User talk:JarlaxleArtemis/Archive I

Welcome!

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! -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 23:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

German Wikipedia

Please stop polluting the German wikipedia with (automatically translated?) articles that nobody can comprehend. I have deleted Spira because it is useless. If you continue to do so, you risk to be blocked or even banned. -- Herr Klugbeisser 01:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jeez, Germans sure are arrogant, aren't they?— ✏ JarlaxleArtemis

yup,the german wikipedia is, compared to other countries wikipedias, says one who is german himself.

Fair use

Thanks for uploading a number of nifty images. Could you please include information on their sources on the image pages? Please note that fair use of copyrighted material is context dependant. It would be nice, for example, to have a source and a name for the person whose photo you added to sex symbol. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you didn't take the photo nor are the copyright holder, you don't get to copyright it yourself nor release it under GFDL. See Wikipedia:Images, Wikipedia:Copyrights, and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more information. I've retagged the image as "unverified". -- Infrogmation 22:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

zh wiki: A note for you

Hi. JarlaxleArtemis, I am from zh wiki. My name is Prattflora. On the zh-wiki front talking page, I noticed you post a full text as a translation request of en:spira. I had moved it to the correct location where we usually put translation request. --Prattflora 13:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Copyrights

I assume you are referring to Google Images. If that is the case, there is a big difference between Google's use of images and Wikipedia's use. Google merely provides small, low-resolution previews of each image. The actual-size images are not stored by Google and are merely linked to by them. Such use by Google is clearly allowed (in the United States) by fair use. Wikipedia, however, strives to provide more than just thumbnails or links to other websites. It is true that in many cases, at least on the English Wikipedia, copyrighted images can be used to represent a concept under the same fair use laws, especially if they are low-resolution. However, it is far preferred to have images that are in the public domain or that are licensed under copyleft licenses, because that makes it easier for others to use materials from Wikipedia. I hope this answers your questions, but you may want to look at this copyright guide for more information. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Josh 01:23, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Rasputin, Grigory Yefimovich

Why is this a separate article? We already have an article on Grigori Rasputin. Kukuman 04:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rasputin, Grigory Yefimovich contains additional information about Rasputin. It only involves the historical Rasputin; it doesn't have miscellaneous and scattered information about him, such as the Rasputin from Hellboy and whatnot.→ JarlaxleArtemis 04:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The extra info it contains should be merged into the existing Rasputin article. There is no reason to have a whole other article just for different things about him. Kukuman 04:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK→ JarlaxleArtemis 05:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Greatings from" "the world of Esperanto"

Thank you for visiting the little sister of Wikipedia. Concerning Esperanto, it may be interesting for you, to have a look at this multimedia e-learning software(free download) presenting an easy approach to the language. Montanessko

Template:NYCS Archer

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

I erased the template because it only consisted of three letters; it didn't make any sense. By the way, I'm not new here.→ JarlaxleArtemis 10:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If something doesn't make sense, don't erase it; ask about it on the talk page or the author's talk page. In this case, it's part of Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Subway/Line templates. --SPUI (talk) 10:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox heading

You renamed Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading) to Template:Sandbox. Did you discuss the move anywhere? If not, please move it back, in accordance with the consensus at Template talk:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)#Rename to Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading). Note that you can use {{subst:sandboxpaste}} when raking the sandbox (see Template talk:sandboxpaste). —AlanBarrett 10:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it back. —AlanBarrett 11:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:Gravity not fictitious.png

Please don't delete worthwhile information from pages without discussion or explanation. Thanks for adding the image tag though. -- FirstPrinciples 11:28, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Regarding your edit to User talk:Brownman40: Personal attacks are against the policy of Wikipedia. Please don't do them. I've nominated your personal attack generator Template:Troll for deletion, and I see you have a history of personal attacks; if you continue, someone may have to file a WP:RfC against you. ✏ OvenFresh ² 16:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your request on my user page on the Hebrew Wikipedia

I replied to you after your request in my disscusion page on the Hebrew Wikipedia Avihu 21:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Impatience

