User:Emerson7/archiv

=May 2008=

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered sometime in January 2008 (UTC). SatyrBot (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered by SatyrBot around 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) SatyrBot (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"reflist"
I still fail to see why the 8 references on Ian Holm merit a "references/", but the 2 references on Hume Cronyn or 1 reference on Roddy McDowall merit a "reflist". Until you adapt a consistant style to your edits (or even if you do), I don't see the point in contradicting the majority of Wikipedia articles (or, to quote you, the "defacto standard, appearing in thousands of articles"). As for 3rr, keep in mind since your first edits on some of these articles (i.e. undid a previous edit (sometimes mine - ), they do count as part of the three reverts. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

svplaureats
Hello,

I'm responding to your question on my talk page. My changes to svplaureats (all of them identical) are designed to let the maintainer of a page that includes the banner specify whether the banner starts out showing the full list, or as a single-line bar that can be expanded to show the full list by clicking on view. The maintainer of a page with the banner can add the directive state=collapsed, and the banner will start on a single line (with a "show" button that expands it) instead of taking up a large block of space.

I've already posted a full explanation here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dzole#Kindly_add_.22.7C_state.3Dcollapsed.22_to_the_Laureates_template

Please read down to the part where I discuss the change that allows the page maintainer to show how the page works.

As you can see by looking at (for example) Joseph Brodsky the banners for the Nobel Prize and the Struga Laureates both start out collapsed, which is courteous and does not take much space. Look also at Tomas Tranströmer for a similar situation.

The point of my change is to make it possible for the maintainer of a page to have the banner open as a single line, but not to force any specific state on anyone.

I hope this is clear; please see my comments on the page linked above for further details. Macspaunday (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Alice Walton
I did see my talk. You did not actually provide any justification for your edit, and you did not reply to me. Given that I am an editor familiar with Wikipedia and acting in good faith, did you actually think an unexplained reference to Neutral point of view would suffice to explain why you reverted my edit? —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

boric acid
I see that you have removed my expand further tag from the article on boric acid. I marked the article that way in order to request that somebody read the Goodman and Gilman source and then contribute, as apparently it has something important to say. (See 71.114.163.227's comment on the talk page. I know, by the way, that it is  a reliable source.)  Have you read it? (If you are 71.114.163.227, then my apologies; I'll re-delete the tag.)  Thanks. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Messiah Stradivari
... can you please stop deleting valuable information. Wiki does state clearly "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it"...not deleting it. The references and citations are quite clear and specific. List of publications as well (and it is a long list).Milliot (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Nagyvary
Let's not start a silly dispute. The Nagyvary section has been moved to Mr. Nagyvary's page, since it is about him and his experiments, which have been CONTROVERSIAL within the musical/lutherie community and have been REBUKED. First of all, Mr. Nagyvary is known to get his instruments in the white from other sources. Which means he does not make the instrument, but treats it and varnishes it.

Makers who are indeed getting much praise for their modern instruments are Samuel Zygmuntowicz, Stefan-Peter Greiner, Joseph Curtin and Gregg Alf to name a few. These makers are also involved in intensive scientific research of old instruments.

From what I see in wiki, information that is rebuked, does not belong in an article and is removed. I am sure you agree.

" Texas A&M University biochemist Joseph Nagyvary succeeded in making a violin somewhere near the quality of a Stradivari by leaving the wood to soak in brine. Because of the lack of land in Venice, during that period imported wood was often stored in the seawater of the Venetian Lagoon, where a type of decomposition had a slight effect on the wood. Nagyvary managed to acquire wood shavings from a Stradivarius violin, and under a microscope he found the natural filter plates in the pores between the tracheids were gone. He also treated the wood with a preparation of borax in the manner of Stradivari, who used it to prevent infestation.

By late 2003, Nagyvary refined his techniques and produced a violin that was tested in a duel with the Leonardo da Vinci of 1725, an instrument not from Stradivari’s golden period. Both violins were played in each of four selections of music by violinist Dalibor Karvay behind a screen to an audience of 600 attended by 160 trained musicians and 303 regular concert goers. This was the first public comparison of a Stradivari with a contemporary instrument before a large audience where the audience would cast ballots on the performance quality of each violin. The consensus was that Nagyvary's instrument surpassed the Stradivarius in each category by a small margin. "  Milliot (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

=june 2008=

Notability of Chuck Ranberg
A tag has been placed on Chuck Ranberg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it 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  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. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

NYCB
Thank you for the NYCB cleanup (lord knows, it needed it) but I would like to restore the six external links you deleted, perhaps as references instead. They are from the NY Times archive covering 1851–1980 (which lists 5,194 entries for NYCB prior to 1981) and were selected with some care to clarify the convoluted and generally misunderstood early history of the company and its immediate predecessors. — Robert Greer (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Stradivarius
Hi! The violinist, Chisako Takashima/高嶋ちさ子 owns a Stradivarius named "ex.Roussy", but I could not find any sources in English. The sources I could find were in Japanese. , and. Are they OK to use as source? Oda Mari (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:MichaelBennett.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:MichaelBennett.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Melesse (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni Battista Guadagnini
Hello Emerson7, I have added references and sources. The list of Performers using Guadagnini instruments provided long ago, is good and is confirmed by links. My list is self explanatory:

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 * E.N. Doring: The Guadagnini Family of Violin Makers (Chicago,1949)
 * A.H. König, ed.: Die Geigenbauer der Guadagnini-Familie. Die Turiner Schule (Frankfurt, 1981)
 * G. Fiori: ‘Documenti biografici di artisti e personaggi piacentini dal ’600 all’ ’800 nell’Archivo Vescovile di Piacenza’, Strenna piacentina (1994), 67–111
 * P.J. Kass: Violin Makers of the Piedmontese School
 * Walter Hamma, Meister Italienischer Geigenbaukunst, Wilhelmshaven 1993, ISBN 3-7959-0537-0
 * D. Rosengard: G.B. Guadagnini
 * Walter Hamma, Meister Italienischer Geigenbaukunst, Wilhelmshaven 1993, ISBN 3-7959-0537-0
 * D. Rosengard: G.B. Guadagnini

I think it is unnecessary  to  place: Milliot (♫♫) Milliot (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

verifications
any claim made regarding blp must be buttressed by reliable, verifiable references. --emerson7 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific "regarding blp" ? Incidentally, I have added Cozio.com link which is an Identification and Pricing database run by professionals in the field. And as I have stated earlier, the list of performers, corresponds to their data. If you wish to link that database as a reference, feel free to do so. Now, for sure, it is unnecessary   to  place:   Milliot (talk) Milliot (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Prize icon
Hi Emerson7 - I noticed that you reverted several edits by User:Jimmyeatskids on the addition of the icon. I remember there was a discussion on this a few months ago (which I lost track of), and I'm wondering what the final conclusion was. Any thoughts?

Thanks! --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is currently being discussed at Template talk:Nobel icon. Zaian (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Zero Mostel Mediation
Hi emerson7. Please note: I've asked the mediation Cabal to help out with our disagreement. Please go to Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-09 Zero Mostel and indicate whether you agree to the mediator who was assigned to this. Thanks, Ron g (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #CC9966; text-align: center;" |The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter  {| The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter! Issue XV: June 11, 2008
 * style="border: solid 1px purple;"|
 * style="border: solid 1px purple;"|
 * colspan="2" valign="middle" style="width: 60%; border: 1px purple solid; padding: 1em; background: #ffe4e1" |
 * valign="top" style="border: 1px purple solid; padding: 1em; width: 75%; " |
 * valign="top" style="border: 1px purple solid; padding: 1em; width: 75%; " |

Hello, members and friends of WP:LGBT! I'm not one to be writing newsletters, but I miss our cruise director, Miss Julie, and our project is drifting along with a few leaking plugs in the bottom of the boat. Hey, it happens. Every group we join goes through changes. If Wikipedia weren't so interesting it wouldn't also be so frustrating sometimes. And vice versa. More than one Wikiproject has tumbleweeds blowing through it, but this is one that can't afford to let that happen. Even if you pop in to the talk page of the project, you can let us know you're still around.

{| style="font-size: 90%;"
 * valign="top" |
 * valign="top" |

WP:LGBT's Role in HIV / AIDS articles
It wouldn't be a proper gay community without a li'l bit o' drama! That's right. If we aren't arguing about something, then we should be asking if we're still queer. Maybe that's for the best, since we know we're still kicking. Our most recent topic is how far the role of our project should go in dipping our toes into HIV/AIDS articles. The main AIDS article was delisted as a Featured Article last month, sadly. (Sending a swift kick to WP:Medicine.) A spirited discussion is available for your entertainment on the WP:LGBT talk page about just how much of HIV and AIDS should we take on. As ever, we'll take your opinions under advisement. We're going to have to, because it doesn't seem to have been settled.

Is Pride POV?
We have a pretty cool sidebar that identifies core LGBT articles. Its symbol is the iconic gay pride flag, much like other Wikiprojects have iconic symbols denoting the topic is a core subject in a series of articles. However, a question recently arose asking if the symbol itself is not neutral. Should a pride flag show up at the top of the article on Conversion therapy? How else would anyone know the article is about queer issues? Is there another symbol that is as widely recognized and that includes all our many splintered facets? At what point do we stop asking ourselves all these questions and just go have a mint julep on the verandah and stop caring?

Harvey Milk and Jim Jones
For the love of all that is holy, no Kool Aid jokes. However, an editor involved in pioneering San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk's article has included a section about the late supervisor's support of Jim Jones and the People's Temple. While it may be accurate, there is a Request for Comment regarding how much emphasis the section places on Milk's support in light of his overall political influence on the city, and indeed the rest of the United States. Milk's article is a sad one in more ways than one. It lacks the detail and heart that honors its subject. Anyone want to do a barter with me? I'll bring Harvey Milk to featured status (give me a month or two so I can read stuff), if you do something of equal value to WP:LGBT?? Make me an offer...

Queer Studies is offensive!
The established branch of study known as Queer studies was brought up as an category for deletion because an editor was offended by the use of "queer" in the title. It was overwhelmingly rejected mostly by the usernames I see here on our Wikiproject page. (A clue that I know you are out there, hiding...biding your time...) So, I wish I could congratulate you, but now I'm all confused by my sympathy for the editor who was offended. So, if you're reading this, Moni has a short memory and can't remember your username. Don't be put off by our demonstrative pushiness. Join us. We can always use involved editors.

Lambda Literary Awards
What can you do to help the project out? Be a wiki-fairy, on many levels. There are all kinds of articles that need help. Why, just this morning I removed those ugly wikify and cleanup tags from four articles at random. If you can put  around stuff, you can clean up articles. There's a list of articles that need attention at the top of the WP:LGBT talk page. Or you can start with the Lambda Literary Awards, where the goddess of my altar received a pioneering award, and was "reduced to rubble" by Katherine V. Forrest's wonderful speech. The 20th ceremony of the Lambda Literary Awards, which celebrates LGBT literature, took place in West Hollywood on May 29th. The page needs to be updated with the new winners, to be found on the official website.


 * valign="top" |

Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Arthur C. Clarke and Bernard Montgomery
Why on earth would someone want to delete material about homosexuality? 'Tis truly a mystery. But these embattled articles have some random evil gnomes removing information that places these folks under our queer umbrella. Help us keep an eye out for the deletions. Take a peek at the articles, familiarize yourselves with the info, and be handy with the undo function in the article history. If tempers flare, take it to the Hall monitors and let them sort it out. Best solution is to make sure your sources are immaculate.

This month's Wiki stars
This is what I get for opening my big fat mouth and suggesting the newsletter should be revived. Here I am writing it. So, to pat self on back (*cough*) Mulholland Dr. became a featured article in May. This is A Good Thing since it is my personal declaration that there is no such thing as lesbian porn. I don't care what Benjiboi says about the video collection at goodvibes. Instead, we have hot women who connect on a deep, personal, soul-touching level, so this film should qualify as some of the skankiest porn available for lesbians. Plus, it's completely confusing and surreal! D'you think Laura Harring would care that the article is featured? I don't think so either... (Call me, Laura!)

Compulsive hoarding of templates
Once I saw a harrowing episode of Animal Planet's Animal Cops where this guy had, like, 250 cats in his house and it freaked me right out. I'm drawing a parallel between 250 cats and, well...three, really, templates in articles involving LGBT issues. Can we stick to one, maybe? In the aforementioned Harvey Milk's article there's a core LGBT template, a link to the LGBT portal, and a sidebar for LGBT rights. Jiminy! You'd think we weren't the folk to set industrial grey carpeting and track lighting in vogue. An LGBT footer was designed to link to articles of interest that aren't the aforementioned core articles. What do you think, can we have either an LGBT template for core articles, a footer for LGBT articles that are high profile but not core, or an LGBT rights template? As ever, anything's up for discussion on the WP:LGBT talk page.

The Violet Quill and magazines
Zigzig20s suggests we create an article on The Violet Quill, as it seems such a milestone in the advancement of gay/queer literature. Members of the Quill all have pages of their own (Edmund White, Christopher Cox, Robert Ferro, Michael Grumley, Andrew Holleran, Felice Picano, and George Whitmore). We need to find more info on the Quill per se to reference the page that we create. Perhaps Google Books - and libraries? - can help.

A number of magazines also need articles, perhaps most notably QW, LGNY, and Lesbian Feminist Liberation.

Mom's nagging for Pride Month
It's June, Pride month. Wear sunscreen, stay hydrated, get a designated driver, then go half-dressed in the streets find a girlfriend or boyfriend, or some homo who's standing there looking lonely and kiss 'em up real good. Remember, it all started 39 years ago when a bunch of drag queens just got fed the f*ck up by the cops raiding the bar and dragging them all out to the pokey again. Rock on, queens! Enjoy your celebrations. My town's is in October, and 200 people attend. I miss Denver.

Fresh faces to brighten our pages
Hey, I've seen you around! Sorry there seem to be so many—it's been a while. But we welcome you all: Cheezisyum21, Taineyah, Dustihowe, Avesta69, RachelSummers77, Vivekgopinathan, AMK1211, Staffwaterboy, Ted Ted, Joe5150, Leahtwosaints, Robapalooza, Arthomure, Confusionball, Affinity likely, PrinceOfCanada, Yobmod, Npd2983, Neagley, Bvlax2005, Bvlax2005, Rhullsf, Textorus, Kieran.casey, Tyciol, Meojive, Sappho'd, Bookkeeperoftheoccult,  Gaywarrior, Aujourd'hui, maman est morte, and Balin42632003.

It looks like we've picked up a lot of talent lately. We have no doubt you'll be making your indelible mark on LGBT knowledge as we know it, here at Wikipedia.

- In the immortal words of Miss Julie, "May all your Wiki days be bright, and may your Love Boat never turn into a Poseidon."
 * }

We miss you, Miss Julie, as well as all the others who have graced our project and are on wiki-breaks or just got fed up with all the nuttiness and went to live their lives. Get your stupid houses built and hurry up and come back. --Moni3 (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Moni3 know.
 * valign="top" colspan="2" style="padding: 0.5em; text-align: right; font-size: 85%; " |
 * valign="top" colspan="2" style="padding: 0.5em; text-align: right; font-size: 85%; " |
 * }
 * }

This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#User:emerson7
Please see Village_pump_(assistance) and discuss. The issue is with "Performers who have used or are using Guadagnini instruments" The performers who have used (and most of them are deceased), are linked to wiki articles. The instruments that these artists used, are linked to a professional database cozio.com. The links are to specific instruments they have used (which are marked accordingly on cozio site). If emerson7 is not familiar with such information, he/she should either get familiar & or try to correct whatever it is that he/she does not agree with. But deleting valuable information and reverting it back to the way it was, which was insufficient for that reason had these posted:

Please don't take this as an attack, as it really is not, in any form.

Milliot
I asked for help, got none, asked for second opinions on the article Talk page, got none. If nobody else is interested in dealing with this problem, why should I?  Corvus cornix  talk  21:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We can hope so. He's a good contributor, just stubborn, and there is a language barrier.   Corvus cornix  talk  22:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm tired and not as familiar with the ground as you, but I'm uncertain on what grounds you reverted some of his Giovanni Battista Guadagnini where he appeared to me to be adding to the list of users, and referencing each to what looks to me like a relatively unimpeachable source. Was this reversion of vandalism, or a content war? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and also very disappointed to see no talk on the Guadagnini page, just a revert war; and an unanswered question from him on your talk page, dated 21:00, 9 June 2008. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've replied to his village pump request for assistance. I well understand and sympathize with your frustration, though for myself I have not seen enough of Ms editing style to be able to comment. I guess I hope that you will to the best of your ability seek to tolerate poor formatting &c where the content itself is good; but I have no standing to make an informed comment on your actions ... I'm just passing through this dispute, as one does.


 * Interestingly enough, for me, I wandered off to look an inline citations, to refresh my memory and check where we were up to with policy in this area, and although they are not encouraged, they are not forbidden either. Embedded citations refers. Clearly the citations on Giovanni Battista Guadagnini don't meet the format standard. And though normally I'd be the last to use inline links, much preferring the superscript & footnote type approach outlined at Citing sources, in the case of the Guadagnini article's list of players, embedded citations - inline links - do seem to be appropriate (if formatted correctly). The argument for this would be that the links are not only a verifiable source of the sort one would expect to see as a footnoted reference list, but also a structured source of more information on the relationship of the player with the instrument ... and once discovered, it would be a pain to have to click on the superscript reference, to be taken down to the confusingly similar set of Cozio footnote references, before being able to click on the link which takes you to the Cozio site ... much scope for loss of context in that sort of user interface arrangement. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If interested, have a look at Giovanni Battista Guadagnini ... the table might require more fiddling with. Or it might all be a bad idea. You decide. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Emerson7

 * Milliot;

eww....that vandalism thing was wrong. it was intended to be a roll back. mea culpa on that. however, with regard to the links, though the sources may indeed be valid, it was inline linking and weird formatting that were the target. i, and others, have had several sessions and conversations with milliot about how he tends to leave articles in shambles over and over. copyvios, link farming, random links, quote farming, edits with horribly batter english and grammar, inexpicable article name changes, etcc, etc. he's a nice guy, i'm sure, but it is very frustrating when he continues to cause the same problems because he either doesn't read or doesn't understand policy. that, and no one to tends wants to deal with him, just giving up trying to help in exasperation. --emerson7 23:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Emerson7;

interesting choice of words Emerson7. I believe it was you who kept reverting back Nagyvary to a Stradivari article. Which really had no place of being there since it was about his experiments, which have been rebuked by experts in the field. And now you are waging war on relevant information which I have contributed to (in other articles), which you keep deleting. Shame on you. There is no reason for this, as most people here are really trying to make wiki a better source of information. Deleting valuable information, after it has been added is really not nice. Please stop. Milliot (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

stradivari
"firstly, i think the word you seek is debunked, not rebuked. secondly, i reverted because whether or not the research was invalidated, it nevertheless passes the test of relevance, and is of importance to the overall story of the mystic of the stradivari instruments. thirdly, since i personally have not reviewed navagry's research, i didn't think it appropriate for me to either defend his work, or challenge your claim.

please understand, that my concerns about your editing are not personal. however, i urge you to pay particular attention to wp:mos style guidelines, and not be so obstinate when the errors you make are corrected. cheers. --emerson7 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)"

If one is to consider the importance of the hundreds of makers who have been inspired by Stradivari, and the mystery surrounding his instruments, there are much bigger names that should be named who have made their own significant contributions.Milliot (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

=July 2008=

Name change for Best American Poetry series
In light of this, including the official website (the top result), and the widespread usage of the previous title (indicated by the many reliable sources on the search results list), why did you change the title? If anything, perhaps we should capitalize the "S" in "Series". Although I started it, I realize I don't own the article, and if you've got some good ideas, I'm listening. Please tell me what you think. Noroton (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought I'd just point out that the website for the series itself uses the word, but this supports your title (so does that website's blog page), and the second result on that Google search goes to another page on that website where they call it "Best American Poetry Series" with just that kind of boldface and upper-case "S". (And yet the search-results title uses an upper-case "S", which is something under the control of the website itself. All this indicates to me that not a whole lot of thought went into how the name should appear on that website.) The publisher, Scribner's, uses series with a lowercase "s". I worry that it's a bit of an advertising gimmick to call it "Best American Poetry" without using "series" -- I'm talking about their motives, of course, not yours.
 * The nice thing about using the word "series" is to avoid the first-half-second reaction from a reader seeing the title on a search-results page or some Wikipedia category listing: "Who says it's the best American poetry? That doesn't sound neutral to me." I don't want the reader's first reaction to be annoyance, even though they'll see it's just the title of the books when they get to the page. I think the word "series" in the title also makes it clear, immediately, what that article is about. Do you see an advantage of "(series)" over "series" in the title? I do consider "series" to be a qualifier, not an actual part of the name (despite the equivocal website treatment), but I thought that as a qualifier it didn't need parentheses -- my thinking was that the lower-case "s" shows it isn't a part of the name. Noroton (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for showing me that. Why don't we change it to "The Best American Poetry (series)" then? Noroton (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:The History Boys.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:The History Boys.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gertrude Lawrence
I noticed you had done some work on this article. I was wondering why you removed the filmography tabling, which is in format developed for films by WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, rather than tabling the Broadway appearances; and removing the awards succession box? It seems to me a bit of a step back in the display of the professional work. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bernadette Peters
Hello, and thanks for pointing that out. I added to the first "Concert" section heading, calling it "Concert performances" (not too clever myself!). JeanColumbia (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobel medal
Hi. Please don't remove from articles. Since this is not a flag icon, I don't see any problem with it according Manual of Style (flags). If you have a look at this and its current version, you will see that the image has been kept. This is a symbol of prize and needs to be displayed in the articles as one on the top of this page. Thank you. Gülməmməd Talk 12:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war
Regarding your warning about edit war on Template:Desperate Housewives which you left on my talk page:

