Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BetacommandBot (talk | contribs) at 16:34, 8 March 2008 (notifying user of invalid Fair Use claim on Image:Old Clifford.jpg WP:NONFREE). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

George W. Bush talk page edit summary

Classic. You have my respect. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cookie

Per your request on my talk page. An admin aims to please. (Someone else will have to handle the chocolate milk, though.) User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward5b

Sheridan College

And according to this, which I only just found, it is the second largest. But, what the Hell is that even based on? I am so confused!!! http://www-acad.sheridanc.on.ca/BUSM25315/bruzzeda/indexj.htm

Sheridan College Followup

Ah, don't worry about it. Thanks, all the same!

Smile!

This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions

Huh?

Are you really claiming that this is your edit? Corvus cornix_talk 05:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I knew that wasn't you. I'll retract my comments. Corvus cornix_talk 05:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

One of my edit summaries earlier tonight was "wtf?"  :) Corvus cornix_talk 05:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when you've answered the questions on your RfA page and I'll get the nomination started. Try to make your answers as thorough as possible. You can see how others have answered them at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship. Good luck. Epbr123 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Traycee King

You sure about this? They look like good faith edits to me. Jfire (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Crap...

Man, I missed it! :) Jmlk17 09:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Prods

Hi there - Misplaced Pages:PROD#Conflicts says that once a prod notice has been removed, even in bad faith, it shouldn't be readded: instead, the article should be taken to AfD. Once an AfD notice is on the article, it must stay there and repeatedly removing an AfD notice can lead to a block (as I noted when declining to block the user in question earlier). I suggest you change your prod to an AFD. Regards, Bencherlite 10:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Err, there isn't. {{uw-afd1}} etc are warning notices for removing {{Afd}} notices from articles, not prods. I'm surprised you didn't know / didn't spot the difference. Bencherlite 10:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

This is just to say that I hope that you bounce back from this and come back as an even stronger candidate next time round. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing you at work around the 'pedia and please do let me know if I can be of any assistance, or if you see me making mistakes. With very best wishes, Bencherlite 20:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Trolls

Hey, that IP left this poop on my user page. Apparently I'm not the only one the troll is mad at. Well, just goes to show you that "small minds stink" - like? Sorry about your RFA - I saw another witch hunt just last week - it's becoming more and more common. - BillCJ (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

More Trolls

Everyone is getting them, look at one.68.244.228.108 (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Attack of the Clones (good thread title btw)

Incidentally, and while the Epic film article is virtually unreferenced, the single reference it contains —besides the "war epic" one to AMG.com— is an essay by Roger Ebert, where he says about the issue, as quoted in the article:

So, do you think it is a viable approach to determine a film's inclusion in the category of epic films (i) on your own, (ii) on the basis of unverified criteria stated in another Misplaced Pages article? User:Dorftrottel 05:34, January 19, 2008

No, I rather agree with Ebert. Big budget B picture is spot on. The Star Wars franchise has been marketed as epic, but that's simply an advertisement exploitation of the term. User:Dorftrottel 05:39, January 19, 2008

Thanks, and sorry if I came across as a little defensive. You see, I've tried educating Star Wars fans about this before. User:Dorftrottel 05:45, January 19, 2008

I beg to differ. Only episode V is a truly epic experience. To me it's the masterpiece of the series, and far surpasses the others in every single aspect of screenwriting, directing and acting. episode IV suffers from a rather empty story (although less apparent than in the horrible episode I), the usual sluggish directing of post-American-Graffiti Lucas, and the lack of the Imperial march. Episode VI features those annoying furballs for the children audience. User:Dorftrottel 06:06, January 19, 2008

:D There's also a few other reasons why VI sucks. See e.g. this link. Also, ever noticed how Carrie Fisher, hot as she was back then, is always leaning against or holding onto something? That's because her drinking problem was progessing quickly. I also once read that Harrison Ford and Billy Dee Williams regularly had to be dragged away from cocaine parties for the shooting to begin. User:Dorftrottel 06:14, January 19, 2008

I'm not discussing I-III. They happened in another continuum. If I think of all the things Lucas could have done, it makes me puke blood. A better visionary (one capable of making epic films...) would have listened to the postmodern discourse and carefully incorporated this into the film. Some of what I mean can be seen in the RDM Galactica re-imagining. User:Dorftrottel 06:17, January 19, 2008

Happy Valentine's Day!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

ANIness

Hi just to say that I thought how people/person were talking to you on ANI in the Shankbone thread was very wrong, and I would have stood up for you but then they closed the thread lol :) Merkinsmum 02:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

George Murdock

Man, some people are having fun today, aren't they? Sorry about accidentally rv'ing your edit, that's what I get for not reading it through and assuming that crazy people were having fun with it again. Casull (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Spears' / Spears's

Hello. There has always been a confusion whether Spears' is correct or Spears's is correct. But according to these two prior discussions:

• Talk:Britney Spears/Archive 7#Spears' should be Spears's
• Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 September 10#Britney Spears' or Britney Spears's

They both tend to point out that Spears's is the more correct term. I understand that you have spent considerable amount of time and effort editing the article, hence I apologize for having to revert your edits. Happy editing nevertheless! Oidia (talk • contribs) 02:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Patrolling

You are fast. Good job. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 23:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cheerupemokid1995

I have no idea, but I suspect it has to do with Consigahria, which was a redirect to The Dictating Principality of Consigahria, which was nonsense. east.718 at 20:59, February 25, 2008

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Old Clifford.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Old Clifford.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)