Hi Jeremy, could you please in future cut out that ridiculous nonsense about an image having no information about its source? As far as the image at Apollo Theatre is concerned, you might want to have a look at the page history to see how much time you gave me to add details. I hope you are less impatient in real life. All the best, <KF> 02:23, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Questionable behaviour

Jeremy, your behaviour has passed the line of being irritating, and seems to be bordering on deliberate vandalism. In the past 24 hours you have:

Damaged the template, Template:NYCS Archer
Deleted perfectly good information from Image:Gravity not fictitious.png
Renamed the Sandbox template without discussion
Listed apparently good pages for speedy deletion without justification
Uploaded a large number of high resolution images of semi-naked women
Engaged in personal attacks on users
Messed with image tags in a way that has irritated at least one user

Now, I've made a lot of big mistakes on Wikipedia myself, so I'm not claiming to be perfect. But I really have to warn you to slow down or someone might start to get annoyed at your conduct.

In the future, please:

Use the {{deletebecause|reason}} template if listing a page for speedy deletion and it's not entirely clear why the page should be speedy'd
Discuss on talk pages before making any major changes or deletions

Best wishes, -- FirstPrinciples 02:40, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Agree with the other comments on this page, and I'd like to add that your behavior on other Wikipedias has been just as questionable. -- Netoholic @ 04:51, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

Celebrity images

This is with reference to the images you added on Zetajones, Paris hilton, Heidi Klum and other celebrity pages. What is the point of putting more than one image on the page of a celebrity. If the image does not depict any important occuring in the life of the celebrity, I dont see any point. bye gaurav Gaurav1146 16:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

None of your images have information on the source. If you don't provide that, they cannot remain here. Stop making more work for your fellow editors. -- Netoholic @ 19:37, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Image:Angelina Jolie3.jpg

I see that you have uploaded Image:Angelina Jolie3.jpg. I have already stated in the Angelina Jolie article why i do not feel that fair use is applicable here. please respond there with your comments if you disagree or i will ave to revert the page back to a legal picture. Cavebear42 23:05, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:Catherine Zeta Jones3.jpg

I note that you have uploaded an image Image:Catherine Zeta Jones3.jpg and placed it in the Catherine Zeta-Jones article. However, said article is relatively short and already contains an image of Zeta Jones. Since your image doesn't appear to add any new information to the article, I have removed it.

Also, I am not convinced that the image you have uploaded is covered under the terms of fair use. The original image on the Zeta Jones page was a publicity still which movie studios release with the expectation of having various media outlets reprint them. However, your image appears to be taken from a magazine. You may want to review Wikipedia's policies on use of third-party media. Psychonaut 12:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I know that another picture adds nothing of value to the Catherine Zeta-Jones article, but it doesn't devalue it either, does it?→ JarlaxleArtemis 00:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It does insofar as it clutters and adds redundancy to a very short article. It is also a possible copyright violation, as I mention above. Psychonaut 00:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cindy Crawford

I reverted your edits to the article on Cindy Crawford. I don't think the pictures you added are relevant to the text, and the fact that they contain partial nudity is going to be a matter of contention for quite a few users. Not to say that nudity doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but this is not a fansite and I don't think we want Wikipedia to be the first place teenage boys go to find hot celeb pix. Then there is the copyright issue other users have brought up, which is a valid concern. I don't have the time to fix all of the articles you've added pictures to, nor do I want to decide which pictures should go and which should stay. I would hope you are willing to do some fixup and be more reasonable with edits in the future. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 23:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Images removed

I've gone and removed quite a few images of models that you've uploaded, mainly because they are copyright violations. Sorry, but you can't just slap a fair use tag on the image and make it legal. They're now deleted from the system. Please don't upload any more fair use images until you review the fair use article. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Continued disruption

I note that you are continuing to upload inappropriate images despite numerous warnings given here. These images do not contain copyright information and are probably in violation of fair use standards. Furthermore, many of them contain gratuitous nudity. (There is nothing wrong with nudity per se on Wikipedia, but it is gratuitous when it has nothing to do with the content of the article.) Examples of images which may be inappropriate or which have missing or incorrect copyright information include:

Image:Christina_Aguilera.jpg in the Fuck article (copyright, gratuitous nudity)
Image:Britney_Spears2.jpg (copyright)
Image:Etruscan Civilization.png (copyright)
Image:Plan_of_the_City_of_Rome.png (copyright)
Image:Roman_Expansion.png (copyright)
Image:Roman_Gaul.png (copyright)
Image:Silly_Dog.jpg (copyright)
Image:The_City_of_Rome.png (copyright)
Image:The_Thousand_Orcs.jpg (copyright)

There may be others as well. Because you have been ignoring repeated warnings about uploading images of this sort, you may soon find yourself the target of a Request for Mediation or Request for Arbitration. I advise you to review Wikipedia's policies on use of copyrighted material, and to remove any images you believe are not in accord with that policy. Please stop creating work for your fellow editors. Psychonaut 09:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removing imagevio tags

In order to use an image on Wikipedia, you need permission from the creator of the image. I verified that you took Image:The City Of Rome.png from Encarta. That image is not public domain, nor is it eligible for fair use. Please don't remove the tag which marks it as a copyright violation. Thanks. Rhobite 01:44, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Everything on Encarta is copyrighted. All the text, images, and graphics were written by people working for Microsoft, and we are not allowed to copy any of that content to Wikipedia. Whoever told you that Encarta is public domain was mistaken. Public domain is a specific status, meaning the copyright has either expired or the copyright owner has explicitly given up his rights. Please don't assume that anything you find is public domain.

You seem to be confused on some issues relating to copyright, fair use, PD, etc. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Copyrights and fair use. But in general, use this rule of thumb: Do not upload anyone else's work without their permission. Rhobite 03:26, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

STOP UPLOADING UN-NEEDED, COPYRIGHTED IMAGES

For the last time, please stop uploading copyrighted images. Also, please stop abusing the image tags. Your latest uploads, all claiming to be book covers (with Template:bookcover), are clearly NOT book covers. The book cover tag is for entire book covers, including title and author information. I strongly advise you to review Wikipedia copyright policy, if you haven't already done so; and I also point out that there is an ongoing arbitration into your activities, precisely because of actions such as these. -- FP 03:15, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I was unaware that Template:bookcover only covered the entire cover of a book.→ JarlaxleArtemis 03:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, none of the images on Wikipedia are needed.→ JarlaxleArtemis 03:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

JA, I'm sorry for "shouting" at you. However, regarding the image tags, I really think you should know better by now. -- FP 03:47, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Also I apologise for saying you were uploading new images, when in fact you were just re-tagging old ones. -- FP 03:51, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the award

It really means a lot to me that somebody likes "my" article.PiccoloNamek 08:12, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Did I do something wrong ?

Hi, I notice you put an instruction manual on my user talk page, Im wondering If I did something that was particularly out of synch w/ Wiki's policies ?

Thank You

User:Dowew

No problem. ugen 64 06:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia - is this the proper way to send messages to other users? I click on "edit this page" at the top, and then scroll to the bottom of the page, and then type this out...is this correct? Also, I don't really know how to set up my user page, is there a tutorial somewhere? HappyCamper 20:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moans

Thanks for your message. Yes, and nothing's changed since I wrote it (if anything, the business of voting, especially on VfD's on people, has got worse). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Map of Roman Gaul

I also posted this on talk:Gaul, but wanted also to post it here, since I'm not sure a discussion on fair use belongs there. In response to your question there,

I'm no expert on copyright law; a glance through your talk page shows several people who have been there who do seem to have a pretty good understanding of the issues at hand, so perhaps you might want to try asking one of them, especially Rhobite, who removed the image from this article in the first place.

