Jump to content

User talk:TheMidnighters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hello, 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! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Revolution games


I wanted to ask that you comment on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/List of Nintendo Revolution games, now that I've improved the list to disclude rumors. -- A Link to the Past 05:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Would you care to explain the "edit summary-less" revert in Giant Panda? Thanks. --Ragib 01:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joint VFD nominations


There are probably several ways of nominating several articles for a joint VFD. The best way is to settle on a title for the debate, and then type in to the 'Search' box on the left of the screen: "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/" then follow it with your title and press return. This will bring up a screen saying "No page with this title exists". Then click on the red link "create an article with this title". At the top of the page put "===(your title)===" then list the pages which are being nominated and the reasons you want them deleted. When you're finished, sign with the usual four tildes.

Now you need to put the VFD nomination on each of the articles in turn. Navigate to the first, and click on 'edit this page', then add "{{subst:vfd}}" at the top. Save the page, and then click on 'edit this page' again. At the top will be the coding for the VFD box, complete with a sentence reading "Please vote on and discuss the matter. See '''[[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}|this article's entry]]''' on the Votes for Deletion page.". Go up to this sentence and replace 'PAGENAME' with your title. Then copy the whole of the box, down to the point where the article text begins, into your clipboard and save the page again.

Now go to each of the other articles to be nominated, and edit the page, then paste the clipboard on to them and save page. When you are completed, go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and click on the most recent day's log, click on edit this page, and add at the bottom "{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/(your title)}}". Then click on save page, and you're done. David | Talk 12:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]



Thanks for your clarification of Speedy criteria. One day I'll have them all memorised I'm sure :) --inks 22:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]



Hey. Seeing as how I've completely rewritten the Oliver Coipel entry, can I convince you to change your vote? DS 19:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're interested:


You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Ontario page as living in or being associated with Ontario. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Ontario for instructions.--Rmky87 04:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crime and Punishment


With all due respect, 'Crime and Punishment' has some blatant references and watching it from beginning to end about half a dozen times i counted about 9 references from car stickers to carnival rides. The themes are way to similiar for it to be a coincedence. For instance

1) Dostoyevsky. Trevor puts down Dostoyevsky's "The Idiot." The word "idiot" comes from the term for someone with epsilepsy, and epilepsy is kind of what The Idiot is centered around (Dostoyevsky had epilepsy). Dostoyevsky also wrote Crime and Punishment, which is not only refered to in the Route 666 on a door but is also basically what this movie's about. Reznik=Raskolnikov. Crime and Punishment details how the actual psychology of a criminal causes him to punish himself moreso than any police can. In this case it gave him severe insomnia until he finally turned himself in.

2) In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov is given the option to give himself up three times. The third he does so. In this film, Reznik has three forks he comes to... the first time he turns left, the second time he turns left, and the third time he turns right. Each one is made quite clear the options: Hell/Salvation, Darkened area/Light area, The Airport (escape)/Downtown (the police).

3) The Airport: he's there often talking about "If I want to leave." In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov struggles with whether he wants to leave or not. He asks for a girl to go with him, and she eventually does, which reflects Reznik's relationship with the prostitute Maria (both female characters are ladies of the night).

4) The theme of 'suffering for salvation' is very obvious, i wont insult your intelligence you know what i mean

5) There are too many references to Crime and Punishment for this too not to be simply 'influenced', it seems almost 'intentional' and could perhaps be a modern take on Crime and Punishment (think about Romeo and Juliet the classic version compared to the modern version with gun fights). The cat and mouse policeman being Ivan Miller and the chance of 'getting caught' is comparable to the 'hangman' parallel. There is a sense of paranoia and 'the world's out to get me' feeling in the movie

if this does not convince you and you decide to edit it back then we will settle this on the discussion page. good day--Raddicks 20:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess thats a more fitting effort cheers, i will update The Machinist page tomorrow with the theme analysis (I didn't read through the machinist on wikipedia and yes it can be mentioned). Take care --Raddicks 23:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for an honest opinion


I'm working on the article motorized bicycle. I created a timeline. It is nominated for deletions. I was wondering if you could give me your opinion of the subject either at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Motorized bicycle history or on my user talk page. Thank you. (p.s.: love the some of your categories, I stole you idea and put some on my user page.) --CyclePat 01:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Reality Censorship


So how do you explain that people here are deliberately claiming the the Church of Reality has only one member when it's clearly not true.

Aqua teen hunger force


Hello do you know when aquateen hunger force is on, who created it, and how many seasons there are Whopper 02:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if they are going to have that 3-d show they promised for 2006? Whopper 23:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of anti-heroes


I just want to inform you that the article List of anti-heroes was deleted today after being listed on VfD. I am not sure if you knew it was listed or not, or if you care or not. I felt, since you had participated as a contributor on the article that you should know. If you want to know more about the status of the now deleted article, I have made a post in Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you don't want to know more, please disregard this message. sincerely, Kingturtle 21:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home Movies


Good call on Ron Lynch's job, I had forgotten he only became interim principal partway through... —alxndr (t) 04:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's Something About Mary


Well, I admit I smiled when I noticed the change you made to that. With a line like that it deserves a reference, do you happen to remember where you found that? --Alf melmac 23:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: "they" and "their" are plural


This is just a friendly reminder that the words "they" and "their" are plural, not singular. You can not use those words to refer to a single person, nor can you use them with a singular pronoun such as "someone". Please keep this in mind in the future. Thank you. 16:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page deletion


This was the content of the page: "wow". Nothing more has ever been written. Hopefully this won't be missed too much, and I could restore it if you really felt this was improper, but I assure you I don't delete relevant discussion ever when the article still exists. Harro5 22:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proper solution to a sourcing problem


re: Jon Stewart: The proper solution to a sourcing problem, if you know of the sources required, is not to simply revert someone asking for sources, but to add them yourself. But nevermind, I've just done your job for you. Kasreyn 22:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler James Williams


WHY did you remove that addition. He is an actor. It's not vandalism to put it in there. An article exist there for him. - TripleH1976 08:41 p.m., 07 May 2006 (UTC)



Are you ready to have your world rocked by Wikipedia!?

TfD nomination of Template:Blue Collar Comedy


Template:Blue Collar Comedy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jesuschex 02:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:


re: your note on this user's talk page referring to the deleton of his/her links to "non-existent articles" - the links he/she has added are perfectly valid and are highly relevant to the subjects; as you are Canadian you may not be aware that the FASC (Fame Academy Supporters Club) is a popular and well respected site in the UK for those interested in the Fame Academy series and contains reliable biog information, press reports and photos, also up to date information about all the former contestants. (Whether the links should be added in addition to those already there may be debatable, however they should not be deleted solely for the reason you specified) - Thanks. Jud 00:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user was going to non-existent articles, going to the talk page, and putting up a single link, which means that the talk pages would be deleted shortly after. If you'd bothered to check the actual articles before criticizing the message I left you'd see I did not remove those links and instead referred to edits which have since been deleted. If there's anything else you don't understand, let me know. --TM 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case we must be talking at cross purposes, as there is now no evidence of those links to non-existent articles - I did check the edits made by this user and the only contributions listed are the ones I mentioned above. Jud 12:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I did check the deletions log file on the unknown user's contributions page and have I also just looked at the deletions log as you suggested, and I still can't find the entry you mention, so I am now even more confused! (If you re-read my original comment you will see that it was not meant as a criticism, but merely as a point of information :)) Jud 21:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really weird - the only entries in the log that I can see for that time and date are these

21:44, August 11, 2006 Vegaswikian (Talk | contribs) deleted "North Kent Community Church" (db nn group)

21:44, August 11, 2006 TheProject (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Wbgs.JPG" (CSD I3)

Can't find it in the list of Xaosflux's contributions either. How is it possible to have a talk page for an article that doesn't exist? Jud 22:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation - I am not questioning your veracity, I just can't see any of the entries on my computer (I'm using Firefox) Just out of interest I followed your link in IE as well and got a completely different list...

  • 21:44, 11 August 2006 Kungfuadam (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Pacificislands.co.nz" (page was empty)
  • 21:44, 11 August 2006 Kungfuadam (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Southern Flame" (content was: 'I've contacted a couple of the current members of Southern Flame and former member(s) and have asked for further insight, as soon as I get a response,...' (and the only contributor was 'Visvolt'))
  • 21:44, 11 August 2006 Kungfuadam (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Vanessa J. Smith" (content was: 'Vanessa J. Smith is indeed associated with numerous spam emails as well as spam sites having to do with software selling at absurdly low prices. Actua...' (and the only contributor was ''))
  • 21:44, 11 August 2006 ZimZalaBim (Talk | contribs) deleted "Anal glaucoma"
  • 21:44, 11 August 2006 Deltabeignet (Talk | contribs) deleted "Flingr" (CSD A7 (non-notable group))

- but I still can't see any of the deleted articles in question! (I know it isn't really important, but it still irks me!) Jud 08:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose we'll just have to put it down to Wikipedia weirdness! Jud 12:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jude the Obscene


Hi. Thanks for providing a source so quickly. Like you, I’m not sure that it’s a good a source as we’d like—but it’s better than we get in most of our articles. Cheers —Ian Spackman 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I really like the note you added to the list of anti-heroes. Doczilla 01:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that the Raskolnikov/Alex class of anti-hero is insufficiently different from the norm to justify its own mention? I tend to think there is a clear difference between The Punisher, who kills based on what he perceives as 'right', and these two, who kill for their own more personal reasons. If my addition was insufficiently clear on that, how would you suggest improving it? --Matthew Proctor 23:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a different matter concerning Antiheroes, I would like to know WHY to altered one of my changes on the article, that I had mentioned I would be making on the discusion page a MONTH in advance, and asked for any reason why it should not occure. There was no reason Not to make the change given. Corrupt one 02:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrested Development


