two shows and it's worth including, and obviously I would prefer that it stay, but if it truly, truly bugs you so much to have it in the article then I'm not going to fuss if it gets deleted.] 20:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

== Reversion of special characters ==

Why when I edit articles do special characters (arrows, accented characters) sometimes suddenly spontaneously turn into question marks? See for example ] in which a minor edit by me nowhere near any of them caused every arrow and accented character on the page to mutate. ] 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
:It's most likely the browser you're using, or the ] that your browser is using at the moment. Have you tried changing the encoding to Unicode ]? --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><nowiki>]</sup>|<sub>]</sub></font>] 21:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

== What's up with this redirect -or- Here I thought I was being so clever ==

So I thought I would cleverly use an existing page to start a new article since the existing page was no longer necessary but instead I somehow both created the article and turned the existing page into a redirect which I can't get pointed to the right place. ] should either be deleted or redirected to ] but I can't make it happen. What am I doing wrong? ] 12:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

:] does redirect to ]. Repost a {{tl|helpme}} if you can clarify your problem.--] 13:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
:: Weird. It was pointing to the film page last night and today on two different browsers on two different computers. Oh well, thanks anyway. ] 13:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Just glancing over your talk page. You might have already been told this by now, but Misplaced Pages uses ] servers which essentially hold a slightly-out-of-date copy of Misplaced Pages in a computer that stands between you and the database. So sometimes you will make an edit and it is accepted, but the cache server in the middle doesn't get the new information yet and it continues to present an old copy of Misplaced Pages to you. Next time it looks like you might be experiencing this, follow the instructions at ] and it should clear up. Later, &mdash;&nbsp;] ] &mdash; 17:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

== Playing card symbols ==

Trying to insert card suit symbols into ] and it's not working. I used the notation in the article ] as my guide and I thought I did it right, but apparently not. ] 02:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:Looks like you need the semicolons: &clubs; &hearts; &diams; &spades; (or, &amp;clubs; &amp;hearts; &amp;diams; &amp;spades;). =D ] 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

== Filing complaint against admin? ==

How does one file a complaint or grievance against a moderator who's breaking rules, being uncivil and making false accusations? ] 21:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:The first thing you should do is bring it up with the administrator in question. I don't know what the situation is, but it could be a misunderstanding, or someone who is stressed and didn't really mean it and would apologize anyway. I would be happy to look at it. If it is very severe, or that has failed, bring it up at ]. You would need to cite URLs where the offending behavior can be found. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 21:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
::This looks like a content dispute. Neither of you should be reverting; and it doesn't accomplish anything. Just talk it out on the discussion page. His comments here were uncivil, but admonishing people and threatening blocks is unfriendly and not productive. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 22:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

== DYK ==

{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
|]
|On ], ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ].
|} <!-- ], ] --> --] <b><sup><small>(] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ])</small></sup></b> 18:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

==The Heap==
Good comics history, man! Kudos on your edits here! -- ] 04:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

== Comments ==

Otto4711-
# Thanks for the work on ].
# I noticed that you removed comments on a few films... why?
# Please remember to use edit summaries.

Thanks and keep up the good work- ] 22:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

==Superhero television programs==
One problem with your freshly created category is that some eligible items under the DC Comics and Marvel Comics subcategories are not about superheroes. MadTV (based on the DC Comics publication Mad) is not a superhero program. Men in Black (from a company owned by Marvel Comics) is not a superhero program. ] 08:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)



== Smile! ==

<div style="float:center;border-style:solid;border-color:blue;background-color:AliceBlue;border-width:1px;text-align:left;padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]

{{{1|] ] ]}}} has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. <small>Smile at others by adding {{tls|smile}}, {{tls|smile2}} or {{tls|smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.</small> Happy editing! {{{2|}}}
</div><!-- Template:smile -->
Wel done on your recent edits to the Wicked article - I think there's still a lot to be done though!--] ] ] 13:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)



== comment of the day (uhh, my awards review process takes a week, see) ==

]
] aaaaaahhhahahahaahaha you slayed me, Otto. It's a good thing I wasn't sipping my coffee when I read that. &mdash;&nbsp;] ] &mdash; 06:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

==]==
Death By Google - what a classic, by far the best Afd quote I have ever seen!! Keep it up ;-) ]<sup>See ] or ]</sup> 23:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

==Jason Bellini and Will Wikle pages==

A heads up, as you've edited one and, I think, started the other -- both pages are completely devoid of sourcing, and one included alleged quotes that needed to be removed until they are properly sourced as per ]. If you're interested, I'd recommend you take a look and consider helping improve them? ] 20:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

== CfD nominations ==

Looking at some of your CfD nominations (many of which I agree with), it looks like some people raise objections because you do not provide a complete justification. You may want to write in more extended justifications so that people understand the nomination better. You may also want to link to previous discussions on similar categories; links to closed discussions would be better than links to open discussions.

