User talk:Polisher of Cobwebs/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Polisher of Cobwebs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --IllaZilla (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Aliens (film), but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Psycho IV

You are quite justified by the strict rules of Wikipedia against to revert additions I have made to the Psycho IV article. However, it is frustrating that by sticking to the sources, the new material on writing the movie as it stands has a reference without a referent, which isn't really cool by stylistic rules of good writing. I have a legit quote from screenwriter Stefano that he wanted to ignore stuff/material from films 2 & 3 "about Norman's mother" and horror writer Futch saying film 4 ignores "much of the mythology". Many WP readers having seen the first film only will want to know what stuff about Norman's mother (that wasn't in the first movie)? The only new stuff about Norman's Mom in films 2 & 3 is that she had a sister Emma who thought that she was Norman's mother and killed Norman's father. I mean there simply isn't any other new business about Norman's mother in the 2nd or 3rd film- just no other candidate for what screenwriter Stefano could possibly be talking about. He apparently assumes readers of the interview know all this (It's an interview not an essay). Should we assume the same? Little critical attention was given to Psycho IV upon its release, so sources are sparse (except for user-written bulletin boards which WP doesn't accept as a source). Apparently, to protect WP against really bad editing, one is sometimes prevented from stating what is fairly (more or less) obvious. I was hoping that by giving all this a "real-world" context as WP likes to have (especially discussing diffs between novels and books) I could get the material back. Guess not.
At any rate if I can get a better source (maybe from a University library) I'm going to put it in when I can.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Piped links

Please don't pipe links to "year in film" articles in lead sentences. Links should be kept intuitive. See WP:EGG for more information. In short, a reader clicking on "2004" expects to go to the article on the year 2004, not to 2004 in film. Piping in this way leads the reader somewhere they will probably not anticipate (the mere fact that it's a film article doesn't mean the reader expects to go to "___ in film" when they click on a common phrase). --IllaZilla (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So hopefully, you're going to go through all the dates that are linked that way in every film and de-link them all, am I right? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's more of a kill it when you see it thing for most of us I think. Several people have been adding links to year in film articles in a "see also" section, though. That seems to work well for including the year in film but not confusing people. Millahnna (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to fix them all, but I'm certainly going to fix the ones I happen to notice (ie. in articles on my watchlist). Millahnna's correct, these can go in a "See also" section, or also in a parenthetical aside in a section about the film's release: ie. "<title> was released in theaters <date>, and was the second-highest grossing film of the month (see <year> in film)." I've left further explanation in the section you started on my talk page. For future reference, I like to keep conversations in one place rather than spread across multiple talk pages, so if I've left a note for you here, just respond here, & this is where I'll make my reply. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That link (WP:EGG) is not specific enough to revert a common accepted way of linking. Sorry, but consensus is obviously not as IllaZilla claims. Debresser (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There was a rather extended conversation about this on the films page fairly recently. I can't recall if it was the MOS talk or just the project talk, but this for of linking in the lead is no longer advised. Feel free to add it to a "see also" section (in which case it would not need to piped, of course) but it no longer belongs in the lead. Millahnna (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need to specifically address every possible situation. "Keep piped links intuitive" is pretty straightforward: present piped links in a way that is intuitive to the reader. The Albums and Musicians projects dropped the practice of always piping links to "year in music" articles for this very reason, and the Films project has gone in this direction too with the removal of "cinema of xxxx" piped links from the infobox and the deprecation of piping "year in film" links in lead sentences (I did a random sampling of 10 film FAs, not a single one used a piped "year in film" link in the lead). --IllaZilla (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I wanna avoid edit warring here, but IllaZilla has convinced me there's no point to linking dates that way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

V for Vendetta

Thank for the edits, you made it better.--Iankap99 (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, whatever. I don't think my edits made it that much better. One thing I'd like to see changed in that article is the use of egg links - there are one or two awful examples. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Dune (film)

From the movie's opening scene: "The Spacing Guild and it's Navigators, who the spice has mutated over four thousand years, use the orange spice gas, which gives them the ability to fold space..."

Navigators in the books have only been able to safely lead a ship to its destination; the ship's drive is what does the space-folding, not the Navigator itself. HalfShadow 01:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Revert me then; you don't need my permission. I won't revert back. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Just making my point; don't want to edit war. HalfShadow 19:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:EGG

Hello, Polisher of Cobwebs. I'm wondering how these two links -- [1][2] -- are egg links. The lines match up with the links. They are not linking to something too differently than what they state. Flyer22 (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion. I don't see why anyone would necessarily think that clicking on "most expensive film" would lead to a list of the most expensive films. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

By that same account, why would they expect it to lead to an article on the most expensive film, as that can change? As seen with Avatar. It would just be another article about Avatar, one that used to be about Titanic. Unless we're talking about an article documenting the most expensive films, not just one. If so, a list makes the most sense...as an article about it would be extremely huge, and not as easy to access the film positions. Either way, if this is a matter of opinion, then neither one of us is necessarily wrong in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think people would necessarily expect "most expensive film" to lead anywhere, except to an article called Most Expensive Film. That such an article might not actually be useful is a different matter entirely. But I don't feel very strongly about the issue, and will leave this one to other editors to decide. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You want to check out the ArbCom case on date delinking? A link to a "year in film" article in an article about afilm is not an "Easter egg", to call it that it to abuse the term. It is a context sensitive link, somethting that is a good thing. Please stop unlinking them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Tell it to IllaZilla and the other users I have discussed this with. They've assured me the consensus is to remove such links. Also, could you please mind your manners when commenting here? I'm a pretty laid back guy, but I don't care for your intimidating tone. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Polisher dropped me a note on this, so I'll chime in. AFAIK the trend at WP:FILMS in (I think) recent years has been to remove a lot of the superfluous links to "<year> in film" and "cinema of <country>". My reading of this trend is that it's partially based on WP:EGG, the idea being that a reader clicking on the phrase "France" expects to arrive at the article France, not at Cinema of France, regardless of the general context that "well, this is a film article, so they should expect that it'll link to film-specific topics." Similarly, readers clicking on years expect to be taken to the article about that year, not to year-in-film articles, for the same reason. This also follows a more general WP-wide trend towards "smart" linking, where editors are recognizing that we don't need to link every concept and tangential topic merely because we can; that we should restrict links to topics that have immediate relevance to the article topic. This is generally laid out in WP:LINK. This trend isn't unique to film articles, either: The Albums and Musicians projects dropped the practice of piping links to "<year> in music" articles from discographies, infoboxes, and article leads several years ago for exactly these reasons. Generally, if a year-in-film link has direct relevance to the article topic, then it can be linked in a parenthetical next to the appropriate contextual information (example "<film> was the third-highest-grossing film of <year> and had the widest release of any film that year (see <year> in film)" or in a "see also" section. The general idea is that just because year-in-film articles exist doesn't mean they need to be linked from every article about a film that came out that year, especially from a piped link in the first sentence as used to be common. This isn't the most intuitive way to link readers, nor does it give significant added value. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. See also my comments (and others') in the above section #Piped links. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

