User talk:Ɱ/Archive 1

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, ɱ! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Marek. 69  talk  6:00 am, 25 October 2011, Tuesday (1 year, 2 months, 23 days ago) (UTC−4)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 1:06 pm, 20 April 2012, Friday (8 months, 26 days ago) (UTC−4)

Image tagging for File:Website logo.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Website logo.gif. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages: Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 5:05 pm, 24 July 2012, Tuesday (5 months, 22 days ago) (UTC−4)
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

File permission problem with File:US NY Brooklyn.gif
Thanks for uploading File:US NY Brooklyn.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 6:59 pm, 24 July 2012, Tuesday (5 months, 22 days ago) (UTC−4)

Image tagging for File:Website logo.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Website logo.gif. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator. To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions. For more information on using images, see the following pages: Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 7:06 pm, 24 July 2012, Tuesday (5 months, 22 days ago) (UTC−4)
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Image tagging for File:Choc. cream pie.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Choc. cream pie.JPG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator. To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions. For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:05 pm, 27 August 2012, Monday (4 months, 19 days ago) (UTC−4)

Possibly unfree File:Choc. cream pie.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Choc. cream pie.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. Stefan2 (talk) 7:36 am, 29 August 2012, Wednesday (4 months, 18 days ago) (UTC−4)
 * A bot auto-marked it as I added the photo as a regular CC atribution (not my work), though I meant to click the CC attribution (own work), as the photo is mine, and so I corrected that, so I'm not sure why it should be listed, as the copyright status isn't unclear nor disputed.ɱ	 1:23 pm, 29 August 2012, Wednesday (4 months, 17 days ago) (UTC−4)
 * I think I've closed all of the discussions I started. If not, please tell. --Stefan2 (talk) 3:47 pm, 29 August 2012, Wednesday (4 months, 17 days ago) (UTC−4)
 * Thank you.ɱ	 5:56 pm, 29 August 2012, Wednesday (4 months, 17 days ago) (UTC−4)

File permission problem with File:BrickFair.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:BrickFair.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to . If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 7:52 am, 29 August 2012, Wednesday (4 months, 18 days ago) (UTC−4)
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Carmino.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Carmino.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 7:53 am, 29 August 2012, Wednesday (4 months, 18 days ago) (UTC−4)

Possibly unfree File:Treeline in Autumn.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Treeline in Autumn.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. Stefan2 (talk) 8:00 am, 29 August 2012, Wednesday (4 months, 18 days ago) (UTC−4)

Possibly unfree File:Yard.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yard.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. Stefan2 (talk) 8:02 am, 29 August 2012, Wednesday (4 months, 18 days ago) (UTC−4)

Your recent edits
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 could also click on the signature button or  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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 7:34 pm, 29 August 2012, Wednesday (4 months, 17 days ago) (UTC−4)
 * I did that! Something's odd.--ɱ	 7:36 pm, 29 August 2012, Wednesday (4 months, 17 days ago) (UTC−4)

File:Carmino.jpg
When you copy an image from another site (in this case, http://www.carminoravosa.webs.com) without permission, the image is not your own work; you are consequently unable to permit its use under any specific license, and the image is therefore a copyright violation. Nyttend (talk) 12:37 pm, 30 August 2012, Thursday (4 months, 16 days ago) (UTC−4)
 * When I copy it from a website that I made, with permission, with the image actually being my own work, then I am able to mark it as such, and you should not go assuming that I am some regular person who just stole it after a Google search, where in that case, it would be a copyright violation.--ɱ	 1:47 pm, 30 August 2012, Thursday (4 months, 16 days ago) (UTC−4)
 * You cannot just go deleting thing willy-nilly wherever you like, just because you have a hunch, because you were misinformed. Next time, send me a note, or better yet, don't do it.--ɱ	 1:49 pm, 30 August 2012, Thursday (4 months, 16 days ago) (UTC−4)
 * Anyone can claim to have created that website, so we need proof (either via the OTRS process or on that website) that you really are the copyright holder. If you really are the owner, remember that anyone else could make such a claim as well, and your rights are being protected through deletion.  Simply go to the website and add a statement releasing the image under the CC license that you want to use.  Nyttend (talk) 2:38 pm, 30 August 2012, Thursday (4 months, 16 days ago) (UTC−4)

Your signature
Hi ɱ. Per WP:SIGLINK, would you please add a link to either your user page, user talk page, or contributions page? Thanks. David 1217  What I've done 6:59 pm, 14 September 2012, Friday (4 months, 1 day ago) (UTC−4)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lego The Lord of the Rings, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gimli and Haldir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 7:18 am, 15 September 2012, Saturday (4 months, 1 day ago) (UTC−4)
 * Thanks, done.--ɱ	 10:58 am, 15 September 2012, Saturday (3 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−4)

File:Jeep3.JPG missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Jeep3.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 9:37 am, 10 October 2012, Wednesday (3 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−4)