I hope these suggestions are useful. ] 10:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)



== CFDs ==

Hey Otto4711 - We sometimes disagree on the CFDs but I wanted to say I appreciate you persistently making relevant points on the current LGBT-related CFDs. I'm really going to stay out of it as much as possible because I feel, strongly, that the CFDs are getting bogged down with a lot of people making nominations to make a point, or to implement their personal philosophies about the significance of particular identities. Nevertheless, even though I'm feeling frustrated with wikipedia process right now, I had resolved previously to give props to people when I could. Best, ] 04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

== Invitation. ==

Hello, I saw your edits to Gay USA and would like to invite you to join ] - we'd love to have you on board! ] (Have a nice day!) 22:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
:Come on, you just voted on my AfD, you know you want to ]... ] (Have a nice day!) 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
::We'd love to have your participation :) -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 17:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

== Searching for all categories with a common word in the name ==

{{tl|helpme}}
Is there a way to search for all existing categories based on a word or phrase in their names other than the leading words? ] 07:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

: If I read that correctly, you can do that by only checking the category box at the bottom of the search page, . --] 08:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)





== As goes the Thunderbolt Cat... ==

Since it's your nom there's a pair of umbrella cats you may want to look at and possibly include:

]
]

— ] 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)



==It's Time For Regis!==

Otto, aside from Be Bold, there are stips to not remove the AfD banner from the page. Should I just redirect and nuke the AfD, or let it go? --] 20:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)





==Name changes==
Please check out: ]. --]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 23:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

== AFD: List of films... US Marines ==

You have commented on the AFD discussion for ], the discussion can be viewed at ].

Following support for my suggestion, I have done a userspace rewrite of the article at ], with the rewritten article in the top half and the current article with annotations as to their inclusion or non-inclusion in the rewritten list.

I would like to request that you review the rewritten article, and if you think it is appropriate, amend your stance at the AFD discussion. -- ] 11:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

== grab the rope! ==

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The XfD Rescue Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Hi Otto. =) ] saved ] from deletion. Thanks for being a CfD "first responder". <span style="white-space: nowrap">— ]</span> ] — 05:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
|}


== Reporting disruption by editor ==

What is the proper procedure for reporting an editor engaging in disruptive conduct? ] 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:Hi. I am an administrator. What sort of disruptive conduct? Have you tried to resolve the problem directly with the editor you are concerned about? ] 02:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

== Want your opinion on something... ==

Found something during our spate of Comics related CfD noms that I need a second set of eyes on be for putting it up.

I checked the parents cats for the two subs for '''Comics creators by company'''. Marvel's (]) is pretty straight forward and should go. It's mostly execs, a few editors, and one artist. But Disney...

First it hits ], but the real bugger is the next parent up: ]... 58 cats.

Do we want to slowly eat through this or have a revisit of the "''Show'' cast/actors" CfD?

— ] 20:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

:True. And very true about Disney. Right now I'll just worry about the comics stuff. Between that and the net works at least a framework can be shown for the more egregious cats. — ] 20:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

== Empty than delete ==

We're not supposed to remove categories until they are empty, there's several helpful bots that take care of the emptying bit.
The format is pretty simple, just follow my lead ... all of the ones you have been doing will go under ], since that is really the discussion that applies. We're just doing the follow up paperwork to the Jan 25 decision. -- <i>] <sup>]</sup></i> 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

== You are not a vandal. ==

Otto4711, you didn't vandalize at all; I never said you did. All I said in my summaries was that you didn't discuss the change on the talk pages first. I was always taught that major changes should be discussed first. If you thought that I called you a vandal, I'm sorry. You are not a vandal. ] 16:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:I responded with: ''Listen, I'm sorry if I've been incivil. It wasn't my intention. I hope in the future we can work peacefully. I made a mess of the situation that just happened. I am sorry.''

:I should also add: I should have been more specific. I was foolish in making that error. ] 17:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

== Cologne? ==

Just a irrelevant question, are you from Cologne, Germany ? ] 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

== Move request for ] ==

I've gone ahead and reverted your move of ] from ] and moved your ] for ] to ] to incomplete move requests. ] says that when there is no clear primary usage for a word, then the disambiguation page may be located at that word so your move reason is not valid. Additionally, it is generally a good indicator that if you have to move an article off a title in order to move another article there that the move is not "Uncontroversial". You are more than welcome to submit a proper "Other" move request though. --] 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
:Heh. Sorry. The difference between the comment on ] and the message above was more of a timing and not wanting to leave a lengthy comment on ] than an attempt to make your actions appear "under handed". I've gone ahead and rewrote the comment I left on WP:RM. On the other hand, the manner in which you proceeded on the move request is not completely above board, but could very well have been an innocent transgression. Hope you have a better wikiexperience in the future. --] 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