P.P.S: Beyond My Ken, you mentioned above an Arbcom case. Would you mind giving a link? I haven't read it and would like to check it out to see what it has to say regarding WP:EGG-related issues. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The exasperating thing about this is that someone always comes here and complains about my edits regardless of whether I add or remove links like this. I started by adding them, and people complained about that (see the above discussions), then I changed my mind and started removing them, and people complained about that too. Anyway, Millahnna and Erik are a couple of other editors Beyond My Ken might want to talk to. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked around and here is the most recent WP:FILMS discussion on this issue. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The relevant thing is what the Manual of style for films says, which is, "Following WP:EGG, dates should be linked only to articles about the linked date, and they should be linked only when the date's article provides important information or context specifically related to the film." See WP:MOSFILM. Beyond My Ken hasn't offered anything that looks as though it could over-ride that (and it's perfectly clear), so I'm simply going to disregard his comments. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:Freud

If you say that "Grünbaum describes Popper as a slovenly reader of Freud and a poor logician", it suggests that Grünbaum has no dog of his own in the fight, and that he is just neutrally observing Popper's incompetence. In reality, of course, Grünbaum is making a contentious claim about Popper's argument and character, so we should choose the verb accordingly, as per WP:SAY.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Film Invitation

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's film-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Film? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's film-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. We also have a number of regional and topical task forces that you may be interested in joining as well.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! Erik (talk | contribs) 20:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Film

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Film! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Film}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for February has been published. March's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
Want to see some great film article examples? Head on over to the spotlight department.
Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of the majority of film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Erik (talk | contribs) 21:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Polisher of Cobwebs. You have new messages at Tom Morris's talk page.
Message added 00:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Freud and the History of Psychiatry

Hello, I noticed that you objected to my addition of Sigmund Freud to the category: history of psychiatry. On the talk page of Freud I've posted an argument as to why Freud belongs in such a category. I'd appreciate your perspective on this. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Urban Works Entertainment films

Category:Urban Works Entertainment films, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM March 2011 Newsletter

The March 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Input on Thor (film) , Idris Elba and White Supremacy

We've been discussing this for some time over on talk and on WP:NPOVN, that already the section of Idris Elba is too weighty and a filmcast section section is being wrongly used to highlight the views of some white supremacists. Please go the WP:NPOVN to discuss instead of adding to the problem as your edits have simply made the section more weighty. Thank you ~~KN→~~ ^{talk • contribs} 10:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

All I was trying to do was to ensure that what the article said accurately reflected what was in the sources. I have no opinion of whether such material should be in the filmcast section; I just wanted it to be accurate. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM April 2011 Newsletter

The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "undo edit that apparently wrecked infobox"

Hello. I don't know how the link in Armageddon wrecked the infobox, it looked okay. What was different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.188.68 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There did appear to be something badly wrong with the infobox when I first looked at the article, and your edit seemed to be responsible. I've looked again, and that doesn't seem to be the case now. This sort of thing can happen for numerous reasons; my browser could have had trouble drawing the page properly, for instance. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Dungeons and Dragons images

Hi there. I've replied to your question that you posted at Media copyright questions. Feel free to let me know your thoughts on that page, or pop me a note on my talk page. I'd be happy to help. Cheers. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied again. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And again. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And again. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey there, just a note. A few years ago, User:Jack Merridew went through a lot of D&D articles and speedy deleted the images that were there. If you ever notice in an article's edit history that it once had an image, and if you think you might be able to fix that image, I can restore it for you. BOZ (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is some kind of ongoing dispute about this, I would really rather not get involved, not at least without knowing more about it. Might help if you could explain matters in more detail. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an old dispute that died out back in 2008, so no worries on that front. If you were to see any such images in the edit history, they'd be from a few years ago, and we'd only want to restore them if the fair-use rationales and such could be fixed. BOZ (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Life Against Death.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Life Against Death.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM May 2011 Newsletter

The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please dont remove tags

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Just because other crappy articles still exist in droves does not mean that we should ignore blatant disrgard of content policies in this instance Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't place patronizing templates on my talk page. I'm a regular, having edited for nearly a year, and I don't need to be welcomed to Wikipedia. I stand by the reason I gave for removing the template - which was based on common sense - and suggest to you that targeting the article in question is futile. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey PoC; I hear you. General advice though, it's probably a good idea to leave a notability tag on an article, because some editors really don't like it when you remove it and will take it right to AFD. Hence, the current situation. Been through that so many times, it's almost predictable! BOZ (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I take your point, but note that I removed the tag only once - and didn't remove it again when it was restored. I think it's reasonable to assume the article would have been nominated for deletion sooner or later anyway. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You can make your case here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Polisher of Cobwebs. You have new messages at Chromancer's talk page.
Message added 17:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— chro • man • cer 17:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis

A synopsis is defined as a brief plot summary, and for upcoming films, a synopsis is frequently referenced, as done in Cowboys & Aliens (film). I think it's better to make a distinction between a synopsis that will be concise and naturally without spoilers and a full-fledged plot summary that will be several times longer and will spoil the full film. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"Plot" is standard for films, as they're works of fiction. "Synopsis" might be more appropriate for documentaries, but otherwise "plot" should do. So I simply don't agree. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

When studios market their film, they release the official synopsis. Google cowboys aliens synopsis, for example. I agree that "Synopsis" is appropriate for documentaries, but that label will stay with them forever. Cowboys & Aliens will have a full-fledged "Plot" section when the film is released, but the label "Synopsis" is accurate here since it is referencing a reprint of the official synopsis from the studio. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an incredibly esoteric detail that most readers simply wouldn't care about. So why should we care about it as editors? Documentaries aside, a work of fiction should have a plot section, for the sake of consistency. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Richard Webster (author)

Hi there. It is really a tough call. I think the article is much better than the average C-class, but still needs improvement for a decent B rating. It is well sourced, but quite incomplete in terms of scope. Aside from Webster's work, it provides little information on his early life, inspiration, career, etc. PS, B-class criteria: The article is mostly complete and without major issues. An example.

OK thank you, that is helpful. Will keep in mind. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry for the late reply. Just saw your message. It appears you've handled it pretty well with all the necessary updating. It's a shame he died so young. --Artoasis (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I asked for help because I wasn't sure whether there was some special procedure that I had to go through to remove the living persons category - as it turns out, this is straightforward; but I didn't know that. One thing I could use your advice about would be illustrating the article - it needs a picture, but I'm not sure how to go about getting one. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, non-free images are not usually allowed for bio articles. Most bio pictures are from Flickr under the CC license. You could check out this link for instruction. Hope it helps. Cheers. --Artoasis (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ordinary nazi

I hope you agree it was a very strange sentence in the Sigmund Freud-article about a man who was "not an ordinary nazi". First of all, it is POV, second of all, incorrect. Does such a thing excist as "an ordinary nazi", is it next to "an ordinary communist" or an "ordinary Talib"? Either it is rephrased or it is removed. Polozooza (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this issue at talk:Sigmund Freud, not here on my talk page. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would react. I just believe the statement is weird and not really worth having in the article, unless seriously re-worded\re-written. Polozooza (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a civilized community of adults, or at least aspires to be one. Discuss at talk:Sigmund Freud. People will respond. I've no further comment to make here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM June 2011 Newsletter

The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM July 2011 Newsletter

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Freud's Seduction Theory and Masson

