User_talk:Kookykman

User talk:Kookykman

4LawSchool.com

Just because you don't know much about a subject, in this case law schools, does not make an article on the most popular website in this subject not notable enough. Ask a law student whether 4LawSchool.com is notable and you'll get your answer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylaw911 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, advertising is not permitted on Wikipedia, and your claim to being the "most popular website on the subject" is laughable at best. The page met the 7th criteria for speedy deletion: "Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." - Kookykman|(t)e 17:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your professionalism but your "laughable" comment is a bit troubling. If you are an expert on the subject, can you point to a website on law schools that would fit your notability criteria?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylaw911 (talk • contribs)

It's not my responsibility to point you to a notable law website, as I am not creating an article on said websites. If you, however, are able to provide mentions in the mainstream press about the website, your article will be gladly accepted. - Kookykman|(t)e 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm not talking about a law related website. I'm talking about a website on "law schools" and "law students." Sadly, you will not find many articles in the "mainstream press" (very subjective term, BTW) on this small niche. Anyways, there is no point in arguing. Have a nice day.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylaw911 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, that "subjective term" isn't mine. From our website notability policies: "This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.". - Kookykman|(t)e 18:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your help.

No problem. It's always nice to be able to have a civil discussion with a fellow contributor. - Kookykman|(t)e 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: J.W.A.D.E.

email me. --Chram 05:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, Who are you? And why should I email you? - Kookykman|(t)e 22:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam/Heaven at AfD

Hi, I have completely rewritten this article, asserting notabilty. Please review the article, and reconsider your delete vote. Thanks, Aguerriero (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ashtapradhan

Hi, you have nominated the above article for deletion here. I have expanded it considerably. Could you please consider withdrawing your nomination? Thanks in advance, --Gurubrahma 14:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Safety

Lol! Did you make it? — Deckill e r 18:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Had to. The YTMND-sense was overpowering. It's hanging in there at a 3.65/5 rating. =p - Kookykman|(t)e

3RR Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 17:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I've changed it to a link. But this is an attempt by the aforementioned users to sweep this under the rug, not a just revert! - Kookykman|(t)e 17:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy

Hi just to let you know I removed your speedy delete tag, because in order for something to be speedied, there must be no claim of notability. This article said he was one of the "greatest" at what he does, which is probably nonsense. You might find WP:CSD helpful-- I think I'll go ahead and prod it, while keeping it on my watchlist in case it's removed. Happy editing! AdamBiswanger1 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had CSD open in another tab all day. =p Which article are we talking about, here? I've patrolled quite a few in the last couple minutes. - Kookykman|(t)e 18:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Kintera and User:Anne.davis

Hi. Earlier today User:Anne.davis created the Kintera page which is heavily advertisementish. You duly nominated it for Speedy, and she then removed the tag. Some time later I added a {{advert}} tag - and she removed it. I've re-added it and done a spot of research. Kintera may actually be notable - I'm looking at WP:CORP and am not sure about the non-trivial ... well - there's a Business Week article; some stuff from the Non-Profit Matrix, and a partnership with AFP, among the other interesting-ish reports. So I'm not sure what a suitable action is. I don't want to AFD the page (I don't feel sufficiently sure that it's non-notable), and certainly I don't think Speedy's appropriate. But I'm really not sure what's the best thing to do and I'd appreciate your eye on it again. Thanks. --JennyRad 21:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the best way to go about this would be to PROD it when the user stops paying attention to it, but that's cheating. =p Removing the speedy tag was improper from the user, they have no proper defence. I'm re-speedying it for now, if it gets removed or {{hangon}}'d, I'd go with an AFD. Thanks. - Kookykman|(t)e 22:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Unique Hardware speedy tag

Hi I removed your speedy tag from this article as speedy doesn't cover non notable websites and advertisement type articles. To get the article deleted you have to list it at AfD. Regards, Andeh 22:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC).

Beagle

Thank you for your contribution; however, I removed your image from Beagle. The article already has five pictures, which is more than enough. Sparsefarce 19:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be better to remove one of the blurry or non-dual liscensed photos, but oh well. - Kookykman|(t)e 19:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Unique Hardware

Good day.

If the article entiled Unique Hardware is too much of an advertisement, please help remove any bias. If you don't think that is possible, please, tell me why the following sites are not up for deletion.

Other Hardware Review Sites:

Side note: Who really cares who made the wikipedia entry. If the Unique Hardware entry is an advertisement, all the others are too.

All those sites are the same in design and concept, except they squeeze their reviews between advertisements.

