| Revision as of 16:29, 30 June 2007 editBlack Kite (talk | contribs)Administrators85,117 edits →Please stop: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:04, 30 June 2007 edit undoKesac (talk | contribs)Rollbackers9,314 edits Warning: Potentially violating the three revert rule on Poor Seamus. using TWNext edit → | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
| * The article makes no <b>claim of notability</b>. It is upon you to prove notability, not for others to prove it is not. Oh, and one more revert and you're all going to 3RR, so stop it. <b>] ]</b> 16:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | * The article makes no <b>claim of notability</b>. It is upon you to prove notability, not for others to prove it is not. Oh, and one more revert and you're all going to 3RR, so stop it. <b>] ]</b> 16:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == June 2007 == | |||
| {{{icon|] }}}You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a ] among editors. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] 17:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:04, 30 June 2007
Ratónbat 10:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you much! --Movedgood 10:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Name change
In response to your question on Nichalp's talk page, the name Turquoise (talk · contribs) is available. See Misplaced Pages:Changing username for info on changing name. It should just be a case of adding a request to the list. --h2g2bob 03:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I hate to contradict but Turquoise (talk · contribs) is taken. You can search Special:listusers to see what usernames are taken. If you still want to be renamed, pick one that isn't in that list and make a request at Misplaced Pages:Changing username. WjBscribe 03:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:VargensLillaLamm.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:VargensLillaLamm.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Tessa.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tessa.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Novels of Kaari Utrio
Hi Movedgood, I note that you have created a slew of stubs on the novels of Kaari Utrio. I am not sure these are notable by the standard laid out at Misplaced Pages:Notability (books). The most important consideration you might address is: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." I am concerned that these articles fail to meet that and should therefore be redirects to the author's page. Thanks. Eusebeus 17:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Utrio is one of most important Finnish historical fiction writers and it has been written of her books widely in Finnish news papers and those has translated to nine languages. Brevity of current articles results from that I have tried to creat as much literature stubs so possible in short time in accordance with the same formula (definition, templates and categories). --Movedgood 19:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that and I support the use of a standardised form. I am certainly not disputing Utrio's clear notability. But is it clear that for each work, considered individually, will contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary? That was my main concern, not to cast aspersions on the writer's overall notability. I am still not convinced that individual book articles pass the notability standard at Misplaced Pages:Notability (books). Eusebeus 22:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't mean it, I regret if I produced misunderstanding. The novels of Utrio are well-known for their abundant references to the periods of history and really lived historical people and when them are analysed gains in article other content addition to a simple plot summary. There may be i reprints of books as appendix more thorough about novel by author. That is, there isn't lack of source material and certainly you can make an article of this novels. --Movedgood 12:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough. I strongly suggest it may be worth producing an article on one of the novels that approaches the kind of content you eventually foresee across the series. That way, the notability can be ascertained and, in the event that they don't seem to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability (books), you will not have wasted much time on trying to add piecemeal content across the series. Cheers! Eusebeus 13:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't mean it, I regret if I produced misunderstanding. The novels of Utrio are well-known for their abundant references to the periods of history and really lived historical people and when them are analysed gains in article other content addition to a simple plot summary. There may be i reprints of books as appendix more thorough about novel by author. That is, there isn't lack of source material and certainly you can make an article of this novels. --Movedgood 12:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that and I support the use of a standardised form. I am certainly not disputing Utrio's clear notability. But is it clear that for each work, considered individually, will contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary? That was my main concern, not to cast aspersions on the writer's overall notability. I am still not convinced that individual book articles pass the notability standard at Misplaced Pages:Notability (books). Eusebeus 22:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Vanajanjoanna.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Vanajanjoanna.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 21:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Notability of Poor Seamus
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Poor Seamus, by WWGB (talk · contribs), another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Poor Seamus seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Poor Seamus, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Poor Seamus itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Please do not remove tags
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags. It is against the Misplaced Pages guidelines. Tags may not be removed until adjudicated by an administrator. WWGB 16:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- You is not it who decides what articles will keep. --Movedgood 16:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- ... and you are not allowed to remove tags!!! WWGB 16:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Tell me why that group is not enough notable? --Movedgood 16:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Stop it, both of you, before you both get blocked for 3RR. EliminatorJR 16:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop
Please stop. If you continue to illegally remove speedy deletion tage, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.
- You have not answered yet for question: Tell me why that group is not enough notable? --Movedgood 16:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- The article makes no claim of notability. It is upon you to prove notability, not for others to prove it is not. Oh, and one more revert and you're all going to 3RR, so stop it. EliminatorJR 16:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
June 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Poor Seamus. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Kesac 17:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)