You was the one who started making changes to a long-standing template, backing them with reference to a non-binding essay (WP:NAV clearly states that it is NOT a Wikipedia guideline, and following it is up to editors themselves. Also, you chose not to participate in discussion on talk page, as I've suggested and where I already stated my opinion - and instead kept on silently reverting to your new version and quoting the non-binding essay. So if you really think that the situation is an edit war, then you're the one initiating it and fueling it. Think about it. And, indeed, as the template you so nicely copied into my talk page suggests, go to talk page and discuss. Cheers ASN (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Kay Ryan article & WebCite
Hi. You've deleted the WebCite references that I took some care to create in the Kay Ryan article. I'd appreciate it if you'd restore them. If you're unfamiliar with WebCite, and the reasons for archiving references to web pages using it, I'd be happy to discuss this with you. The basic idea is that very few websites can be considered archival: items that are posted today will often disappear within a year or two. So the Library of Congress press release for Ms. Ryan may change its address, or disappear altogether; however, the WebCite address that I posted is permanent. Indeed, in the standard Wikipedia inline citation template (see Template:Cite web), there is a provision for the archival URL that generates a references essentially identical to the ones that I wrote. Thanks, Easchiff(talk) 21:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * hello. i reformatted the citations because they were of non-standard construction. as far as the webcite references, there's no need to include redundant links for the same text unless the main source goes dead. hope this this explains it. cheers. --emerson7 22:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that I've looked, I see that you've done a good job converting the references to use the various cite templates; I know that this takes some work, and I agree that the references done that way look very nice. However, I don't understand why you think it isn't valuable to include the archiveurl= and the archivedate= parameters in those template calls if one is trying to prevent linkrot. WebCite is an on-demand archiving service; it is not an automatic archive of the web. Once a webpage disappears from the web it is too late to create the archive, and it can be nearly impossible to restore the content. For this reason I took the time to create the archives, and then incorporate the links to the archives into the references. This additional work is lost if the archive links are not inserted into the reference. Best, Easchiff(talk) 12:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I've written up my thinking about this issue more carefully as a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/example_style. If you're inclined, I'd appreciate your comments on it - Easchiff(talk) 04:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Prize
LoL, sorry about adding the prize icon, i just thought considering all the nobel peace prize winners get to have the icon that all the other laureates should also. Please reply about why the other peace laureates are allowed to have icons but others arent??? Someone111111 (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC) OK Sure, thanks for clarifying that, if i see it again ill delete them too. Hi again, can you please help with the Nobel Prize icons, there is a administrator who says you may be wrong and says "certain articles want the images, others don't", but after read the articles you referred me, i agree with you. He told me not to delete the icons when i started to go through the nobel peace laureates deleting the icons. Please help.Someone111111 (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for writing in my usertalk, you were very helpful, i will try using your advice more. Someone111111 (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

References?
Hi there, I must have missed something, why are the references at Charles Louis Alphonse Laveran commented out? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you object if I checked them for quality and moved the ones that are useful to a further reading section? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Done. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TakemitsuToru.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TakemitsuToru.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 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  12:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hans Krebs (disambiguation) and Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)
I saw that you changed the disambiguation page Hans Krebs (disambiguation) back to not listing the link to Hans Krebs at the top of the page. The reason that I initially changed it that way is because Hans Krebs is the primary topic of the disambiguation page Hans Krebs (disambiguation). Per the manual of style for disambiguation pages, primary topics should be linked to at the top of the disambiguation page. I hope this helps to clear things up. I also saw in your edit summary that you cited the manual of style as a reason to change it back - does this clear up how the primary topic should be formatted for you? -- Nataly a 21:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay! I understand your reasoning now - thank you for explaining!  "Hans Krebs (general)" seems fine - I'll go ahead and take care of the move, and of moving the disambiguation page to "Hans Krebs", since there is no primary topic.  I'm glad to figure this out. -- Nataly a  02:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Prize navbox colours
Hi,

I see you made these templates dark grey on 20 March. Navbox colours shouldn't be overridden without good reason. Was there a discussion about the styling of these templates? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

=August 2008=

August 2008
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. TestEditBot (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello!
Please identify here the errors in The Parent Trap so they can be corrected. TPT article has long been identified as one needing work. So I worked on it. What's the problem? Please bear in mind that good faith editing is not vandalism. IndianCaverns (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:HOTCAT
Hi Emerson7, I noticed your recent creation of Category:Tony Award winning musicals. I just wanted to thank you for that, I think it's a great category! Considering all your work with categories, I just thought that you might want to add HotCat to your preferences. It makes the addition and deletion of categories much easier! Thanks again for all your help! =) —MearsMan  talk 20:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Fire Arms Mfg. Co.
On this page, you changed the section heading to Custom Shop from USFA Custom Shop. This had been a separate article but was merged into the main article. I fixed the redirect page for USFA Custom Shop to point to your modified section title. There was nothing on the Talk page of U.S. Fire Arms Mfg. Co. that would have tipped you off, so it's understandable. Editing section titles can be tricky.

Also, you moved the Further reading section to the bottom, but footnotes for that section no longer work. My browser just locks up. Would you be kind enough to help me understand the change so that it can be fixed. As of about 1:30 UTC, I figured this part out, so please disregard. Newportm (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Steven Peterman
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Steven Peterman, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Steven Peterman seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Steven Peterman, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Refs at Henri Moissan
You deleted all the refs at the Henri Moissan article, which were no inline. I created part of the article with these refs and used the rest to go over the details mentioned in the article. Without the refs most of the article is unreferenced and needs fact tags. If you really want I can add all the refs again at the end of every paragraph which makes no sense for me or just leave them at the end?--Stone (talk)


 * I will try to get them in shape tomorrow! Going to bed is a urgent feeling and this feeling I will follow now! Thanks --Stone (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A possible solution for American films by decade templates
Dear Emerson7...I see that you want to keep the American films by decade templates. I came up with a compromise solution, a template that merged all of them into one. If you like it, just let everyone know on the TfD. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page.) @ 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of nobel icons
As someone who participated in the discussion regarding the use of Nobel icons earlier this year, I would like to inform you that there is a discussion regarding this matter. Your opinion is welcome at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Cheers, «  Diligent Terrier   [talk]  21:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

ref paul rogers
hi, i noticed your contribution to the Paul Rogers (actor) page. He is now deceased. Did you have any special personal or professional connection with him, or were you just visiting and casually contributing to the page? Will you update the page note his death?Miletus (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)07:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics templates
Ah, okay, I'd forgotten these are the templates you protect. Thanks for your message. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like you fudged some of the reversion. Don't worry; I'm sorting it out now. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For the reason above; your reversion to previous names etc. broke links to the templates, so I restored them. The designs remain unchanged. Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Before you do anything, where is this consensus? The previous names of the templates are misleading. Or is Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences misleading? Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello? Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. I've just scanned through the discussion and see no clear consensus. (The most recent contribution ended with "Ok, what now?".) Anyway, do what you want with the templates; I'd forgotten there was so much controversy. A pity, though, if they're left with a name suggesting that the Economics prize was among the original Nobel Prizes. I guess you ought to try renaming Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences to something like Nobel Prize for Economics for the sake of consistency. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobel cleanup
Hello--I don't object at all to your cleaning up after me, but I wanted to get more info than your snippet summary so I can think about it later. I had thought those articles were stubs, I'm curious why you think they weren't. They are also classified as stubs on their talk pages (and were for at least one project before I reassessed them).

Also, what's the difference between and  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mblumber (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Boris Karloff.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Boris Karloff.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:LGBT related plays
I have nominated lgbt related plays for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. emerson7 01:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vladimir Putin Time Man of the Year.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vladimir Putin Time Man of the Year.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the 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. meco (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of ABC Word News
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. emerson7 18:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SteveMcQueen.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SteveMcQueen.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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. J Milburn (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:IBDB.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:IBDB.PNG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:West End plays
I have nominated west end plays for renaming to london west end plays. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. emerson7 19:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

El Cid
I see you cleared the El Cid disambiguation page a while ago, without any discussion that I can find.

I’ve moved them back; "Cid" and "El Cid" aren’t particularly ambiguous, any more than “shit” and “shot”: I’ve put a “see also” section for anyone who’s confused. You might have a point with “Cid” and “CID”, though even that is a bad idea.

And on the El Cid page you changed the images around, again without referring to the note on the Talk page, so I've put them back too (though thumbnails is a good idea). Swanny18 (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy...Do you want to explain yourself a bit, instead of just deleting my work?

The disambiguation page: What is “not particularly correct”? You’ve referred me to MOS:DAB, which is 10 pages long; do you care to say what part exactly you are referring to? What I’ve done looks OK to me. If you want them merged, then put in a Merge proposal, with your justification, and we’ll see what anybody else thinks.

And you’ve changed the images at El Cid again, after I put them back to the way they were; how about answering the query on the talk page before doing anything else? Swanny18 (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you need to explain yourself, instead of riding roughshod over other peoples work. I've asked some questions, and I'd like an answer or two, instead of a brush-off. Swanny18 (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As you’ve cleared my work again, and haven’t replied in any meaningful way to my questions, I’ve referred the matter for advice here.Swanny18 (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Qualiflyer.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Qualiflyer.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. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous Liaisons
Hi, can you clarify your copyedit in the image description on the Dangerous Liaisons page? "Marquise de Merteuil" etc reads very oddly to me without the "the", and "the" is used for these names throughout the rest of the article. Is there some style guide provision I'm not aware of? --Zeborah (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your reply. Though English doesn't generally use "the" for this kind of title, French always does -- in effect it's like "the Queen of England", "the Earl of Essex" etc, but French does it even when the name doesn't refer to a place.  The original text uses "le" and "la" throughout; I don't have an English translation handy but discussions of it in English also seem to use "the" -- see for example SparkNotes.  It looks to me like, when talking about French titles, English has borrowed the French style of using them -- so even though "the Count Dracula" is wrong, "the Marquis de Sade" would be right. --Zeborah (talk) 06:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

El Cid, Images, again
All right bucko, here's the problem.

You came waltzing into this page, change some stuff to your personal preference, label it “clean-up” (as if everybody elses work is somehow “dirty”) and leave a mess in the process. And when I challenged it, instead of responding you start an edit war.

Your Image arrangement is wrong, because:- Now are you going to answer this, or just carry on with the edit war? Swanny18 (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Burgos picture predates the one in Balboa, as the caption ( which you neglected to fix) shows;
 * A Spanish statue in a Spanish city of a Spanish hero should take precedence over an artists impression in America.

El Cid (disambiguation), again
As for this, your vague reference to the definite article suggests you’ve misread the situation; how is your English?

The name isn’t “el Cid” (ie “the Cid”) it’s “El Cid” (“The Cid”); the “El” is an integral part of the name. And it’s an integral part of all the names on that page, too. ( I didn’t include “the Cid Campeador”, which is a different title of Rodrigo’s, for that same reason). You wouldn’t combine “Le Mans” (or "Leman") and “Man” because it contains the definite article, would you? There is no justification for your change.

But if you feel it is, I suggest you propose a merger, and see if anyone agrees with you. Swanny18 (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Hicks Maynard
Everything from the New York Times obituary in the Nancy Hicks Maynard page was properly cited.

I forgot to add a   to the bottom of the page so they weren't listed, but all the citations were in the body of the message ( ) and as far as I can tell, they meet up to the Wikipedia standards.

I wanted to check back with you before I put them back in the page, but as long as I add the  , the citations are proper and the information should be fine to use. Do you not agree? -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying and, frankly, you're right. I try my best not to use exact phrasings and wordings from my sources, but in this case, some of them were too similar. That being said, it sounds like your problem with the material was not the information being used by the source, but instances where the wording was exactly the same. I've gone through and rewritten portions where the wording is identical and added the info and citations back, this time with the reflist for the citation tags.


 * I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't mind going through it and seeing if anything else needs to be reworded. I would suggest, however, that a more productive solution would be to change or ask me to change any specific sentences or parts, as opposed to simply erasing or reverting the whole thing. Obviously, the content is going to be the same as the article since that's where the information is coming from, but that alone shouldn't preclude it from being included.


 * Thanks for your help on this Emerson, I appreciate it, and would be happy to work on the article more if you have any guidance. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC


 * I don't think you were out of line, I understand where you're coming from. Do you think it's an improvement now? -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image
Not a problem. I usually do link to it, looks i've been forgetting on a couple. Wizardman 17:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerome Robbins
May I ask why you removed the link to the Jerome Robbins Foundation and Trust website? — Robert Greer (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you
= October =

Image You Upload
You uploaded the book cover on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylight_(play) and I wish to use the same approach to illutrate this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Absence_of_War with this book cover image from the same source as yours here: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/49732403&referer=brief_results Can you assist me with this as I do not have sufficent privileges to do it ? LabeledWithLove (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Very good work on the edit Emerson7. Exactly what was needed. LabeledWithLove (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Goodnight Children Everywhere
I am just curious as to why you reverted my addition of an unreferenced tag on this article since the article does indeed not have any references?--Captain-tucker (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of continuing to discuss the merits of the unreferenced tag I added a citation to the article regarding the 2000 Laurence Olivier Award. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is very interesting that you have taken an extreme interest in my Wikipedia Page. I have received email from my listeners saying that Emerson 7 feels the need to correct everything that is listed on this page. Prior to you arriving to wikipedia the information was correct, other than that brief bit of vandalism that occurred a month ago, that was fixed a by a listener.

So what is you fascination with me? Radionut (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Bill Alexander (Radionut)

There is no conflict. The only time I go to the page and make corrections or revisions is when people like you feel the need to change correct information. The only reason I made it known to you who I was is so that you do not revert back to the incorrect information like you have done in the past. Radionut (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Bill Alexander

Spitzer Space Telescope
Your constant removal of a perfectly legitimate tag: current spaceflight from Spitzer Space Telescope without discussing the matter on the talk page is what I as an administrator consider article ownership. Please do not remove the tag again without discussing it, or you will be blocked for violating WP:OWN. -MBK004 00:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

your last edit on Goodnight Children Everywhere
Please see my comments on the articles talk page--Captain-tucker (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

info boxes for Shakespeare plays
There has been much discussion and a general feeling among Shakespeare project editors that info boxes are inappropriate for Shakespeare plays. If you want to start a new discussion on the matter, please start a discussion on the Shakespeare project page so the regualr editors can chime in. Some problems include - we don't know when any of the plays premiered, nor where they were first produced, nor when they were written, etc., etc. It made the info boxes either inaccurate or incomplete, and they usually only reproduced information that was already in the lead. So, the general consensus has been not to use them on Shakespeare plays. Thanks for reading my ramble... ;) Smatprt (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Crybaby
Good enough for me. I was just confused as to why there was no explanation. Mike H. Fierce! 18:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dyadya Vanya (1970 film)
hello, just out of curiosity, just how important do you think it is to place tags on stubs, that make no unverifiable claims, and have links to all of the source data? --emerson7 20:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that if an article does not have any references regardless of the amount or type of content then it should have an unreferenced tag. There are editors that go though Category:All articles lacking sources looking for articles to add references, perhaps they will add addition content, see WP:WUAC.  There is certainly no harm in tagging the obvious. Feel free to remove it if you like, not a problem.  --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, the AllMovie link is incorrect in the infobox.--Captain-tucker (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Saint Joan (play).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Saint Joan (play).jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Entertaining Mr. Sloane.
Hi, Emerson. Don't want to get into an edit war, but the Entertaing Mr. Sloane article is highly unreferenced. There is only the play itself, and one other reference to an article that is incomplete and does not provide the information used in the WikiArticle. How to proceed? Thanks. 207.237.198.152 (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

John Weaver (disambiguation)
Hi Emerson7. Basically my objection to John Weaver being described as a political scientist runs as follows: "political science" refers to the academic field of studying and analysing government, politics and policy (cf. the American Political Science Association). Political consultancy, as I understand it, can refer to lobbying (see the Association of Professional Political Consultants) or to being involved in the practical running and management of political campaigns (see the Association of Political and Public Affairs Professionals). As far as I know - certainly from the content of his article - John Weaver is heavily involved in the latter but appears not to have any track record in the former. However if evidence of work in the field of political science (e.g. an appropriate academic bibliography or a substantial academic appointment) could be cited then I would be happy to see him described as a political scientist. Thanks. 82.13.13.52 (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Date-linking "deprecated"?
Comment. The word "deprecated" in these Wiki policies refers to the need to link dates for computer-based reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprecated

There are other reasons to link dates, such as establishing historical context. Linking dates for year of birth and death, or years when a politician takes office, makes a lot of sense.Ryoung122 03:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

WETA (FM)
Please stop moving WETA (FM) to WETA-FM as this is an incorrect call sign. According to the FCC database, radio station WETA's official call sign is "WETA"...no FM. Since there is already a WETA-TV page, we must call the page WETA (FM). Thank you.... NeutralHomer •  Talk  • October 25, 2008 @ 15:32

Entertaining Mr Sloane
The source, as detailed in the edit history, is every published edition of the play and all critical discussions of it. Mr Sloane is the correct form observed in all of the critical literature. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with DionysosProteus on this one. You really need to stop bullying the article.  207.237.198.152 (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sloane
It would be helpful if you actually bothered to read the references that you cite. Are you even familiar with the play in the slightest? The opinions you have expressed suggest that the extent of your contact extends to having seen the image of the cover of one edition. Sloane is definitely not a farce. Read it. Read critical literature on it. In fact, read those webpages that you offered to me in your last message. You know, actually read them. Nowhere do they say that the play is a farce. Wanna know why? Because it isn't. Orton's later plays--What the Butler Saw and Loot--can be described as farces, hence the mentions; Sloane is a transitional work whose form is still dominated by Orton's imitation of Pinter. But you actually need to read the mentions in those articles to understand what they're saying. It's a bore, no doubt, but essential if you've going to try to use them to form a critical argument. And towards what instructions at Template:Infobox Play are you attempting to direct me? I see nothing there that invalidates the data I entered into the box. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with DionysosProteus. 207.237.198.152 (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

More disruptive editing
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.


 * Yeah, arrogant enough to open up a book or two and take a look inside. Imagine the audacity. DionysosProteus (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

African-American firsts
I appreciate your discussing this on my talk page, but we have to ask ourselves: Are we going to include the first African-American woman to practice law in each of the 50 states? All 50? And maybe the territories, too? The list as established is for major national firsts. Thanks. --69.22.254.108 (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Barriodude
I see you also reverted one of his Schmoop website additions. Might need your assistance if it comes to the point where he adds them again. I saw one person supporting the addition, but he appears to be a serial spammer to me (adding his link to the top of External Links sections, for one). - Dudesleeper /  Talk 11:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

=November=

No content in Category:African Americans by physicians
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:African Americans by physicians, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:African Americans by physicians has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:African Americans by physicians, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image size
Thanks for tip. Pepso2 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Your changes to Template:OBIE Plays
You made these changes with no discussion whatsoever. It would have been more appropriate to bring up this for discussion at Template talk:OBIE Plays, before making these changes to both the template, category, and multiple articles. Cirt (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please discuss this first, on the template talk page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are continuing to discuss this on my user talk page. Please instead discuss on the template talk page. Cirt (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Tempest
Why did you revert my restoration of the previous version of Tempest?. MOS:DAB clearly states that "Very small divisions may impede navigation, and should usually be avoided.". The current version of the page has sections that mostly consist of four or fewer entries each. Also, the sections chosen do not flow logically, leaving related items (such as Shakspeare's play and works derived from it) disassociated with each other. The current version does not even link to storm anymore, the direct meaning of the word "tempest". (Yes, I know the Wiktionary link is there, but that is not the same thing.)

Such wholesale changes to a longstanding and fairly stable page should not been undertaken without discussion, which is why I reverted.Rhindle The Red (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ibdb venue
When you edited template:Ibdb venue, you had the wrong name for the optional second paramater - should have been venue rather the name. This resulted in the field being ignored in most cases. I'm fixing it.--Larrybob (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello
What would prompt you to remove all the wikilinks from an article as you did in Private Lives? LiteraryMaven (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's very rude not to respond to a reasonable question and instead edit an article to the way you want it. Unless you can justify why Tony Award Best Actress in a Play is preferable to Tony Award for Best Performance by a Leading Actress in a Play, please stop removing accurate wikilinks from this article. You are invited to discuss this issue at . Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I initiated a discussion as noted above. Please wait for others to respond before editing this article again. I especially don't understand your changing wikilinks to less accurate ones. That makes no sense at all. LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, you said, "one thing to watch out for is overlinking." Another editor told me I didn't link enough when I first started! LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:your last message, the point I'm trying to make and which I don't think you're understanding is that the accurate category is Tony Award for Best Performance by a Leading Actress in a Play. LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I'm not "taking this in an ugly direction," you did when you started an edit war instead of engaging in a reasonable discussion. The fact the wording of the awards categories has changed over time is irrelevant. If you go to Tony Award for Best Performance by a Leading Actress in a Play, you'll find Tammy Grimes listed there, and that's what counts. You also haven't justified why you removed all the Drama Desk Award links. LiteraryMaven (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Same Time, Next Year
The format of this article doesn't follow any of the guidelines suggested by the Film Project, so please don't try to tell me how an article should be written. LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been writing and editing film articles for quite some time now with no complaints from anyone. Please don't change my hard work, especially when it contradicts Film Project guidelines. I appreciate your cooperation. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are the one being disruptive by making changes that contradict guidelines. From what I've seen on other user's talk pages, you have a habit of doing this. Please remain civil and don't threaten me. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please understand you don't own an article just because you create or add to it. This article was a mess before I worked on it. Stop changing this and other articles to suit the way you want to do things. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort, not a battleground. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's ironic that you told me "please also note that it customary to discuss before reverting" and then you start reverting without having any discussion at all! LiteraryMaven (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your sending me a 3rr warning is meaningless when I, unlike you, haven't reverted any article three times. Please mind your own business and stop threatening me. If you don't want your writing to be edited, don't submit it. If it's bad writing and doesn't follow project guidelines, it warrants being changed. LiteraryMaven (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind hearing what you have to say if you demonstrated you knew something, but if you're going to insist on adding a link to the Internet Movie Database in an article about a play, it seems clear you're not a good source of advice. Why don't you follow your own advice and participate in a discussion instead of making inaccurate edits or additions? LiteraryMaven (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
You have started yet another edit war and have made three reverts to Same Time, Next Year even though the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Instead of repeatedly reverting edits, please use the talk page to work towards content that gains a consensus among editors. You repeatedly have refused to engage in such discussions in favor of changing articles to formats that ignore guidelines or include content that isn't appropriate. For example, as already stated, adding a link to the Internet Movie Database in an article about a play makes no sense. Please don't continue to threaten others if you refuse to engage in a civil discussion with them. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Kay Ryan
Noticed you deleted webcite, saying there was no need for multiple annotations unless the main link goes dead. This makes no sense to me, as one cannot predict at the time which links will go dead. --Beth Wellington (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and recommending the Wayback Machine at archive.org. Actually, in my experience, archive.org misses a lot, including sites which opt out of scanning, and lesser known sites. It also is unavailable for 6 months after the crawling and many newspapers take down articles in 30 days.--Beth Wellington (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI
According to User:DionysosProteus, who is a member of the Theatre Project, "Wikipedia policy is clear about the wikilinking of the awards, which should go to the more detailed and specific article when one exists. The linking to the setting of the play should also be there, as many will not know the location." I hope this will clarify what I was trying to tell you the other day. I assume all editors have the same goal - to make Wikipedia better - so I hope we won't have any more conflicts. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Penti
Has been adding OR, POV and peacock words to lots of articles. Can anything be done about this? See, for example, Michael Bennett. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

G20 major economies
Please clarify ‎at Talk:G20 major economies while the two "cleanup infobox" edits you made also including removing a value for the staff field. Thanks. 68.167.252.47 (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

Eugene O'Neill
I'm sorry, I'm being contentious? I have provided clear statements and invited discussion regarding the fact that Ah, Wilderness is NOT O'Neill's only comedy, yet those invitations to discussion and clear statements have been ignored. Instead, you simply revert to a known false statement again and again. I see by various items on your talk page that this is not unusual for you, but I am certainly desirous of a reasonable and amiable discussion of this matter. Wholesale reversion is not the answer. Since you persisted in reverting factual information after being informed that it was factual, I presumed that you must be acting in a vandalous rather than a constructive matter. Do you wish to discuss or simply edit war? Monkeyzpop (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

African-American firsts
Hi, Emerson. I'm flattered to be asked my opinion. I'd have to agree that the first speaker of the California state assembly is on a different scale than, say, first US governor or first US Secretary of State. I give my reasoning more fully here.

What I've done, and I think you'll be pleased since it continues to recognize these less historically groundbreaking, statewide achievements, is to create a new page: List of African-American US state firsts. Hopefully, this will serve as a workable solution that gives all parties something. Let me know what you think. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Giulio Natta.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Giulio Natta.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Mark Matthews
Hi. I have reverted your edits to this above article because many of them were nonconstructive, such removing referencing for particular material and removing large chunks of the lead that were a requirement to adequately summarize the article per WP:LEAD. Large sweeping changes to a developed article such as this should be discussed on the talk page beforehand, although I'm more than willing to work with any suggestions you might have! Cheers, CP 18:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Johnson Publishing Company
Category:Johnson Publishing Company, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Jean-Pierre Changeux
Thanks for your help cleaning this page. Some changes are a bit odd though. For instance, I think we should not create subsections in a section if there is only one (e.g. "early years" in biography). I am also surprised by your "z" to "s" transformations. "organized" is a perfectly fine English Word. Finally I reverted "Bibliography" to "Books". This section is really only listing books. "bibliography" would be misleading for a scientist since it would imply the list of all articles. Changeux having authored more than 600, it would be really crazy to list them here. Best Nicolas Le Novere (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to come back to that, but the guidelines say "The standard order for optional appendix sections at the end of an article is See also, Notes (or Footnotes), References, Further reading (or Bibliography), and External links; the order of Notes and References can be reversed" The section I created is NOT "Further reading (or Bibliography)". It is the list of books written by Jean-Pierre Changeux himself, which is different. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick#Books_by_Francis_Crick Calling this section "bibliography" is senseless. The "bibliography" is located in the section called "References". In order to be clearer, I will change the header to "Books by Jan-Pierre Changeux". Please, don't reverse that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenov (talk • contribs) 18:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"your realise, of course, the word bibliography means list of books, or more specifically list of publications, right?"

Yes, that is the whole point. The point of this section is NOT to list the publications of Changeux (and not Changeaux). It is to list the BOOKS Changeux wrote himself. He actually acted as an editor for a half a dozen others.

"further it is by overwhelming numbers the standard option for use as section headings. --emerson7 19:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC")"

Not for THAT. A section entitled "bibliography" would either contain all publications by Changeux or all publications about Changeux. This is not the aim here. Nicolas Le Novere (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Emerson7. Listen, I don't know who you are, and why you are acting that way. But it is getting a little bit more than annoying. I am reasonably busy and have better things to do that continuously reverting your rogue changes. I spent ages trying to improve this page, and the only thing you do is removing the picture, that is a perfectly valid picture - I forwarded the email from Jean-Pierre Changeux authorising its use - and changing the book header to Bibliography. I explained above why it should not be bibliography, and where on wikipedia you can find other examples of "Books by XXX". I am doing my best to improve Wikipedia, and all you do is hurting my work. Reading through this page, I realise that your behavior is actually consistent. What is the pleasure you can get from such an attitude is beyond my understanding. Can't you just contribute pages rather than precluding others to do so?

Best. Nicolas Le Novere (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I opened a third-party discussion on Changeux's talk page. I think we found possible solutions out. Please read and discuss. Thanks. Nicolas Le Novere (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mark Matthews Cavalry Unit.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mark Matthews Cavalry Unit.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Bach Cantatas Website
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Bach Cantatas Website, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Bach Cantatas Website is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Bach Cantatas Website, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A Doll's House (disambiguation)
Hey there. I understand your point, but stating that the name was the working title (which it was) is more correct than saying it's their album that is also known as "The White Album" (plus both names given are unofficial). See for example the White Album disambiguation page. It says "...The Beatles (album) also known as The White Album...". —Saltywood (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, we've reached a consensus; but I'll just pipe the link to the correct title, just to avoid the redirection. —Saltywood (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm glad we've reached an agreement :) —Saltywood (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your input on the article for Robert La Tourneaux. How did you come upon it? FYI -- I removed mention of "The Merchant of Venice" from his body of work, since he was cut from the show before it opened. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good. I am glad that we are able to give him the proper Wikipedia tribute.  Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)



Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. ''As you have not made a single effort in discussing your changes on the proper level I have requested on multiple occasions, I must assume that your actions are not benign to the project. You must follow through with making any major changes to any infobox templates as it affects a vast number of articles simultaneously. Do not attempt to reverse the change again, as it is now considered as disruptive behavior.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs '' 03:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Immediate attention required
Please see AN3. Thanks. -- slakr \ talk / 06:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Iobdb templates
Hi there - I wrote documentation for Template:Iobdb show which you created. Also, I have created Template:Iobdb name. See Marga Gomez for example of use without the optional middle name parameter. Between the two of us we've got the off-Broadway templates on par with the Broadway ones! Hopefully others will start to use them.--Larrybob (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Robert La Tourneaux

 * I am so glad that we could work together on this article and to provide Robert La Tourneaux with a fitting tribute. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BachCantatasWebsite.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:BachCantatasWebsite.png. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Ron Richardson.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Ron Richardson.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. ViperSnake151 15:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AGD episode 1, It Takes Two To Tango.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AGD episode 1, It Takes Two To Tango.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AGD episode 10, The Third Leg Of Justice.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AGD episode 10, The Third Leg Of Justice.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AGD episode 11, First Served, First Come.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AGD episode 11, First Served, First Come.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AGD episode 2, Queen of Terror.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AGD episode 2, Queen of Terror.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AGD episode 3, Don We Now... Or Never.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AGD episode 3, Don We Now... Or Never.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AGD episode 4, Safety Tips.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AGD episode 4, Safety Tips.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AGD episode 5, Blow Hot, Blow Cold.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AGD episode 5, Blow Hot, Blow Cold.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AGD episode 6, A Hard One To Swallow.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AGD episode 6, A Hard One To Swallow.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AGD episode 7, The Ambiguously Gay Duo Fan Club.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AGD episode 7, The Ambiguously Gay Duo Fan Club.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AGD episode 8, AmbiguoBoys.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AGD episode 8, AmbiguoBoys.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

= December 2008 =

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AGD episode 9, Trouble Coming Twice.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AGD episode 9, Trouble Coming Twice.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ossian Sweet.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ossian Sweet.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. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Burden of evidence.
Re challenge, wp:v states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." -- Jeandré, 2008-12-06t06:23z

December 2008
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-07t03:04z 03:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the template, I didn't know you were a regular since you didn't sign a talk page post and have been ignoring wp:v/wp:blp. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-07t04:03z

Ambiguously Gay Duo
Episode lists are not supposed to have images for every episode, it violates the WP:NFCC. Please do not restore the images. Jay32183 (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Deborah Warner and domestic partner
Do not re-insert this information without proper sourcing; this is a biography of a living person - if you continue to edit war to include this information without proper sourcing, you will be blocked from editing. I understand that you want to keep the article up to date, but the Guardian has specifically reported they are not living together earlier and later has been ambiguous (just saying "partner" briefly in the source you gave), the information is not yet appropriate for the article. Since "partner" could mean anything (including that they have a business relationship) and since the article doesn't make the meaning at all clear, please find a better source for the information before putting it back. Shell   babelfish 17:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I've gone source hunting and found others myself; I added an additional article from the Independent that's clearly talking about their partnership in context which should satisfy the BLP requirements. I've left your reference in there as well. Shell   babelfish 17:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. Just in case it might help in the future - the BLP policy is pretty strict about a lot of things.  If you run in to a similar situation, the easiest way to fix it is by finding a couple more sources (or more clear sources) to support any material that is being challenged :) <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">Shell   babelfish 17:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Franz Konwitschny.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Franz Konwitschny.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Michel Debré.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Michel Debré.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Marc Connelly
The article you changed about Marc Connelly: his parents owned a hotel. They were not actors. Connelly states this in his autobiography, Voices Offstage (1968). He was born in the family's hotel. Why do you insist on making this change that his parents were actors? -- K72ndst (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. Connelly says in his book his father was an actor as a teenager, but by the time Marc was born he was in the hotel business, hence him being born in the family hotel. I do not think it is accurate to state he was born to an actor father. -- K72ndst (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Michel Debré.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Michel Debré.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Martin H. (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Brief question
Is there a particular reason you have reverted the John Northrup page? Are there particular issues with which you are concerned? Can you be specific? -- Astrochemist (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your revert at Jinx (disambiguation)
Do NOT ever undo a good faith edit as vandalism, as you did here. I have rollbacked your change, let's discuss this on the talk page hmm? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, take it to the talk page. I now cite WP:BRD. You are to stop immediately. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

El Cid, again
Are we going to do this again?

I see you’ve merged Cid and El Cid (disambiguation)]] again;

And I se you’ve deleted the comments I left you about it, without having the courtesy to reply. Here they are again; an answer would be civil. Swanny18 (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

El Cid (disambiguation), again
"As for this, your vague reference to the definite article suggests you’ve misread the situation; how is your English?

The name isn’t “el Cid” (ie “the Cid”) it’s “El Cid” (“The Cid”); the “El” is an integral part of the name. And it’s an integral part of all the names on that page, too. ( I didn’t include “the Cid Campeador”, which is a different title of Rodrigo’s, for that same reason). You wouldn’t combine “Le Mans” (or "Leman") and “Man” because it contains the definite article, would you? There is no justification for your change.

But if you feel it is, I suggest you propose a merger, and see if anyone agrees with you. Swanny18 (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)"

Clark Kerr in Category:Suicides
Thanks for your recent cleanup on Clark Kerr but it seems you added his article to Category:Suicides. Was this an editing accident? I've removed the category. If this was intentional, please explain. <font color="#00F">&mdash;dgies tc 22:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Settlements established in 789
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Settlements established in 789, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Settlements established in 789 has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Settlements established in 789, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

= January 2009 =

Kooser
You took out the quotations while You were editing. But You gave no reason for doing so. Kdammers (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image move
Images can't be re-named or moved. Besides, no one will ever see the name, so it doesn't matter. If the name really bothers you, you could re-upload it to the new name and then request the old one be deleted.  TJ   Spyke   02:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Move request
Hi, Emerson. You recently filed a request at WP:RM to have File:JET cover 2008-06-02 .jpg moved. I'm afraid images (and categories) cannot be moved like articles can; the only way you can rename an image is to upload it again at the desired location, and mark the original for deletion. However, I would question the necessity of this move; the image is a fair-use photograph, in use in only the one article for which there is a valid fair-use claim. It seems to be to be a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" situation to me. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Burris
Why aren't you even trying to justify your position that "designate" fairly encapsulates the drama surrounding Burris's appointment? "Designate" is something normally appended to the end of a title, e.g., "senator-designate". Anyone appointed to be a senator is "senator-designate" between the appointment and the swearing in. There is a real question as to whether he will ever be sworn in, and that should be adequately reflected in the note column. -Rrius (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not speculation, it is verified from numerous reliable sources that the Democrats will not let Burris take his seat tomorrow. -Rrius (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On what corner of the planet can you call a person a "designate"? Note that in "senator-designate", "designate" is a post-positive adjective. -Rrius (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Whose Life Is It Anyway? disambig hatnote
I'm confused...supposing one got to the Whose Life page but actually wanted Whose Line, how exactly would one get to the intended page? DMacks (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * copied and responded on Talk:Whose Life Is It Anyway? to avoid further fragmentation of discussion. DMacks (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:NOBLogo.gif)
You've uploaded File:NOBLogo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 14:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:NipponMusicFoundationLogo.gif)
You've uploaded File:NipponMusicFoundationLogo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 18:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Primarily Primates Logo.gif)
You've uploaded File:Primarily Primates Logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:African American publishers
Category:African American publishers, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:SDMCLogo.gif)
You've uploaded File:SDMCLogo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 16:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:SaveMartCenter-LogoSmall.gif)
You've uploaded File:SaveMartCenter-LogoSmall.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 21:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Help

 * I'm looking for physics editors who might improve the article on John Reppy. I've put some info in there, but don't really know how good it may be.
 * Any suggestions about how to locate such people?

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Whose Life Is It Anyway.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Whose Life Is It Anyway.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Linking to sources
Hi,

I've looked into overlink and underlink, and both seem to apply to body text. While dates are singled out as something in the references section as something to avoid, linking to sources are not. Since links can come in from the references section from widely different sections of the body text, I have always though it useful to link any source/publisher/journal/newspaper/website that we have a wikipedia pages so each one can be checked by readers who are interested for their reliability and general context. Certainly this is an example of overlinking that needed to be corrected, but I think it adds value to the page to have the link in the footnote while offerring very few disadvantages.

The reason I see it as a good thing to have is as follows - if I am reading a page and see a comment I consider dubious, I will check the footnote. If it's to a publication or newspaper I am not familiar with, I would like to seem some context on it so I can check the reliability (and possible publication bias, political leaning, etc) to see how much credit I give it or what kind of slant may accompany the article. Another advantage to linking the source is that readers may not be familiar with newspapers from different countries - as a Canadian, if I'm looking at an article on India it's unlikely I'll know what papers are the dominant English-language ones. And as high a profile as the NYT is, people from outside North America and the European west may not be familiar so I don't think there is a case to be made that the NYT would not need a link. In general I think there is advantage to having the source linked somewhere. If a link to the publisher/work/webpage/journal is found in the body text (as is the case in the Indictment page), then that may be OK. However, a well-written article probably should not use the phrase "The New York Times said..." and instead the link should/will be found in the footnote. If it is a long page, with anywhere from dozens to hundreds of footnotes, and it links only to the first example of a source, then if I check any of the subsequent footnotes I will either assume there is no wikipedia page, or have to manually search for it. Obviously the latter isn't a huge trial, but it's still unnecessary work when a hyperlink placed into the reference makes it one click, is much more convenient to our readers, and offers few disadvantages since it is not a chunk of body text (see next paragraph). It also means the spelling of the publisher/work/journal is more likely to be correct, or at least not a barrier to finding the original publisher/work/journal. If the references on a page get expanded greatly and only the first instance is linked, or what was initially the first instance gets linked but then later text adds more references with the same source above the initial link, it's no longer convenient to find the publisher as it gets lost in a large number of competing and difficult to scan references. On shorter pages it may be less of a concern, but even then there are problems - if I check the second footnote on a page to the same publisher/work, but the publisher/work is linked only in the first, the ref link automatically brings the footnote I clicked on to the top of the page (i.e. ) which obscures preceeding footnote and therefore the reference name with a wikilink. By linking only in the body text (which doesn't always happen) or only the first reference, the ability to check the work/publisher is significantly more problematic.

The only disadvantage is a large number of links in the references section, but since they are not read the same way the body text is, the links can not be distracting to the reader. We do not discourage from linking author, publisher, book title and page number to an external site even though that would result in a nearly solid blue reference because each one adds value. We do discourage linking to the date because there's virtually no gain from linking to the year, month or day as it's highly unlikely the news article will be sufficiently relevant to a specific day that a link is hlepful. By contrast, linking to the work can be a huge advantage and adding subsequent links on the page adds no more incoming links to the publisher page than a single one (which I expect to be the issue with the linked dates).

What do you think? What are your concerns about having the extra links? If it's just OVERLINK, I think WP:IAR could fruitfully be applied here because there does seem to be improvements added with few drawbacks. It may also be worth discussing on the OVERLINK page to see if there is a reason I am not seeing or if there has been a discussion in the past providing context I am not sure of. Also, based on this discussion I think I'm going to write a brief essay about this point, then post it on the OVERLINK talk page for discussion. I may get referred to a more specific sub-page that gives more suggestions.

By the way, I had always used "publisher" incorrectly in the cite news template up until this point, so thanks for correcting that for me. I'll do it right from here on in  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent move of Picard–Lindelöf theorem
As per DASH this article's name should indeed uses en dashes not a hyphen (as indicated in this original move ). Could you please move things back to the way they were. Thanks. RobHar (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please move this back. Emerson7's move goes against the manual of style (WP:ENDASH), and also against both hyphen and dash, see specifically dash for the proper usage. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

90
Why "is"? Pepso2 (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my response here. --Thomprod (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Drama Desk award template
Hello. It seems strange to put the Drama Desk template above the Tonys (and why do we need these templates in addition to the list of awards above?), but even if the placement must be alphabetical (is there a guideline that indicates that?) I don't think you have put them in alpha order. The three Tony awards seems to be NOT in alpha order. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason that you have not seen the Tony award templates above the Drama Desk template is because you are the person who has added the Drama Desk award template to the musicals articles. I think that it would make much more sense to put the Tony Award templates first.  I urge you to reconsider, because that really would make much more sense.  No need to reply, but I am asking you to re-order the awards templates in the more meaningful way.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is very well accepted that the Tonys and Oliviers stand above the other awards. I am sorry that you disagree. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Laurence Olivier Awards, London's equivalent of the Tonys and the UK's most prestigious stage award...." http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/news/top-billing-for-hairspray-at-olivier-awards-as-cult-classic-crowns-a-remarkable-year-793704.html -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Tom Browns Schooldays 2005.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Tom Browns Schooldays 2005.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul R. Ehrlich edit
To Emerson7,

I originally wrote the post below with the intent of putting it at Talk:Paul R. Ehrlich. But then, as I was nearing completion of it, I realized that it might be seen as too personal to place there, so I am posting it on your talk page.

''

I am taking issue with this edit, which came with the edit summary " copyediting; cleanup".

''Rather than copyediting and cleaning up, what actually happened with this edit was
 * 1) ''the POV term "renowned" was replaced with "American", an edit that I endorse.  Wish I had caught it earlier.
 * 2) ''the sentence below, which had been carefully crafted to be both accurate and yet non-inflammatory
 * ''He became a household name after publication of his 1968 book The Population Bomb, in which he predicted that "In the 1970s and 1980s . . . hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now."

''was replaced with the following.
 * ''He is noted 1968 book The Population Bomb, in which he incorrectly predicted that the deaths hundreds of millions of people by famine and starvation.

''First of all, the new sentence is provided under the cover of the edit summary "copyediting and cleanup", when it is actually gramatically inexcusable. Both "He is noted 1968 book" and "he incorrectly predicted that the deaths hundreds of millions of people by famine and starvation" would get tossed out by anyone purporting to be a copyeditor. Secondly, making a point—in the lede—that this guy was incorrect in his predictions is going to be seen as unnecessarily provocative by his supporters (though I readily acknowledge its accuracy). The article made the same point before, but with a bit more of an NPOV feel. Finally, although the citations in this edit are actually identical to the previous edit, in the earlier version they were attached to the precise points they needed to be. Here, we are instead provided with four of the sources piled up as if they all carry the power of supporting the claim that he was incorrect. But at least one of those citations does not even contain a claim that Erlich was wrong.

''Look, I personally agree with what User:Emerson7 wants to make clear: This guy is a quack. (And I remember thinking so watching him on Johnny Carson when I was a teenager.) But the version of the article that E7 changed was already much, much harder on Erlich than it was when I first came across it. Look at this:. You would think from this that he was still highly respected.''

So I'm reverting this, to try to restore what I think is clearly the most NPOV version that this has seen for a while.'' <font color="52A249">Un <font color="23CE40">sch <font color="7ED324">ool  02:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC) My biggest diappointment with your edit is that the edit summary seemed less than totally honest. You didn't do anything that anyone would define as copyediting or cleaning up. There were no errors corrected and the product that you left behind actually contained errors that made it less readable. Someone could easily conclude that you were using your edit summary to cover the insertion of some (admitedly mild) POV. And, since I suspect that you and I are on the same side on this matter, I want to ask that we watch each other and keep each other above board, okay? Anyway, I am going to keep the one change that I thought was better. Cheers. <font color="52A249">Un <font color="23CE40">sch <font color="7ED324">ool 02:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Television Film Bot
Hmm... I think I've coded it all now, but it's hard to tell as it does break the template currently. In this sense, I'm reluctant to file a BRFA until the bot's edits don't break 600 pages! ;) Maybe you could do something about this? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 10:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, do you want redirects to the template (e.g. "Infobox TV Film") to be replaced with the full name of the template (e.g. "Infobox Television Film"). Obviously this would only happen when other edits were performed at the same time. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 13:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it should be image_size (not imagesize) on the documentation. My bot's updated all the pages by the way. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Care to comment? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bob Herbert revert
Hi,

This revert is accompanied with the summary "MOS:QUOTE allows the use of typographics". However, this looks pretty clearly stated in MOS:QUOTE as:

"a few merely typographical elements of the quoted text should normally be altered without comment, to conform to English Wikipedia conventions. Such a practice is universal, in all publishing. Such alterations include these: ... Styling of apostrophes and quotes (they should all be straight, not curly"

As these are the only quotation marks currently used in the article, there's no particular upheaval caused by their being corrected. As such, I think this change should be undone, to conform to the most generally-used guideline on the subject in the MoS. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Stark dab page
I restored the direct hatnote on Jonathan Stark, unless there is a 3rd Jonathan Stark out there with an article, Jonathan Stark (disambiguation) is no longer needed. Would you mind getting it zapped? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  19:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Up n Under
Have you read the contents of the external link? There isn't all that much that is relevant to the film let alone the stage play. It is not a very good film and not very well known either and as a consequence the page on the IMB database is not very informative.GordyB (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't say that I agree, if a link adds no new information then it ought not to be there but this is too trivial to be worth arguing about so I will leave things as they are.GordyB (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Moms Mabley.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Moms Mabley.png. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

NASA Admin box

 * You have reverted my edits without any discussion, although this makes the box more confusing and less comprehensive. Could you at least explain why ? Hektor (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

= February 2009 =

jerry lewis
although i understand the confidence with which you hold that lewis will receive the honour, it is nevertheless a future event that has not yet occurred. wp:crystal fully applies. --emerson7 05:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * He already won the award / honor / title. That happened in the past.  It is not a "future event".  He was not yet formally presented with the trophy ... that trophy presentation is the future event.  The trophy itself is not the award ... it is a memento of the award.  He has already received the honor ... he has simply not yet received the memento commemorating the honor.  Is this really an issue?   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Hello. I sent you the message above on 2/2. You did not respond, as of yet.  However, on 2/3, you reverted my edit on the Academy Awards page.  Please reply so that we can resolve this issue ... or please let me know if you do not want to communicate with me on this issue and that I should go elsewhere to resolve it.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Hi. It looks like you will not be replying to me (i.e., that you will be ignoring me).  Thanks.  I hope that you (and your kids) are treated as you treat others.  Best to you.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC))


 * hello...it is not (was not) my intent to ignore you. i'm not sure how, but for some reason i didn't see your responses... --emerson7 17:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I received your message. Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

Middle Age Spread
Could you please explain why you undid my edit to the above article? dramatic (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

hallmark
I understand your point about the list containing only 'films' with articles. However some 'films' in the list do not link to pages that are actual films, such as: Front of the Class, Peter Pan, To Dance with the White Dog etc.... I feel that it is fine to not includes films that don't have dedicated pages, but we shouldn't discriminate, so the others should also be removed. I was just unaware of this precedent of not including non-dedicated pages since several other entries are of this nature.Rej5y7 (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

John Holmes
Well you haven't exactly explained why the parameter is unneeded so I don't know what to assume. However, after looking at Template:Hndis, it appears that it doesn't make a difference. Still, there was no point in you wasting time doing that. If you choose to reply please do so on your talk page (which I've watchlisted). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * you make my point for me. if its not needed, why junk up the system with useless slag? i tend to clean this type of stuff out only when i make other edits. it only become a waste of cpu cycles when it becomes the focus of an edit. --emerson7 06:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not harming anyone. And unless you're gonna clean it out of every other dab, leave it be. I'm sure there are more important matters at hand. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * now that's just about the most ignorant argument that could possibly be offered...but you just keep wasting your time if that makes you feel good. --emerson7 06:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Summa cum laude
This isn't a term used at Oxford University, so why re-add it to Richard Wolffe without an explanatory edit summary? Regards, BencherliteTalk 18:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at your source from the latest edit summary, this controversy is very obviously due to an error on the part of the Newsweek writer, who seems to have mistakenly assumed that "first-class honors" is simply a quaint Britishism that translates directly into "summa cum laude." The assumption is mistaken.  The systems are not even strict equivalents, and no British university that I know of uses the Latin system.  See British undergraduate degree classification and Latin honors.  Just because this error appeared in print, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia is obligated to duplicate the mistake.  <font color="#285991">--Dynaflow   <font color="#285991">babble  21:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * what evidence do you have that the article is in error? ....also, i'm pretty sure it is not permitted to use wikipedia as the source for original research. --emerson7 21:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is very hard to prove a negative, especially one which is simply taken for granted. As far as I am aware, no one has undertaken to prove that no British universities use the Latin honors system, and it is possible that, upon completion of such a study, the researchers would find themselves written up in the Annals of Improbable Research.  However, here's an experiment:  Go to www.ox.ac.uk, go to the search box, type in "cum laude," and see if you can find any mention of it outside the CVs of people who graduated from schools in the US, Mexico, Italy, or the other countries that commonly use the Latin system.  Then type "degree classification" into the search box.  You will find a lot of documents like this one (look on the second page) which make no mention of anything cum laude.  Also, I don't expect you'll find mention of anyone graduating with Latin honors here.
 * It seems pretty obvious that the author of the cited article added the parenthetical pseudo-equivalency in a misguided attempt to clarify an unfamiliar degree classification scheme for the benefit of Newsweek readers who happened to be too daft to infer that "first-class honors" means exactly what it says. Again, there's no need to perpetuate such a glaring mistake just because Newsweek printed it.  <font color="#285991">--Dynaflow   <font color="#285991">babble  00:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:A Chorus of Disapproval.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:A Chorus of Disapproval.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Betrayal
Your changes to the article lost properly-cited source citations and much information that was added to the article via good faith editing over an extended period of time. Your reverts had no consensus, were not proceeded by discussion on the talk page, as per the template that you removed, and introduced errors of fact and format into the article. Your editing summary "copyediting" etc. was not accurate at all (that was true w/ your earlier edits and editing summary as well. See WP:V and other core editing policies and guidelines via WP:LOP.  Material added to articles must be properly and fully sourced (documented) and it is Wikipedia policy not to put one's own personal opinions into the articles; see WP:NOR.  The texts are properly cited, with ISBN nos., as per citation format and the previously prevailing citation format of the article. Templates indicate where source citations are needed.  Please do not reply on my talk page.  The article talk page is the place for discussion of making improvements to this article.  Consistencies in format should not be rendered inconsistent. Wikipedia links to existing articles should not be removed when they are properly inserted (as was/is the case). See Talk:Betrayal (play). Please do not engage in reverting further or edit warring when there is no basis for doing so, since the changes are not improving the article. --NYScholar (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Hysteria cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hysteria cover.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Edward & Mrs. Simpson.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Edward & Mrs. Simpson.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem
Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.


 * File:Mojo (play).jpg
 * File:My Night with Reg (film).jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --15:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

= March 2009 =

Image copyright problem with File:Marketplace (TV series).png
Thanks for uploading File:Marketplace (TV series).png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Adam Guttel
Hi there! As a significant contributor to the article, you might be interested in the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adam_Guettel#weight. Regards, 207.237.33.36 (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Swissair
Emerson, please stop vandalising the Swissair Article. You are not contributing anything to the article itself just removing important information. please stop that. Hi again, i guess the word vandalising is not the word i was looking for. What I mean is, please explain why you think your version is better in your eyes. just reverting and deleting stuff doesn't help. Hope i didn't offend you, that was not the intention. Rgds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pateb (talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

hoi! I have just read the Link you sent me but do not see what you mean. Of course I know about the manual of style, that is however unrelated to the things you keep deleting from me. Currently there are 3 changes that you, me and apparently now someone else too keep changing:

-Swiss Intl Airlines vs Swiss Intl Air Lines: the company was (and still is) called Swiss Intl Air Lines, at least when it was taken over by LH, It was briefly called S.I. Airlines in 2002. You can go to www.swiss.com and confirm that if needed. If you change back to Swiss Intl Airlines again please explain why!?

-Fleet Size: Since the Airline no longer exists, the current fleet size is 0. If you go by your above link about infoboxes, and put in the current data, then you have to put in 0. If you put in another e.g. historic Value you need to add when this number was historically correct, else it's just plain incorrect. Hence 72 in 2002 is correct and by no means makes the encyclopaedia harder to understand. I therefore suggest to put "72 (2002)" which is short and contains the needed information.

-Key People: Again, this Airline is bankrupt as you might know. So there are currently no Key People employed. The people you put in again and again are only related to the grounding of the airline. It's like saying "key people of the roman empire was Romulus Augustus" (last roman emperor). I could even understand Mario Corti but by all means cannot see Jaqueline Fouse to be of any importance to the airline. She was pulled in as a friend of Cortis and was at the Airline less than a year and there was not much she did or could have done - Schroderet was the one who more or less decided the financial fate of SR. As was Mr Bruggisser, who had a somewhat greater influence than Corti in the last couple of years. I don't see why there shouldn't be any real key people in there but for the sake of ending this war will change the current version (which appears to be the one I wrote) to just Mario Corti.

Please tell me what you think about these three things BEFORE just undoing my Posts again. I guess else we'll just have to ask Wikipedia to help sorting this out.

Rgds! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pateb (talk • contribs) 08:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Transition® image size discussion
Hi, I'm curious to know why you keep reverting the image size in the Terrafugia Transition® article. A larger, (300px) thumbnail image makes it possible to see what's in the photo without requiring readers to visit to a separate web page. Thanks, sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Cite web template
In my experience "url" is almost always the first parameter and "title" only second. Debresser (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hughes Lake
Thanks for starting the article on Hughes Lake. It looks good. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Black Mountain" articles
Hi Emerson7,

I saw that you had moved two articles about mountains called Black Mountain. While the names you chose would have been fine, if they were unambiguous, they are not in fact unambiguous. In each case there is another Black Mountain answering to the same description. Also each of the two names, or some small variant, had already been considered and rejected for that reason. Therefore I have reverted the moves. If you find these names unacceptable, please open a discussion on the respective talk pages. Thanks, --Trovatore (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again,

I don't know if you quite followed the full extent of the problem. It's not that I thought the Diablo Range was the same as the Santa Cruz Mountains; I know very well that they are separate. There are two Black Mountains in the Diablo Range, and also two Black Mountains in the Santa Cruz Mountains, so we're talking about a total of four mountains. Two of them don't have articles but there's no clear sense in which they're less notable than the ones that do, so that's not an excuse for an ambiguous name. On another note, please get consensus before continuing with this renaming. I am quite willing to have the articles at another name, but the ones you've chosen don't work, and anything else I can think of is just terribly awkward. --Trovatore (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Emerson7, this is getting very irritating. You have not gotten consensus for your preferred names, and you have not addressed the ambiguity. Please move the articles back pending consensus. --Trovatore (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

= April 2009 =

Template:US$
You have undone several recent edits. Your edits are not in conformance with consensus at Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and the recent decision at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_6.

Only the first mention of $ needs a reference to US$, and only on non-US articles.


 * The exception to this is in articles related entirely to US- or UK-related topics, in which the first occurrence may also be shortened and not linked ($34 and £22, respectively), unless this would be unclear. Avoid over-identifying currencies that cannot be ambiguous;

The standard template is now US$, of which USD is a redirect, just as yen is a redirect to ¥. All instances must be subst'd.

Please fix these mistaken reverts. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * your comments as well as the references given are all apparently in conflict with wp:mosnum. until and unless the mos changes, i see no reason to comply. --emerson7 19:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem confused. The quote given above is from $, exactly the same as your link given. Are you having language or reading comprehension difficulties?

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather than awaiting your fix, and leaving the articles in a bad state, we've taken care of the problem (again).

Replaceable fair use Image:PottedMeat.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:PottedMeat.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Template needs help
As a contributor to this template, would you like to take a look at Template talk:Contemporary writers. Truthanado (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

= May 2009 =

Swissair
Note your technical breach of the three-revert rule. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. I understand it's been sorted previously, but it is notable that the IP editors' talk page was completely devoid of any notices by you. Thanks.'' <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 09:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Biggifying (some) appendices?
What's you're reason for making "Further reading" and "External links" sections in the Herschel article big (by removing refbegin and refend)? &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 00:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my understanding too, but also to improve the appearance and readability of the article's layout. My understanding on that point is that where it improves appearance (as in the article in question) it should be done. As a rule of thumb, if the final appendices are rough peers in size or visual bulk, they should not switch between sizes, but should all be small once one is small. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 18:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

File:JET cover 1952-02-14.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:JET cover 1952-02-14.jpg, has been listed at Files 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. Damiens .rf 18:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

File:ToscaniniTime1948.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:ToscaniniTime1948.jpg, has been listed at Files 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. Damiens .rf 18:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:William_Vickrey.gif
Thank you for uploading File:William_Vickrey.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Ducktastic.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Ducktastic.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Ducktastic.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ducktastic.jpg, has been listed at Files 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

= June 2009 =

Orphaned non-free media (File:A Delicate Balance 1966 Athenaeum.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:A Delicate Balance 1966 Athenaeum.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Six Degrees Guare.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Six Degrees Guare.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Thommie Walsh.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thommie Walsh.jpg, has been listed at Files 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. Damiens .rf 03:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Margaret A. Hamburg.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Margaret A. Hamburg.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  17:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  17:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

AN
I believe you are familiar with User:NYScholar. Please see this and comment if you wish. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

= July 2009 =

recently moved page mush (maize) to coosh
greetings: recently you inserted coosh into the mush (maize) article. recently, the mush article was moved to coosh. my google search returned 5 results for coosh, and both m-w.com and wiktionary have no listing for the word coosh. in addition ive never heard the word coosh. are you sure this is a term for mush? badmachine (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * okay, thanks. badmachine (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Logo Uni-FFM.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Logo Uni-FFM.jpg. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. BJBot (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not remove signed comments from talk pages
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Nashassum (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nashassum (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

= August 2009 =

Orphaned non-free image (File:Grover Dale Dance Magazine, July, 1960.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Grover Dale Dance Magazine, July, 1960.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Dick Shawn.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Dick Shawn.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:The Devil's Disciple (1987 film).jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:The Devil's Disciple (1987 film).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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject California Invitation
Hi, I noticed you've been working on California correctional institutions and was wondering if you'd be interested in joining WikiProject California. ''If you are interested in California-related themes, you may want to check out the California Portal. If you are interested in contributing more to California related articles you may want to join WikiProject California (signup here).'' -Optigan13 (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Mush vs coosh
You seem to be the only one who thinks "coosh" is the better-known term for this food. Can you at least provide some evidence to back that up on the talk page for the article, rather than mindlessly reverting it from "mush"? As I noted, "coosh" is not even in the dictionary. Dr.frog (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

= September 2009 =

RE: Lower Otay Reservoir
I am sorry if you felt that the revert was ill done, however you did not provide citation for your addition to the article; therefore I had removed it, while keeping those edits which I could verify myself and which I added cited references to. Yet, the reference that you have provided to restore your change is not something I can independently verify, therefore I will tag the reference accordingly. I do believe that you are editing in the best interest of the article, however if a random user cannot verify the reference themselves, they are less likely to believe the information provided. I hope you understand. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I implore you to please be more civil in your tone when speaking to me in the future, as I have done for you. I thank you in advance. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Correctional Training Facility
Thanks for improving the article that I started. Back then I was just learning how to do articles and programming in wikipedia. Adamdaley (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Inland Empire Invitation
Hi, I noticed you've been working on Inland Empire correctional institutions and was wondering if you'd be interested in joining WikiProject Inland Empire. ''If you are interested in Inland Empire (San Bernardino-Riverside Counties)-related themes, you may want to check out the Inland Empire Article. If you are interested in contributing more to the Inland Empire related articles you may want to join WikiProject Inland Empire (signup here).'' -House1090 (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What?!
Dont talk to me like that! Its your responsability to add a reference or a source not mines, so dont go around talking bad to people,you need to learn to respect others. I have never had a wikipedian talk to me like that in the 2+ years I have work/contribute to wikipedia, and I have never talked to some one like that. So if you dont got nothing nice to say, dont say nothing at all! House1090 (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at San Bernardino County, California, you will be blocked from editing. House1090 (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your are vandalizing the San Bernardino County Article look at your reference, its about the city of San Bernardino not the county. If you are an experianced editor you will see what I am talking about. House1090 (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See Talk:San Bernardino County, California House1090 (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:EmmyAward ComedyLeadActor 2001-2025
Template:EmmyAward ComedyLeadActor 2001-2025 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:EmmyAward ComedyLeadActress 1950-1975
Template:EmmyAward ComedyLeadActress 1950-1975 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:EmmyAward ComedyLeadActress 1976-2000
Template:EmmyAward ComedyLeadActress 1976-2000 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Emperor Jones 1937.jpg
File:Emperor Jones 1937.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Emperor Jones 1937.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Ferdinand the Bull.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Ferdinand the Bull.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * File:ServaisStradivarius.jpg is now available as Commons:File:ServaisStradivarius.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Three Men on a Horse.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Three Men on a Horse.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * File:The Cradle Will Rock.jpg is now available as Commons:File:The Cradle Will Rock.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * File:The Devil's Disciple.jpg is now available as Commons:File:The Devil&. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * File:The Farmer Takes a Wife poster.jpg is now available as Commons:File:The Farmer Takes a Wife poster.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Hideki_Yukawa.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hideki_Yukawa.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 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

=October 2009=

Orphaned non-free image (File:ASMFLogo.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:ASMFLogo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:ASMFLogo.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:ASMFLogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheese
This is what happens when specialists are left to make general decisions. And a misplaced desire for absolute uniformity. You don't talk about "Lancashire" and assume that everyone knows that you mean the cheese, do you? There are one or two cheeses that are so widely known that just a single name is enough, or is at least recognizable. However, this certainly doesn't apply to every one. If someone were coming to Wikipedia looking for an article on Lancashire cheese they will type "Lancashire cheese" into the search box. They most certainly won't type "Lancashire (cheese)", will they? There is nothing ambiguous about the title "Lancashire cheese, so there is no need to use the crass, daft, pointless parenthetic form. Hence, the naming of this articl, and those like it, is hugely unhelpful, obstructive, and illogical. I don't care what some task force (particularly one with only nine active editors, and who don't appear to have actually discussed this topic!) has decided if the task force's decision flies in the face of common sense. You have already had two separate editors revert your move so surely there are some alarm bells ringing somewhere that are saying "perhaps I got this wrong". No?  Pyrop e  22:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you have carried on using the horrible "(cheese)" construction without actually addressing the points I have made, above. Are you now planning to continue and change Lincolnshire sausage to Lincolnshire (sausage), or Steak and kidney pie to Steak and kidney (pie)?  Pyrop e  18:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

=November 2009=

Orphaned non-free image (File:Gwendolyn Brooks.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Gwendolyn Brooks.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  22:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Carlo Bergonzi (disambiguation)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Carlo Bergonzi (disambiguation). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Carlo Bergonzi (disambiguation). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

File:TWalsh.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:TWalsh.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. Damiens .rf 14:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Walchwil
I noticed that you demoted the Municipality of Walchwil to a village. The municipality website still lists it as a muncipality, and the Amtliches Gemeindeverzeichnis der Schweiz doesn't list an upcoming merger. Will you please fix this, or let me know where this information came from? Tobyc75 (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why did you change Walchwil back to a village? Within all the Swiss municipalities articles, municipality is used to refer to a self governing Gemeinde while village is used for a Dorf which is not fully self governing.  Can you show me a source for calling it a village? Tobyc75 (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oaxaca Cheese
I noticed you moved Oaxaca Cheese to Oaxaca (Cheese). The cheese is never known purely as Oaxaca, it is always called Oaxaca Cheese. This is true in Spanish as well. I have also brought this up at the Cheese project page. Standardization does not always work with everything. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 06:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME suggests otherwise. --06:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * for the same reason Italian sausage isn't Italian (sausage), Superman isn't Super (man), Coca-cola isnt Coca (cola) and Cuban espresso isn't Cuban (espresso). -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 06:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheese... again.
Hey fella, take a hint. These page renamings and moves that you are making are AGAINST MoS, and simple common sense. I am prepared to take assumptions of good faith only so far, you seem to have vaulted clean past that point and what you are now doing looks much more like antagonistic vandalism. Give me a good, logical reason for these moves.  Pyrop e  04:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Snark? That's me being nice. Your page renamings make no sense. You are hiding behind some poorly-thought out, out of date protocol, which in itself is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:COMMONNAME and the process of disambbiguation. I have previously given you plenty of reasons to stop what you are doing, as have other users. Yet you continue. That is either dumb, or antagonistic. Which?  Pyrop e  04:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheshire cheese
Hi Emerson7. I have put the article back as "Cheshire cheese" as that is the name of the product and the article. The British Cheese Board uses the name Cheshire cheese. We don't need to use disambiguation brackets (*) after the name when the title can be read normally and correctly. There does need to be some form of disambiguation on the name Cheshire as readers could be looking for either the place or the product, but as the product naturally disambiguates with its full name, then brackets become superfluous and intrusive and potentially confusing on the article itself. If you'd like to talk some more about this, please get in touch. Regards.  SilkTork  *YES! 08:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheese articles names
I notice that in all good faith, and with the intention of improving the encyclopedia you changed the names of some cheese articles from "**** cheese" to "**** (cheese)". As the disambiguation brackets are not needed I have restored those to their original titles. You might feel a little frustrated that you did that work, and that it has now been undone, and I do empathise with that. Again, if you wish to talk about this, please get in touch. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 09:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

= December 2009 =

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ducktastic.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Ducktastic.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. CIreland (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RLPOLogo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:RLPOLogo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 08:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

References and punctuation
Please note that WP:MOS is a guideline only, not a policy or rule. A more specific guideline, WP:REFPUN, states: If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it. Examples:
 * "Chicago" placement: The quick red fox jumped over the lazy yellow dog.
 * "Nature" placement: The quick red fox jumped over the lazy yellow dog.

Reference formatting which is consistent within an article should therefore not be changed. Thank you. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Billy Eckstine.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Billy Eckstine.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

=January 2010=

RfD nomination of Archstrone Fox Plaza
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. emerson7 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:clean copy paste templates
I'm not as active in the WikiProject anymore. As for this issue, I'd take to note the article programming style. To me, the importance of programming styles was brought to light after taking programming at my local community college last semester. I've heard from my teacher that employers will hire/fire programmers on their (non-)adherence to programming styles (Hungarian notation, CamelCase, etc.) used by the rest of the company. --Geopgeop (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Kevin Spacey
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Kevin Spacey/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

= February 2010 =

File:Boris Karloff.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Boris Karloff.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. Damiens .rf 16:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Twins (1999 film)
I have nominated Twins (1999 film), 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 Articles for deletion/Twins (1999 film). 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. Ridernyc (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

assessment of Geyserville, California
I see you removed the stub template from the article. However, the talk page still has it assessed as Stub class. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FarkLogo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:FarkLogo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ucucha 22:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

= March 2010 =

Orphaned non-free image File:AtlantaSymphonyLogo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:AtlantaSymphonyLogo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Hot l Baltimore.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:The Hot l Baltimore.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:MaRainey.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MaRainey.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Infrogmation (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:John H. Johnson.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:John H. Johnson.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * --emerson7 23:52, 13 March 2010

Orphaned non-free image File:FarkLogo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:FarkLogo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:
 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * --emerson7 16:27, 18 March 2010

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Alice Pearce.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Alice Pearce.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * --emerson7 20:15, 30 March 2010

Ma Rainey image
This edit you made did not add the necessary fair use rationale to the image, just a proper copyright tag. Its deletion is still being discussed. Add a fully completed rationale template like the one I have added below and all should be well.

Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * --emerson7 20:51, 14 March 2010

Southern Voice (newspaper)
Please go to projectqatlanta.com and do a search on Southern Voice and Gaydar. The site will detail Gaydar's aquistion of David Atlanta and Southern Voice from the bankruptcy court. Also check for an email I sent you with more details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KSUAtlanta (talk • contribs) 17:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Adrian Boult.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Adrian Boult.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Adrian Boult.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Adrian Boult.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nancy Marchand.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Nancy Marchand.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Martha Raye.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Martha Raye.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dvdplr (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference style in articles
Wikipedia allows a range of styles in reference sections, as long as consistency is held within an article, and the shortened footnote style I chose for 100 McAllister Street does not break any guideline. The style you have twice removed is the same as my featured article Henry Edwards (entomologist), and the same as my good articles Timothy L. Pflueger, Lucy Stone, Harold L. George, Ina Coolbrith and The Woman's Bible. I like it, I use it. I picked it up from my initial Wikipedia tutoring by MILHIST project people.

At WP:CITEHOW the guideline says "You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected. [...] Changing existing citations from one format to another should generally be done only with local consensus, and should never be the subject of an edit war." Please respect established article style. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop edit warring at 100 McAllister Street. You have no basis for reverting the established article reference style. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Machinal.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Machinal.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)



Boudin Bakery
Hey there. Thanks for dealing with the handiwork of this apparent vandal. He's already been blocked, and it appears that the IP in question is a sock puppet to another account that was previously banned permanently for continuous disruptive and non-collaborative editing. Hopefully we won't have to deal with this person long. Thanks again! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Machinal.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Machinal.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

= April 2010 = Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. ''The article is a low-importance TV program. Category:Pseudoscience suggests that articles are to be sub-categorized, which the article already was. I replaced the category with a more appropriate subcategory.'' serioushat 03:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Agnes de Mille.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Agnes de Mille.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)