The only reason I added Masson as a source was because when I wrote that Freud had written about childhood molestation under an ip somone said I needed to source it. I suppose its common enough knowledge that it doesn't need a source or perhaps a more credible writer would be a better source. I don't think there's one right now. Does it need to be sourced?--RJR3333 (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Sky is blue" type statements don't need to be sourced. Personally I think the sentences about Freud once holding the seduction theory and then abandoning it would fall in that category (although other editors might disagree). Please don't use Masson as a source unless you're describing Masson's views - there are any number of biographies of Freud that could be used instead, and would make much better sources. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM September 2011 Newsletter

The September 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk | contribs) 16:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Discipline and Punish.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Discipline and Punish.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiProject Film coordinator election

Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik (talk | contribs) 12:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2011 Newsletter

The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk | contribs) 15:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Chimera

I restored Chimera (Dungeons & Dragons), in case you have a picture for that. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Astrology

Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [[3]]. Thank you! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have no detailed knowledge of astrology, so I wouldn't want to take a position on the issue under dispute, and it looks like it has been resolved without my input anyway. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration! Good luck!Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lich (Dungeons & Dragons).JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lich (Dungeons & Dragons).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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Your recent editing history at Lich (Dungeons & Dragons) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block. If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Sudo Ghost 22:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You are edit warring at the article, and shouldn't be warning me. What utter fucking hypocrisy. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Film November 2011 Newsletter

The April 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheldon, Somatotype and constitutional psychology

As someone who appears to not be too tired out (or angered by Editor75439 (talk · contribs)'s shenanigans...) regarding these pages, could you take a look at putting in better referencing? Editor75439 did manage to dig up a bit of valid material, before he/she went nutty... see the Talk pages (and their history, and the history for the articles) for more info, if you'd like to try it. If not, I'll try to summon up the energy to do so at some point... Thanks! Allens (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I do definitely think that better sources should be used for statements about how Sheldon's work is viewed by scientists than articles from The New York Times. Though the NYT would generally qualify as a reliable source under Wikipedia policy, that doesn't mean its claims should actually be trusted. Something similar is true of BBC News - although they're a highly regarded news site, they've produced some rubbishy and misleading articles on scientific subjects, and editors need to be on their guard about this (see the revision history of Aka-Bo language and Boa Sr., especially from 2010...). Editorial practice ought to be flexible enough to remove such sources from articles in at least some cases. Although Sheldon is definitely of interest to me, I'm no expert on him, and just a glance at this dispute showed me that it's the kind of thing I prefer to stay away from. Evidently, the issue is somehow connected with race, and presumably that partly accounts for the polarized views I'm seeing there. Good for you if you want to try to tackle it, though. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to do so at some point; quite welcome on asking, and thanks for the quick reply! I understand entirely. (I would not actually remove the reference upon finding others, unless I'd found so many that it was getting ridiculous - that way, even those who didn't have access to the other references for some reason - links going down or whatever - could still have access to that one.) Allens (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ramones

Hiya Polisher,

I have responded to your edit on the Ramones page and added a comment to the article talk page.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there again,

Thanks for responding re the Ramones page. I have responded again and added a commment to the talk page. I'd be grateful if you could take a look and advise your comments again please?

Socheid (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Carl Jung

Nice polishing you're doing on Carl Jung. Yworo (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Rise of the Planet of the Apes plot summary

Hi there. I've just made a whole slew of cuts to the bloated and excessively detailed Rise of the Planet of the Apes plot summary in an attempt to make it less so (it's down to less than 750 words so far.) I thought I'd solicit your input since you are a major contributor to the article and seem to be (from your comments on the article talk page) similarly nauseated by mind-numbingly specific detail in a plot summary. I could really use a pair of fresh eyes to make sure I haven't gotten rid of anything crucial in the name of economy, and it would be nice to have someone else to try to hold back the tsunami of re-additions that I'm sure are forthcoming from those devoted to that sort of thing. Thanks! Blake Burba (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much gave up on that article some time ago - and have avoided even looking at its plot summary the handful of times I've edited it recently. I will take a second look soon, however, and see what if anything needs to be done. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel your pain. Blake Burba (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the changes you've made to the plot section. I approve of most of them, although, in some cases, I've chosen to trim things back a little further, or to use a different wording or explanation of events, and I've tried to explain why in edit summaries. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Terrific. Smashing. Down to 704 words by my count (we'll see how long that lasts...) Good work. Many thanks. -Blake Burba (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There might be a case for semi-protecting the article. See how it develops. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Chill

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Astrology. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Jayron32 06:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Film December 2011 Newsletter

The December 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Spinoza: Practical Philosophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Hurley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be more careful in future. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Useless edit

I see no point in edits such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DTX_%28form_factor%29&curid=8856192&diff=469671381&oldid=460331700, they are in vain. -- Frap (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is a waste of your time and mine. Perhaps I could discuss the fine points of formatting with you; I'm not sure I feel inclined. You may have provided some amusement for talk page stalkers, however. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is nowhere in the Manual of Style mentioned that you should not have space in headers, and by default the MediaWiki software creates spaces around the heading when you add headings. Your edit does not change the article in any visible way and only adds overhead. -- Frap (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is getting interesting - what's overhead? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Overhead in article history, disk storage, article maintenance, editor time, watchlog entries, etc. -- Frap (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

T2 book

Hello, you might not know me, so lemme introduce myself, I'm the person that's gonna try to get Terminator 2: Judgment Day to GA. I'd like to know if you happen to have the book Terminator 2: judgment day : the book of the film, an illustrated screenplay? Thanks --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for introducing yourself. No, I don't have the book you mention. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No problems. If you can help out at the article, please do so. Thanks --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A Brief History of Blasphemy

The claim "A Brief History of Blasphemy was widely praised" is a POV, whose 'citation' is also a POV. The Guardian article which you claim justifies that statement is an obituary written by an friend of Webster's, whose statement about the book being praised is in turn completely without evidence. A more impartial look is Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk where the book has two reviews total despite, both 1-star. Were the book deemed important, praised to any appreciable degree or even popular, it would certainly have garnered more attention on the sites of the two largest anglophone book sellers.

This page is rather a hagiography at the moment. I tried to introduce a section of criticism to balance that, but you nixed a properly cited criticism my Kenan Malik, without justification. --Bodhislutva (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I consider The Guardian obituary to be a reliable source, and do not agree to the removal of the material to which you object. That Webster's obituary doesn't try to prove that A Brief History of Blasphemy was indeed widely praised is irrelevant; if the statement appears in a reliable source, it's acceptable to use it in Wikipedia. If you still disagree, I suggest you take up the issue at an appropriate noticeboard - the reliable sources noticeboard, for instance. What anyone says about Webster's book in an Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk review is irrelevant. Reviews on Amazon should never be used as sources in Wikipedia, since anyone can say almost anything there: they are the best example possible of an unreliable source that should never be used in an article. I removed the Kenan Malik material as part of it was wrongly sourced (Malik's cv page does not even mention Webster or A Brief History of Blasphemy) and the rest was inconsequential (a brief, passing mention of Webster in one of Malik's books). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, Polisher of Cobwebs. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Josef Breuer

Category:Josef Breuer, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Richard Webster

