Please note that all questions,comments, and messages that have been treated, answered or resolved have been deleted - for past messages please refer to history page.

Hi Scott, I just wanted to respond to what you wrote at the RFC concerning consensus and policy. I would disagree that it's a misconception that content is determined by consensus. Policy guides, constrains, and provides context for consensus, but ultimately the judgment of human editors comes into play and - particularly in special circumstances that weren't taken into consideration when the policy was written - sometimes consensus can save policy from itself, which I believe is one of the reasons that wp:iar is one of the five pillars. Also, policy is itself the result of consensus, and derives its power from that.

Just my thoughts, and I didn't want to argue them at the RFC because I don't think it's the right place for it. Cheers. Mishlai (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I don't disagree with the above. Good point. There actually has been some similar discussion on this on the RfC talk page; it might be of interest to share that over there. I'd briefly add that, to me, basically the only difference between a consensus done in reference to policy and a consensus that is not done in reference to policy is justification i.e. a consensus in reference to policy should be able to include a logical rationale that specifically outlines how the content has achieved consensus in relation to specific policies (or the ignoring thereof). Cheers,--Scott Free (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's address this issue before I do any more work on your suggestions...Agadant (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem.

--Scott Free (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, thanks for doing such a good job with the review. It was a learning process for me and I'm sure for you as well. There must have been times when you wondered why you had taken on such a lengthy article to review. At first I thought you were being really way too strict about defining peacock terms but now looking at the article after all is said and done and I removed them from the body of the article, it does read just as well and does appear more neutral in tone. Cheers and Happy editing! Agadant (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Agadant - actually, when I took it on, I wasn't aware how much it had grown since I had read it last ;-) but I actually did learn a lot though, so it's all good - and now I know what VM CD's I need to catch up on first ;-)- Cheers,

--Scott Free (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the help with Michel Vaillant - not enough to get it to GA, but every bit helps. :) If you want to help out some more, check out the WikiProject Comics talk page for details on our intended article improvement drive. BOZ (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - I only had time to touch up the first half of it - this is one race that Michel Valliant didn't win :-) I'll try and finish the other half - the race may have been lost - but the Grand Prix is not over!

Nice cleanup job on the Williamson article, btw.

--Scott Free (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - that's what you asked me to do in the first place. :) By the way, the Kirby GA is already closed, but that doesn't mean we won't renominate after some fixing. I'm going to start a "cleanup these articles" sort of noticeboard page once some of these peer reviews begin rolling in. That way, interested volunteers can do their part to get some of the more important comics articles improved. :) BOZ (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like some wholesome encyclopedic goodness. I reckon I can go and retrieve me the secret, forbidden tomes of 'The Jack Kirby Collector' in the archival vaults of my Sanctum Sanctorum and eventually spice up that 70s phase of Jolly Jack's career. (or my name ain't Scott Free ;-)

--Scott Free (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! :) Do you particularly like to work on comics creators' articles? BOZ (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like to when I like to - If I happen to be into a particular creator's work at a particular moment, I'll feel motivated to put up some info - as the mood strikes me - usually very old school, like, if someone started their career after 1975, then it's all sort of vague and hazy for me about what that's all about ;-) And it has to be convenient - like I started a stub on Boys' Ranch, which I'm slowly nurturing - but that's cool, because there have been good write-ups on it, so I don't have to wrack my brains over it...

