User talk:Mintpieman/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello Mintpieman/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! BlankVerse ∅ 11:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Dunce.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Dunce.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags.

Image copyright problem with Image:Leeroy.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Leeroy.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 10:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Turd.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Turd.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 04:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Hi there. I think you should withdraw this. The fact that you have blanked out the RfA template and put your own sentence there, and added yourself to the bottom instead of the top, will get you a lot of hard criticism. Also you have done less than 100 edits when the usual requirement is about 2000-3000, and have uplaoded pictures without proper tagging which is frowned upon. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did this guy a favor and fixed up his nomination. Let's see how it goes. Mostly Rainy 06:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind folks have helped you to set up your nomination. Please answer the questions if you still want to apply. Remember that you can withdraw the nomination at any time if you feel that the odds are against you. (And be aware that other people can do it as well!) Conscious 06:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, but your first attempt fail miserably wither a final vote of 2 positive and 24 negative. Try again in a few months. Mostly Rainy 02:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Image talk:Scorpionwithyoung.JPG[edit]

Thank you for experimenting with the page Image talk:Scorpionwithyoung.JPG on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you for your understanding. --Hughcharlesparker 23:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia[edit]

hi -- I reverted your {{npov}} tag addition to this article, since adding the tag without explaining why doesn't help us fix the problems. if you really have specific issues with the article, please explain them on the Talk page, describe passagess you find NPOV and discuss ways that they can be rectified, and then put the {{npov}} tag back up. otherwise, you're not giving us anything to work with. thanks. bikeable (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia[edit]

Your reasons for putting the npov tag on homophobia:

I agree with adding the {{npov}} tag back on the page, reason being that the word itself is probably one of the most know loaded words. Ergo, I suggest that the tag remain up until the article reaches a neutral level, without any bias.

are not sufficient to add that tag to that article. Here's why: You're saying, essentially:

1. The word itself is probably one of the most loaded words.

2. Therefore, I suggest that the tag remain up until the article reaches a neutral level, without any bias.

Your reasoning is presented in the form of an deductive argument, but the premise doesn't relate to the conclusion at all. Further, both are just your opinion. What would work better is going through the article and copying-and-pasting examples of the bias you think is there, so that it can be addressed. If a dialogue like that were going on on the talk page I would wholeheartedly support your readding the npov tag. -Smahoney 04:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we could use your help standing up to ...[edit]

... User:Exploding Boy at the homophobia article. i tried to insert the word "pejoratively" in a sentence that says that homophobia may be referred to "opposition to same-sex activism on religious, moral, or political grounds". he won't have it. i already reported him as a WP:3RR violator. r b-j 05:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in regards to the comment you left on my user talk page, I would be glad to help out by standing up against exploding boy, and taking away the bias of the article. --Piemanmoo 01:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we can converse here, since i first contacted you here (and i'll watch this usertalk page). a lot happens in 6 days here at Wikipedia. we already had our little edit war and E.B. essentially withdrew. but i didn't want it to appear superficially to the admins that i was the only editor that understood that the unqualified use of "homophobia" to mere political opposition really is a pejorative with no support in the basic definition of the word. he would stand for it at first, but eventually he realized that, if he played by the rules (and i was seeing to it that if he didn't play by the rules the admins would know about it), he was not going to be able to stop that qualification of that particular use of "homophobe" in the article.

it would be good to keep an eye out on the article so if there is a contest of support, you will be able to add your voice. sometimes reason and logic and the simple facts are not sufficient. r b-j 02:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refs removed[edit]

I don't understand why you removed all the dialogue refs from Star Fox: Assault. Now the Story section has no refs at all. Lots of other games have story refs, such as Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater and pretty much every video game FA. Thunderbrand 17:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

because if people really want to read the dialog, they can go to wikiquote. I find it unneccesary to have it go "Slippy later finds that the aparoids are vunerable to apoptosis[12]" and then it says "^Slippy: I have just discovered that the aparoids are vunerable to apoptosis!"

as if I was thinking to my self "What? Why do you expect me to believe that Slippy said that in the game? I want PROOF, dammit!"

--Piemanmoo 21:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googling the dialogue should help establish that numerous sites have that script down (check to see if there are consistent typos to show if sites just copied and pasted from each other). Also, script refs are important to show that the synopsis is not original research. I support reintroducing the script cites based on virtually every video game FA out there. — Deckill er 17:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional technopaths[edit]

