User talk:Vicarious

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this normal barnstar for all the work you've done on the dab pages, and for all the endless help you've given me as as we double team pages Latulla 03:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vicarious,
Thanks for contributing, I'm sorry that you feel it was "lame" to nominate this article for deletion. It's risky to create in the main article space. It can get nominated for deletion (or even speedy deleted) before you get much done. A good idea is to make an article like User:Vicarious/Podi and perfect content there (where it's not a candidate for deletion) and move it into main space when it's ready.
brenneman^(t)(c) 01:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody I know calls this building the dogs dick, including a commercial surveyor I know. It really is the most common nickname for it.

Because of the complexity of the vote at the above AfD, I have attempted to break down the individual votes on the AfD talk page. If I have misunderstood your vote with respect to any of these, please correct it. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 12:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you said sound OK to me... Could you let me know when the move is done and I'll change the cricket articles. -- Ian ≡ talk 05:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment re: Spodi. It is true that the article is perhaps liable to be merged someday, but I am glad you liked my addition. It was fun to research it, too. Do you know if spodi is a particularly Northwestern slang term? I see that you are in Washington too, so maybe it's just something we say around here. :) I'm still looking for information about the term. It's definitely not in the OED yet. ;) Cheers, ManekiNeko | Talk 06:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more research and the term seems to be mostly Washington/Oregon -- lots of people online talking about it claim to be from the Northwest. But the recipe is all over the place; it just has lots of different names elsewhere. :) -- ManekiNeko | Talk 07:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you saying you didn't know what "prodded" meant. It's a new method for deleting articles. It's part-way between Afd and speedy - the article has to wait five days for deletion but people don't have to vote on it. For five days, it sits in a list and anyone can object to its deletion by simply removing the prod tag - and then you'd have to go to Afd. See WP:PROP. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to begin to thank you for what you wrote on my talk page. I think that's the most profound compliment I've ever received on Wikipedia. I'm astonished, and humbled, and very pleased. One of the sadder things on Wikipedia is that it's no longer simple to know everyone -- when I started, there were fifty or so names that I saw everywhere, and I knew people by reputation, by the impression I had built up of their responses in various discussions. Now, although I'm thrilled by our growth and our evolving community, there are far more names that I don't recognize in the average discussion or history page than names I do. And I'm sad because that means I missed encountering a nice fellow like you earlier in your editing career. I wish you the best of luck on your continued work here. Thank you! — Catherine\^talk 20:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found some ghusto (after an arduous search), and I've done my best approximation of juvenile and offensive behaviour. Are you offended? — Catherine\^talk 07:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this page. Pass it along. Nudge nudge. -- evrik 17:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is "standard ratio" for a desktop picture? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it. You mean the ratio of the height to the length to be .73-.82, as outlined in option 2. Will work on it now. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Picture Peer Review :-) --liquidGhoul 10:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your page-move caused several problems with double-redirects. I've fixed them, but please be more careful next time. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixing them was on my todo list, however I wanted be sure that my previously undiscussed page move was acceptable before I rummaged through fixing the double redirects. And to be fair, I didn't just have double redirects, I think I even had a couple of triple redirects ;-) Vicarious 00:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Wanted to make sure you had community consensus?!?!? What are you, chicken? ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response about bimetallic strips. I appreciate it. I don't need that derivation any longer. Cheers, deeptrivia (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vicarous. Regarding Windscale_fire you changed it to be dwarfed by TMI & Chernobyl. However, at Sellafield#The_Windscale_fire it states that more radioactivity was released by Windscale then by TMI. So how do you motivate your alteration?

--137.120.5.178 15:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windscale fire states that a total of 20,000 curies, most of which was iodine-131 was released. Three Mile Island released 13 million curies, although most of it was radioactive noble gasses. Releasing nearly 1,000 times the quantity of radiation, despite the form, could only in my opinion by superceded if the more hazardous radiation lead to injury or death, but there were no deaths and no injuries at either site, so that's a non issue. In terms of economic loss, windscale was a very small reactor and compartively cheap to Three Mile Island. In addition to the loss of the reactor, the cost of the cleanup with highly disproportionate, although windscale may be further cleaned up, thus far it has simply been covered in concrete, although the article doesn't have a price figure, I'd estimate $20,000 for the cleanup; Three Mile Island's cleanup was $975 Million. As for the social impact, there was very little fear at the Windscale fire, and a great deal of fear at Three Mile Island, this can also be evidenced by the reactions to nuclear energy, since Three Mile Island not a single nuclear reactor has been built (that wasn't already under construction) to this day. Britain on the other hand didn't even pause their nuclear program. So to summarize, the health impact was potentially worse at Windscale, however there was no health impact, and in all other criteria, (quanitity of radiation, financial loss, social impact) Three Mile Island was worse. Vicarious 22:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Windscale_fire#Worst --137.120.5.178 11:48, 16 March 2006 (+0100)