It's not my responsibility to put every single hardware review site up for deletion. You may, however, and you are also allowed to remove the type of deletion tag I used if you contest the deletion. I will not take it any further. - Kookykman|(t)e 23:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Tech Support Thanks!

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u\|t) 07:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your Tech Support on my recent RfA! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 07:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats. =) - Kookykman|(t)e 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the YTMND userbox mirror!

I don't see why it had to be deleted anyway. ShadowMan1od 03:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's nothing. I just like the German solution. =p - Kookykman|(t)e 15:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Football AID 30 July - 6 August

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Juventus F.C. has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Football AID 8 August - 15 August

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

FIFA World Rankings has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Physics Article WIP proposal

Hello, as an editor who has previously added to the Physics article and taken part in discussions on its talk page I thought a current proposal may be of interest to you. Over the past few months the article has suffered from a lack of focus and direction. Unfortunately the article is now judged by a number of editors to be in a relatively poor state. There is currently a proposal to start a full consensus based review of the article. That review and consensus process has been proposed here, your thoughts on the proposal and participation in the WIP review of the article would be much appreciated. It disappoints me that an article on one of the fundamental sciences here at wikipedia is in such a relatively poor state, and I hope you can have a browse by the page to offer your views and hopefully participate. Thanks, SFC9394 22:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

With regard to "No, I can't give support to anyone who spams my talk page for no reason whatsoever. Sorry. " I specifically posted to your talk page since you had previously posted on the physics talk page (most recently in the "concepts/fields tables" discussion less than a month ago - I would hardly call that no reason whatsoever - indeed I specifically cited that you were someone who had previously taken part in discussions). My post above was not spam - it was designed to try and generate some comments on the proposal from editors who have an interest in the page. SFC9394 22:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I posted on Talk:Physics? o_0 I went over that in my head, and I couldn't see why I would, I've never edited Physics...removing comment from WIP now. - Kookykman|(t)e 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to you, you only posted one comment [1], but I just went up the talk page finding editors who were both active and who had posted before - we are trying to generate some discussion on this since there are only 3 editors who are active with it (shocking situation for one of the fundamental sciences) - if you have any interest in physics then come along anyway! SFC9394 22:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Alex Trebek

Haha, how'd you come up with that one? — Deckill e r 23:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Gods of Wikipedia told me. I was about to put you as Conan O'Brien, believe me. =p - Kookykman|(t)e 23:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Kookykman, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Michael 03:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wikiballoon1.jpg

Happy first edit day, dear Kookykman!!! Keep up the good work and happy editing! Hopefully there will be next year :) Take care -- Imoeng 11:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! I didn't even know my first edit day was today. - Kookykman|(t)e 11:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Mexican president

I reverted your changes to the Mexican president page. Calderon was declared president elect today, but he does not become the new president until December 1st, when Fox's term expires. Magidin 20:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Shows how much I know about Mexican government. Thanks. - Kookykman|(t)e 21:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning

What on earth are you talking about. I am removing Fair Use image per our policy. See discussions on WP:FU. The explicit clarification of our policy is that ""An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like ... would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use". Please investigate matters more thoroughly before making such threats in future. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 13:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove fair use images from Conan O'Brien, Ralph Nader, and Jon Stewart. Your interpretation of WP:FU is highly contested, and apparently calls into violation half of our articles about politicians and celebrities. - Kookykman|(t)e 13:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

They will be eventually. It is not my interpretation of the policy I have quoted, but an official clarification from Jimbo. If you do not appreciate the significance of this, then I can't really help you. ed g2s • talk 13:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ed, we have no free alternative for these images. That is a criteria for a fair use image, as said on the fair use template itself. - Kookykman|(t)e 13:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And as I have stated, our recent clarification of that rule states that for living persons, whether or not we have a replacement to hand, we still consider a replacement obtainable. ed g2s • talk 14:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems someone has e-mailed the politician asking if the image being used as fair use would be okay with him. Let's wait for an answer until we continue this discussion. - Kookykman|(t)e 19:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of Fair Use is that you don't need permission. If we are asking for permission, the only thing that is relevant is that the image be freely licensed, even permission for any use on Wikipedia is of no use to us. ed g2s • talk 22:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Word Association

Don't just give up on WA! Would you support a mediation request, as per the discussion at the talk page? --Perimosocordiae 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:HRWiki logo.png

Hello, Kookykman. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:HRWiki logo.png) was found at the following location: User:Kookykman/Boxes. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Don_Gaetz_with_Columba_and_Jeb_Bush.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Don_Gaetz_with_Columba_and_Jeb_Bush.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rette tast 22:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents