User:Deckiller/archive4

| Deckiller | Talk Page | Barnstars | Sandbox | Statistics | Urgents |

The following is my fourth archive, from January 18 2006 to January 27 2006.

Barnstar

Hey, thanks for the barnstar! Cmdrjameson 13:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Xenosaga

No problem. I thought I would help out a bit. Thunderbrand 15:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message!

It helped me out! Elmagnon

Getting Rush featured

Hey, I think we're getting close to FA status. I can only see one major issue: citations and references. Deckiller 18:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking that about the citations. So we have to basically look up proof for the facts and place them as little links on the article?

(Can't wait to see Rush on the main page :) ) ( Davehard 18:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC) )

Re: Congrats

Thank you! I'm always in the market for compliments. ;) Seriously, writing an article and getting it to FA status in five weeks took a lot of work, and I had a lot of help (with appropriate credit). Thanks again! RadioKirk talk to me 22:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge project

Sounds like a good idea. What exact information did you have in mind to merge? Can you give some links to specific stubs? The Wookieepedian 22:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, yeah, things like that I think will work better merged like you are doing than as individual pages. Most of those stubs can't really be expanded much, and they certainly add to the ;arger pages they are merged with. Plus, I like the idea of lists; it is a faster reference for a lot of related topics that can't really be expanded much temselves. The Wookieepedian 22:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the SW articles affect a lot of people, so I think a vote would be necessary; it's similar to the situation with the recent Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader vote. The Wookieepedian 23:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, not all things like that need to be merged. I think they should really only be merged if little information is available about them. Things like Jedi Starfighter, though, have a lot of information surrounding them, so it would be best not to merge things like that. Anyway, I'll check through your contributions and see what ideas you've had. The Wookieepedian 23:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

OK! =) The Wookieepedian 23:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop please

You are losing quite a bit of information on a number of the articles, and a lot of formatting and categories, in addition to merging in a number of entries that are not appropriate to merge in, like Ysalamir or COMPNOR. --maru (talk) Contribs 03:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, sexy!

Hey, neighbor, how is it going-o?

Diddley editsq 04:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki project

I joined the wiki project for scouting, the Girl Scout artical was appaulingly boring and empty. Griz 02:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

SW Wikiproject

Cool. I signed it. I'm interested. The Wookieepedian 00:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for the message on my userpage. I'm likely the way the FFXI article is going atm -- čĥàñľōŕď 03:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars project

Signed up for it now. Oh, I also just cleaned an entire artical on Studio 2B. Griz 21:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

heyooo

Looks really cool, nice article, yay I spelt it right! Griz 02:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

new england patriots

To answer your question, I think a little of both, trimming Bellicheck and expanding history. For example, I don't think this is notable in the grand scheme of things... "Doug Flutie, who played with the franchise during the late 1980s, returned to the team as a backup to Tom Brady." I'll read through the article later today and give you some more feedback. Gflores ^Talk 19:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks much better. The new images are great additions. In the first sentence, I think New England Patriots looks a little weird. Bolding the article name is good, but I'm not sure wikilinking part of it is. One more thing. The second paragraph in the introduction about the boston patriots seems a little out of place. As an introductory overview, that paragraph seems too specific. Gflores ^Talk 22:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the intro. It could be longer. I really don't know what to add... If you think there's some other information that should be placed there, go for it. Gflores ^Talk 23:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:OldPatriots.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:OldPatriots.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read 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 images, please check 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. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The source that you gave me has no copyright statement. Therefore, the copyright status of the image is unknown, and therefore cannot really be used on Wikipedia.

Technically speaking, the image could be public domain or someone could own the copyright ... but the image could also have been released under certain copyleft licenses such as the GFDL or Creative Commons License which require the first, original source to be credited. Thus, it cannot be accepted. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Have you read Wikipedia:What is a featured article? It says, "including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)