Yes, I suppose some of my (many many many many MANY LOL) userboxes do contradict. The reason I waited such a long time to reply was because it took me a while to figure out how to word a reply without sounded too heated, LOL. ;-) Anyway, yeah, a lot of them do contradict, but I always did refer to myself as one big walking contradiction. I suppose maybe it's a confusion...I'm sure all people go through a state of confusion where they don't know exactly what to believe, so they just kinda accept it all. I hope this cleared it up. :-)

PS: I hope I didn't sound like I was trying to give you a hard time either, LOL. :-)

-WikiFiend90 01:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Full-body scan, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- Grue  14:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that the project page above which you worked on his currently being considered for deletion. Please feel free to follow the links on the project page to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Badbilltucker 17:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have moved the page Panic Room back to its original position on Panic Room (film). I did not see the discussion, now that you've pointed it out to me, I have reverted my move. Thanks for the heads-up! --DeAceShooter 04:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! What is User:Vicarious/silly? What are you tracking, where does the list come from? Found it through backtracking a 'what links here'. Just curious..! jugander (t) 23:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across that list one day the same way you did, by following the 'what links here' link. It took me to User talk:Salsb/Missing physics. My idea at the time was, if I ever run out of things to do I'll start creating those articles. However, for every article I edit I seem to find another that I need to edit, so in all likelihood I'll never make it to that list. Vicarious 04:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments. The article is in horrible shape, regardless of the fact that it is considered a Featured Article. The tag is in place to communicate the problems that are within. I see no reason why it should be removed until the article's problems, as a whole, are resolved. I'm watching this page now, and the talk page for the article. You are welcome to respond at either place and i will respond when i have a chance :-) Cheers. // Tecmobowl 18:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed your edit or anything, but do you seriously believe that inserting the scrotum into the mouth resembles a tea bag going into a cup of hot water? But more importantly: what does the comparison of a tea bag add to the article? In my opinion nothing. In any event, have a happy holiday :-) - Abscissa 14:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I like the cleanup. Do you think the basic concept is sound? ---J.S ^(T/C) 05:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the talk page for the psuedocode. Vicarious 06:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling it quits for the night. Thanks a bunch for the help on this. I'll give you a holler when I have something complied! ---J.S ^(T/C) 07:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the article on the Wigner effect. Do you happen to have any information regarding the energy densities involved? Joules/kg in graphite for example. Gigs 06:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, but that page is for burning the graphite. The wigner energy release might precipiate combustion, but there's obviously much energy stored regardless of the secondary effect of combustion, that is the energy density I would be interested in. I understand if you don't have any idea on this, I've been searching this information out for a week now to no avail. Thanks. Gigs 00:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... the way I read your revert, you're trying to say that just over 50% of firearms triggers are actuated NOT with the index finger, but with the thumb or another part of the hand. Your revert reads so...

A trigger is a mechanism that actuates the firing of firearms. Triggers almost universally consist of levers or buttons actuated by the index finger. In a small majority of firearms, the thumb or other part of the hand actuates the trigger.

You reason for the revert is that the term small majority means "...slightly over 50%", but the term small number (my chosen term) means "...less than 10%".

I'm sure either I'm just not getting what you mean or there is some other misunderstanding. I've been around firearms (rifles, handguns, ect.) a very long time and I have to say that although I'm sure they exisit (as pointed out after the fact), I have never actually seen any firearm operated with the thumb or other part of the hand NOT the index finger.

It's moot I know as someone reworded it adequately already. But I was left scratching my head for so long that I just had to ask what the deal was.

Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the required fair use comment for the Briana Loves Jenna cover from the article - I assume this was unintentional? We're supposed to put those in the article, per Help:Image_page#Fair_use_rationale. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for noticing and making those changes. What do you think of the article on Leo Ryan ? Yours, Smee 07:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hey dan I'm sorry to see your bot recently got turned down for approval. I coincidentally am pitching a very similar idea at Wikipedia:Bot requests at the moment and just now stumbled upon your bot realizing yet again someone beat me to the punch. Anyway, I think I have some ideas that solve the complaints about your existing bot idea, although it would result in a completely different front end. Rather than user's filling out your very pretty form, they'd have to write (paste) a line of jargon, but the benefit is you don't have to worry about the ip address issue, you get to see in the history which user added the tag and anon IPs can be ignored. My current suggestion which is already under fire is here, let me know what you think. Vicarious 12:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the objections to DeleteAsstBot, even if I felt that the advantages of the bot outweighed any possible downsides. However, as you say your proposed solution does seem to sidestep the objections to my proposed bot. I've posted a message of support at bot requests and would be able to help with coding if required. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see an orderly mind at work! problem is we now need to watch it lest anyone try to revert to java programming as the first entry ;) SatuSuro 05:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I f you knew how much time has been wasted pandering to geographically challenged american adoslecents who have never heard of the island you perhaps might have been m,ore circumspect in your wording :) hehehh - actually its a sort of compromise to the alphabetically challeneged as well (you should wander into Gorillas in popular culture (and all the other animals) articles - and you have a nighmare of chronolgy type of media and imagination that could keep you busy for a few minutes i suspect... - anyway- who knows - maybe chronolgy of the planet did start with tv programs in 1975 - who am i to say? :0 SatuSuro 05:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah I'm a living cliche - baby boomer bald with three children and only have had and still have one wife... a statistical anomaly.. and most wikipedians i have arguments with are young enough to be granchildren (if I'd started young that is) SatuSuro 06:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cringe to see my details - but when thanks is needed - thanks for your work on cleaning up on java - it appeals to my sense of neatness - thanks for that - i hope the rest of the indonesian project persons appreciate it too! SatuSuro 07:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put an approval request in. Rich Farmbrough, 21:21 2 March 2007 (GMT).