== Smile! ==

<div style="float:center;border-style:solid;border-color:green;background-color:White;border-width:2px;text-align:left;padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]

Here's some ] for you! Penguins somehow in their own strange way promote ] and hopefully these Penguins have made your day seem even better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! <strong><font style="color: #082567"> ] 05:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC) </strong></font></div>

==List of Elvis Presley songs covered by other artists==
I've deprodded ] - its chequered history includes one failed prod and two AfDs, so we can't say deletion of it would be "uncontrovertial". I confess I don't quite understand the relationship of the AfDs to this article, so a specific nomination of this article specifically might not go amiss. -- ] | ] 15:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

== Mogul ==

Category:Film studio executives seemed to be the best-supported name. My bad, I mentioned it on CFD/W but not in the closing note. ] 14:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

== Recategorizing Meher Baba articles ==

Hi, can you give me please an idea of why you have changed most categorization of Meher Baba? If you have a categorizing scheme I would like to know, and try to work it out with you. Also some of Townsend's works are dedicated to Baba and you have removed the category. ] <small>]</small> 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, about categorizing as "works of" isn't any problem, as far I can tell. I'm sure Cott12 will agree to this. Yet some of the other exculsions were done a bit hasty. For example, the whole Sufi Reoriented was created by Meher Baba. ] as the current Murshida is directly related to Meher Baba. If St. Peter is in category Followers of Jesus, then maybe we should use the follower option. For another example, Mandali is a term in relation to this particular group, it is not just religious terminology but a group specific term, at least as far as the article presents it. Also a part of Townsend's work is very much connected, Townsend himself being one of the most famous (to the West world) followers of Baba. Part of his work is clearly rock, but part of his activities and songs are quite within the Baba sphere of topics. If not the parent category, some other related category would be quite appropriate. ] <small>]</small> 20:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Good evening (] time); you recently nominated the above article for deletion at ]. Further to the standard period of time of discussion, I have closed the Deletion Discussion on the article as '''Delete'''.

''Kind regards'',<br><span style="font-family: Verdana">]<sup><nowiki>]]</sup></span> 23:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

== Film categories ==

Speaking for myself, it's not "I like it", although I have doubts when I see isolated actions and not an overall plan. But I understand your point on CfD process and precedent. As said in my comment, I want to get to a useful and stable categorization. I do not want to see subgenre type categories for such groups of films either. I started the WP Films categorization department to get people to agree on what we are doing. This method may not be the most effective, but I think that if we try to work out a scheme that makes sense, we will be able to clean films overcategorization in a wide and relatively undisputed sweep. The problem of users that like creating categories for everything is workable if we have a clear "category-list-navigation" scheme that meets our needs. There is a much more serious problem on the very basics of categorization. Some want to have index-type "primary" categories, and others try to break everything down in specifics. I am trying to find a satisfactory combination of both, but it's not easy. And surely category cruft makes it all worse. If you wish to help me define a scheme, let me please know what you see useful and what you see as cruft in all of ], and I will try to make a wide proposal it in ]. There are people who can help create a consensus. ] <small>]</small> 19:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

==]==
Hello, I am contacting all non-anonymous editors who participated in the debate at ]. It has been very difficult achieving consensus on the appropriate scope of the article, and the use of the word ''Québécois'' in a series of articles proposed by one editor. I am requesting input at ]. ] 23:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

== Big Gay Sketch Show ==

I had noticed the deletion of the cast list, but though the person who did it didn't explain, it looks like they probably did it because that information is also in the info box on the page.--] 17:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

== "By city-by occupation" suggestion at ] ==

Hey Otto. After all the recent by-city cfds you nominated recently, I came to realize that there might be a good compromise on how to handle these. I spelled it out at ]. Feel free to let me know what you think. Basically the proposal is to use categories like "People from (city)" only as navigational hubs to related occupational categories. For example, ] should itself have any articles, but should instead simply be the parent category for navigation of related occupations like ]. That would eliminate the "phonebook" of articles for individual cities (ie listing articles by name only) but would retain the more useful subdivision of people by occupation and by city of practice (eg keeping all the New Orleans musicians or Los Angeles politicians as a distinct categories).

No need to reply here - just take a look and post your thoughts at ]. Cheers! ] 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

== Well ==

That RFA was surprisingly negative, even spiteful at times, and containing numerous ]s. Sorry for putting you through that, it was entirely not what I suspected. Here's one for not giving up.