--Scott Free (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. :) we'll probably be looking at Will Eisner, Bill Finger, Stan Lee, Charles Schulz, Bob Kane, and others before long. :) BOZ (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping up with Kirby - I know I keep saying it, but I'm going to get to working on some of the things brought up in the recent peer reviews. :) I suspect I'll have some free time in the near future, maybe even this week! BOZ (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's great work you're doing, with this whole goodification process, righteous notion! Yeah I'm definitely in a Kirby phase right now - I'm in the Mobius Chair, I'm ridin' the Boom Tube, is what I'm talking about... --Scott Free (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to starting this. :) BOZ (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey that's great - I can already feel the improving as I type this - build it and people will come ;-) --Scott Free (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Boys' Ranch, had you requested a peer review or something? BOZ (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I plan to eventually - I just finished putting in all the info, and I thought it came out pretty decent, so I figured I want to take it to GA assessement at some point- although not right now - but hey, if anyone wants to make improvements on it, they're more than welcome. --Scott Free (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good - I was using that page as a respository for "advice", in the form of "here's what needs to be done, fix it if you can", but I'll leave it there for now since you're going to bring it to GA when you can. :) It doesn't look to bad so far. BOZ (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, me and the boys here down at the ranch mightily appreciates it! Yesiree, this here article's heading to GA status with a bullet! (hopefully sooner than later;-) --Scott Free (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Late to the Al Williamson party, I'm afraid (although it looks good - I'll read through properly later on and see if I can add much of anything, but it looks pretty good). I should be about a bit more now, so let me know what's going on & what needs doing and I'll pitch in with sources and whatever else I can dig up as and when needed. ntnon (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Williamson Interplanetary Party! There was a pretty good Peer Review - a good list of points were provided - there's been some good tightening up done by myself and BOZ - there's still a list of stuff to do on the talk page - feel free to have fun and do what you feel is necessary to improve the article - at some point we could blast it off to a GA review - no rush, though...--Scott Free (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, good job on Michel Vaillant. I made it clear that Luc Donckerwolke is the designer of Lamborghini (previously of SEAT), there was an ambiguity. He has not only designed real cars, but also drawn cars in some albums. I also put albums titles with "quotation marks" rather than in italics. I have modified the fur of the images, I fear it is not sufficient. Good luck, and if you need help, ask me ! Pahapah (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks, that's great. I'm almost finished doing grammar checks on all the sections. I think it's looking pretty good.

--Scott Free (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your continued work on this article... wish I'd done, well, anything on it. ;) User:Fram was the main one interested in getting it promoted; he was successful with Hergé but less so with Belgian comics. BOZ (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure - I was just happy to get down there in the grease pit and work my monkey wrench with such a great racing team - I felt like one of the guys from 'Pimp my Ride' ;-) Them Belgian comics is cool - I'm down with the whole Euro thing...

--Scott Free (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think you are very close to a GA on Clara Elsene Peck, but there needs to be a little extra effort in getting over the hump. I am very interested in helping you reach this goal, so please see the talk page when you have time. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks! I appreciate the interest.--Scott Free (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. You've got me interested in improving the article now!  :) I'll try and help out later today. Viriditas (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty late here, so I need to get some sleep, but I'll be back later to finish the review. If you can expand or tighten the article in any way, please do so. Thanks, and good job. Viriditas (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to step out for a bit, but I will have the review finished up a bit past my midnight (HST) deadline. Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A storm just started here on Maui, so there's a slight possibility I'll lose power and connectivity for a while. If this happens before I finish the GAR, I'll get it done when I can get back online. The storm is expected to pass rather quickly, so it's likely nothing will happen. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey that's fine, no problem. --Scott Free (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still trying to finish up, but I'm getting close. Please check the GAC page as I've found new content and have various questions. Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! It's going to take me a few days to look at all that work - I'll probably be able to respond sometime this weekend.--Scott Free (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was happy to find it. Looks like we can at least expand the works and style. Check out the info about the photographs and artwork that she lost in a fire and the wall panels she completed for a skyscraper in Manhattan. There also seems to be some material in the sources that you have that talk more about her personal life, such as her abject poverty at one point in her life (if I'm reading the Google snippet correctly). That kind of detail should be added.

(Yeah, that's correct, there's a small paragraph on that.--Scott Free (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Also, can you confirm if the photo I linked on the talk page is her? It would make sense if it were, as she was apparently into photography like Edward Steichen. In any case, I went through the article and fixed what I could. Although I have raised concerns on various noticeboards, I think the article meets the bare minimum for GA so I've passed it. Although I believe the separation/divorce is already mentioned in one of the sources in the article, please remember to make the reference explicit, especially for a claim like this, and add a reference to it in the article. Also, considering the vast amount of documentation on the Catholic archive site, there must be something more we can add about her work with the comic books. I'm sure you can find something.