Hi Polisher, I just saw your message and then went through the comments on Webster's talk page. Bo---slutva clearly had a strong issue with Webster's work, and tried to vent his anger on Webster's wikipage. As for Sarah Boxer's criticism, "crypto-priest" is not Boxer's description of Webster, but rather Webster's opinion of Freud (phrased by Boxer). I like the current wording, and if Bo---slutva were to go back to this issue, we could try clarify this on the talk page. Cheers. --Artoasis (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Artoasis, thanks for your reply. I had no idea how long the argument with the editor I mentioned would drag on for when I contacted you on your talk page; as you can see, the argument is now over. I regret the fact that the editor (a she by the way, not a he) ended up blocked and angry instead of agreeing to a change of user name, but at least the article is currently stable. There's a different concern about the Richard Webster article that I'd like to raise - I was wondering whether it might be a good idea to shift some of the material on Webster's books into new articles. Why Freud Was Wrong is probably notable enough for its own article, and at least some of Webster's other books might be as well. It would be possible to reduce the information on Webster's more notable books to a summary in the Webster article, and keep the more detailed information for articles devoted specifically to them. I wouldn't want to make this change any time soon, but I might decide to do it eventually, if other editors agree that it's desirable. Any comment? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I would love to see individual articles on Webster's notable books, and Why Freud Was Wrong is definitely a good start. Do contact me if you need any help. --Artoasis (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited The Turning Point (book), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bantam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Critique of Pure Reason

Take a look at the last edit I made involving "noumenon." Looks like the previous editor mistakenly left it out, which is a rather important distinction within the Kant's work. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoever left out "noumenon", it wasn't me. I've changed the article only to improve grammar, to copy edit, and to make other minor changes, in an effort to make it slightly easier to read. If I've made mistakes, or unintentionally changed the meaning of passages, then I encourage other editors to correct me. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

note

I recommend staying off Bodhislutva's talk page, for the same reasons that one would avoid feeding a troll. The only thing that can happen is that someone takes her bait and breaches the civility policy to a serious degree. If there are any legitimate concerns, she or her new friends can take them to legitimate venues, no one has to listen to her rantings and ravings on her talk page. Let it go. It's clear that it's more important for her to make a statement about how much of a "slut" she is, than to help build an encyclopedia. She's not worth any effort or attention. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 03:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're basically right. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Formatting

Hi. Just a quick word about some of the formatting edits you've done -- there's no need to eliminate a blank line between the end of an infobox and the first sentence of an article's lede paragraph, since it renders the same way with or without the line. (Two blank lines are needed render as one additional blank line.) The single blank line is useful, however, when editing in that it makes it clear where the break between the two (infoxbox and lede) is. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my edits - any of them - then revert them. This is Wikipedia. But please don't waste your time patronizing me. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As you wish. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, if I say something like "revert me", I mean, revert me if it doesn't contradict relevant Wikipedia guidelines or policies, which several of your reverts of me do. So, I have reverted back in several cases, giving clear reasons why in each case. Please stop making an idiot of yourself. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, lose the attitude when people come to you with legitimate complaints and you'll have fewer problems with other Wikipedians.

I've responded to you on WT:FILM. My advice: check the timestamps om my edits and on your warnings: all the edits were made at one time, and all before you issued your first warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't talk to me like an idiot. Your behavior is stupid, and you'll get told off for it soon enough. As regards your point about timestamps, sorry, I don't see what you're trying to say. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you restart this conversation by answering the query BMK made; why make edits that don't affect how the page displays? --John (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There can be multiple legitimate reasons for doing so. It can be justified on the basis that articles need to be formatted consistently, and for that matter that its better to trim the size of articles by removing useless white space from them. What style formatting is better can be legitimately argued either way, perhaps - there's a discussion at WikiProject Film now. May I ask why you don't address Beyond My Ken's destructive and disruptive behavior, as for instance at A Fish in the Bathtub? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

hi

ive heard that maybe Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct is better for certain kinds of problems. ive seen a lot of people have problems with the same user see my talk page. but its dangerous he knows his way around here. Bouket (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of such processes, though I'm not familiar with the one you mention. I don't wish to badmouth people who participate in the Wiki-etiquette alert thing in good faith, but my impression is it's pretty useless, frankly. I wouldn't know if that one is much better. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs: Two words of advice to you: (1) Dont' trust User:Bouket, who is clearly someone's sockpuppet, I just haven't determined whose. (2) Please refrain from posting on my talk page again, as I have no desire to interact with you in the future, given the tenor of our recent contretemps. I will, of course, do the same for you. Future posts to my page will be deleted unread. Please feel free to delete this post once you have read it. I wish you a happy Wikipedia-editing life, as long as our paths do not cross too frequently. Yours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

youre right polisher it probably wont help, but it will be a longer process and people wont dismiss it like they do on ANI. and you can get more outside input on behavior issues instead of specific issues. for instance i think he just made a personal attack by accusing me of being a sockpuppet. but ok im done here. Bouket (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken: did it cross your mind that if you really, really, don't want to interact with me, posting on my talk page is not actually the best way to avoid such interaction? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point, Polisher. I really hope the two of you can work things out. I think you're both reasonable persons (barring evidence to the contrary of course...) and you both want to improve things here. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

i think its common practice to anger you like here [4] Bouket (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Bouket, again I find you trying to stir up trouble for Beyond My Ken. Can I please give you some advice? Leave him alone. Stay away, and stay away from editors who have a conflict with Beyond My Ken. It is plain to see that the only thing you're trying to do is cause trouble, and if you continue in this vein I see two possible things in your future: a block for hounding and harassing, or an ANI thread followed by a block for hounding and harassing. Do not let it get that far. Polisher, I'm sorry to have to be all stern and stuff on your talk page--my apologies, but I wanted to place this in the thread itself. BTW, I hope that you and Beyond My Ken work your things out. Both of you are good for the project. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

sorry drmies but i see it that bmk is trying to stir up trouble and i was trying to keep polisher out of trouble. other people see it that way too. bmk accused me of being a sockpuppet, thats not trying to stir up trouble? Bouket (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

True. I'll ask him to tone it down as well. But that comment came after you commented here, and I can understand if BMK is a bit pissed about that. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

but you cant understand why polisher is annoyed with bmk's behavior? or why i was originally? or anyone else? the way he acts seems completely fine to you and a good representation of wikipedia? Bouket (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't do rhetorical questions. Also, I'm getting kind of tired of mediating. What do people want from administrators--that the admin blocks every person they disagree with? Why can't you just walk away? Do you want me to block you for coming here to cast dispersion on someone else? Again, my apologies, but I have no interest in pursuing this train of thought. Most ANI threads are a complete waste of time since all that is required is for editors to chill out and start talking instead of shouting. Polisher, no offense intended: I am not saying that you are wasting time, but I am saying that a lot of these incidents don't end up with blocks, and unfortunately fuel easily gets added to the fire, such as happened here. All the best, Drmies (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Anarchy, State, and Utopia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Libertarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Pics

Hey, thanks for the pics! Good to see you back. :) BOZ (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've decided to give D&D articles a second chance. I do not propose to edit war over images again, and will defer to the judgement of other editors regarding copyright issues. If, despite myself, I find myself being drawn into further disputes such as occurred at Lich (Dungeons & Dragons), I will give this area of editing up again, permanently this time. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, so far so good. :) I think you just happened to run into an article where someone thought they had an idea better than yours, and ultimately was convinced not to oppose you.