After a look through the article on fair use, however, it strikes me that use of the image here violates two of the four determining factors for fair use--

Purpose and character. Use of the image in this Wikipedia article was derivative, not transformative. Its use here didn't "stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public" by adding something new to its original conception; rather, it "aim[ed] to only 'supersede the objects' of the original". It's a map of Roman Gaul to illustrate articles about Roman Gaul on Encarta's website, and its use here is simply as a map of Roman Gaul in the Wikipedia article on Roman Gaul, without permission from the copyright holder (Encarta).
Effect upon work's value. This deals more with the general principle of using Encarta images on Wikipedia than on the specific use of a map of Roman Gaul. Widespread instance of this would damage Encarta's ability to exploit their original work, both by (a) superseding the object of the original work, and by (b) destroying Encarta's potential licensing market for their original work (they can't very well charge others to use their work if they're letting us get away with using them for free).

My understanding is that the only really cut-and-dry instances of US fair use is when the use revolves around the original work itself: criticising it, reviewing it, parodying it, teaching about it, etc. But even then (and I can't imagine why we'd ever be parodying or reviewing Encarta), I'd check with someone more knowleageable than me before using Encarta images. But incorporating Encarta's work into our own is right out. Hope that helps. Binabik80 01:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox and Sandbot

While I appreciate you cleaning the sandbox, a bot has been created for this purpose. The 6 hour interval (changed to 12 hours) is allow growth of content in the sandbox to allow new users "play" with the Wiki system. Please only clean the sandbox only where there are offensive content present. Thank you. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recreating deleted articles

Hello, Jeremy. I had to delete the article "Genetic Engineering Career" as it was a recreation of the article deleted by VfD. Once an article has been deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy, a recreation of that article becomes a Candidate for speedy deletion. Please do not recreate it again. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 06:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Yeah, there's another message on my talk page about someone doing it on the Spanish Wikipedia. Must mean I'm doing a decent job fighting vandals here ;) Hope the cleanup goes well and doesn't take long. Cheers. CryptoDerk 00:44, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that IP is the real IP of that vandal on Klingon - more likely the Thai Ministry of Education (who owns that IP) has a open web proxy which the vandal uses to hide his origin. andy 11:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your comment on User talk:24.199.67.20

I noticed your vandalism warning to this user. I don't think he has been doing any--his new articles are rather poorly written but they are genuine attempts to add material. The subject is the Metroid series of games. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Derro

I just notived your 'nice' comment on the edit summary of the article above. Perhaps it would have been appropriate to post this on my talk-page. Although I normally don't tend to justify my doings, the Derro are a race that also feature in the AD & D role-playing game universe, so I don't see anything wrong with the stub-sorting by me... and by the way, you don't know my life Lectonar 14:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair use images

I noticed that you are uploading copyrighted images and calling them "fair use." What category of fair use are you claiming? What was the source of the images? Thanks - Willmcw 22:12, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

File:Symbol of Gruumsh.jpg

fair use?

Hello? I'm still looking for an answer. You have posted numerous images, such as Image:Symbol of Gruumsh.jpg, labelling them as "fair use." On what basis are you claiming fair use, and where did you get the pictures from? Thanks -Willmcw 05:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) .

PS, I see you've tagged them with their source, which is good. Can you tell us more? Cheers, -Willmcw 05:53, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Just a reminder, these are the principle reasons that an image may qualify for fair use, per Wikipedia:Fair use

Unique historical images which we cannot reproduce by other means
Samples of music, sufficient only to illustrate the point
Book and CD album covers
Corporate logos
Quotations
Screen shots

I'm finding it hard to determine how the images that you've uploaded could qualify under any of these criteria. Can you help me understand please? Thanks -Willmcw 07:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the images I have uploaded are fair use because:

They do not hamper any commercial sales.
Are used for informational purposes.
They are copyrighted.