Sorry, but tried looking at the talk page for a reason for the revert of the Patriot Act allusion, but couldn't find one. Does it violate WP:NOR or something like that? I just want to know the reason why it was removed. I apologize for adding it without checking first. Bkissin 04:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. No Problem. I understand. Thanks for helping clear that up for me. Bkissin 23:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]



The 1337 article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 05:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I, Jackrm award you, TheMidnighters an Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your anti-vandal work on the year articles, from 1979 up to 1996. These articles are highly targeted for people adding themselves, and unfortunately, they do not meet the notability guidelines, so they must be deleted, as you do alongside me. It seems there is only me and you doing this anti-vandal work sometimes, so thankyou, on behalf of myself and Wikipedia. — jacĸrм (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright. I understand about the edit summaries, I hardly ever do it. Twinkle does it for me, you might like that, try it! — jacĸrм (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location of TOC in Year Articles


You just moved the TOC in 1990 to the bottom of the page...shouldn't they be up top? I reverted your change. Very sorry if I made a mistake. Peteweez 03:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Glad to hear you got that sorted out...I've taken to RC Patrolling a bit myself (I had a run-in with a jerk trying to plug his computer repair company), and that's when I came across 1990. I'd kinda like to know what the proper format is for a year article. Where does the TOC "officially" belong in a year article? After the intro? Peteweez 20:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Year articles


Maybe not, but there is this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Deb (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that many of the year articles were tagged for "globalize" before I worked systematically to improve the distribution. You can see that what has happened since is that newcomers have just added their own personal interests to the list, eg. lots of American footballers, lots of American porn stars, lots of American actors and actresses, lots of American singers, etc. Replacing these entries makes the article very unbalanced. For some of the years in the 1970s and 1980s, the "Births" section is four or five times the length of the "Deaths" section. Deb (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a [[Category:Births]] which includes everything. We don't need to duplicate this in an article. Deb (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also have a look at the correct use of the revert facility. Deb (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with the idea of a specific policy, but neither do I agree that what I've been doing is in any way out of step with the policies of the Years project. Deb (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/August 2005 survey results, you'll see that there was consensus that not all births and deaths should be included, unless there were less than 100. Of course, nothing in any of the Wikiprojects carries any real weight unless or until it is translated into an official policy. However, I believe that this consensus decision carries with it a responsibility to try to make the list of births and deaths a representative sample - which of course means that there will be a preponderance of American sportsmen and entertainers, as indeed there still is, but that there will be an attempt made to give appropriate weight to others.
I also think you are misinterpreting the concept of NPOV in editing as meaning that balance can only be achieved by leaving everything as it is and never removing anything from an article. Wikipedia is open to anyone to edit, and all edits are made on the basis of a personal preference - for wording, content, etc. If you were to remove something from an article, I might decide to put it back in, perhaps finding a compromise wording, or I might ask you why you removed it; either of these actions would be just as valid as your decision to delete the information. However, a blanket revert on the grounds that you don't think I had the right to do it is not an appropriate response. I have to say that I think there are better uses of an editor's time than to argue the toss about changes on the grounds that you dispute the other editor's method of doing things rather than because you don't think they are good changes. Please don't take offence. Deb (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
You're always popping up on my watchlist, catching and rv'ing date+year vandalism that always seems to hang too long. We need more editors like you keeping an eye on those articles. Wizardman 17:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aluisios re: 1989


FYI, please see User_talk:SkierRMH#Aluisios. Thanks for all your anti-vandalism efforts. -- Art Smart (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Stephen Malkmus


Er, no, sorry, that's just me getting a bit over-zealous with the tagging. Sorry about that. User:TomEatsCake (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Benbully.jpg


Thanks for uploading Image:Benbully.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Katzguitar.jpg


Thanks for uploading Image:Katzguitar.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on the Sarah Silverman "mocking bigotry" section




Hey, I put those tags on the Garth Marenghi's Darkplace page mainly because an encyclopedia entry isn't meant to be someone's blog on why they found something funny. Wasn't looking to start a fight.

It's just I'm sure good sources are out there (I spent a while once digging up sources to save the Garth Marenghi page from an AfD; I'm 90% sure some of those would be applicable.) I put the tags there kind of hoping that someone would be arsed to sort it out, which it needs, and my time to spend on Wiki has dropped to near zilch. (Baby due in about 3 weeks). I admit, digging up a few sources and editing accordingly would've been more constructive than tagging. I'd've done it if I'd had time to do it properly. But then sourcing would also have been more constructive than just removing tags you see as "pedantic". Someone's gonna have to add sources sooner or later when the inevitable AfD "unsourced/OR un-savable" rolls around.