Hi I just tried to "get the red out". Nernst equilibrium is real if not well-represented here and I think is worth leaving in the disamb and also should make an article with redirect, no? Please see http://www.cvrti.utah.edu/~quan/ep/node3.html --Justanother 08:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that it's a real thing, but the idea of disambig pages is to get the reader to the item they're looking for. It's reasonable to assume a person might type in equilibrium while looking for Nernst equilibrium, but they might end up a bit bewildered when after following several links they've learned nothing about what they were searching for. The obvious solution is for someone (*hint* *hint*) to make an article on the topic, but short of that it'd be nice if this noteworthy equilibrium were at least mentioned on the article of the man that invented it. Throw a tiny description on Walther Nernst and I'll concede the issue. Vicarious 09:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but since I had never heard of either him or his equilibrium before addressing something else on that disamb, it will have to wait until I get a chance to read a bit and then I might as well stub an article. You are right in how you handled the disamb, my way was not so great but I didn't want to remove it from the disamb. Take care. --Justanother 09:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edit to the Chinese porcelain article. Lord knows, it could do with cleaning-up, but I'm not sure how the intro paragraph is detrimental. Could you expand on this please and I'll try and fix it. Regards, Nick. Nick 09:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a general unspecific cleanup-tag at the top, without indicating your area of concern, or adding a corresponding comment on the Talk:8.3 page, is of very marginal utility at best in helping to improve the article. AnonMoos 09:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vicarious, thank you for reverting vandalism to my userpage! :) – Riana ^talk 02:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vicarious, I know what you mean, but the thing about this article is that it gives the specific cocktail. If you look at the other article you mentioned, it talks in much more general terms, at least in the drug section. In addition, someone had tried to add even more specific information about precisely what amounts to use in the cocktail. I felt it was really too close to the bone. If someone were to create an article giving specific instructions on how to make a bomb, would it be censorship to remove it, or would it simply be responsible editing? I do see where you're coming from, and I respect your position, but I don't feel I can undelete this. However, if someone else does, I won't oppose them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed you used to contribute to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I recently nominated it as the Wikipedia:Improvement Drive. I feel that it needs urgent improvement, and if you agree please vote at the Improvement Drive project page. Thanks! Thedreamdied 02:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you placed a clean up tag in this article, Fishing net, sometime ago. I have asked Rich Farmbrough, owner of the bot SmackBot, regarding this matter. Would you be so kind helping me out in assessing this article. Thanks! Bu b0y2007 04:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you placed this phrase, gus is fat pervert on the earth, in the Fishing net article. If I remember it right I removed this sometime ago. I think this phrase is not supposed to be included in that article or to any of the Wikipedia articles. I hope you understand. Thanks for your assessment. Bu b0y2007 03:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ugh, yeah. I made some changes and forgot to save them for about a day, then between edit conflicts and copy/paste, back button, etc I must have ended up with some of the vandals comments left over. Thanks for removing it. Vicarious 03:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; thanks for your note. That's my point: the sense of Ireland to refer to just the state (Republic of Ireland) is not uncommon (consult any number of volumes, like the Merriam-Webster Online Dictonary (note the title and renditions in (2)). That is, it is likely that the 'well known' meaning/sense (advocated for in your preferred format) is not what a visitor may be looking for. Actually, I'd guess that just as many visitors may want information about the Republic of Ireland alone. If its sense as an island was so predominant (e.g., Spain) or one and the same as the state, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  :) Thoughts? Thanks! Corticopia 21:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I don't disagree with redirecting/renaming this or that, but I think this has already been excessively discussed, with a number of proposals being rejected (and I wonder if out of genuine concern, nationalism, or what have you). I mean: having the state article at RoI is not incorrect since that is considered an alternate name (in some fashion) for the state and (in Wp) it also conveniently acts as a DAB on its own. Ah well -- the above is still valid: if we can agree that there is more than one primary sense to Ireland (and I think I've basically demonstrated that there is), then the current rendition should be fine. Corticopia 21:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicarious, on what you call your "little soapbox" you declare that these two are contradictory, and only workable in a magical world: "Don't hate!" and anyone being "opposed to online censorship". I support both expressions and don't find any contradiction. Perhaps you lack the courage both to allow free expression and to set a personal example of how to use that right. I assure you that it is possible to see hatred without duplicating it. Cuddlyable3 19:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly a person can choose not to hate, but assuming that some person will want to hate at some point, you cannot tell them they can say whatever they want, but not something hateful. The magical world I'm referring to is one where nobody wants to say something hateful, and we clearly aren't living in that world. Vicarious 00:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Vicarious, nobody but you has said anything about forbidding people to say anything hateful. You seem unable to understand the admonition "Don't hate!" as a wise guidance to what reactions we should allow to arise in us, and instead you see only a pointless legislation. That is the same superficial thinking as the promoters of "political correctness". In your case Vicarious, I think you are too proud of your alleged discovery of inconsistency in other people. Your world will never become magical until you can see hatred without duplicating it.Cuddlyable3 17:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicarious I would like you to explain your action here. You displayed, and continue to display, your particular opinion about other people allegedly displaying contradictory userboxes. That seems an appropriate matter for any Wikipedian to question you about, and this is where you should be able to provide answers. You say your statements may cause offence and that may be so, but nothing can justify you if your wish is merely to cause offence. It is now on the record that I have questioned your allegation, mainly on the grounds that it seems to be a poorly considered denigration of anyone who SUPPORTS FREE EXPRESSION on the Internet and also advises (one can do no more than advise) that it not be used to express hatred. I hold that combination of attitudes, and so I think do many others.