Sandbox
You made a page at User:Ɱ/sandbox3. As there is no User:Ɱ, it was tagged for deletion, but instead I have moved it into your user space where I guess you meant it to be. There was already a page at User:ɱ/sandbox3, so I have put it at User:ɱ/sandbox4. If you don't in fact want it, just put db-user at the top and it will be deleted. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 6:33 pm, 3 November 2012, Saturday (2 months, 12 days ago) (UTC−4)
 * Thank you!--ɱ	 6:51 pm, 3 November 2012, Saturday (2 months, 12 days ago) (UTC−4)

Calm down, please
Please stop the language and personal attacks like you edit summary here:. Also, please do not violate WP:3RR on East Coast of the United States. You have nearly already done so. This article is not that big of a deal. Hoppingalong (talk) 10:54 pm, 6 November 2012, Tuesday (2 months, 9 days ago) (UTC−5)

Your signature and username
There is a discussion at the Village Pump about your username and how it confuses Wikipedia's servers. Please take note of it and consider changing your username. jcgoble3 (talk) 12:05 am, 18 November 2012, Sunday (1 month, 28 days ago) (UTC−5)

Contribution
Thank you very reviewing my contribution to Wikipedia. I just wanna ask you one question, if we can mention about library facility, academic building photo and health care facility on a university page? I checked my hundreds of university pages, these things are mentioned, but yesterday an admin(User:TheRedPenOfDoom) deleted it twice, please if you have time review this page too.. and suggest me how can i add one or two picture of campus. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurofreak (talk • contribs) 11:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestion regarding uploding photos. My bad, i forgot to give you the link, here's the link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHIATS Oh shit, that user added a tag of cleanup on the article, please help! Neurofreak 16:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

copyvio
You recently approved the page Biotech Consortium India Limited which however is a direct and complete copyvio from their home site. . [] and related pages. It's a common mistake--I've a few times accepted similar myself. We all of us need to be careful.  DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, okay. For now I've reverted the review, but I think speedy deletion is the wrong course, a couple of simple edits fixes the copyright violation. Keeping the info, but changing around the sentences and structure. I disapprove of the speedy deletion action. Give the editor time to fix the copyrighted material, he may not be the most experienced so he might've not even known there was a problem with copying over full sentences.--ɱ (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor is indeed inexperienced, and indeed does not realize what he is doing; this is a very common problem with editors of articles dealing with India. I've given him some advice and will be given him more. but there are times where I have been unable to explain it sufficiently. (I remember one response I received after extensive explanation about copying from a web page: "next time I'll copy from a better source". )
 * With respect to Neurofreak, he copied not just full sentences, but full paragraphs, and has apparently done so in all or part of several articles. I normally tell people that the solution to close paraphrase is not just changing words and sentences around, but rewriting from scratch. You might want to see the comment I got recently from the most  experienced admin in these problems, after I had made a string of errors one night recently: User talk:DGG.
 * I think almost all admins here would have deleted the article, not just warned. Probably most would have deleted it directly, not just tagged it for another admin to check. Many would delete even for a conspicuous section--I do not, but the one I have just mentioned does. I am perhaps a little more flexible than the average about copyvio; if I did as I really thought best I would perhaps be a good deal more flexible, but it is easier to defend a strict position.    DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, okay. I understand that many would delete that article in a heartbeat, even though editing it to be acceptable would be a quick and easy task. I tend to always stand by the reasonings of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and wouldn't ever delete content (whether an article, section, image, or paragraph) just because it is lacking citations or is a copyright violation (or other easily-fixable reasons). I would fix the problem or have the editor fix it, I would not delete the content. That makes sense, doesn't it?--ɱ (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
De728631 (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Rename
Hi, I think we are really going to have to rename your account. I suspect that you are currently unblockable, your edit contributions don't show up and so on. Renaming your account will require a system administrator take action. What would you like to be renamed to? Ɱ is an option if you would like, which would keep ɱ as a functioning form of your username. If you don't have a preference we will probably go with Ɱ because you would still be able to use ɱ in your signature, to link to your userpage and contributions, and so on. Prodego talk  03:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that 'Ɱ' is a legal option for username choice? I.E., would that character successfully agree with WP:U? That may be good as a fix to the technical errors, but down the road I'll still be looking for a decent username that will end the human errors/confusion.--ɱ (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If that were the username you wanted to use, I'm fairly confident it would be allowed given the circumstances. However you can pick any username you would like. Prodego  talk  04:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm all right with a change to 'Ɱ' at least as a fix to all of the technical problems that I have been running into these past months. You have my go-ahead for it to be done. Thank you!.--ɱ (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be somewhat complicated to rename you, because it will have to be done manually. I'll pass this along to the sysadmins. What they will probably do is make sure the glitch where ɱ was not considered to have a capitalized form on some servers no longer exists. After that they will rename your account and reattribute the log entries. You should be able to log in with either Ɱ or ɱ as usual once it is done. They might lock you out of your account while they do it. I don't know when they'll do the rename but they will probably leave a note here once it is done. Thanks, and sorry about all the trouble! Prodego  talk  04:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. The user "ɱ" has been renamed to "Ɱ".  MBisanz  talk 04:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent, it actually ended up being simpler than expected. If you have any problems leave a post on VPT (or here, if they happen right now). Prodego  talk  05:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A great thanks to you both.--ɱ (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Filenames and descriptions
A while back, you uploaded File:Yard.JPG without really saying what it is or where. Such a tiny filename is really not a good idea - there are millions of yards in the world, why choose this one out of all the others, etc etc. Could you either supply more details so that it can have a properly unique filename, or consent to having it deleted since it's not being used anywhere? Thanks. DS (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete it. I don't need nor use it. Thanks.--ɱ (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Poor Man's Talk Back
I responded to your post on my talk page here. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 07:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Brickfair2011buildingstrains.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brickfair2011buildingstrains.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.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 17:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Re NYC soda law
See the talk page. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:BrickFairbuildingstrains.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:BrickFairbuildingstrains.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 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

re: Added sugar
I a glad you find it interesting. I would love to see anther editor contribute to it, note that it is slotted to appear as a DYK in a few days. Also, if you could perhaps stub refined sugar? I am not an expert on this, and as you can see from my confusion, it would be nice to have a dedicated entry to that topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Arrow
Actually, it's not that subjective. If you look at the talk page it is explained. But I'll explain it here as well. Per WP:SIZE, the main page is not large enough to require splitting. Since there is no mandation to split a page simply "because", the only reason to split it is becuase of the size. The size of the page is not large enough to split. Given that splitting would result in about 60% of the page being removed, with major duplication of information it is hence "too early" to split the page. The "valuable information" is safely stored on the main page. Why send people to another page if you don't need to?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, but please see: User talk:SchrutedIt08 for my arguments.-- ɱ   (talk)   21:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 01:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You were directed to go to the article talk page, not try and hash out something on user talk pages. So the idea that you would "redo these edits" is irrelevant and the fact that you refused to discuss on the talk page is YOUR fault, not ours. There is no reason to split the episodes off. What argument do you have? It's convienent for readers? It isn't, because the current set up puts all information in one location. Is it because the main page is too large? No, that isn't it either because per WP:SIZE it's nowhere near the size to split. All of the information on the main page is very season one specific, and not general (ala Smallville). Thus, in order not to duplicate information on multiple pages you'd have to gut the main page and leave it virtually bare, minus a few mentionings of season one. To me, that is not appropriate. So, you've really not provide a valid rationale to split the page. I suggest, if it's that important to you, that you GO TO THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE...as was suggested originally.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The Art Institutes
Hi there. I see you were working on the The Art Institutes article a little bit last month and I'm wondering if you have any interest in reviewing a new draft of the article that I have prepared. I would like to make it clear that my work on this article has been undertaken on behalf of Education Management Corporation, The Art Institutes' parent company. I have not and will not make any direct edits to this article, and instead I have been preparing a new version of the article in my user space. If interested, please check out myrequest on the Talk page, where I have explained my concerns with the current version and provided a link to the new draft in my user space. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 19:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I took a good look at both of your article drafts on the Ai, and I approve of all of the changes that you propose. As well, your writing and grammar are impeccable. I encourage you to make those changes on the official Wikipedia. I might add that there are three areas of "User:WWB Too/The Art Institutes" where I might prefer some changes:

" " Where I would change the word "chain" to your preferred term "system".

"As of 2013, there are approximately 50 Art Institute locations across the United States..." Where I would simply remove the "As of 2013" part, as it is unnecessary in the lead paragraph and doesn't add anything, and from a subjective standpoint, it doesn't look very good.

"As of February 2013, there were approximately 50 locations..." Where "February" probably is insignificant, and the word "were" would be better-phrased as "are", in conjuction with how you phrase the second sentence of the lead paragraph.


 * Regardless, well done. -- ɱ   (talk)   21:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 19:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much—for both the praise and the speedy reply! I've just made some adjustments based on your feedback . Your suggestion for the lead actually prompted me to rethink the first sentence break, and I think the introduction flows better now. Now, here's the rub: I definitely shouldnot be the person to move the drafts into the mainspace. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Jimbo's advisement that paid editors avoid direct edits; while not an official policy, I understand the reasoning and I follow it. So, I am asking if you'd be able to do it? If not, I can keep looking—but if so, I'd really appreciate it! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 20:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to. I will make all of the changes within a day, unless you would prefer for me to wait any longer extent of time.-- ɱ   (talk)   01:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be awesome. No huge rush, so anytime soon would be great. And I'm working on redrafts of other EDMC-owned schools / school systems, so if you'd have time to look at those (probably over the next 2-3 months) just let me know! Thanks again, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 06:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I see that you've updated The Art Institutes and created the new list article. Thanks again for your help here! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk&middot; COI) 19:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Feel free to approach me with further edit requests in the future.-- ɱ   (talk)   19:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of The Art Institutes locations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Associate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Forestmay3rd.JPG missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Forestmay3rd.JPG

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello
I am a nice person 99.254.97.178 (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how, as your contributions are pretty nasty and insulting. One is an ad-hominem attack against a person who isn't even an administrator. Another is a nasty statement full of swear words.-- ɱ   (talk)   21:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Future Korean War
Hi, you participated in the first deletion discussion for this article; it's up for deletion again at Articles for deletion/Future Korean War (2nd nomination). If you'd like to comment again, feel free. Thanks, Ansh666 03:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Middle-earth Lego sets‎
Hey Ɱ, I just saw your edit summary for restoring the Elrond set. As it happens I've just dug into one of the forums at Lego.com where they discuss more of those polybag sets that are allegedly handed out for promotion. . This is in fact silly, and I'm having a hard time finding reliable references for them. Lego.wikia.com has a photo of Frodo's cooking corner, but then that's not something we'd like to use as a reference. Do you have any ideas what to do?De728631 (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Many articles pertaining to LEGO on this Wiki have information that will likely never be backed up by references. Yet Wikipedia does not require that all information have sources; it requires that all information that is called out as dubious or controversial be referenced to a reliable source. So, as long as we agree that the polybag image and other links to the polybags (Three Lego Wikia websites included) convince us that 5,000,202 Elrond is in fact a legitimate product of the LEGO Group, that should be sufficient.-- ɱ   (talk)   18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I for one don't have a problem with that, but I'm a bit worried that other editors might want to challenge and remove the unreferenced list items. De728631 (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say let's cross that bridge when we come to it.-- ɱ   (talk)   19:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)--  ɱ   (talk)   19:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

User subpages
Hi. Following 53670, your user subpages are now accessible again. You can view them here: Special:PrefixIndex/User:Broken/Ɱ and Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:Broken/Ɱ. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Argosy University
Hello again! A few months ago you helped me with a revision to The Art Institutes article and I am wondering if you have time to take a look at a proposed revision I've prepared for another article related to Education Management Corporation, Argosy University. If you've forgotten, I am a paid consultant to EDMC and am working on their behalf here on Wikipedia.

I hate to bother you but I'm not sure where else to take this request. I've left messages on the Talk page, with a previously involved editor and at WP: Universities but have not received an answer anywhere. Unfortunately, the other WikiProjects listed on the Talk page are all very tangentially related; they mostly appear to be WikiProjects for some of the states where Argosy University campuses are located.

If you do have the time and interest in reviewing my proposed draft please take a look at the message I've posted on the article's Talk page, where I explain my proposed changes, and provide links to compare versions. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk&middot; COI) 14:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd be happy to take a look at it.-- ɱ   (talk)   21:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have two comments on your draft article - I don't know why you call Argosy a system of universities, it appears to be a system of colleges (i.e. a single university). As well, there are some punctuation errors and inconsistencies that I'd like to fix on your draft article. I suppose that otherwise your changes are satisfactory and beneficial, and I will implement them as soon as the above comments are settled. Cheers.-- ɱ   (talk)   22:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there Ɱ, sorry for the slow response. I just noticed this feedback. I've gone ahead and updated my draft to note that Argosy University is a system of colleges, not a system of universities. Sorry about that. However, I'm not sure what punctuation errors and inconsistencies you'd like to fix so please feel free to jump into my draft and make the changes yourself.


 * Also, if you haven't reviewed the discussion on the Argosy Talk page recently you might want to see the feedback I received fromUser:Gigs, so that you're aware of the full discussion. I also plan to copy and paste your feedback over to the Talk page so that the full discussion of the draft is easily accessible to Gigs and any editors who might join the discussion. Thanks for your help so far. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 19:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Ɱ, thanks much for updating the rest of the Argosy article with the material from my draft. I'll be leaving a note there to thank you and note that my request is complete, just wanted to thank you personally here in case you aren't watching that Talk page.


 * Also, I noticed that over the weekend there was an edit adding some information in the Legal issues and enrollment allegations section regarding Argosy's Dallas campus and its pursuit of APA accreditation. I'll explain further on the Talk page, but it seems that the information as written isn't supported by the source, so it may need to be removed or reworded. Would you mind taking a quick look? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too, and I checked the sources. Not only are they reliable sources, but they seem to accurately back up the information. It all seems fine to me. Would you perhaps elaborate on how you think that the source doesn't support the writing?-- ɱ   (talk)   14:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay, but I just posted my explanation about what's unsupported now. It's really just the part about "eventually gave up" that's OR; for all anyone knows, they might still be pursuing it. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 17:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi again, thanks for making the change. One nitpick, I'm afraid. The phrase As of the current date is discouraged by WP:DATED in the Manual of Style. It suggests using the template instead. So, in this case it would be . What do you think? Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 13:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I am unfamiliar with that template and used your wording of 'as of the current date', I'll change that now.-- ɱ   (talk)   14:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Terrific, thanks for doing that. And you've been a real pleasure to work with! Please accept this piece of flair as a token of my gratitude. Best, WWB Too(Talk &middot; COI) 17:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks! Don't sell yourself short, nearly all of the edits were entirely because of your effort. Anyway, I'd be happy to do more for you, and once completed, I'll have a draft of one of my own articles that I'd like you to look over. Thanks again.-- ɱ  (talk)   18:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! I'll definitely take you up on the offer at some point. Meanwhile let me know when you're ready with that article, I'd be happy to look at it. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 20:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Help on another article?
Hi again Ɱ, hope youʼre doing well. Iʼm reaching out to see if you might be able to help me out with something else—correcting some factual inaccuracies on the article for David Marchick, with whom I am working. The details are over at Talk:David Marchick, but briefly, I drafted this article in 2012 and had it placed, with the help of volunteers. Some time later, an editor came along and made a number of expansions to the article. Unfortunately, many of the additions made were problematic, either as being far too detailed, or extrapolating too much from the sources available, meaning that the information was inaccurate. I've been working through the article bit by bit, identifying incorrect information and posting it to the Talk page for discussion. However, no one has yet had a chance to look at a few recent corrections, and I'm wondering if you might be able to read what I posted and see what you think? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot;COI) 13:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not having not replied more promptly. And sure, I'd be happy to help. I did look over some of the material, and still have quite a bit to look at. I will get back to you in entirety, hopefully within the next two days.-- ɱ   (talk)   22:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's OK, you beat me on the reply by more than a day (I'm not always around weekends). I'm looking forward to your thoughts on Marchick when you're able. Best, WWB Too(Talk &middot; COI) 20:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Radiofox35
You are not helping on User talk:Radiofox35. Please keep your opinions to yourself (or somewhere else) so Dianna and myself can steer this user back on track. Your stiring-of-the-pot isn't going to help matters. Thank you. -  Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I just want to remind you that you don't run the website. It sure looks like you think you do.-- ɱ   (talk)   03:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, I don't run Wikipedia, that would be Jimbo's job. But what I and everyone else here does (admin or not) is to get new users to understand and follow the rules.  What you and Radiofox35 don't seem to accept is that all articles have to be sourced with reliable third-party in-line sources.  You can't add information and say "I know it's true" because that's original research.  The burden for finding those sources is up to the person adding the information.  Everything on Wikipedia has to beverified and notable.  If a user doesn't follow those rules or adds unconstructive edits, he/she can be blocked.


 * These are the rules of Wikipedia. Any editor, regardless if they are an admin or not, can tell an editor of those rules and if that editor is not following them, their edits can be reverted.


 * If doing all that makes it seem like I'm running the website, then sure, I am. But more editors than just me are doing the same thing. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 04:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, unconstructive edits can be reverted past 3RR without consequence for the editor doing the reverting. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 04:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Jimmy Wales does not have the job of running the website. This is a collaborative encyclopedia. No one man deserves to be called the owner or runner of the website. Countless administrators, registered editors, and IP users add and adapt content, and the WM Foundation runs the website's hosting and servers, etc.
 * As for "What you and Radiofox35 don't seem to accept is that all articles have to be sourced with reliable third-party in-line sources. You can't add information and say "I know it's true" because that's original research", you forget that after you reverted my sole edit, I did nothing, because your explanation for the revert was logical and reasonable – my source did not appear to be sufficiently reliable for high-end standards (although most WPns would take it anyway). Also, please see WP:BASH, especially the section on insulting the regulars. Your above comment is far too full of policy links which I know like the back of my hand.--  ɱ   (talk)   04:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's go through these one by one...
 * Jimbo is the founder of Wikipedia, the President of Wikia, Inc., the Chairman Emeritus of the Wikimedia Foundation and sits on the Board of Directors for the Wikimedia Foundation. He's also the "face" of Wikipedia.  So, yeah, he runs the site from the top of the pyramid.  The admins and editors run the site from the bottom of that pyramid.
 * You are correct, after my revert you did "nothing"...on the WCDX page. But you argued it on Radiofox's talk page (among others).  Can't call arguing "nothing".
 * Calling Dianna and I's comments, on Radiofox's talk page, "complete BS" and calling WP:V "a guideline" and "preposterous and unrealistic", saying "neither [you] nor Radiofox are guilty of breaking WP:V", and repeatedly failing to understand WP:BURDEN doesn't show me that you don't know the policies "the back of [your] hand".
 * You've been here since 2009 and have under 1,900 edits, I wouldn't call you a "regular" just yet. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 04:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That big rant you just went on, it centered around two things. First, trying to condescending as possible and second, still failing to understand WP:BURDEN.  The burden isn't on me to find the information and do the research.  You want the information there, you find it.  When I write a history on a radio station, I find the information.  If I know something happened at a station, but can't find a source, the information doesn't go on the page.
 * So, to review: the burden is on you and will continue to be on you to find the sources. If you can't find them on the Richmond Times-Dispatch website, keep looking.  If you still can't find them, the information doesn't go on the page.  No, I won't do the research for you, the burden is on you.  Being condescending and snarky will get you nowhere with me. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 04:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, you will be talking to yourself for the next 12 hours. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 04:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't notice the "you will be talking to yourself for the next 12 hours" note, else you wouldn't have left the rant about ranting on my talk page. But let's answer these in order:
 * You wish me to not "angrily rant" on your talk page, but you did the same in response. Can't ask me to not rant and then rant.
 * I don't idolize anyone, but Jimbo is the "face" of Wikipedia, always has been.
 * You obviously don't understand BURDEN when you have asked users to do the research for you.
 * You can call me out on comments, but you will look like an ass.
 * I'll give you this one. You called alot of policies guidelines, I got one wrong (see, I can admit that).
 * WP:RS is indeed a guideline, but it is treated like policy and is one of the ground rules of Wikipedia.
 * Actually, you did call a guideline or policy "preposterous and unrealistic", let me quote for you:
 * You cite a guideline that uses the word 'advised'. It advises editors to cite information. It is by no means a requirement. What world would we live in if every sentence in every article in the whole of Wikipedia had to be cited? That is preposterous and unrealistic. Indeed Wikipedia's policies declare it unnecessary and unrealistic for every sentence in every article to have a citation.


 * My account has been here for 7 years. In that time, I have amassed 54,100+ edits.  Counting edits is actually a good way to tell how someone has edited Wikipedia.  Those edits show how long they have been around to understand the policies and rules of Wikipedia.  It's a good indicator.
 * Most of your edits are to your sandboxes. Whether they are "quality" or not, that's not for me to say.  That's for the community to decide.
 * I may be wrong, it has happened before (I think it did up there), but I am right that you are not a "regular" editor, you don't understand the rules, you seem to have issues with me and your almost 1900 edits (over 4 years) have been primarily in the sandbox. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 16:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

(Postscript: replied-to and sorted out here: User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive12)-- ɱ   (talk)   20:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ɱ/sandbox7
Becaue I am a nice guy (not the ass you think I am), I will help you with your project.


 * First off, you have some reference issues:


 * Ref# 1 is a Blogspot blog. BIG no-no.  Blogs are not allowed to be references.  While it appears that someone copied a newspaper article on the blog, it still doesn't work.
 * Ref# 6 could get you in trouble. While it is a link to the article, it isn't on the the website for the newspaper (granted it is from 1901).  It is best to use cite news and ditch the link.  If anyone asks, you can always produce that link later.  Citing a newspaper, like a book, is OK without a link.
 * Ref# 7, nice work is getting a scanned copy of the book for #7.
 * Ref# 8 is a gray area. I have seen genealogy sites accepted, I have seen them thrown out.  If you play on taking this to GA, it might be OK.  FA will throw that right out in a heartbeat as OR.  Best to find an actual reference for that and avoid genealogy sites all together.
 * Ref# 25, 26, 28 and 29 won't be accepted. While filming locations are neat, IMDb isn't considered a reliable source because they, like Wikipedia, allow anyone to edit their website.  It's a collabrative website as well.  Try to find sources in the local paper for when the movies came to down.  Library archives and Archive.org are good places to start, then use cite news.
 * Ref# 30 doesn't actually link to the NRIS document for the National Register of Historic Places. But I will give you this one.  The National Park Service has been working on the National Register of Historic Places website forever and I doubt they will get it finished anytime soon.  These is the documents the historic area (originally from the National Register of Historic Places website), through the New York State Historic Preservation Office.  These are the corresponding photos for that historic area.  Add both, the documents go with the photos and vice versa and at FA, they will check.

Still on references, but in the text itself: There are references that pop up out of order (example: bottom paragraph of the "Progressive Era" section). At both GA and FA, they are sticklers for this. They have to be in order. It's annoying, I know, but it will make things go much smoother.

The lede, if it is in the infobox (like zip code), don't put it in there. The lede should be a "quick version" of the article.
 * The text itself:

In the "Toponymy" section, you told about how the town's name "derives from the name Brier Cliff" and how it is a combination of words, but no source. Ya gotta have one there, even if it is somewhere else. They will call you on that at GA and FA.

In the bottom paragraph of the "Progressive Era" section, you have two sentences in there that need sentences. Actually, that paragraph could be trimmed.

The first paragraph of the "Post-Progressive Era" needs a lot of references. The more references you have, the easier it is to get through GA and FA and only have to do that mess once.

Climate data should be "show only" never set on "hide". People want to read that and only the bottom templates should be set on "hide". It's kind of an unwritten rule, I don't know why.

The neighborhoods are going to need a TON of references, especially to reference some of the things you mention. For example, you say "several streets [are] named after local World War II veterans" in the "The Crossroads" section. Gonna need a reference.

The median age, the population spread, the household income, and the median incomes can all be found in the US Census Bureau FactFinder website.