In a nutshell, Ayoade's other show The IT Crowd has 19 sources, Little Britain has 10, The Catherine Tate Show has 27. Even That Mitchell and Webb Look has 10! Bloody Nathan Barley has 5! Red Dwarf has 105

This page has ONE. A Blog. It makes a lot of claims for 1 unreliable source. I guess that's what I was getting at. Cheers anyway... The Zig (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, As I got a day off today I spent a while this morning on this project.
You're right, of course, there aren't a great deal of sources on Darkplace. However, I managed to dig up a few, and have tried to use these to build back the article's content in a way that's clearly sourced. This way we get good information into this article, yet aren't open to claims that it's non-notable or that we're just pulling it out of our butts!
As I say, the info's all good, though I'm not 100% happy with the way I wrote it in, so I'd appreciate any proof-reading or clearing up of sentences/paragraphs that you could manage (this seems to be a strength yours!)
Cheers again... The Zig (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1989 / S Club 8


Yeah, I know that strictly they should not be in the list if the don't have an article, that's why I deleted them in the first place. However, I put them back because they DO have a section each in the S Club 8 article which is kind of an almost article. At least it confirms that that is their birth date which I thought was the main point of the rule and I did not want to apply it unecessarily severely. SpinningSpark 20:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am happy with that. S Club 8 are well over my don't give a toss event horizon anyway. There was another minor band (this time american) I let stay in on exactly the same grounds but I can't remember exactly where they are. Best I can do to narrow it down is they are somwhere between S Club 8 and 1974 since that is where I stopped reviewing year articles. SpinningSpark 09:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arrested Development Taskforce Invite

Hello, I noticed that you appear to be interested in Arrested Development. Because of this, you have been invited to join the Arrested Development Taskforce, a taskforce focused on improving the Arrested Development-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join, please visit the project page, and add your name to the members list.

Thank you.

Joelster (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Brent


I have reverted your edit on this page which deleted a pargaraph on the character's comedic antecedents. Putting up an WP:OR tag on this is not the issue (although WP: CITE would have been more appropriate for a claim which is well inside the bounds of likelihood). However original The Office was in format, to any afficionado of British comedy the character of Brent was already well-drawn and understood. Even if the facts to back this up are not instantly Google-able (and I haven't looked yet, so they may well be...) still it would have been fair to let the para and tag stand, so that the assertion can be so researched and cited. Other than summarily wiping it out. The David Brent character draws upon a rich vein of loserdom in British comedy: reverting such was hasty and - given what else is apparently surmised by overseas/ latterday/ NPOV fans - a bit narrow. Note: I didn't contribute any such content to the article! Anyway, I've reverted and put it on the Talk Page. All the best Plutonium27 (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

modifying another's comments


It's my talk page, I can do whatever the hell I want. Kitsunexus (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals on my talkpage


Thanks for reverting the vandalist, homophobic edits on my talk page in my absense. I appreciate it :) CaveatLector Talk Contrib 22:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of anti heros revert


Hey, I reverted your reversion of my edits to the list anti heros. I definitely think a table is needed since to this list. Cheers. The Illusional Ministry (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Always glad to be of help. The Illusional Ministry (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of Montreal vs. of Montreal


Note that at the main page, a capital 'O' is used in the prose, while a lowercase 'o' is used in titles and the introduction. That's an acceptable interpretation of the Manual of Style. In the Elephant 6 article, the only appearance is in the prose. I fail to see how I debated this endlessly on the Of Montreal page with my two posts, but I still think that there's no argument for using the non-standard capitalization anywhere except in the title of the Of Montreal page. I'm going to wait for some more eyes to see and judge the edits before I re-revert. Djk3 (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrested Development


It is most certainly a single camera show. It is also mentioned here as a single camera example; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-camera_setup and also here http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/19/1431273.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mriceguy (talkcontribs) 21:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Arfius Arf, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arfius Arf. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sargentprivate (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Maryo Chronicles (four years ago), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Maryo Chronicles (3 nomination). Tim Song (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs


Hello TheMidnighters! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 867 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Todd Barry - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mrshow logo.gif


Thanks for uploading File:Mrshow logo.gif. 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. Courcelles 03:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Satar Jabar for deletion


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Satar Jabar 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/Satar Jabar 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 good 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. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are appreciated

The Resilient Barnstar
For Contributions on Mitch Hedberg
The Barnstar of Good Humor
For Having Good Taste in Comedy

Parsh (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Since you have over 50 edits at Fyodor Dostoyevsky, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Derivative works and cultural references templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]