I repeat Vicarious, HERE is where you get to explain yourself. Repeating your opinion on my Talk page as you have done is not very helpful, but it can always be moved back here. However your latest evasion is to "move away" the whole discussion. I do wish to hear your explanation. I do not enjoy childish posing followed by evasion. Cuddlyable3 19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) I moved the discussion to the bottom of the page to maintian the chronological order of my talk page, I think a person is more likely to read the bottom of a talk page than the middle anyway. As for my childish posing and evasion, me taking a short while to consider my response is not either, and if we're jumping to conclusions I could call you petulant and impatient. Back to the matter at hand though.
• 2) I first find it interesting that you seem to want me to take down my comments, as a person that's arguing on behalf of free speech that strikes me as odd. Even if my viewpoint were completely unfounded, I'm not forcing anyone to listen to me, so shouldn't I be able to leave it up on the sole grounds of free speech? At worst I would be making myself look foolish.
• 3) As for many people sharing your viewpoint, you might be right, but I think many people have incompatible desires. Perhaps our discrepancy comes from a misunderstading. I think your argument is that a person can desire and petition for both. My argument is that at times the two will be incompatible. You can tell the webmaster of a hate site that he shouldn't hate, but when he ignores you, assuming you have the power you can either take down the site because it hates, or leave it up because it's free speech, you can't simply will the person to not feel hate. Vicarious 21:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vicarious for replying. I must declare you innocent of any suspicion of evasion, which is enouraging. I also respect your right to organise this your own page, although please note that you have now split this issue of "Contradiction among user boxes" between two headings. I have taken the liberty of adding numbers to your bullet points for easier reference as I reply. 1) I raise no objection to you taking whatever time you need to give a sober answer, and trust that you will do so. Nobody needs to be impressed by snappish ad hominem retorts. 2) My commitment to free speech is not shaken by a person making himself look foolish. This should not be about what I want, but since you find that interesting I would like to quote from "Lawrence of Arabia" : A man can do whatever he wants, but he cannot want what he wants. 3) Yes a person can desire and petition for both free speech and that it not be used to spread hatred. They are not incompatible. Whether one has power or not, the right action is to let a hypothetical hate site stand while keeping compassion (and hope) for the site-responsible who is making himself look so foolish. Cuddlyable3 09:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so you know, the "split" contradiction among userboxes sections are actually unrelated. Her reply was not about this issue, it was about religion, the original post is here. Vicarious 16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicarious, on the subject of your still-displayed claim that user boxes that say "Don't hate" and "opposed to online censorship" contradict one another, on which you have had nothing to say for a while, I think your error is to suppose that hating exists only as words and that "Don't hate" is nothing more than a suppression of words. The reasoning you offer seems circular and divorced from any ethical system. In it you insist on your right to post whatever you want, as though my questioning the sense of what you display threatens that right. That would also be an error. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question of information concerning Sean John Comb's finances, I have post a letter sent to Mr. Combs by the National Labor Committee. Go to the Sean John Combs discussion to view it. Peace

You were right - took about two minutes. As this is the very first thing I have done as a new user, I felt compelled to rush on over to your talk page and tell you.

And, to continue the argument, I agree that "don't hate" and "don't censor" are indeed somewhat conflicting. However, I think that my basis is that I think it is impossible not to hate, as the world is full of contemptible things. I hate Adolph Hitler, for instance. I hate the fact that so many of our planet's problems are solved by war. I hate censorship.  :-)

Perhaps they mean "don't hate without reason".

Cheers.

Hello Harryeknight (it's nice if you sign your posts). IMO there is no conditionality about the advice "Don't hate.". I submit that it is difficult but not impossible. We can choose what in this world we react to. I take now your examples: to hate that overworked stereotype Adolph Hitler may be easy and currently popular but benefits nobody; problems are not solved by war (Bertrand Russell(?): "War does not determine who is right — only who is left."); censors are people who need skill to handle what they fear, just as we all do.Cuddlyable3 13:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adolph Hitler is only an overworked stereotype if your family wasn't personally affected by his actions. For millions of families, the hole left behind by the brutalities of World War II are a very real thing indeed. Also, I really don't think hating him is currently popular, is it? I can't recall the last time I saw a "F**k Hitler" bumper sticker.

Your jumping on my wording of war hatred versus the concept is telling. If you would like, I can list all of the things I hate and you can go point-to-point looking up appropriate quotations. Since we have entered the land of the T.B., I should point out that I didn't say that I hated censors. I said that I hated censorship.

Further, I believe that hate and love are co-existent aspects of the same emotion. A Ying and Yang situation. Sadly, I have no quotations to back up this opinion. In this paragraph, I would like to stress the words "believe" and "opinion" as that is all we are talking about here.

Anyway, this is rapidly looking more like MySpace than Wikipedia, so I propose we call it a draw.

Cheers.

--Harryeknight 21:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adolph Hitler has not been able to hurt anyone for over 60 years, so I think you chose to proclaim your feelings for that person for rhetorical reasons, as people routinely do when they want a useful monster-person image. (There are few now who have actual suffering experiences from WW2, and those that do might take issue with your contention that "it is impossible not to hate".) Political bumper stickers usually address topical issues and that is why you are unlikely to see one today that disparages Hitler, but I think you can hardly miss seeing anti-fascist plackards that show a fist smashing a swastika.

IMO you do yourself a disservice by claiming that you are "fine with hatred". Thank you for offering to list all the things you hate but it is not my business to deal with that, it is yours. Consider please that censorship may be conceived as an act of love (protection) and the call to liberation DON'T CENSOR must arise from at least an equal love of freedom, and is not an excuse for hatred. I think the only quotation that you have not yet seriously considered is the one that you seem determined to devalue: DON'T HATE.

