User talk:Lerdthenerd
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Gridlock talk page.
You posted quite a big spoiler on Talk:Gridlock (Doctor Who) and it's quite pointless to do so. If someone truly cares for the Face's prophecy, they'll read the article. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum about Doctor Who. --Quadratus 19:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- sorry feel free to delete it--Lerdthenerd 19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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 23:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Offer of help on Skunk Fu
Thanks for the offer, Lerdthenerd! That would be fantastic. I am just trying to sort out a few things with regard to Skunk Fu, such as the fact that I have the Voice artist list, but no idea who played what, since it doesn't show this in the credits; I also need assistance trying to grab any relevant information about the production companies, since they will be linked from the infobox eventually...Companies include: Hoek, line and thinker (Holland), The Irish Film Board/Bord scannan na hEireann, Super RTL (Luxemburg) and others which I will hunt down. Any help you can give me on this will be much appreciated. Thanks again, Thor Malmjursson 12:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
no problem :) i'm willing to help with the episodes, also do you know any good skunk fu websites we could use as sources to cite from? as that would help us complete the article.--Lerdthenerd 12:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alaibot and List of Skunk Fu episodes
I'm not sure I follow: it was uncategorised, my bot tagged it, someone then categorised it. What 'wrong page' was tagged? Alai 00:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
the article has a bug at the moment, your edit doesn't appear in the correct history instead it's in the bug version, i've just looked on the correct history page and it says the last user to edit was Iceflow(Thor)--Lerdthenerd 20:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Talk pages of redirects
Here's a friendly bit of advice, based on your comment in Talk:Universe of the Metroid series. When an article is redirected to another, the original article page, its history, and its talk page are all still accessible. As an example, consider the trouble you had with Mother Brain (Metroid). Clicking that link will redirect you to Universe of the Metroid series#Mother Brain, but at the top of that page is a line that says Redirected from Mother Brain (Metroid). Clicking that link will take you here, where you can access the talk page (usually) and article history. Sometimes the talk page is also redirected, but if it actually has discussion, it probably won't be. Hope that helps. --Herald Alberich 16:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thanks, shall i'll try and put the sites i've found on the new article's talk page?--Lerdthenerd 13:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Motherbrain.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Motherbrain.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Motherbrain.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Motherbrain.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Author blanking pages
Hi. :) I just wanted to let you know that when an article creator blanks a page nominated for speedy deletion, that is usually interpreted as his or her agreeing that the article should be deleted. In such a case, it is usual to tag it with {{db-author}}. (For context, this is in reference to your restoration of material at the now-deleted Casey Fearfield, the edit summary of which suggested you may not be aware that this is common.) In most cases, of course, what we see is author's removing the speedy notice and leaving the article, in which case restoring the previous contents is precisely the thing to do, generally with a {{uw-speedy1}} left on the author's talk page. Thanks for helping keep an eye on article quality. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks i thought he was ignoring the warning, glad he realised the article was full of personal remarks and decided to delete it.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re:
yes I believe so, since most of those warnings are current (aren't they?), he is well within his rights to delete my chat with him, but that practically voids any cooperation that I was having with him. that's his lose tho.--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 14:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Originally quite a few months ago, it was wring to remove warnings whatever, then there was a change that if someone removed warnings it meant they had done the job, which I never really liked because it made persistent offenders hard to catch, and now just form a synthesis between the two, if the warnings are no longer relevant, let it go, but if the chances are high that the person will get warned again in the very near furture i would personally keep them there.--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 14:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Blanking
Whilst I agree with the principle you expressed in your edit summary here, the page being blanked was pure spam. Your reversion thus inadvertently replaced it. gb (t, c) 10:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit to user page
That was actually supposed to be there as part of an answer to a question, though one of the posted questions was retorical and not supposed to be answered. However, the numbers were supposed to be there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.195.83 (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] talk page edited
That was supposed to be there. Please let me handle it next time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.195.83 (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reintroduction of non-free content
Hi,
Is there any particular reason why you're reverting me? (I ask because you've not provided an edit summary.) You may not know but policy prohibits decorative non-free content. (WP:NFCC) Matthew (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
i'm afraid your wrong stop deleting it--Lerdthenerd (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Inappropriate use of the rollback button
Hi. In regards to this edit on Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), please remember that the rollback button should only be used to revert simple and indisputable vandalism, not as a convenience in edit wars. Inappropriate use of the button may result in that privilege being removed by an administrator. Thank you. --B (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, when I left this message, I was going through the AN3 report and didn't know that it had already been removed. If, after a reasonable period of time (like a month), you would like to have rollback restored, come to me and provided that there is no recent edit warring in your history, I will restore it. --B (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your rollback request
Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Denied/May 2008#Lerdthenerd. RFRBot (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