The "Economy" section is going to need more. That section won't last a GA or FA review.

With Government, list the local people (mayor, city council), don't bother with police chiefs and fire chiefs, they aren't notable. Town clerks and other personal aren't either. Only the mayor and city council are...UNLESS they have done something that was noteworthy. After that, list who serves the town in Albany and in Washington (House and Senate). Of course, you don't have to list the President.

With media, unless the town has it's own newspaper, radio station or TV station, don't list it. If the town is served by stations in NYC, it isn't notable to the town itself. Only list stations and papers that operate in the town limits. Now, if an NYC station has a news bureau in the town, that is notable, but will need a source.

In "See Also", you link to two schools, put those in the education section.


 * Now pictures:

Pictures are always good, but don't go overboard. Older pictures are good, but make source you have a fair-use rationale on them. Pictures you take yourself are always better than anything else. Try to have one picture for each section, if you can't, that's OK. Don't "squish" the text, reviewers at GA and FA don't like that. Keep all photos the same general size. The standard is either 175px or 200px (depends on the user).


 * Before it is reviewed:

Before you take this anywhere near GAN or FAC, it should get a peer review. Work can always be done on the page. During PR, it can be sliced and diced, so be aware of that. Don't fight with the reviewer, it will make things much harder during GA and FA review time.


 * When is reviewed:

After PA, if you take it to GA or FA, it will get sliced and diced....again and again. Best advice, deal with it the best you can. I seen my article sliced and diced down to a few paragraphs. It sucks seeing all your work removed in a couple keystrokes, but it makes it a better article in the long run. The reviewers have been doing this awhile and have many GAs and FAs under the belts, so they know what they are doing.


 * After GA/FA:

After the article is made a good or featured article, the work never stops, it just slows considerably. You have to keep the article up-to-date, the information correct, the references updated, etc. If you don't, it can lose it's GA or FA status. GA and FA isn't forever.


 * Now, you can ignore everything I said and that's cool, but it will make it harder for you when the time comes for review. I have done this before, a couple times actually.  So, follow my advice and you will have a GA or even an FA on your hands. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 17:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

(Postscript: replied-to and sorted out here: User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive12)-- ɱ   (talk)   20:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Poor Man's Talk Back
I replied to you post (twice) on my talk page, you can find that thread here. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 21:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Briarcliff Manor draft
Hi, yes, I grew up there. Why haven't you been making your changes on the article directly? They seem worthwhile to me. I think the park pictured is in Irvington.Andrevan@ 21:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose that I did not make direct changes because I felt it would be easier to first complete a draft, and then publish all of the changes. As well because I incorporated temporary images and text from the Albany, Irvington, and Chadderton articles. As you can see, that park is the final remnant of the placeholder content. If you look in the draft's history from about a week ago, you'll find several less-local images. As well, the floral picture will be changed - I hope to secure this image into a Creative Commons license. Would you mind taking a read-through of the draft? Do you know of any additional information that I should or could add? Or any photographic material; I still aim to photograph all of the churches, the Scarborough station, the Village Hall, and re-shoot the HS and Juniper Ledge once Spring comes around.-- ɱ   (talk)   01:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I read through, definitely seems like an improvement. Andrevan@ 01:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well thank you! Any further comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.-- ɱ   (talk)   01:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Western State College of Law at Argosy University
Hi Ɱ, I'm looking for help with an article about a school owned by Education Management Corporation and I know that you've helped User:WWB Too, with whom I work, with several similar projects in the past. Please understand that I have the same COI with this topic as WWB Too has. This work has been undertaken on behalf of EDMC. I have researched and rewritten the article on Western State College of Law at Argosy University and would appreciate your help reviewing it and providing feedback, if that's possible. I have previously discussed the draft and made a few changes with the help of another editor, however that editor has been absent from the discussion since the 24th of October. I've looked around on several other WikiProjects, but haven't been able to find anyone else to help finish the review process.