I don't know what you mean by "land of the T.B." And you might want to collect our exchanges consistently under the "Userboxes" heading. Cuddlyable3 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Comparison of MM1 boxcover to real megaman.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Ejfetters 10:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Behringer Logo.svg. 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 02:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Behringer Logo.svg. 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 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Stepping on the Crowtche owf Your Americain Presidaint, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Stepping on the Crowtche owf Your Americain Presidaint. Dchall1 (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:WOTWRedWeed.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. Rockfang (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Group_x_Your_Americain_Presidaint_cover.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey could you help me with something really quick? remember when I was going through some galleries? Crossing (architecture) has that gallery replaced by concensus but I can't find that consensus. (it's talk page is empty) Could you help me find it? I posted on the guy who removed it waiting on an answer. Latulla (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked around and I'm reasonably confident there a consensus for that page specifically. I assume he was referring to a more general policy. Probably the moist poignant policy would be Wikipedia:Galleries, although it seems a bit vague. My personal opinion is that there are a few pages which should have galleries, but that's not one of them. 2, maybe 3 images should be plenty for that page. An example of a page where I think a gallery does make sense is Gallery of flags by design. Vicarious (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you still care, but you finally got a reply: Wikipedia_talk:Transwiki_log#Transwiki_for_Commons. Vicarious (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's never too late for this kind of information on a never-ending project. Thanks! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Zillow_homepage_screenshot_2007.PNG as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some things that struck me when I read your soapbox page.

• You say "This page will probably offend so if you don't want to be offended please don't read." I find this childish. There is no good reason to use Wikipedia to publicize opinion that provokes offense, merely for the sake of posting it.
• Ironically you have misspelled THERE as THEIR in the first sentence under "Accurate vs Comprehensive".

• Despite your claim that WP:NOR was wrongly applied to your observation about Joss Whedon it was appropriate. Your error is to believe it has something to do with whether your observation is true.
• In your section "Arguments About Nothing" you express your rigid and disparaging opinions on several issues about which Wikipedia has articles. Instead of looking for someone to blame please read the WP:NOTAB guideline and the WP:NPOV policy that are applied in consensus here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vicarious you may find clarification of policy here:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox,.... This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. (my emphasis) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd that when I warn people I might offend them, they read anyway and then get offended. Not reading it is a perfectly viable option. As for it being offensive, I didn't write it because it was offensive, I wrote because it was my opinion, then realizing it might offend people, decided to give them the choice. Perhaps the phrasing of my warning was poorly chosen, I was trying to add a bit of flare via comedic hyperbole but I've clearly missed the mark.

Thanks for spotting the typo, in the future feel free to correct it yourself. As for the Joss Whedon thing, there's a good chance you're right, but I'm gonna continue to cling to my feeble and ill justified opinion for now anyway.

You may have noticed it's been about 2 years since I edited my user page (it's also been that long since I looked at it). I went ahead and removed arguments about nothing because it's not very topical. As for the rest of it, I'm gonna leave it up.

On a side note, cool images. The only image I ever created (of a dewar flask) pales in comparison. Vicarious (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vicarious for your polite reply. I remind you that

• Using your User page as soapbox is violation of WP:SOAP policy that is explicit and enforceable by administrators. Please take out your introduction "This is my little soapbox." which is not a good start.
• Do drop the waffle about warning people that you might offend them. It serves no purpose in this project where we strive for WP:NPOV and WP:AGF. Anything you post can be seen by all, and you are responsible for all that you post.
• There is quite a strong convention here that we don't edit other people's user pages. You say you can tolerate a typo (actually it was a language error) being fixed but I have known users who object to anyone editing gratuitously what they have posted. So I generally let sleeping dogs lie.
• Your dewar flask image looks fine to me.