As for the many and varied spellings of homonculous, that is the problem, it has been spelled more than one way so there isn't necessarily a "correct" spelling. I think the one which was settled on is probably the one in use at the time the article was created, from third edition. It doesn't really matter, although the lede section should clearly indicate that there is more than one spelling. BOZ (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Issues in lede of Neuro-linguistic programming

You noted the vague language in the lede here in the article lede. By neuroscientist, i think the author of that sentence meant to refer to a book chapter by Michael Corballis critical of NLP, the author is a more accurately cognitive neuropsychologist. No other neuroscientists have mentioned it so its misleading to say "neuroscientists" plural. I've been trying to address other vague language in the lede here but am at loggerheads with other editors in the article discussion. Rather than talking about a "top ten" (which I think is more spin than substance) it would be much more specify the briefly highlight the studies used to compile the list. I said just let the evidence speak for itself. --122.x.x.x (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree if you like, but ease up on the aspersions.

"Manning has misunderstood the issue seriously. "Jesussaves" and "Hail the Dark Lord Satan" are not equivalent.". Feel free to disagree with my assessment, but please don't go telling me I have "seriously misunderstood", as I find that somewhat offensive. "Jesus Saves" is a regularly used advertising slogan of the Christian Church (eg. this image). Hence I see them as entirely equivalent and unacceptable forms of advocacy. Manning (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you found my comments a little abrasive, but I don't see them as being offensive, and they were not meant to offend. Editors disagree with each other all the time, sometimes seriously. I personally happen to think it helps if we are honest with each other, and tell other editors that they have gotten it wrong directly, if that is what we believe. One does need to be civil, but there is a place for direct statements; they can be more helpful than statements that are so polite one can't make out what the other fellow is saying. And I thought, and still think, that you are wrong on this issue. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

We certainly disagree about what constitutes "civility", that's for sure. I find it quite easy to convey my opinion without being abrasive or rude. It starts by respecting the contribution of others, even when you disagree. I still remain utterly baffled as to how you can think these statements differ in their intent, but am content to disagree. Regardless, thanks for your reply. Manning (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be a difference of opinion here as to what constitutes rudeness. You seem to think it is rude to tell another editor that he has seriously misunderstood something; I do not. I quite simply do not see anything wrong with telling other editors that they are wrong. Other editors have often told me that I am wrong, and they have often been right, too. In any case, I was never offended by it, or felt a need to accuse them of incivility. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Doing

What are you doing?24.38.181.81 (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean, what am I doing? As of this moment, I'm sitting at a table, and typing these words into my laptop. If you mean, why was I reverting your edits, it was because it would appear that you were destructively trying to force through certain changes across multiple articles despite objections from other editors. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Those edits were right we don't need the branch name outside the team alliance. WE can put it in there.24.38.181.81 (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but you can't over-ride objections from other editors. See WP:EDITWAR, please. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

the unnecessary

Polisher, apropos of Searle you seem to have your head screwed on the right way. How is it, then, that you can take seriously the ghastly Strunk? On your user page (and not obviously there as a joke):

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. [...]

Strunk 'n' White is no doubt in the library of this institution. Admittedly it's an etching rather than a drawing, but similar to some styles of drawing. Seems to work well, but I'd bet it would work just as well if I gimped out a line or three.

"A paragraph should contain nothing unnecessary" (six words) would seem to subsume the meaning of twelve of Strunk's words. Arguably, he's unnecessarily using a large number of words. It's unusual for a machine to contain unnecessary parts: manufacturers avoid this merely in order to keep costs down. What poor designers do perpetrate is sloppy design, such that the number of parts is unnecessarily high. Perhaps this is what Strunk means; if so, why doesn't he say so? (He demands precision from his readers but seems unable to deliver it himself.) Meanwhile, some styles of drawing (that of Marc, say) benefit from a minimal number of lines, but other styles use hatching to good effect and having a few extra lines for this matters little if at all. It's hard to see any parallel between number of lines and prolixity, so it's a crap comparison. But analogies aside, is "X should contain no unnecessary Y" perceptive, even quoteworthy? To me on the contrary it seems extraordinarily banal. The question should rather be: What is necessary?

Perhaps you just mention Strunk and White approvingly and then have the sense to ignore it, but maybe you actually take it seriously. I hate to see a good mind threatened by this silly book. Your medicine: sit back with a beer (or your preferred alternative) and read this squib. Then duckduckgo the combination of Strunk and Pullum for more. Cheers! -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The only reason why Strunk is mentioned on my user page is that I decided it would be amusing to copy my user page after that of IllaZilla. IllaZilla is a friend, of sorts, although I often disagree with him. My user page is my way of comparing myself to him. It's just a gag. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, I hope you enjoyed the Orval, at least. Sorry, I so often see praise for this stupid book from people who should know better (e.g. in the further reading section of this bloke's unexciting but highly competent A Rulebook for Arguments) that I've come to take mentions of it seriously. ¶ Or perhaps I'm just slow-witted. After all, I fail to understand the prose, let alone the genius, of M. Derrida; and my days are nice. -- Hoary (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Works by Thomas Szasz

Category:Works by Thomas Szasz, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. LeSnail (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Works by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson

Category:Works by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. LeSnail (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

War of Souls

Because you have recently participated in AFDs regarding Dragonlance, I am alerting you that War of Souls is up for deletion. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Searle

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Derrida criticism to Searle". Thank you. --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.7.109 (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

Polisher of Cobwebs,

What am I missing? The evidence (gladstien's book) and the discussion on talk strongly supports my view concerning the comment. Why do you repeatedly delete my edits? I think they are clearly correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagoexchanger (talk • contribs) 21:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Your edit clearly doesn't have consensus, which is why multiple editors (not just me) have reverted you. If you want to discuss the content issues regarding that article, the best place for that is its talk page. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Aboleth

Hello,

Since you participated in the deletion discussion for Medusa (Dungeons & Dragons), Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons), or Ankheg in 2011, I wanted to alert you that Aboleth is now up for AFD. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Polisher of Cobwebs. You have new messages at Talk:Ayn_Rand.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--MeUser42 (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

WIKIPEDIA IS KITTENS!