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Tireless Contributor Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | ] 08:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
|}

== You are decimating Misplaced Pages ==
Hello...I'd just like to let you know that you are decimating Misplaced Pages by nominating any and all categories that you can find for deletion. You and 2-3 people end up deleting hundreds of categories that many people have worked on for a long time, not in the least limited to many of the TV show and family categories. I'd advise you to please end your deletion-mania. --] 13:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

==LGBT CfDs==

I'd like to get your take on why we should keep categories like ]. I'm not going to nominate them, so you don't assume I'm conducting some type of campaign against LGBT categories. I just want to discuss them. I'd also like to briefly discuss possibly pruning ] to only include people such as ] who make the so-called "gay films" and not people like ]. Then, I'll nominate whichever you and I agree on. ] 16:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
*Ok? :) ] 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
**Ok, so what about the pruning of the film directors cat? And I'm only considering nominating LGBT businesspeople for now. The rest seem ok in terms of intersections. ] 02:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
***] however is the only thing I can see holding up LGBT journalists if those journalists aren't like...writing for an LGBT oriented magazine or something. ] 02:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

== Editor's barnstar ==

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Editor's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I, Eyrian, am happy to present you with this editor's barnstar, for your tireless excellent work in trimming the trivial fat. --] 19:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
|}


== whoops, thanks ==

embarrassing! — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 21:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

== Smallville ==

the page was deleted just 3 days ago, and has been deleted several times. Just because someone held an AfD with an article, that wasn't even in the proper naming convention, only had like 4 people discussing it, and is still full of speculation, unreliable sources, and a summary of a season we already have doesn't mean it bypasses the deletion of the proper article. What was created as a ], and managed to slip by an AfD because it was improperly named and had limited participation. ] ] 14:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

==TPIR pricing games ==

What I was hoping to accomplish is to get people actually ''working'' towards something instead of just talking. AfD can have that effect: it's a debate, everyone debates, but often people are overly hesitant to take action. I agree, there was some discussion of a retired vs. non-retired solution but that didn't have consensus either, clearly. Hopefully if a discussion can be had where the point is how best to organize the articles, then that can be properly addressed. But none of the hoping for merging will go anywhere if no one actually puts together the more general articles. IMO, that can be done, at first, without redirecting the individual game articles. (BTW, I don't, myself, think the retired vs. non-retired idea is the best. Why wouldn't a simple break-up alphabetically be the best idea? Eg ], et cetera.) ]]<sup>]</sup> 19:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:One thought: some of the games seem to have changed over time, whereas others have "retired version" and "unretired version"s. To me, that distinction seems a little arbitrary. So there might be some overlap among the lists. Good luck. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::I think Mangojuice is getting confused over Bullseye and Balance Game...there are actually ''two'' pricing games with each of these titles, none of which have anything to do with one another.

::By the way, nice work combining all the retired games into one page. I think it looks good. -] 18:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

== Deletion review for Category:Gates family ==

You may want to look at and comment at ]. ] 13:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

== Middle-earth in popular culture - pre-DRV request notification ==

Hi there. I'm leaving a courtesy note to let you know that I am asking the closing admin to reconsider ]. My arguments are laid out at ]. As you took part in the original AfD, I'm notifying you so that you can add your opinion, either there or later if it goes to DRV. Thanks. ] 11:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

== Category indexing ==

Please consider the categories before changing the sort key of an article. Your changes to ] cause that article to sort outisde the established order in all the categories where such an order has been established. For the others, it doesn't matter, but ] has a standard of using # and so have ], ] and ]. Whether or not the character is "non-standard" has no bearing on the issue. The sort key only affects sorting in categories, and should only reflect that need. --] 17:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
==Image tagging for Image:Trevglaad.jpg==
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
* ]
* ]

This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. 10:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

== Cast list deletion discussions ==

Several cast list articles have been nominated for deletion ]. While these cast lists are mostly redundant with the information in other articles, some people want to turn these back into categories, which would be really bad. I know that you hate cast list categories more than I do, so I am hoping that you will comment on how these categories should not be recreated. ] 08:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

== Zombie ==

It has been reanimated, as befitting the undead. ] 14:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


==Please take another look at ]==

Hi Otto4711,

I've redone the Goetz school article on my user pages and made some other at the bottom of the deletion-review discussion (some of which specifically meet your objection on notability). I'm asking editors to comment on the changes I've made because they represent a new development, one I think we can form a pretty wide consensus around. I think the article as I've redone it meets the objections of many editors, and it certainly meets ]. Please take a look, but I think this deletion review will close today or early tomorrow, so please don't delay, act now and take advantage of this limited-time offer! ] 17:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

== Chasing down CFDs ==

Thanks for listing so many connected categories after I nominated the Sean Connery one. I'm impressed with your thoroughness - you nominated all of the ones that I thought were suspect. --] 00:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== GDI Storyline AFD ==
I am pleased to see that you care enough to nominate article for deletion (God knows the mess I have made there needs cleaned up badly), but I will take this opertunity to remind that one of the guidelines/policies on AFD reads "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Personally, I think I am just as happy not knowing about the afd (it makes me sad to see my stuff go, though I know its for the better) however others would probably like a heads up on the matter. Just something to remember. ] (]) 22:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
: I support this. That would certainly be appreciated by people who contributed to an article, no matter how rubbish it is/isn't. --] 20:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