(It's a great source for the comics themselves, but the indexing and referencing info is fairly perfunctory. --Scott Free (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, and one more thing. I highly recommend expanding the material about her notable works, such as the illustrations in the books, etc. Thanks for your patience and good work. Viriditas (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch, Viriditas - great work on what was a tough case to crack - it would have been way easier for me to go for something on Jessie Wilcox Smith - still need time to process the last bunch of questions - will reply - I get a 'no preview available' message for the wall panel thing - I think my browser's too old - all that new info is fascinating, though, crazy stuff - sheds new light on her career - that photo ain't her, though - too bad, it's a cool picture :-), it's just linking to a blog tag (the Sterling books) - I'd love to find a picture of her, mind. --Scott Free (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2009 (UT

PS - I think the Ortakales website is a limited bandwidth account thing - so it zonks out towards the end of the month or something- it should be back in a week or so.--Scott Free (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Ortakales website uses information from the reliable sources already in this article. And, the peer review and myself both agree we don't need it. You are much better off using the reliable sources instead. In any case, I've added your name as the "maintainer" on the talk page (you can remove it if you like). I can also tell you how to add a userbox to your page that adds you to a category of good article contributors. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a maintainer? Cool. A good article contributor? L'il ole me? P'shaw!:-) So thanks again for the extensive contributions. I responded to the remaining the points on the GA. It's amazing how much came out of the whole article feedback process. More than I expected. I'm going to have to come back to the article eventually, and try to integrate all those new refs. But not right now. :-) Cheers, --Scott Free (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to let you know that I have nominated the article you suggested at the help desk for Good Article status. Though you're unfortunately not allowed to add to the discussion because you added lots to it, I just wanted to let you know because of your suggestion. Thanks!

Ojay123 ^{(Talk•E-Mail•Contribs•Sandbox)} 22:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey that's nice, OJay123, I don't think it's really ready yet, but if the community accepts to go for it, that's great - there's probably going to be quite a bit of work to do - I'll definitely try to pitch in as best I can - all the best...--Scott Free (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! :) I've notified the Comics project. BOZ (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review finally begun - there's a fair amount of work to do, but nothing insurmountable. BOZ (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recommendations! Many have been incorporated and I'm working on the others. Please, take a look, and I hope you will choose to do the complete GA review! Best, Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott Free! I just wanted to let you know that a discussion on WT:GAN#Inactive user about Kathyrncelestewright may concern you, since you are currently reviewing Thumbelina. Please note, however, that you still have the complete authority to decide whether the article should be passed, regardless of what happens to her other articles.--Edge3 (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! --Scott Free (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Article nomination for Al Williamson has been put on hold by Jezhotwells because of some minor errors. I'd like to ask you about one in particular:

In the lead, it says "His first marriage, to Arlene Williamson, a professional letterer and colorist, ended with the latter's untimely passing." Multiple people would like to see the end of the sentence replaced with something more appropriate, like the date of death. However, I'm unsure where to start on this problem. Does this mean the passing of Arlene Williamson or Al's third child. If you have any suggestions as to how I should address and fix this, please leave a reply on my talk page.

Thanks,

Ojay123 ^{(Talk•E-Mail•Contribs•Sandbox)} 14:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how are the revisions going? Do you want me to take another look yet? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - not quite ready yet - I think I did about half of the planned revising so far - I should be done by the end of tomorrow -

Cheers,

--Scott Free (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Scott! Your block is shortened, and the GA has been extended to accomodate - you're in luck in both ways. :) I did some work on the article's lead, and I'd like to toss the ball back in your court now. I expanded on some areas that I felt the lead should touch on (what did he do before he was an artist and what made him choose that career, mentioning some artists he has worked with who influence him or that he influenced). I also restructured the lead, using the same pattern you see at Alex Raymond, as follows:

• Paragraph one: The basics of who the subject is. You've got the roots there, but if you have to sum the man up in two to three sentences what do you say? Think of it almost as a dictionary definition. Williamson is an artist, OK we got that. Look at Raymond's bio: best known for Flash Gordon. What was Williamson best known for? That wasn't clear to me from reading the article, but I bet you can answer that question.
• Paragraph two: The body of work and career, and a brief bio. I'd say this is pretty well covered, although feel free to work on it more.
• Paragraph three: The person's legacy; how has he influenced other people, the industry, and what do people say about him. This is covered fairly well now, but if you have something to add I'd suggest doing so.

Remember! The lead should ideally be a summary of the article. Therefore, to build up the lead, you should be pulling from stuff already found in the article. If you think the lead should mention something which is not already in the article, then you should add it to the article first, with a source, and then make a brief mention of it in the lead. Got it, get it, good! If you come up with something before your block expires, then post here and I will add it for you. BOZ (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it made GA - thanks for coming to the party! The edits look good - a few typos here and there, but otherwise, great job. What's the deal with the block? Doesn't quite seem right. I received no communication whatsoever from that editor prior to hsi cryptic message. I think I'd like some clarification there. I'm putting in an unblock request, but if you feel the block was somehow done properly, then feel free to remvove it.--Scott Free (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can thank Tenebrae for a fair amount of work on that one, as well! BOZ (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - I have refs to support user Al Williamson's edits - I'll put them in some time this week, when I have a chance. --Scott Free (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Boys' Ranch you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Boys' Ranch for things needed to be addressed. Note: according to policy the decision to pass/fail is up to the first reviewer. // Gbern3 (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks - will get on it this weekend.

--Scott Free (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your name is brought up to the discussion, so your participation is expected. Thanks.--Caspian blue 17:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Ok, thanks - I put in my two cents.--Scott Free (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 26, 1968.[1] I never give up! Viriditas (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that. It appears that I can only confirm that she died sometime between Feb. 1-26 of 1968. Viriditas (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - good sleuthing work - confirming her location is pretty cool, too- at least she made the Chicago Tribune, that's nice.--Scott Free (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Empire-AlWilliamson.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 "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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bladerunner-williamson.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 "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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott,

I remember that while we were constructing the draft page for Asgardian's RFC, you had made comments regarding the process. If you wish, you may begin an "Outside view" section at the RFC page to make your views clearer, and/or endorse any other views you may see there.

Thank you for your participation. BOZ (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up - I sort of have some awareness of the situation - I'll see if I can jot down a few observations. --Scott Free (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, that helps to have a counterpoint. :) BOZ (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks too for the objective words. Yes, I have often been dealing with younger and often inexperienced editors, who say rash things. Almost everything presented is opinion and can be counter-argued. The length of some of the answers; emotive "jump-in" responses and erroneous soliciting of everyone around is also very telling. That said, yes, I'll use the "work in progress" tag in future.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no problem - all the best in sorting that situation out. --Scott Free (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again - I appreciate your latest comments, of course. :) And if you think that's gangpiling... you should see some of the RFC's I've seen, whoah boy! BOZ (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome - what? gangpiling on wikipedia? that can't be true! :-)

--Scott Free (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scott. Thanks for participating in the RfC. I have a question about one of your comments, though. In this edit, you say,

"I'd say this covers the nuances of the situation quite well - and is a reasonable basis for resolving the issue. Although caling for the rfc was, I think justified and getting BOZ to implement it was also a good idea. Sure, there has been some gangpiling, but he's done as good a job as can be expected, short of finding someone completely uninvolved, which is unlikely".