Pppowercurve (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments from 99.126.204.164

Since you created the image for D&D elves, I am letting you know about the discussion "What is going on here?" which I started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in the ANI discussion, and I have no opinion regarding the issue of sockpuppetry. IronBeefCurtain's behavior at the D&D elf article is obviously disruptive, however. It's either deliberate vandalism or just very, very, bad editing. I have reverted him. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Assault on Truth

The article The Assault on Truth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines for books. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources where the book itself (rather than the subject of the book, Freud) is the subject of the coverage.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Since The Assault on Truth is probably the single most notorious book about Sigmund Freud ever written, since it was enormously influential (as documented in the article itself), and since it has been the subject of a great deal of scholarly discussion, I'm pretty sure that it is, in fact, notable. Please don't waste your time and mine by nominating it for deletion. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Winter wolf

Did the winter wolf have a picture in the original Monster Manual? 99.126.204.164 (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't believe it did. But regarding Dungeons & Dragons articles in general, please see the note on my user page. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. When you recently edited Psyche (book), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Respiration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

If there's an administrator who can spare the time, I would find it extremely helpful if he or she could tell me which now deleted articles or pages my 160 deleted edits were to (I can't see deleted edits, but admins can). Knowing this would help me to focus my editing. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A clear majority of your deleted edits (89 of them, I think) were edits to your own userspace pages which you subsequently asked to have deleted. Apart from those, all the deleted edits which I have looked at have been small edits: I have not found a single substantive edit of yours outside your userspace which has been deleted. The next commonest type of deleted edits after userspace pages (at least 17) were redirects you created to pages which were subsequently deleted. Then there are various minor improvements of formatting that you made to various articles which later were deleted for reasons unrelated to your editing. Then there are a few articles which you tagged with {{db-move}} to request deletion. This applies to Life Against Death and Existentialism and Humanism. I also saw a few articles where you reverted vandalism or other unconstructive editing, where the article was subsequently deleted.

I hope those comments are helpful to you. If you like, I can email you a copy of your deletion log, which lists every deleted edit. However, in most cases it says very little about the edit beyond what page was edited, so I doubt that it would be much use to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the 160 deleted edits are less than 1% of your total edits. Many editors have a far larger proportion of deleted edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, to be technically accurate, I made a mistake when I said "your deletion log", as only administrators have deletion logs, which list pages that they have deleted. What I meant was the list of your deleted contributions. However, whatever it is called, I will email it to you. I have just copied and pasted it, which does not result in the most convenient format, but you can adjust that as easily as I can, if you want to. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirects

I have started a DRV for the list article, and later today I will restore all the deleted redirects, and point them at appropriate pages. If the list article is restored, you can move them back or not. BOZ (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You're more familiar with the D&D topic area than I am, so I'm 100% happy if you want to change or modify anything I have done. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:D&DElves.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:D&DElves.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Postmodern Condition.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Postmodern Condition.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Abishai (Dungeons & Dragons)

This article was already merged by admin for notability reasons. It already had its chance, what gives with the undo? -- WikHead (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there needs to be a new discussion of notability? Consensus can change, after all. But I wouldn't dream of reverting back if you undid my edits to those pages. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe it should be reverted back to a merged version. At that point, you're more than welcome to pursue an updated consensus before making further change. -- WikHead (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Abishai.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Abishai.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Booka

I took care of that one as you suggested. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if they have pictures in the book, but if you are interested I also found that Skeleton warrior (Dungeons & Dragons), Skulk (Dungeons & Dragons), and Stunjelly have articles. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I started up eye of fear and flame, flind, and huecuva today. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you had a busy weekend - I have a lot of catching up to do! I'm still on the Fiend Folio. Today I started Apparition, Assassin bug, Blindheim, Bunyip, Caryatid column, and Caterwaul. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me posted. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Today I got the Jaculi, Kelpie, Killmoulis, Lamia noble‎, Lizard king, Mantari‎, Mite, Needleman, and Penanggalan. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I finished up the Fiend Folio today. Will probably wait until next week to get to the Monster Manual II. Check out the Sandman, Shocker, Sussurus, Throat leech, Giant two-headed troll, Tween, Vodyanoi, Volt, and Vortex. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring

Could you mentor me on wikipedia? I need a mentor because I think otherwise certain users are going to try to ban me. --RJR3333 (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Without knowing more about why "certain users" might want to try to ban you, there is absolutely no way that I can answer that question. You have to be completely forthcoming about why a ban might happen for me to be able to answer, or for any answer to be appropriate. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok I also just want to improve my editing. Primarily my problems were with editing the articles relating to Chris Hansen and his show because Malke2010 and Flyer22 didn't like my edits because my edits were way to biased at first, which I agree with. Malke lost interest in the articles but Flyer22 still objects to my edits there and to the age of consent area, but I think my edits there have been more neutral and objective lately than they were originally. But can you mentor me here so I can improve my editing patterns in general? --RJR3333 (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I happen never to have even heard of Chris Hansen. If you're able to see that your edits there were biased (which I express no opinion about since, again, I've never even looked at the article), then you probably understand the basics of WP:NPOV, and I'm not sure you need mentoring. I have never looked at even one of your edits to articles about age of consent issues, and that's because it's a topic area that I have no particular interest in. If you're looking for someone to help you there, I'm probably not the best person to ask. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well how about my edits to articles about books such as The Jungle, Father Ernetti's Chronovisor, The Great Hunger, etc. and in history articles and the Freud related articles, could you help me there? At least in the Freud article and related ones could you since that is one of your interests?--RJR3333 (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to help with Freud-related articles, but I'd probably be pretty useless where any of the other topic areas you mention are concerned. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

One thing I'm concerned about is in the age of consent section I got in fights with another editor who seemed very opinionated on the topic and I ended up having to leave the topic alone I'm concerned the same could happen here. Are there a lot of controversies in the Freud articles?--RJR3333 (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps surprisingly, no. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I still want to edit the Freud articles. But is there a way I can abolish this account and replace with a new name I'll edit under? Because I don't want to continue being associated with my bad history on this account. I saw that off2riorob did that, he's now youreallycan. --RJR3333 (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Since I am mentioned here, I'm just butting in to say that my problems with RJR3333's editing have not been due to any bias that he may have. The problems I have had with him are made clear on his talk page. I know that he means well. It's just that meaning well is not always good enough. I wish him all the best on finding a dedicated mentor and becoming a better editor, because it benefits Wikipedia and will allow him to enjoy Wikipedia more. I don't like him thinking that I'm out to get him. That's never been what it's about. But as for starting a new account, see WP:Clean start for when a clean start is and is not allowed. Flyer22 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleuze’s N. and philosophy

Hello, you reverted one of my edits here, thinking for the good, I assume, but your reversion was perhaps a little fast.
Consider the following remarks.

To state that Nietzsche was not considered a serious philosopher in France before that book is simply false and not even Deleuze says so. Bachelard and Camus to name only two among the most famous authors (and not among obscure scholars), had already written most seriously about his work. Hence the quotation marks (a mild understatement) and the plural (one of the...) So undoing your revert concerning this is absolutely necessary (unless you prefer to leave something unfactual rather than true, I mean, but I trust you not to do so).
Also : a new line after the first sentence was rather better than a compact paragraph, the words "in general" seemed to me more accurate than "generally" in the sentence (try to read it carefully in both versions and tell me if I am wrong), and the link to system seemed useful. Please consider undoing your edit concerning also those detailed items if you agree with that.
As for the change from N. scholarship to N. studies, you are right, but I see no other part in the edit that needed be reverted, honestly. Best,--Hérisson de Cloche 07:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

So far as the factual issues about Nietzsche's reputation in France are concerned, you may well be right. However, that isn't really the crucial point, since material in Wikipedia articles is meant to be verifiable, rather than necessarily true. WP:NOTTRUTH. So the crucial issue is what the source says. If it contradicts your correction, we have to go by the source, even if it's wrong. If you want a new line after the first sentence, then by all means re-insert one - I don't care enough about this to revert again. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I did not create that article. I only created a redirect of that name, so the article is something I am not responsible for (see my user page). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You Been Named in an Arbitration Request

Hypoplectrus here to let you know you've been named in an arbitration request. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Biased_Editors_of_Sigmund_Freud_Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypoplectrus (talk • contribs) 18:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Unsourced material"

I'm the one who added the section in the first place, and if you'd bothered to read my initial proposal or any of the three edit histories, you'd see it was indeed sourced, but I'm unable to use the source, which is why I included the citation needed tag.--Williamsburgland (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Unable to use the source" sounds a lot like "unsourced" to me. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I said that there is a citation at the examiner (which, again, you'd know if you'd bothered to actually to do any due diligince), but it's automatically blacklisted by wikipedia, which doesn't mean it's unreliable or unverifiable. The addition was also in line with WP:Citation needed as it wasn't contentious, and again, if you'd bothered with the history rather than simply stepping in and removing information you'd see the entire section I created was intended to make a contentious issue less contentious, which has worked for everyone but you. --Williamsburgland (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting offensive about it won't help you, I'm afraid. Try coming back when you're able to be more civil. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking you for help or being offensive, and I don't think I'm being uncivil; I'm just noting that I don't think you're editing constructively nor have you observed WP:Discussion or WP:Consensus, and as I noted above, you completely ignored my justification re: WP:Citation needed. Three people removed that section, and I reverted three times with the same explanation, and for every one of them it seemed justification enough. You must have seen that, because you reverted my edit, but you apparently chose to ignore it. There's not much I can do at this point as I don't want to violate WP:3RR, but I can voice my frustration and say I'm not at all impressed with the fashion with which you summarily delete information, which I've done. Beyond that it's really not worth the headache. --Williamsburgland (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by your over-reactions. Chill, dude. It's normal to remove something if it has "citation needed" after it. You can hardly criticize people for behaving normally. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

<5 second reverts

I am entirely willing to believe that you act in good faith, however, when you revert things in under five seconds with a comment, it makes it kind of hard to think that you are not a bot. I do have some skin in my edits, since I took some the time to compose them. You are familiar with WP:BRD, so please propose a rewrite on the appropriate page. Thanks :-) 68.105.46.68 (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The edit was reverted after four minutes, not five seconds, at least according to the diff. You opened a discussion on the talk page, so it might help to wait for discussion and consensus on the subject to avoid any further misunderstandings. :) - Sudo Ghost 23:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

SudoGhost, although I don't want to make a big deal out it (and I won't even remove your comment), I seem to recall banning you from commenting on my talk page. I still recall your aggravating behavior at Lich (Dungeons & Dragons), which drove me away from the D&D topic area for some time. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Assuming for a moment that I'm supposed to remember you "banning" me from your talk page (which I did not recall), are you seriously giving me crap for defending your edit? If you're more interested in holding grudges over an 8-month old mutual disagreement than editing collaboratively, then you won't have to worry about me placing any comments on your talk page from this point further. I apologize for trying to help, I didn't realize that it would offend you, nor was that my intention. I won't comment on your talk page further. Take care. - Sudo Ghost 05:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I said I didn't want to make a big deal out of it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Sudo is entirely correct. This was stupid of me. I apologize. Still, I think that you've been acting with too much zeal in protecting the current phrasing of pages that have been tagged as needing changes, especially when multiple users have been trying to fix the changes.68.105.46.68 (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The Dark Crystal

I think your going to have to talk to user Medeis on this Vampire thing with The Dark Crystal again.[5][6]99.159.250.209 (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hi, thanks for starting those Dungeons and Dragons articles. Please note that years, dates, and common terms are not usually linked on the English WP. Tony (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not start Dungeons and Dragons articles. See the notice on my user page about this. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I got four more this evening, if you are still interested in doing pictures. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. I shall upload images for them shortly. I should tell you, though, that it's possible those articles may wind up being deleted or redirected. I haven't uploaded an image for Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons), and that's because it's being considered for deletion - in the unlikely event that it survives the AfD, I will upload a picture for it then. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

So far, so good! I got more today. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, found them. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

BRD

When someone makes a bold insertion and it is reverted, do not re-insert the material. This is part of the normal WP:BRD cycle and it is disruptive to start edit warring even if you agree with the content. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not edit war. I reverted someone a single time. That is not edit warring. It was, in fact, Dominus Vobisdu who was edit warring, since he reverted not only me but another editor as well (check the revision history of the article). Your advice would be better directed to him. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

One tip

One thing you never want to say to a deletionist in an AFD is "Why do you want to delete this one, if you're not deleting these other ones just like it?" All too often, the response will be, "Ah, thanks, I didn't know about those..." Trust me, I know this from experience! :\ BOZ (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:The Primal Scream.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Violence and the Sacred.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Tarrasque.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "</nowiki>Cognitive behavioral therapy, Psychoanalysis". Thank you. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

merge proposition for Lamia (D&D)

Hello, as you took part in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination), which closed on "no consensus", I'm bringing to your attention a discussion on whether to merge or not that has opened on the article talk page.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You seem to have voted to oppose this merge, but your comment is in a Pathfinder section (below the merge section) and you may wish to move your comment if it is in the wrong place. Big Mac (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Chimera (Dungeons & Dragons).JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Cyclopskin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cyclopskin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyclopskin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks at AfD/Cyclopskin

You could just have apologized for needlessly using a derogatory word to qualify my recommendation. I certainly don't consider "nonesense" to be the gravest offense on earth, but it is purely factual that there was no basis for it, and instead of just downplaying the incident and apologizing, you chose to get confrontational and "challenge" me. I can understand I might not be your favorite wikipedian because we don't have the same views on D&D, but I can see that your interventions in D&D related discussions are getting more and more personal against me, and I can't let that happen, I have a right to contribute here without getting attacked. So if your attitude continues, I might start a dispute resolution...I think you can be reasonable so I don't see the need to report you. After all, my aim is not to have you blocked, but to contribute here without being insulted for my opinions.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not make a personal attack. I commented on your comment, calling it nonsense. Big deal. I couldn't care less if anyone calls my comments nonsense. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The comment was uncalled for and as I stated, it seems to me that since the Lamia AfD you've gotten more and more agressive against me and I want to make sure this doesn't go further. Good for you if you don't care what others say about your commente - personnally I wouldn't label them "nonesense" - but that's your problem. Indeed this is no big deal yet, which is why I didn't report you, but in the context of our fundamental disagreement concerning D&D and the numerous debates we are likely to have, I take it as a bad sign, so I'm here to make you realize there is a line you cannot cross, no more "nonsense" with me.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

To an external observer, I think it is likely that your comments will look like trolling, whether they are intended that way or not. Stop. Please do not comment here if you have nothing of substance to say. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Basilisk.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Axe beak.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:D&DBrownie.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Al-mi'raj.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Adherer.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Algoid.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Blood hawk.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Crabmen.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Crypt thing.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Bonesnapper.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Atomie.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Aurumvorax.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Banderlog.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Boalisk.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:D&DApparition.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Blindheim.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Bunyip.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ascomoid.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ant lion.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Sea hag.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Basidirond.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Death Watch Beetle.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Slicer beetle.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Crysmal.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Glasya.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

D&D monster articles

Given your own comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyclopskin as well as the consensus there, could you substanciate all your reverts ? Because I don't see any explanation for them in your edit summaries. If you do that only to complain that there is an AfD and then recommand redirects, I don't see the points, your edits are unconstruictive and in some cases disruptive because there has already been AfDs which consensus was violated by the IPs.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't work out exactly what you're trying to say - maybe it's just me, but you're comments don't seem to quite make sense. Too much contorted syntax. The bottom line here is, you redirected a bunch of articles claiming them to be "not notable", apparently without any prior discussion, and without any consensus that they are all about non-notable subjects. So, I reverted you. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That would make sense if you were not familiar with the numerous AfDs establishing the non-notability of D&D monsters. You did the same revert with Cyclopskin, only to state in the AfD that the article should be redirected, and several people remarked that you shouldn't even have restored the article in the first place. All the articles I returned to redirects are extremely similar in content and sources to Cyclopskin (they even started as redirect just like it), in the light of the AfD discussion there is no particular reason to believe they could be notable, so if you had any reasonable doubt, it would have been better to susbstanciate it with sources first instead of mass-reverting and forcing to go through pointless AfDs. You also don't seem to have bothered to take any look at the articles before reverting (less than a minute between each revert; the Glasya issue), showing your actions are~unconstructive.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As for Chimera, here is the consensus I mentionned, a discussion on the D&D Project talkpage stating the necessity to redirect D&D monster articles, with Chimera specifically mentionned by two different users and no one opposing its redirection. The IP restored the article without taking part to the discussion and without providing any independent source establishing notability, thus violating the D&D project consensus. If you're still intent on preventing me to redirect, you will have to discuss first and convince these users (and now me) that Chimera is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Polisher of Cobwebs! There is also the Abyss (Dungeons & Dragons). According to my talk page, these articles were redirected because Folken de Fanel was following my edits, so I am forced to avoid most D&D articles for now so not to attract his attention. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, because they were violations of WP:GNG and of AfD consensus. Please stop victimizing yourself in order to avoid facing the fact that you've adopted a disruptive behavior (I note you still haven't said anything about Glasya...how convenient).Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that what this is all about? Will you be happy if I say something about Glasya? It seems you're very upset about that. OK, no one likes to admit their mistakes, but I will admit that I made a careless mistake. So, I'm sorry about that. Since apparently it has earned me your friendly attentions, then instead it is more likely one of the most foolish mistakes in my life. However, I wonder if that is really what's got you upset at me, or if it is the fact that I added a note about appearances in the book "Tome of Horrors" to Adherer, Aerial servant, Algoid, Al-mi'raj (Dungeons & Dragons), Amphisbaena (Dungeons & Dragons), Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons), Apparition (Dungeons & Dragons), Ascomoid, Atomie (Dungeons & Dragons), Aurumvorax, Axe beak, Banderlog, Basidirond, Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons), Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons), Slicer beetle, Blindheim (Dungeons & Dragons), Blood hawk, Boalisk, Bonesnapper, Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons), Buckawn, Bunyip (Dungeons & Dragons), Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons), Caterwaul (Dungeons & Dragons), Cave cricket (Dungeons & Dragons), Cave fisher, Coffer corpse, Cooshee, Crabman, and Crypt thing. It seems to me that this reference might threaten to undermine any attempts to get the results you would want on these articles on AFD, so it seems like it might have been easier to just redirect them in order to avoid having to go through such a discussion; anything else you redirected would have merely been collateral damage due to the fact that I happened to have edited them recently. There are more articles I'd like to add that reference to, but since you will apparently take my good-faith efforts as an incentive to redirect them, I will have to forego that for now, as I have already explained on my talk page. 99.126.204.164 (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

First, if you think refs to Tome of horrors could save these articles from being deleted (or more likely redirected) in AfDs, you're wrong. Tome of Horrors is material officially licenced and authored by Wizards of the Coast, it is thus a primary source affiliated to the subject or its creator, it cannot be used to establish notability and won't be of any use in AfDs. It is not your inclusion of these refs that prompted me to redirect the articles, but the fact that they are non-notable because based only on primary sources, and that there is already a consensus at the D&D project and at several AfDs to redirect. By the way, some of the articles in your list like Amphisbaena had already been redirected per AfD, merely adding a disputed ref without discussion doesn't allow you to overturn that, so don't try to lecture me about AfDs and "getting the result I want". There are hundreds of these non-notable monster articles so yes, redirects are more convenient and less time-consuming than 400 AfDs, but don't delude yourself into thinking they would survive AfDs otherwise. Add refs from Tome of Horrors if you want, but it won't save articles from redirection, whether by bold editing or AfD. If there was no ground to redirect them, then you wouldn't be afraid to draw attention on them.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Foucault's History of Sexuality

Hello there Mr Cobweb Polisher! I have noticed that you've recently been making some alterations to the page on Michel Foucault's The History of Sexuality, which I am currently involved in expanding. From your profile page, I see that you've spent much of your time here in creating and improving articles on academic texts; I've been doing the same, as you can see over at Dreamtime (Duerr book) and A Community of Witches. I'd love to work with you on this particular Foucault page if you're interested, and think we should discuss any little differences over at the talk page. Best. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC))

I am, of course, happy to discuss any issues relating to the article on its talk page. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Blood hawk.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Banderlog.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Boalisk.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Bodak.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Boobrie.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Glasya.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Chimera (Dungeons & Dragons).JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Lamia noble.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Monsters

If you were still doing images, there are some new articles for yugoloths. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Being and Nothingness / The Concept of Mind

First, let me say that I feel no ill will towards you. I would also like to let you know I greatly appreciate your interest in this article, because I think B+N is very important.

So far, the only justification you've provided for inclusion of the link (as in why you think it's "useful"/"relevant"/"appropriate") is that it mentions Being and Nothingness. I'd like to hear something more specific. My point is that if that is the justification for inclusion (and, of course, that it's a work on philosophy and it's notable), then we could therefore, based on the same reasoning, include about a hundred more links from that general period alone, which would be very silly and inconsistent with other articles.

I'm interested in why you think this work is *particularly* relevant to B+N (compared to, say, the multitude of other philosophical works from the same general period that also mention B+N). I don't think this is an unreasonable objection on my part ("it gets mentioned" is a pretty weak justification in my opinion) and I find the WP:OWN reference somewhat petty. Byelf2007 (talk) July 15 2012

As this is a question related to a particular article, it would be more appropriate to take the matter up at its talk page. I will happily reply there. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point. You're right.

Also, I just read the "Influence and reception" thing. Looks good. Byelf2007 (talk) July 15 2012

The Time Machine (2002 film)

Hi Polisher of Cobwebs. No the comment was not aimed at you but the anonymous IP who originally vandalised the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Time_Machine_(2002_film)&diff=prev&oldid=498389865. Browsing the article I thought the gross was a bit unbelievable so I just searched the history until I found the culprit who had inserted it (they had also vandalised Star Trek (film)). Regarding your edit, it's so easy to think an Anonymous IP that doesn't leave an edit summary is a vandal, something I have also done. memphisto 23:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Arcanadaemon.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Arcanadaemon.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Arcanadaemon.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Charonadaemon.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Charonadaemon.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Charonadaemon.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).