==Vitamin D (producer)==
A {{]}} template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the ] process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice explains why (see also "]" and ]). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the <code><nowiki>{{dated prod}}</nowiki></code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ]. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached. <small>] | ]</small> 06:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)



==Your opinion welcome at deletion review for Plot of Les Mis ==
After ] closed as a deletion, I'm challenging the way the closing administrator acted as in violation of Misplaced Pages rules. Your participation is welcome at that discussion, ]. Please keep in mind that only arguments related to either new information or to how Misplaced Pages rules were violated or not violated in closing the discussion will be considered. It isn't a replay of the original AfD. I'm familiar with ] and I am alerting everyone who participated in that discussion to the deletion review. I won't contact anyone again on this topic, and I apologize if you consider this note distracting. ] 03:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

==Prodding==

Hello, Thanks for the information about "prodding". I don't consider the article in question to be an "uncontroversial deletion candidate that obviously does not belong in the encyclopedia", so if you want to proceed further I hope you will proceed through the discussion channel. Thanks, ] 00:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

== Citation templates ==

{{tnull|helpme}}
Trying to add citation templates to an article and not seeing what I'm doing wrong. is the end result of my attempt. Where is my mistake? ] 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:It looks like you tried to put a <nowiki><ref> tag within another <ref> tag.</nowiki> The software doesn't know how to read that. You need to use parentheses or some other mechanism to cite a reference within a reference. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

:Um... the second <nowiki><ref></nowiki> should be <nowiki></ref></nowiki> to close the reference call... Other than that, it looks good. - ] 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

::Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the first &lt;ref&gt; tag supposed to be &lt;ref/&gt;? <small>—</small>''']&nbsp;]&nbsp;]''' 17:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Nopr... ref runs <nowiki><ref> cite </ref></nowiki>. The only time <nowiki><ref/></nowiki> would showup is if the ref hase been named and it's the 2nd call, such as: <nowiki><ref name="Mult1"> cite2 </ref></nowiki> and later <nowiki><ref name="Mult1"/></nowiki>. - ] 17:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
*OK, I think what happened is when I took out the original reference in favor of the template I accidentally took out the closing tag of the template instead of the opening tag of the old reference. Just tried it again and it works. But now what is this about the 2nd call? Because I have multiple notes from the same source. Is there somethign else I'm supposed to do for the second and subsequent cite of it? ] 17:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
::Otto, please see ] for a detailed explanation and examples. ] 18:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

== An essay I've written ==

Hello. Since we often express similar arguments in deletion debates, I thought you might want to read an essay I've written, found at ]. I'd be interested to hear any feedback on its ]. --] 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

== Cincinnati Kid ==

I noticed that you re-nominated ] for GA-status. That's fine by me, but I thought I should let you know that someone took it off the ] page pretty much as soon as you put it back. I guess they just assumed it was a mistake since I had already failed it. So you might want to add it back, perhaps with an in-line explanation or something. Good luck. ] 01:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

== Adminship ==
Hi Otto,
I have been seeing some of your contributions of late and on digging a little deeper I find that you are not an admin nor apparently has your nomination ever been raised, despite your ample record. So: would you be interested in a nomination? Please feel free to email me. (Btw, you may wish to archive your talk page - getting a bit long...) ] 11:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

First, you might want to consider archiving your talk page.

*My earnest and sincere apologies; I should have been more diligent in reviewing the above before bringing it up. I can see why you don't want to go through that shit again. The level of abuse you received was totally ridiculous and disheartening. Moreover, based on what I saw, you were essentially sandbagged by a less-than-stellar cast of characters. ] 12:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC) <p> PS - I should archive my talk page, but as I'm involved in an outstanding RfC and the evidence was placed on my page, I don't want to bury it in an archive until the matter is resolved).

== Please be careful! ==

Please review you made. You tried to remove trivia from ], but you accidentally chopped off the references as well. Please, please be more careful in future! ] 16:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
:Oh, and feel free to remove the trivia. Just don't remove the references and notes section at the bottom. ] 16:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks. ] 17:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

== 7th Heaven - Family Tree ==

Hi!

Do you know how to edit the Family Tree listed here? The Kinkirk page should list Kevin and Ben's younger sister Mary-Emily (I think the second half of her name is Emily).

Also shouldn't it list their stepfather, Frank?