→ JarlaxleArtemis 20:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: The items listed below are examples of what fair use images can be; the images don't have to be any of the following:

Unique historical images which we cannot reproduce by other means
Samples of music, sufficient only to illustrate the point
Book and CD album covers
Corporate logos
Quotations
Screen shots

→ JarlaxleArtemis 20:20, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

JA, thanks for the reply. Those reasons do not appear to be included in the list of reasons that allow fair use. Can you clarify? I don't claim to be the best informed person on the matter, but it appears to me as if these images would not qualify as fair use. Is there a need for these images? Cheers, -Willmcw 20:22, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

See also: Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. The specific fair use claim needs to be added to each image description. -Willmcw 20:27, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there's a need for any images on Wikipedia. The images I've added are symbols of dieties and fictional organizations. Others are images of fantasy creatures. They add clarity to the articles, and the images of fantasy creatures show the readers what the creatures actually look like. After all, one cannot simply go to the zoo in order to see them. → JarlaxleArtemis 20:33, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

OK, so how can we justify them under Wikipedia's copyright guidelines? Being "informational" doesn't seem to be sufficient. -Willmcw 20:38, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that they are imaginary means that the depictions are solely the creaative work of the artists, which makes the fair use claim even harder to make. -Willmcw 20:46, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Here is some stuff from the Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ article:

Under U.S. copyright law, the primary things to consider when asking if something is fair use (set forth in Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107) are:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
Is it a for profit competitor or not? Is it for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research? Is the use transformative (of a different nature to the original publication)?
The nature of the copyrighted work;
Is it a highly original creative work with lots of novel ideas or a relatively unoriginal work or listing of facts? Is the work published (to a non-restricted audience)? If not, fair use is much less likely.
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
How much of the original work are you copying? Are you copying more or less than the minimum required for your purpose? The more you exceed this minimum, the less likely the use is to be fair. Are you reducing the quality or originality, perhaps by using a reduced size version?
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Does this use hurt or help the original author's ability to sell it? Did they intend to or were they trying to make the work widely republished (as with a press release)? Are you making it easy to find and buy the work if a viewer is interested in doing so?

→ JarlaxleArtemis 20:58, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on that stuff. Under #2, this seems to be highly original creative work. The wording of that item is so roundabout that I'm not sure if that helps or hinders. Clearly, if you reduced the quality that would help (#3). Can you reload them with much less quality? -Willmcw 21:09, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Reducing the quality of the images would reduce the quality of the articles. Anyway, I don't think that it is necessary to reduce the quality of the images. After all, the concept of fair use is very broad and general. → JarlaxleArtemis 21:19, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree about the nature of the "fair use" exception. By presenting full-sized images of highly original artwork, without even crediting the artists, I think that there is absolutely no fair use claim that we can make. I also disagree that having smaller pictures would reduce the quality of the articles. It would be just about as good if we simply linked to the images. Can we do that instead? -Willmcw 21:25, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) (PS, there's no need to reply to my talk page - we can keep this discussion in one place -W.)

How about I just credit the authors? I know who they are. → JarlaxleArtemis 21:27, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

If you know the artisits, how about getting permission from them to distribute their images? That'd take care of the whole problem. If we're going to try to keep the images as they are, I think we should bring in one of the copyright experts, like user:Quadell. They may have a simple solution. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:39, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Let's ask Quadell. → JarlaxleArtemis 21:44, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Good. I've posted a note at User talk:Quadell. You may want to add to it. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:52, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Quadell here. (Keep in mind as you read this that IANAL, and most of what I know about fair use, I know through conventions here, not actual law.)

This is a somewhat controversial topic, and there seem to be two points of view. In my opinion, those images do not count as fair use here regardless of how you present them. I would personally consider those copyright violations (although I won't list them for deletion). Other equally knowlegable people disagree. Some would say that so long as the image is correctly sourced and credited on the image description page, and if the image is no bigger than it needs to be to illustrate the article, then fair use is fine (unless the copyright holder complains to the Wikimedia foundation). My advice would be to keep the images small, be diligent in sourcing them, and keep your head down. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 12:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Quadell. That sounds like good advice. Cheers, -Willmcw 18:23, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