Now I took this to mean pretty much what it said: That the material provided could form a basis for a resolution. But was I mistaken, and you meant that the issue had already been resolved? I asked, because on the RfC Talk Page, Asgardian made a post in which he cited that statement of yours to assert that the RfC had concluded, while telling me that I should no longer contact other editors about commenting on it. This is what he said:

Soliciting other editors to comment after the fact also doesn't help. I think everyone's had enough. I've made my position clear. See here as well: 56. Let's just move on. There are umpteen articles out there still in need of attention. That's where our effort should be concentrated. Asgardian (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Was Asgardian correct in his citation of your statement, and that you were saying that people had "moved on"? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed mean just a starting point - but I don't think I have a problem with Asg. using it to support his 'Let's move on' idea.--Scott Free (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He used it to assert that others had expressed the notion that the process was concluded and that it was time to move on, and used your statement as evidence of this. Since you did not mean that it had been concluded, and since obviously you were only speaking for yourself and no one else, and participants have been continuing to post on the RfC page and its Talk Page to indicate that they do not feel this way at all, how does it serve to support the idea that they have? Nightscream (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for participating in the recent RFC/U regarding Asgardian‎. The RFC has been closed, and the case is now at arbitration. You are neither required nor requested to participate, but you may view the initial statements for the case (please do not edit that page), and you may view the evidence presented and add more evidence if you wish, or simply follow the case. BOZ (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, that's too bad. Mediation could help, but of course, people have to be willing to discuss. Good job on that btw. You can only do so much. Maybe the arb folks can give some insight. All the best, --Scott Free (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Boys' Ranch you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Boys' Ranch for eventual comments about the article. Well done! –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Simonkirbyphoto.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ÷seresin 21:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up.--Scott Free (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, note additional comment has been added. Maybe you can elaborate to save the image. Pepso2 (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks, I'll give it another stab. --Scott Free (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Chief Victorio Comic Book.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.
• 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 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) 05:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated your comments at Talk:John Buscema, and it's certainly true we collaborated effectively and well on the GA article Boys' Ranch. And for what my opinion may be worth, your having worked to bring three articles to GA status is admirable. Nothing would make me happier than collaborating equally well with you on John Buscema to help bring that deserving article to the same GA status. With sincere regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scott. Just curious if User:132.216.67.168 is you or someone new. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's me! Or my evil twin brother to be precise ;-)--Scott Free (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scott. I've just made some edits and wanted to give you a head's up. Most were to expand and clarify the footnotes, particularly since there were two Roy Thomas articles there from two different publications. I did trim some of the excess details about which inkers did which of a plethora of specific individual issues, and I temporarily removed the Indian Chief line since the citation was very unclear; I'm figuring you've got the full thing, so just pop it back in.

Otherwise I left things pretty much alone -- although you'll probably be happy to know I expanded on one of your points (the back-of-board sketches), in a footnote!

Looking forward to seeing your next edits as we drag this thing to GA.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good find on the Al Williamson obit. I've added the official family statement from the Comics Reporter item you tracked down. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - It's nice to know that there's a good bio out there on this sad occasion. --Scott Free (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has placed John Buscema on the list of articles being given a two-month "Reviewer" trial, in which a reviewer OKs non-routine edits. As I have been appointed a reviewer, I would like to avoid any appearance of conflict-of-interest, no matter that the edits I would make would be the same as I would otherwise. Therefore, I would respectfully propose we each leave the article as it stands, and that neither of us edit it while we let the RfC run its course. This seems the least contentious path. The article isn't going anywhere, and while you may want to add your edits, I'm sure you'll agree that at the moment there is nothing in the article that either you or I actively objects to. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but the admin in question is an editor involved in the dispute and a colleague of yours, and I don't think should have taken adminstrative action on the article. --Scott Free (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 20:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks, I appreciate it.--Scott Free (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that you are banned from editing John Buscema for one year, as described here.  Sandstein  11:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've started a consensus discussion here. Would you please participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Simonkirbyphoto.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 "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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Thor9.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) 06:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Scott Free. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
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) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbelina has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Wizardman 23:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Tarzan marvel annual 1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. ✗plicit 12:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Wolvybloody.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. ✗plicit 14:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Herculesfc1006.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. ✗plicit 12:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]