User talk:Sine/NovDec2006

Lurdanjo
How exactly does my page suffer from "fluff", as you put it? Rather than just slap a "this article needs to be cleaned up" template on it, how about you do something to make it look better? And shrinking down my picture makes the page look really stupid in general, I have no idea why you did that.

-Lurdanjo "Danji" Mistaro


 * There is no tearing hurry to make articles perfect here, and placing a cleanup tag on an article is doing something. Someone not having time or inclination to clean up an article or make changes and a particular moment does not preclude them doing so later.


 * Fluff refers to such statements as "the latter which has been heckled to death" and "He has never claimed to be a very original physical design, and instead has quite an original personality that catches many off guard." These are vague and do not add content to appropriate to an encyclopedia project. I'm not the only one who uses the word fluff in edit summaries, and I at least use it as a succinct way of indicating that there is some extraneous wording which should be removed. Can you suggest a better, short word or phrase which could be used in place of the word "fluff" in edit summaries?


 * The standard here is for thumbnail-sized images.
 * -- Sine 07:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Vulpecula aka Mr. Fox
Perhaps the wording in the article was bad, but the real name of the character would be Vulpecula. Mr. Fox is an informal nickname which others reffer to him by, though is not his actual name. Thus Vulpecula is the more proper place for the article than Mr. Fox, though does obviously need to be distinguished from the other Vulpeculas. Would you suggest that "Vulpecula (FurIRC)" be a more appropriate main article name than "Vulpecula (Mr. Fox)" in this case?


 * That would be a good way to distinguish it. I appreciate the correction! We've had a few cases of articles being created with bracketed or quoted nicknames as part of the article name, which isn't our style here, so I assumed it was that sort of case and moved the article. I'll move it to Vulpecula (FurIRC) now and change the links. Welcome to WikiFur! -- Sine 06:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ian Keith
Thanks for the quick changes and corrections. I'm still getting the hang of creating and writing articles, and I figured this would be a good start ...and your changes have helped me out.


 * You're welcome! Thank you for creating the article, and so well, especially having the categories there right from the start; all I needed to do were those small tweaks. -- Sine 22:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I cheated, hah. I looked off of a couple other articles just to see what more or less goes where, and then off the Edit pages to see just how to do some of it. Still, it was pretty fun working it all out...what can I say, I love poking around with code and stuff. -- IanKeith 22:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's another question. How is it you add the notes on what's been changed when you edit a page? -- IanKeith 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

AnimalCon?
In Forum:A_category_for_Hoaxes%3F you mention AnimalCon. Do you know enough about AnimalCon to start a stub? (all I know about AnimalCon is that it is mentioned in the S. Gatsby article) --EarthFurst 03:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:MewStylus.JPG
Hello Sine,

This is in regards to Image:MewStylus.JPG. It has not been tagged with a copyright status. This can be a complicated area, so I can try to help if you need any. The Wikipedia Image use policy may give some background, but it isn't policy here.

To deal with this image, there are a few choices:


 * If you are the copyright holder, release it under a free license, for example:
 * Public domain
 * Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
 * GFDL
 * If you are asserting that this image is usable under fair use, add an appropriate fair use tag. A very basic summary is that fair use is used for commentary, criticism and review on the image when no free image could be used instead. Some fair use tags are:
 * Logos:
 * Covers:
 * Comic panels:
 * If the image is already under a free license, provide information on the license, and tag the image if you can.
 * If you would like the image to be deleted, ask any administrator

To see a list of current copyright tags available on WikiFur, see Category:Image copyright tags If the copyright status is not resolved, the image may be deleted.

Unless you have a question for me specifically, I'd prefer responses on the page for the image. --Rat 02:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:MyLittlePonyWindy.JPG
Image:MyLittlePonyWindy.JPG needs a copyright tag. --Rat 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:PeekAPooh-LadybugSheep.JPG
Hello Sine,

This is in regards to Image:PeekAPooh-LadybugSheep.JPG. It has not been tagged with a copyright status. This can be a complicated area, so I can try to help if you need any. The Wikipedia Image use policy may give some background, but it isn't policy here.

To deal with this image, there are a few choices:


 * If you are the copyright holder, release it under a free license, for example:
 * Public domain
 * Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
 * GFDL
 * If you are asserting that this image is usable under fair use, add an appropriate fair use tag. A very basic summary is that fair use is used for commentary, criticism and review on the image when no free image could be used instead. Some fair use tags are:
 * Logos:
 * Covers:
 * Comic panels:
 * If the image is already under a free license, provide information on the license, and tag the image if you can.
 * If you would like the image to be deleted, ask any administrator

To see a list of current copyright tags available on WikiFur, see Category:Image copyright tags If the copyright status is not resolved, the image may be deleted.

Unless you have a question for me specifically, I'd prefer responses on the page for the image. --Rat 08:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of cleanup tag
It would be helpful if you could leave a more complete note of why you placed the cleanup tag on an article in the talk page, particularly for those situations where it may not be clear why you have done so. For example, it is not at all clear what formatting improvements you would make to Halfshell, or why you did not just make them yourself. Just putting a notice at the top of the article that says they're not doing well enough is very dispiriting to new contributors, particularly when they have already made an effort to improve the article. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to second this, and ask for your reasoning as noted on Category_talk:Podcasts. -- Siege(talk) 07:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

in use
oh really??? thanks! I should copy it on my wikias that I admin... I'll certainly use it! ; ) - cchristian