Archives

1 (14/06/2005–15/08/2006)

2 (17/05/2007–24/10/2007)

3 (27/03/2008–02/06/2008)

4 (31/05/2008–09/03/2009)

5 (08/05/2009–06/06/2010)

6 (21/08/2010–21/09/2014)

7 (29/09/2014–30/12/2014)

8 (01/01/2015–27/03/2016)

9 (10/04/2016–17/04/2017)

10 (17/04/2017–25/01/2018)

11 (27/01/2018–19/01/2020)

12 (30/01/2020–16/06/2023)

I listed Image:Town.GIF for deletion, because Image:Angband.gif is the same, but has a better name. Hope you don't mind.  Grue  17:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the link that you added earlier because it's a link to an "unofficial" web site. Wikipedia isn't a place for advertising unofficial web pages, and I don't think that link adds any value to the Noid article. If you disagree, let's talk about it. Thanks. —Cleared as filed. 17:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of full text link has been discussed and removed before. Linking to a file that violates copyright is not a good idea. rspeer 18:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got them off some of the user pages listed at Category:User en-N, and a couple of them (the Elton John one, the Longcat one) I made myself. --Merovingian 23:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide full source and licensing information for Image:Scrabble 6x9.jpg and write a fair use rationale for each case where you've placed it in an article. Thanks. 86.133.53.111 00:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Category:Wikipedians interested in wikipedians has been deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 17#Category:Wikipedians interested in wikipedians. YOu may want to remove it from your userpage. Thanks. Izehar 17:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the S.C.I.F.I. World article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Calton | Talk 06:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently made a new one to take the copyright violater's stead: S.C.I.F.I._World/Temp.

As it says on the Possible Copyright Violation notice, "Your new article will be moved into place by an administrator once the copyright status of the original has been resolved." The admins are backlogged at the moment, but there is a process, and no hurry that I can see, so please be patient. --Calton | Talk 06:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you are busily adding {{FilmsWikiProject}} templates to many film articles' talk pages. Could you please include a short note, like "+{{FWP}}", in the edit summaries of all your edits? This is an important and highly recommened aspect of editing that helps article maintainers quickly examine edit histories. Thank you for your cooperation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoctorWho42,

I thought you might be interested in some new fish userboxes. Here's one for fish {{User:UBX/Fish owner}} If you're interested in help with making any other userboxes, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Cheers, Rfrisbie^talk 00:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I take the category of Science fiction off of a film, I make sure that on of its other categories IS in the Science fiction films category. For the film Frankenstein Unbound, Category:Frankenstein films is in the Category:Science fiction films. For Alien Apocalypse, Category:SciFi Channel original movies is in Category:Science fiction films. Alien Apocalypse is also already in the Category:Dystopian films and Category:Post-apocalyptic science fiction films the last is also in Category:Science fiction films. I am just more specifically categorizing the films while making sure that those categories are in the category in which the film was included previously. If you look at Category:Science fiction films, you will see the {{verylarge}} template. I am trying to get the category down to one page or two pages. The items in the category might just be subcategories.

Does that make things clear? Lady Aleena 20:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, definately, thanks for the clarification... Yes, I have noticed its utter largeness.. Keep up the good work. DrWho42 22:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wish to revert those films or should I? The reason I ask is that I don't want this to look like an edit war. Lady Aleena 00:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'll leave the task unto yourself.. Sorry for my confusion. DrWho42 01:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's an NPOV issue on Temporal Cold War. An anonymous editor has been adding what I feel is personal commentary to the Controversy section. Since you've commented on that Talk page, I was wondering if you could take a look. I've changed it once and reverted once, and I don't like further reverting without editor consensus. The paragraph in question is under an NPOV-section template, and the discussion is at the bottom of the Talk page.--MikeJ9919 02:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, I commented nearly exactly a minute after you sent this through.. I wholeheartedly agree with you though. DrWho42 02:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...it was TNN, from when TNG started doing reruns on the network. I've changed that back. Hope you don't mind.--MikeJ9919 05:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wish you'd caught me sooner, I coulda saved you some work. I've only got 3 left, and will make that change on them.

I've RFCed Temporal Cold War. Yaron, our anon, absolutely insists on inserting those last couple of sentences. He believes his conclusions "logically follow" from the evidence, and no matter how much I try to drill into him that is the definition of original research (including quoting directly from the policy page), he won't budge. Your voice is welcome on the Discussion page.--MikeJ9919 06:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blah...I'm really getting sick of dealing with this. I've opened a sockpuppetry case against him. I really wish this article wasn't getting so much of my time, seeing how trivial it is in the grand scheme of things, but abuse of process stuff (sockpuppetry namely) really really drives me up a wall.--MikeJ9919 23:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:A New Home for Wolsey.PNG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for identifying the source of the image. But we also need to know what license it is under. You tagged this image with {{wikipedia-screenshot}}, but this tag doesn't make any sense, because this isn't a picture of a Wikipedia page (it's a picture of a fictional cat). Please take a look at the various image copyright tags to see if one of them fits. If you have questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for Image:Saturday Anime.gif. —Bkell (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, okay... Thought it meant screenshots in general.. Will change it most appropriately. DrWho42 04:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see you've now changed the tag on Image:A New Home for Wolsey.PNG to {{web-screenshot}}. The problem is that this is not a picture of a Web page. The {{web-screenshot}} tag is meant for images like Image:Alltheweb.png, where the focus of the image is the Web page itself. Images tagged with {{web-screenshot}} are used to illustrate articles about Web pages. But Image:A New Home for Wolsey.PNG is not a picture of the Web page itself, and it is not being used to illustrate an article about the Web page you found it on. Instead it is an image that you found on a Web page. Therefore the {{web-screenshot}} tag doesn't make sense either. Perhaps you're looking for something like {{Tv-screenshot}}? —Bkell (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that, but it's an illustration from the book Human Nature. DrWho42 05:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, there's {{Character-artwork}}, and if that's not quite right you can always use {{Fair use in}} and give a rationale for why you think this image can be used under a claim of fair use. You use the {{Fair use in}} template like this:

{{Fair use in|Virgin New Adventures}}

This will produce a box that says that you claim that the use of this image in the article Virgin New Adventures falls under the fair-use clause of U.S. copyright law. You should provide a fair-use rationale when you use this tag. Take a look at Wikipedia:Fair use if you would like more information. —Bkell (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 00:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there is an edit war developing around your Five-Minute parody links for Firefly episodes. Please note that acceptance of such links for one set of articles does not guarantee acceptance in another, especially given the contentious nature of TV-show article editing. You should do editors of any particular series the courtesy of justifying the links on at least one episode's talk page. I would also add that, in my experience, Firefly editors are somewhat more committed to avoiding what is indelicately but commonly described as fancruft than Star Trek editors, so this may be a hard sell for you. I note that the "news (9.6.06 C.E.)" link you provided at Talk:Star Trek: First Contact#Removed External Link actually has the apparent editor (Zeke?) confessing the questionable use of this information on Wikipedia:

I don't expect these links to last -- someone is sure to go after them sooner or later on notability grounds -- but I really appreciate the effort he's gone to.

(By the way, that link is not suitable for supporting talk-page arguments, as it appears to be a for a blog-like dynamic page, with no provision for a permalink to the relevant posting. This makes future accesses highly questionable.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the apparent editor in question, I'd like to clarify something here: my acceptance of the fact that these links would inevitably be removed shouldn't be confused with agreement. You don't want to know what I think of Wikipedia's notability rules. But I believe in being realistic, and on a wiki where the notability of Checkerboard Nightmare was seriously debated, FiveMinute net doesn't stand a chance. I truly appreciate DoctorWho42's efforts, but this was gonna happen. Sooner or later someone will go after the rest too.

Indeed. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if a more permanent link to that newspost is called for, the LJ copy isn't going anywhere. ~ CZeke 14:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the header should be "Target novelisation" not Novelisation. Sorry I didn't notice earlier, but least you haven't doen them all yet! Tim! 09:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that if your new articles are still a list of films they will just get deleted again. What would survive is an article with a good amount of editorial backed up by some relevant links with a short, representative list. HTH. BlueValour 21:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do catch your drift.. I remember I had to rework the S.C.I.F.I. World article since originally it was simply an advertisement for the "a new programming block." DrWho42 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has now been added to your userpages as a sub-page, as per the AfD discussion : films aired on The SciFi Channel.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DoctorWho42. I've removed four images from your user page (Image:Aafinalposter.jpg, Image:Alphaville1965.jpg, Image:MST3KSOLTheater.JPG, and Image:Gun wOccasional Music.jpg), as they are copyrighted images that are being used under claims of fair use. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia policies, no fair-use images can be used on user pages; please see Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images. If you have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey its me --Muhand 20:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC). Just want to tell you I received your message but unfortunately, I do not watch Sci Fi channel all the time. The show I only watch on Sci Fi is Extreme Championship Wrestling. And I did not watch any films from Sci Fi. But thank you for asking! [reply]

Salutations right back! It was from your user page that I learned of the userboxes and decided to add them to my page. Love your username also. Although I (ahem) wrote some Doctor Who trading cards a decade ago, I'm blown away by the volume and detail of Who info here, so much so that I'd be unlikely to do more than fix a typo. Instead I'm concentrating on shows nobody's done much with yet, such as My World and Welcome to It. But if anyone needs me to pitch in on something, I'm here! Regards.... Karen 07:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Done! The SciFi Channel list seems like a no-brainer decision to me: keep, of course. I honestly don't understand why so many Wikipedians like to delete things like this. I see it as a valuable resource article. As for my obscure shows stuff, I just spent most of the day expanding the Zorro (TV series) article. I don't consider that show obscure at all, but it's starting to look like any series more than 20 years old (excluding Who and Trek, which have ongoing fandoms) tends to languish around here. Oh, and in your sphere of Wikisubjects, I added a paragraph to Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency last night, and fixed a typo (ooh!) on Rose Tyler today. Regards! Karen 08:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This user is honored. Have some conkers (whatever they are). Karen 07:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks. --Maxamegalon2000 04:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry. I did read your message, then promptly forgot. I do apologise. I have userfied the deleted article List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs to User:DoctorWho42/List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs. Hope this is useful. Please don't add categories to the article while it remains in user space. All the best, Proto///type 14:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ytny 11:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Black Hole (2006).JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply rid me of it for the time being, will you? Many thanks in advanced. (= DrWho42 02:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me if User:DoctorWho42/List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs is the same as the article that got deleted? Thanks--Kchase T 16:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it certainly happens to be. Feel free to transcribe it back unto its original place and link back unto the Sci Fi Channel. DrWho42 18:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't, as the page was salted after someone recreated it.--Kchase T 18:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A number of people suggested that discussion should be reopened on the Sci-Fi list in light of the subsequent AfD about other lists. That discussion is here. Karen 19:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please look at Boa vs Python. I have done a lot of work and would like some feedback. Thanks! TruthCrusader 08:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Feastofstone.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 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. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Tim! 09:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, torri isn't my name, it's just a... thing I came up with a while back. I've been using it for Internet usernames for a while now. Oh, and I'm a guy. Thanks for the compliments anyways! --TorriTorri 01:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]