I noticed that you've started repopulating the category Fictional technopaths. The result of the CFD discussion was "Listify", and the category was depopulated. Was a decision made to restore the categories? TomTheHand 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy, the decision to get rid of the catagories was decided against on the March 7th discussion. The current one is about whether or not to listify them. The only reason they were depopulated was because Cyde jumped the gun and he and his bot had begun to depopulate a good chunk of those catagories before he stopped. I'm just correcting some of the damage until everybody comes to a decision to get rid of which catagories.--Piemanmoo 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you really should provide an edit comment to explain what you're doing. Otherwise, it appears as if you're restoring categories against a CfD process, which could easily be misinterpreted as vandalism. Just a suggestion... --Ckatz^chat _spy 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks an awful lot to me like the March 7th decision was "listify." Where do you see "keep"? TomTheHand 13:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the March 13th deletion review, you'll see that Radiant! had gone against the consensus, and he decided to do it one more time, thus starting the March 14th decision, which as of currently, is pointing towards organization rather than deletion. --Piemanmoo 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks, and sorry. TomTheHand 14:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Nofish.PNG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Nofish.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for alerting me to the new vote. I hadn't noticed. Not all categories that were on the first list are on the second and I hadn't yet been to the page of a category which is on the second. -- Noneofyourbusiness 20:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Category for Discussion[edit]

A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies . This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page.
VegaDark 01:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Homicide[edit]

I reverted your addition to this template recently, and I'd appreciate it if you'd go over to the talk page and give it a look, maybe explain your reasoning. Thanks! Switchercat ^talk_cont 02:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd n Eddy character pages and the discussion to merge them with List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy[edit]

There was a discussion on whether to merge the pages or not. The admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed (Ed, Edd n Eddy), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edd (Ed, Edd n Eddy), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddy (Ed, Edd n Eddy) would support a merge if there a consensus for it. Squirepants101 12:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They shouldn't have them per WP:REDIRECT#Categories for redirect_pages. Can you please revert yourself? Nemu 00:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Redirects should not normally contain categories that would fit on the target page." Edd is a fictional inventor, the page of the list of characters is not. Ergo, there is nothing wrong with putting categories on a redirect unless the same category can be applied to the redirected page. --Piemanmoo 00:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That excuse is flawed. Do not add categories to redirects. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users complaints, which are half questions and half misguided anyway, have no bearing on your behavior. Categories do not belong in redirects. "Relevant categories should be moved to the main page where the redirect is pointing." You don't seem to want to pay attention to this line. In addition, half of your categories are wrong. Benvicktor is not undead, Benmummy isn't a mummy, and Benwolf is not a werewolf. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call me what you will, fact is I come out on top in basically every instance. People who question what I do often don't understand how it works, and it's the same with you. Categories belong on pages, not redirects. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that your category has been deleted and salted, preventing you from bringing it back, I'll explain why what you're doing is pointless. Making a category with nothing but redirects serves no purpose because no one can access it. You didn't categorize it in the Ben 10 cat, so there's no way to find it except going through the fictional character cats. Furthermore, though this shouldn't need explaining, you are incorrectly categorizing characters.

Benmummy is not a mummy. A mummy, by defintion, has a person under the bandages; Benmummy is the bandages. He only looks mummy-like.
Benwolf is not a werewolf, he is an alien. Werewolves are wolf-morphed humans, Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Wildmutt is not a canine. He's a mix of a lion and a gorrila. Feline, if anything, would be proper.
Ghostfreak is not a ghost. A ghost is the spirit of a once-living creature. Ghostfreak is already alive.
Cannonbolt is not an armadillo. I shouldn't even have to explain why this is just wrong.