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading your userpage. kilbad (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm glad you liked it. Vicarious (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I ask how you knew I was in the greater Seattle area? Vicarious (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Marianne Maksirisombat requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DGG (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there I did ponder quite hard before agreeing to the speedy but "woman opens gallery, local news website reports on it" didn't seem to be an assertion of notability - but I guess we'll have to agree to differ on that one! Anyway I've moved the text in to your userspace for you as requested. All best, Nancy ^talk 08:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Like your userpage - v interesting & thought provoking Nancy ^talk 08:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with disagreeing with people, even if it means I lose. I'm glad you like the user page, it could use some updating, but I've got a bit of lazy in me. Vicarious (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent sentence concerning meteorologists on the meteorology page is shocking. As a meteorologist, I don't know anyone who's gotten a TV position because they've stated outlandish things. On TV, it's all about the physical appearance and delivery on-air. Also, blogs are generally not considered good sources for wikipedia articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that blogs are generally sources to be avoided, however this is not a random person that signed up for a blogger account, it's written by well known journalist, Stephen J. Dubner. As for the content added, perhaps my choice of the word showmanship was in error. I was attempting to paraphrase and condense the original article. The relevant pieces I was pulling from are:

Sadly, the data show that stations are so consumed with ratings that accuracy in weather predictions takes an irrelevant back seat to snappy patter and charm. ... No meteorologist or television station kept records of what they predicted, nor compared their predictions to actual results over a long term. No meteorologist posts their accuracy statistics on their résumé. No station managers use accuracy statistics in the hiring or evaluation of their meteorologists. Instead, the focus is on charm, charisma, and presentation.

So by showmanship, I was trying to refer to "snappy patter, charm, charisma, and presentation" in one word. I didn't, and don't, think showmanship implies 'stating outlandish things', however if you would prefer a different word, that's fine, perhaps simply "charisma"? Vicarious (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your passage from Meteorology again, and posted my rationale for doing so at the talk page. We should have a discussion such as this in a more public forum over there. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negative calorie food. Fences&Windows 23:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Moving parts, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moving parts. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Citeweb. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Citeweb redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Magioladitis (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Up for deletion, 2nd nomination. Standards have gotten a lot tighter over six years, and I'm just not seeing any content here that couldn't be covered in Punch. "Spodi" is just one of hundreds of slang names for dumping liquour and juice in buckets, and that content (with proper footnotes) would go just fine in punch. Thoughts? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dropping out (2nd nomination) that you may be interested in commenting on. Student7 (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sweet bread. Since you had some involvement with the Sweet bread redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Calathan (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI;

I found your name on the Disambiguation Project member list. I think the article Sawyer should be separated from the same disambiguation page but I am confused about how to do it. Could you take a look and either fix it or let me know how to fix it? Also, I started a disambiguation page that may be more on an index so could also look at Log building and let me know if it is O.K. I am enjoying the wild world of Wikipedia...maybe too much! Jim Derby (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2013 (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) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Group x Your Americain Presidaint cover.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vicarious,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Anex should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anex .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

DrStrauss talk 10:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:YoGo (logo).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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:YoGo (logo).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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:YoGo (logo).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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Draw-poker-table-nameless.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Graph of tallest structure in feet from 1874 to 2007.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned image, no encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Behringer Logo.svg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Behringer Logo.svg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vicarious! Since you created the page for the Dragon Ball franchise, I assume you’re an expert on Dragon Ball canonicity. So my question is, which of these anime series, specials, and movies adapt the manga, or have Akira Toriyama’s involvement and are canon to the manga?

-Dragon Ball (anime)

-Dragon Ball: Curse of the Blood Rubies

-Dragon Ball: Sleeping Princess in Devil’s Castle

-Dragon Ball: Mystical Adventure

-Dragon Ball Z

-Dragon Ball Z: Dead Zone

-Dragon Ball Z: The World’s Strongest

-Dragon Ball Z: The Tree of Might

-Dragon Ball Z: Bardock-Father of Goku

-Dragon Ball Z: Lord Slug

-Dragon Ball Z: Cooler’s Revenge

-Dragon Ball Z: The Return of Cooler

-Dragon Ball Z: Super Android 13!

-Dragon Ball Z: The History of Trunks

-Dragon Ball Z: Broly-The Legendary Super Saiyan

-Dragon Ball Z: Bojack Unbound

-Dragon Ball Z: Broly-Second Coming

-Dragon Ball Z: Bio-Broly

-Dragon Ball Z: Fusion Reborn

-Dragon Ball Z: Wrath of the Dragon

-Dragon Ball GT

-Dragon Ball: The Path to Power

-Dragon Ball GT: A Hero’s Legacy

-Dragon Ball Z Kai

-Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods

-Dragon Ball Z: Resurrection ‘F’

-Dragon Ball Super

-Dragon Ball Super: Broly

Thank you!NickWX28 (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Swedish Medical Center Seattle Logo.PNG. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]