== Star Trek production staff ==

Thanks for clearing up ]. Was there a specific discussion on this somewhere, or did you do it on general principles? I ask because I intend to create an article ] and any discussion on them might be germane. - ] ] 15:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

== Film lists ==

Hi Otto. Sure: there were certainly a majority of people arguing for deletion although some of the arguments, especially the "what's next? Film featuring draperies?", were extremely weak. Note also that a few opined that this should be turned into a category which indicates to me that they find some value in the content. However, there's overwhelming consensus, established time and again in CfD that these categories are not a good idea because of category clutter and that they should be listified! I can add that to the closing rationale if you prefer. Cheers, ] 19:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

== Afd: StarCraft story articles. ==

It's good that someone else noticed that some articles were missed by the original AfD nomination that disposed of the bulk of the articles copied straight from StarCraft Wiki. I'd have put it up myself, but I haven't a clue how to. Any how, mind shoving these up for AfD as well, just so we can clean up everything thoroughly?

* ] - missed in the previous clean-up
* ] - completely redundant due to content articles either having been deleted or are also linked to by ].

-- ] 19:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you looked or not, but I managed to find three sources for ] and will be working at incorporating them into the article now. ] 20:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

== IPC AfDs ==

Hey Otto, I mentioned this on ] as well, but I feel as though we might want to slow down on the IPC nominations. They're getting kind of hard for editors of any opinion to keep track of. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

== RiffTrax ==

I was about to put ] up for deletion when I saw that you had already placed ] for deletion. Why not delete both under the same CFD discussion? —] (] • ]) - 20:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

:What were the "keep" arguments at the other CFD? —] (] • ]) - 22:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

==]==
Hi. There is a discussion about the Judd Winick article's length. Would you mind weighing in with your opinion on its Talk Page? Thanks. ] 07:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Please reconsider this AfD. I know you want to get rid of the crap and cruft at WP, and so do I, but this is awful. I made several corrections and cites, fixing up the article. Please reconsider your nomination at ]. Take a look at ] now with my fixes, and consider keeping it per the ]. ] 20:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)



== "Remove person by project category"? ==
Hi. I'm not sure of the reason behind your removal of Rolf Benirschke from the Category:Wheel of Fortune listing. Your edit summary states that it's "per consensus against such categorization". I'm not clear on what "such categorization" refers to. Could you please point me to the discussion? Thanks. ] 14:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
: Thanks for the explanation! ] 16:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

== feel free to move this to userspace... ==

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Editor's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I, VanTucky, award you, Otto4711, this Deletionist's Barnstar for your fine work in removing listcruft and original research from the ] article. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
|}

== Supercouples ==

I noticed that you participated in the ] that I started. I came upon that article by accident, but then I noticed that there is a whole ] full of these articles. I also looked over ] and noted your role there. In my opinion, almost all of the articles have to go. The only real obstacle in the way of this is the new "Cultural impact" sections that have recently cropped up. These section create the illusion of notability by quoting trivial snippets from TV Guide and Soap Operal Digest, including mere mentions of the couple in an unrelated context. I have been communicating with the primary author of these sections ], and I've given him a week to improve these articles (though I'm skeptical) but after that I want to nominate most of the supercouples for deletion. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Best, ]]</small></sup></font> 23:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Mankiewicz family ==

Otto, I have decided to list this at DRV myself as I now have sufficient doubt in my decision. The discussion is ]. --] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

==WikiProject LGBT studies==

I noticed your comment on ] where you said that you felt the article fell under the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies because "This category includes television series...which deal with or feature significant lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device." I was just wondering if you could direct me to the page that you quoted in that post so that I could take a good look at it myself. I'm considering adding another article about a TV show to WikiProject LGBT studies (]). The show features two, possibly three homosexual contestants, and while the show doesn't deal directly with their homosexuality, we still think it's significant that such a large percentage of the show's contestants are homosexual. The article doesn't currently mention this (we're trying to make sure we have the correct information, get our sources straight, and figure out the best method of presenting this information before we add it to the article), so I realize that the article may not qualify at the moment, but I think that it may soon fall under the scope of the project. —] 15:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

==Anubis==
Hi,

The other reason I didn't PROD the thing is that a redirect might be reasonable instead (to the parent game). I'd suggest that as an alternative. Best wishes, ] 15:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


==Fair use rationale for ]==
]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to ''']'''. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to ] and edit it to include a ].

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 "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages 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 ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice --> NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. ] 21:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

== ] etc. ==

I only looked at the first few that you tagged, but they are not speedy deletable with the criteria tagged (] and ]). They have content and they have context. Please make sure the criteria apply before tagging many such articles. I'll remove them if you do not wish to place some other deletion process tag on the pages. ] ]/] 14:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
:I have gone through them all now and removed the tags. None of the articles were eligible for speedy deletion via criterion A1 or A3. Lack of context would be something like "This is an album" with no other info to describe it. Lack of content means that there is literally no information on the page; either there is just a picture or link, or just a repetition of the title. ] ]/] 14:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
::Just a note; Prods are for non-controversial deletions. A mass prodding is probably not the appropriate way to deal with this series, since the series has its own article and many of the individual discs have reviews (establishing notability). ] ]/] 14:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

==Random category removals==
Please stop removing people from categories they fit under. if you think a change should be made start a discussion in the Wiki poker project before undoing the work of many editors. And please don't add incorrect notes. No project discussion has occured. ] 00:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:Please stop this now. read the guideline! This is not and "Announcers of the World Poker tour" category! The catorization is in line with the guideline read it! ] 00:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

== Proposed deletion of ] ==

I've removed the {{tl|dated prod}} template that you placed on ] as I disagree completely with the idea that it's 'crystal balling'. It clearly states on ] that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". These elections are both notable and almost certain to take place.

I'm curious, why did you put this page up for deletion and not ], ], ] or ] itself? Is there some aspect of the page's content that you feel is 'crystal balling'? If so, please bring it up on the ], as I don't think {{tl|dated prod}} is appropriate in this case.

If you disagree with what I've said, and still think the page should be deleted, then please setup a ] so that other users can discuss the premise of the page and its content. Also, when using {{tl|dated prod}}, it's only polite to notify the authors of the page. Thank you. --] 06:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

== Recategorisation of 2 Bit Pie ==

Can I ask why you removed 2 Bit Pie from the Fluke category please? The project contains the remaining members of the band Fluke and I feel that it should be included under this category. ] 08:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


==List of Fictional Versions of Real People in Jinyong Wuxia Novels==

Just a friendly note that an article you ], has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to participate in the deletion discussion, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_versions_of_real_people_in_Jinyong%27s_wuxia_novels

I have to say the way it is as written is a weak keep for me, and seems a delete for many others. Perhaps it's worth considering moving it to something in the vein of "List of historical figures portrayed by Jinyong", with much more references and wikilinks...a la http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_historical_figures_portrayed_by_Shakespeare ] 04:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

==AfD on The Garden of Earthly Delights in popular culture==
I tried to relist it for you, and i also failed. I removed the speedy to avoid confusion. I suggest you ask at the AfD talk p. ''']''' (]) 16:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
==afD on Squid==
I admit I didnt think it would be there so directly, but i seem to have found the sort of references you have been asking for. ''']''' (]) 22:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Fictional Science Fiction Ground Vehicles ==

I've recategorised the Laser Tank and Moon Buggy from Space:1999 into the more relevant Fictional vehicles category. If you want, just edit the Fictional Science Fiction ground vehicles category. As I say this was done in a time when there was a disagreement with another editor and it seemed like a quick fix. I'm hopefully a bit wiser now. ] 21:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

== Brecht categories ==

Otto: The result was to ''rename'' the category, not to move or alter the subcategories. There is no suggestion that the Lehrstucke are not plays. Go look at the page on them. Go look it up in a dictionary. ] 16:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

: Your assessment of petulance is entirely your own. As is your patronizing pet name for me. Kindly explain why a musical, opera, and ballet count as plays but a screenplay does not, and I will understand your actions. I do not doubt that they were based on your understanding, which is precisely the problem as I have been saying all along. ] 17:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

:Again, the assessment of disruptiveness or madness is entirely yours and belongs to you alone. I corrected an error. Any emotional overtones to that are your projections. ] 17:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

== Monty Python ==

Normally I would have notified you that I declined the prod, but my internet connection went down shortly after I finished the AFD and has just now been restored. But you found your way there any way. Sorry for the delay. ] 02:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

*It might not be me that handles it, you may add it to the afd and I'd give a comment approving that if you'd like. ] 02:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

== Caption assistance ==
{{tnull|helpme}}
{{resolved}}
Can someone take a look at ] and help me figure out why the caption on the image isn't displaying? While you're there, one of the references in the Legacy section is is a little wonky too and I can't figure it out. ] 17:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:I've fixed the image problem; to display a caption, you need to specify 'thumb' as one of the options for the image, to cause it to turn into a thumbnail with a caption. I can't see the reference problem you mentioned, though. --] 17:49, 3 September 2007 (]]])


And apparently I made a rather unnecessary edit doing almost the same thing, after ais523 fixed it; don't know how that happened. Sorry ais523. - ]] 17:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:::And thanks to you too, Two. ] 18:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

::I had fixed the link issue. ] 17:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Thanks to both of you for your quick responses! ] 17:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi. I was just wanting to leave a quick note on this more than anything. You seem to be taking offence when people disagree with you on this being nominated for deletion. The responses left are peoples person opinion on the proposed deletion of the article. They are not intended as a jibe at you personally. The whole point of the AfD process, which I hope you have got by now as you have submitted quite a few, is to gauge users opinion as to whether the article should stay or not. My personal opinion is that it differs from the other list articles and I actually agree with you that the others should be deleted. I just see this as a special case due to the individual nature of the article which makes it not just a list of covers. I am sorry that I disagree with you on this matter I am just trying to express my opinion and aid the AfD process for this article. ] ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 18:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

==Should we delete this list==
Some people are selective they would like to see only lists of their own domination, what do u think does this list warrant deletion or should we let it stay?--] 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

== Category:Esperantists ==

The above cat is up for deletion review. Input welcomed. See ] for the discusion. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 19:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

== taking the liberty ==

Thought I'd mention that I'd corrected your Canadian expat musicians CfD to what you clearly intended i.e. "] and ]" instead of "]". Hope you don't mind; I didn't think it was worth asking first, given it was obvious what you meant. Regards, ]] 21:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

==]==
I deleted the above article based on your prod. Just wanted to give you a heads up that I have restored based on a request at my talk page. Cheers.--] 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

== Books/Works ==

Do you happen to have the link handy for the earlier debate you mentioned: "I agree that there is little functional utility in separating "novels" from "books" but a proposal to merge the two category structures was not approved..."? I think I remember it from long ago. I support keeping categories for major forms like the novel, plays etc, but would like to see "books" and "works" merged to works. Do you know if this has ever been proposed? ] 13:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:*I was looking for it too but I couldn't find it. I have a vague memory that it was in a portion of the sub-structure, something like suggesting the merger of "science fiction novels" to "science fiction books" or "fantasy novels" to "fantasy books." I would, by the way, tend to oppose the notion of merging "works" and "books" because IMHO "works" allows for useful categorical distinctions. ] 13:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:: I'm thinking of doing a proposal for comment for either merging book & works, or redefining books more clearly as non-fiction or non-literary. The situation as is seems untenable, with the 2 categories in theory largely identical, in practice treated differently at random. It's books by I have the problem with. I'll let you know if I get it done - it's too big an issue just to launch into a Cfd i think. ] 15:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Now open for comment at ]. ] 16:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
==Image source problem with Image:Biggaylogo.jpg==
]
'''This is an automated message from a ]'''. You have recently uploaded ''']'''. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the ] status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{Tl|GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the ]. If you believe the media meets the criteria at ], use a tag such as {{tlp|non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at ]. See ] for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following . '''Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged''', as described on ]. If the image is copyrighted under a ] (per ]) then '''the image will be deleted ] after 17:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)'''. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. '''If you believe you received this message in error, please notify ].''' <!-- Template:Di-no source-notice --> ] 17:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

==Book you may be interested in==
Dear Otto, I notice that practically all of votes tend to be in gay themed articles. Anyway, with that in mind, I am reading a scholarly history journal that has a review for a book that may interest you: ]'s '']: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004) reviewed by ] in ''The Historian'' 69.3 (Fall, 2007): 547-549. The review was more a report than a critique, but it could be useful as a source for one or more of the potential articles possibly related to the topic and I figured it might be worth bringing to your attention. Kind regards, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

==Copyvio help==
Not sure if you do any work on copy vios, but you may wish to compare ] with page. Anyway, if there's a place to take that or an appropriate tag, please do so (assuming someone else doesn't get to it first). Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

== pesky colon ==

oops, thanks! I think I'm coming down with flu, I'm dropping stuff everywhere. ] 23:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

== Renaming of Category:Homophobia ==

Greetings, Otto. On Sep. 12, I posted a cfr suggesting that Category:Homophobia be renamed to Category:Anti-LGBT activism, which you closed very quickly, citing the fact that the category had been nominated for deletion twice recently. Two things: first of all, my posting was completely unrelated to any other nominations of this category, and actually stemmed from a discussion that another editor, ] and myself had about an article in that category. Secondly, the talk page for the category listed my proposal as a CFD, when it was a CFR. We came to the conclusion that, while community support for deletion was quite low, many users had expressed support for renaming the category. We would like to post this CFR again. What are your thoughts? ] 05:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
:*My thoughts are that renaming or otherwise changing the category is unnecessary and I would not support it. ] 13:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

== "Tonstant Weader fwowed up" ==

Regarding your recent edit to ], since you seem to have access to at least some reference material (''The Portable Dorothy Parker''), maybe you could clarify one small detail here. Your edit changed her quote to "Tonstant Weader Fwowed Up". However, unless that phrase was the title of something (article, essay, etc.), then it should be capitalized as it was before (like the title of this section.) Could you say which it is? (I'll watch your page here for replies.) +] 00:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:58, 12 October 2024

Redirect to:

Good article reassessment for Casey Donovan (actor)

Casey Donovan (actor) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Joan Crawford

Joan Crawford has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)