In response to your second question, if you do get permission, it would be best to state who gave permission and what he said, along with putting a permissionandfairuse tag there. Otherwise, someone might assume that the tag was in error. But you don't have to prove it - although if enough people start to doubt your word, you may have to prove it afterall. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:20, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Before adding more new images can you please address the problems with the images that you have already uploaded? Your latest edit, image:bebe.png, seems to ignore the discussion we had here. Thanks, -Willmcw 01:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't upload Image:Bebe.png. I just took away the GFDL tag. I didn't add the fair use tag, either. As for the images I did upload, I've got it covered. → JarlaxleArtemis 01:33, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Cool. Take care of more important matters first. (see below) Hang in there. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:53, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Let me know if I can help out by shrinking the size of pictures so that they can better qualify as "fair use". Or we can just delete them. Whichever. -Willmcw 04:20, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Which pictures? The Dungeons & Dragons ones? I have sent a letter to Wizards of the Coast, Inc., asking for their permission. → JarlaxleArtemis 04:23, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Great. And the rest? Cheers, -Willmcw 04:31, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Gee, I hadn't realized how many were from Wizards of the Coast. However at least a few seem to be from other sources, while not looking like screenshots either. I'm thinking of pictures like these: Image:Britney Spears2.jpg, Image:Drizzt and Guenhwyvar.jpg, Image:Seymour Guado2.jpg. Anti-anti-cheers, -Willmcw 05:05, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Pat Robertson

God loves you, yes you. Why not let Him shine through your words and your way. This is a struggle, as I know all too well. God Bless. Wendydrag 04:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

? → JarlaxleArtemis 04:11, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you an admin are nto but do you need Pat Robertson protected. -JCarriker 04:35, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. It's standard procedure to protect the version you find. Protecion is not meant to protect a point of view but to bring the edit war to a halt. Also if I revrert before I protect, I become envolved in the edit war and are no longer in a postion to protect the page. I do not belive the same applies now that the page is protected. If you have found anythingn that is improper formating or violates or policies- i.e the bit she/he added after deleteing quotes I'll be happy to change it other than that direct any changes to the talk page. -JCarriker 04:48, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Wendydrag for 24hrs. Also, per your comments on her talk page: I know that POV warriors can be frustrating but please remember that personal attacks are against the policy of Wikipedia, no matter how badly a user/vandal may be violating our policies. Thanks. -JCarriker 05:17, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

:-)

Rather randomly, I'd just like to thank you on a lot of your work on wikipedia. You seemed to pick up on the sectors I most enjoyed working (Forgotten Realms and Final Fantasy X mainly) on just as my interest and allowed time commitment to wikipedia dwindled; starting articles that I just never got around to. Also, though there seem to have been some complications around their fair use (why I never got into the trouble of trying), uploading much-needed images to some of these articles. Also your attempts at keeping POV warriors from hijacking the Pat Robertson article shows wider commitment.

Heh, now I sound pompous ;P Anyway, I'm allowing myself a little wikipedia rennaissance, and plan to touch up some FR stuff now and then, so no doubt I'll see your edits around. Thanks again :) -Erolos 23:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category sort keys

Thanks for all the corrections that you are making. However, you might not be aware of the role of category sort keys. By adding a "pipe" and then the subject's lastname, firstname, the entry will be alphabetized properly in the category list. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Category_sorting. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:05, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. → JarlaxleArtemis 01:13, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Nanjing Massacre

I encourage you to revert after reading talk. Material I removed were in accordance with wikipedia policy as I mentioned in article talk. Thanks. Cat ^chi? 00:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image copyrights

Any word back from Wizards of the Coast yet? Cheers, -Willmcw 02:36, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

No, not yet. I couldn't connect to the Internet for a week. Some guy in Canada finally fixed the problem with my connection. → JarlaxleArtemis 04:45, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

What a drag. Glad to have you back. Those Canadians are real "can-do" types. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:55, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

It's been about a month since you contacted Wizards of the Coast. If they haven't given permission then we need to start listing their images on the copyright problems page. -Willmcw 00:38, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Silent Supper

Hi JarlaxleArtemis,

I removed the {{nonsense}} tag from Silent Supper, because it appears to be a legitimate Wicca concept ([1], [2], [3]). Can't say if it's a notable concept or not; I'm not an expert—you're welcome to VfD it if you don't think it clears the bar.

I'd go a little easier on the patent nonsense label; the text seems pretty lucid in this case. (Granted, the original author could definitely have made more of an effort to put things in context.)

Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 03:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the hole in the fence

That's actually the right title. I just hadn't got the right template in yet, the "wrongtitle" template used in iPod and like articles. -- user:zanimum

Okalee dokalee. → JarlaxleArtemis 23:34, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism?

On my talk page you accused me of vandalism. Please identify the edit you think constitutes vandalism; I assure you that removing inappropriate or poorly-crafted content from Wikipedia is not vandalism. Kelly Martin 03:16, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

The edit you referred to on my talk page was not my own edit. Thanks for your interest. Kelly Martin 03:40, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox copy/pasting

Hello, Jarlaxle. Please don't copy and paste an HTML source code in EVERY ONE of the sandboxes. It's really annoying and I had to rake them all up. Just use one sandbox please. Thanks. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right. You don't have to rake them all up, though. The Sandbot does that every 12 hours. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, for the tutorial sandboxes, the sandbot only does that once a week. We wouldn't want an large source code to linger there for days, do we? However, feel free to do those experiments, jsut don't paste them everywhere. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbot's HTML warning comment

Stevey7788 has suggested something different for the little warning on the sandboxes. I would like your input on the matter. Please see User talk:AllyUnion#sandbot_messasge for more information. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heroscape copyvios

Hey, figured I'd bring you up to date on what's going on with this Heroscape stuff, since you've edited a few, posted that comment on the talk page, and seem to be following it a bit. The character articles were created via mass copyvio spam from heroscape.com on May 6, then again on May 8, and it looks like someone's doing it again. Please watch out for these and check them for copyvios if they are posted again. CryptoDerk 19:47, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. → JarlaxleArtemis 03:50, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Australian pelican shit usage

Apparently "a long streak of pelican shit" means a tall, thin person in Australian slang. -- Curps 02:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's a very strange slang term. → JarlaxleArtemis 05:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Final Fantasy characters

It is not neccessary to double-list an article. To whit, Category:Final Fantasy X characters is a subcategory of Category:Final Fantasy characters. Any article listed under the former category is assumed to belong to the latter category as well. The whole point of creating this subcategories in the first place is to better organize information and reduce clutter, and uneccessary cross-listings defeat that purpose. – Seancdaug 03:19, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

List of assassinations, massacres, and terrorist incidents

Rickyrab has just created List of assassinations, massacres, and terrorist incidents which repeats existing articles. - Tεx τ urε 14:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I probably wasn't aware that such articles existed at the time. Oops. (I don't remember that I created that article, but if you say so, Texture...) — Rickyrab | Talk 16:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An award for you

For your use of humor on many pages with the smile faces icon, I like to give you the Barnstar of Humor. Congrats. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC) (KC)[reply]

Thanks! → JarlaxleArtemis 23:49, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hello policeman

So you are the policeman, are you? It gives you the right to destroy work that has taken hundreds of hours to get together, and then delete it in a second, to spread lies and misinformation, just for a power trip, does it? Well, congratulations then.

You're funny. Actually, I can't delete articles because I'm not an administrator. I just put speedy delete notices on any new crap that pops up in the recent changes. It's mostly by anons like yourself, User:203.26.206.130. → JarlaxleArtemis 23:59, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Morgoth

Thanks! I also added Varda, Manwë, Ungoliant, and Shelob, and I'm just about to add Nienna, Mandos, and Lórien. It's really not that hard... just a minute or two on each one. But thanks for the compliment! 65.27.194.8 01:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Open invitation

You've made your point. And, yes, a lot of obscenities have articles on Wikipedia. Tampoco sospeché que coño fuera a ser un redirect a... bueno, a ya sabes dónde. Now, why don't you go and delete that section from the Pope's Talk page? A useful gesture that might even end up earning you the respect of some of the editors whose feathers you ruffled the wrong way. Give it a moment's thought, hm? Cheers, –Hajor 04:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, you've already won back some of mine: thank you for your work correcting slips in my writing on pope-unrelated pages. -- Hoary 04:22, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Kudos, dude. –Hajor 05:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]