Not only do you insist on pointlessly listing redirects, which create double mentions of pages through categories and their subcategories, you don't even add the correct ones. Add the characters to the "list of fictional characters..." lists if you're so concerned, but don't categorize redirects ad nauseam. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get a distinct opinion on whether or not they belong in the first place, rather than simply going by a vague interpretation. Categories are meant to lead people to specific articles, not the same article over and over. Also note that people agreeing with you does not make you actions any less a revert, nor does policy make mine any less a revert. You won't accomplish anything by edit warring. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because when you click the link, you end up on a different page, which is confusing. Furthermore, every alien has superhuman strength, so you'd have to categorize them all, which would multi-list the same page through the redirects. Instead of doing that, you could simply add the categories to the page itself, which the policy tells you to do in the first place. Why you would ignore this is beyond me. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say that despite the partial ambiguity of the redirect guideline, the fact that relevant categories are not in active use on most redirects should be enough to show that your take on it is wrong. One big clue should be that Characters of Final Fantasy VIII's redirects don't contain any article categories, and it is a featured article. Nemu 00:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose typing rationally is too difficult for you at this point, so I'll ignore your pathetic attempts to belittle my argument and address your points. I was trying to show you why you weren't even categorizing the pages correctly, but I see you're incapable of making the distinction. To your argument that not all aliens have super strength, all but two or three do. You'll multi-list a page at least thirteen times with this alone. To your suggestion of adding unique categories, you'll notice that Widget the Armadillo is categorized at the main page, not a redirect. Obviously, a company is not an armadillo, but its mascot is, hence the category. This should show you that instead of childishly clinging to redirect categories and trying to belittle the arguments of others, you could compromise and *gasp* add them to the main page. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again you type in all caps and bold like some raving forum-goer. Speak normally if you want to be taken seriously. You did not read what I wrote just now, instead picking out what you want to hear and bitching about it, so I will say it again. Hell, I'll even take a page from your obook and annoyingly bold it just to make my point clearer. You'll notice that Widget the Armadillo is categorized at the main page, not a redirect (none exist anyway). Obviously, a company is not an armadillo, but its mascot is, hence the category. Had you read this the first time, you would not be acting stupid on my page now. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short, yes, because the article clarifies who does what and who's capable of what, so the categories are relevant. So too would they be if the aliens had articles, which they don't (so that's a moot point). — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not list them at all, as the categories are for specific articles, not redirects and lists. I would not be opposed to it, however. Anyone looking for it in the first place would recognize the term and anyone unfamiliar would be educated. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And unlike you, I am actually capable of reading a simple policy. God forbid you accept the fact that, with some exceptions, redirects don't get categorized. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects only go in specialized categories or none at all. Period. How dense does one have to be to not understand this simple fact? A redirect is not an article. Categories are for articles. There are a bit less than 2 million redirects, which remain uncategorized for the precise reason that they are not meant to visible to the general editors with a few exceptions. To list the millions of redirects would be to hopelessly bloat the category system. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects don't belong in article categories. It does not matter why you're doing it. Categories are meant for articles. Redirects are just that, pages to send someone to the correct page when no actual article exists. When you categorize a redirect, you are categorizing the article by proxy, which by your own admission you believe the article doesn't belong in in the first place. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might as well explain the software problems, too, though I doubt you'll listen. When you categorize a redirect, and some bloke inevitably click its to end up on the page, that category doesn't show up. This defeats the bidirectional purpose of categories. One is supposed to be able to click an article and get back to the category without going through the back button or traveling back to the page they visited originally. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My last addition explains why that reasoning is flawed. A category listing doesn't show up for individual sections or targets of redirects, only articles. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use vagueness to make your point valid. It doesn't work. The majority of Wikipedians do not categorize redirects. You're only the second person I've ever seen doing it, and I'm not the only user who's told you not to. You're simply ignoring what you're being told and wikilawyering in an attempt to cling to this pathetic obsession. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's not a script, it's tabs and copy-pasting using Firefox. Just because you take forever to undo my edits doesn't mean I need just as much time to do the same. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories on Redirects[edit]

Please look at this policy and stop adding categories to redirect pages. You are being correctly reverted by User:Someguy0830 --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 09:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Redirects do not belong in article categories as they are not articles. --Deskana (AFK 47) 11:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for redirects[edit]

Greetings. In accordance to this short discussion, there is no guideline or policy that enforces all listified redirects to be categorized, is there? Until there is, it should remain at best for now that redirects do not be categorized unless they follow only these set of rules. Is that of any burden? DC&Marvel maniac 15:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry there chap, you may want to see the discussion if you haven't already done so. Moments earlier, my comment was posted, what might be your thought on it? Cherrio. DC&Marvel maniac 16:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIV[edit]

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. But please, keep up the great anti-vandal work! Jmlk 1 7 07:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated category[edit]

You have recently recreated or reposted material at Fictional characters with the ability to resurrect themselves which previously was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not recreate this article without prior approval from an administrator or you may be blocked from editing. We ask that you respect what Wikipedia is not. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may seek an independent deletion review. --Shirahadasha 03:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, I think Shirahadasha meant Category:Fictional characters with the ability to resurrect themselves, as the top refers to an article which was never created as of June 11, 2007. Lord Sesshomaru

Oh well[edit]

Find something more productive than shoving non-notable characters into trivial categories then. It's not my fault if you get told to stop then just start again after a while. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or stop being sarcastic and go do something. You managed to clean up a few articles while redoing all your pointless redirect categorizing, why not try doing that some more, eh? Of course, you could simply continue your behavior, but we know how it came out last time, and you're the one who reported me. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, your sarcasm only shows you can't argue from a proper position, instead picking at a single block in the log of a user. Run out of decent quips and turning to picking at long-since-dead issues? Please. Quit bitching about mundane things and actually try to defend your position. As for your category thing, no. No fictional category needs to be in a redirect. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you tried. You're right, admins backing me up doesn't make me any less of a moron. It does make you more of one, because if you're too foolish to listen to what to people capable of blocking you are willing to say, you've got a pretty inflated opinion of yourself. Fact remains, support for your side is severely limited, while what I'm doing has a much wider consensus. You can yell and toss stupid "format your hard drive" suggestions all you like. Really, be my guest. It only proves your position is too weak for you to draw a valid argument. Fictional characters don't need any but the most basic of categories. Everyone minus you seems to get that (I don't include Grimm because he's only doing it for a single back-navigatable cat), and they have good reasons why. What do you have? "Because someone might find it interesting." I suggest you work on your position, because this display is quite frankly sad. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Tallest.JPG)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tallest.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Charlie Andrews (Heroes)[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Charlie Andrews (Heroes) meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Andrews (Heroes). Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 03:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:CharlieAndrews.JPG)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:CharlieAndrews.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007[edit]

With regard to your comments on User talk:Someguy0830: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]