Would you be able to take a look at the draft I've prepared and let me know if you think it is ready to move live? My request, and the discussion with the editor who was involved earlier, is here on the Talk page. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk&middot; COI) 23:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to help wherever I can. I'll start reading over your draft tomorrow.-- ɱ   (talk)   04:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ɱ, thanks so much for reviewing my draft and making the changes to the wording. I've replied over on the article's Talk but also wanted to say here, if you think the draft is ready, would you mind moving it live to replace the current version? I don't edit articles directly where I have a COI, since I follow the "bright line" rule, otherwise I'd do it myself. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 20:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you! - Thanks for your help
I'm very glad we were able to improve the article and appreciate all your thoughtful comments. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk&middot; COI) 16:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that's very kind.-- ɱ   (talk)   18:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Arrow summary
With regard to Roy and Thea, they were not intentionally working Oliver's theft case. They were searching for a missing person. They stumbled upon Oliver's case when they learned the person was dead. The unclear part is because you rewrote it to be later in the summary. I've now moved it to be with the other information so it's more clear what "case" is being referred to. Also, it is "apparently". We're talking comic book fiction stuff and especially when you're dealing with the island flashbacks that generally show something shocking and then immediately cut back to the present (which is what happened). Also, given that they just made Bennett a series regular, I think we can wait and see if he is truly considered "dead", of it was "dead" in this particular second and then the next flashback shows that he survived the injection.  BIGNOLE    (Contact me)  03:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning and its validity, but if we removed the "apparently" word, it would still make further summaries just as understandable. And therefore to not mislead readers into thinking Slade will definitely be back or that there's some indication in the episode that he may have lived, I believe the word should be omitted. Also, thanks for moving that sentence, that's clear now.-- ɱ   (talk)   04:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, we're not talking about someone blowing up and clearly dying and then is later brought back. We're talking about his heart stopping in the moment and then the scene ends. If you want to be more descriptive, you can simply say, "...but when they inject Slade with it his heart stops".  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that, yes. On a side note - realistically, CPR may be able to get his heart working again, but that wouldn't do much to stop the effects of the serum.-- ɱ   (talk)   15:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Help with Thunderbird School of Global Management?
Hey ɱ, I'm reaching out to see if you might be willing to help me with a redrafting of the article for the Thunderbird School of Global Management, as you previously helped my colleague 16912 Rhiannon with some edits to another insitute of higher ed's page, Western State College of Law at Argosy University. I've been hired by Thunderbird to update their article, so won't make any edits myself. Instead, I've uploaded a draft to my userspace, and left a note over at Talk:Thunderbird with some details about what I've done. If you have time, do you think you could take a look? Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 17:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to; I'll have some notes later on in the day, and perhaps more further on.-- ɱ   (talk)   19:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks so much—looking forward to it! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 21:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ɱ/sandbox7
When I was archiving my talk page just now, I realized I completely brainfarted and forgot to review that sandboxed article. So, I will be doing that now. My apologizes. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 08:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Review
There are a few sentences that are going to need sources. Especially the first sentence and the part about Ogilby. The formal name of "Village of Briarcliff Manor" is going to need a source.
 * Toponymy

Nice work here, nothing I see that needs changing.
 * Early history

The first sentence in this section could use a source. As could the sentence that begins "At that time, New York State required a population...".
 * Progressive Era

In the third paragraph, you have your references mixed up. They go 19, 20, then 1. Always make sure they go in order. It's silly, but editors in GA and FA are sticklers for this kinda of thing.

The sentence that begins "The hotel business declined in the 1930s..." could be broken up into two or three sentences. Don't be afraid to break sentences up. The part about the Fire Department is going to need sources.

Seeing some areas in the first couple sentences where sources are going to be needed, along with the mention of the People's Caucus.
 * Post-Progressive Era

I'm seeing some sentences like about the new high school and the town celebrating it's 75th anniversary, aren't particularly notable. Unless something happened at the high school, then it isn't really notable. When the town gets to a centennial, that would be notable. Don't try to mention everything, try to mention the big moments, the historic moments, and stuff that is quirky or noteworthy.

The annexation proposal will need a source or two. I would go with one from a government source (if possible) and one from a media source.

No problems in either section that I see.
 * Geography/Climate

I would bold the name of each neighborhood, plus each will need alot of sources.
 * Neighborhoods

Remember, don't try and pack every detail in there. Some of each section will be trimmed at GA and even more so at FA.

Try and add some information about the town's ancestry. Even if there isn't a big population of one ancestry, is still interesting information.
 * Demographics

Trim, big time. Mentioning each type of business in town will get sliced and diced in a heartbeat at GA/FA. Try to mention the big employers, what the big industries are in town (a hospital, a factory, etc.) and mention them by name.
 * Economy

Nice job with the CNN Money mention.

I would like to see more on the community bonfire and how it started. Not a full history, just a sentence or two. Sources all around in this section and subsections.
 * Arts and culture

Try not to mention each and everything about each church. Using this page as an example, you can see it is short, sweet and to the point. Everything in two paragraphs. You could go one step further and create articles about each church, provided they meet GNG and are sourced. That way you get the short, sweet and to the point section in the town article and get the full history of each church.
 * Religious life

Well done here, no problems that I can see.
 * Sports

Sources all around.
 * Parks and recreation

Nice work here,
 * Government

Since there is so little crime, I think the blurb about the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the sentence that begins "In 1989, when the police force..." would be enough.
 * Crime

There is a bit of a run-on sentence in this section. I fixed it on the page.
 * Primary and secondary schools

The first paragraph of this section could be trimmed.
 * Higher education

No problems here.
 * Media

Sources and trimming all around.
 * Infrastructure

Don't give a history of the person, just the name and a one to two sentence blurb of what made/makes them notable. An example of this can be found here.
 * Historic residents

Same as above, just the name, and a one to two sentence blurb.
 * Current residents

There is a good article here, but it needs some polishing. Don't fit everything in there, because everything isn't notable. Try to keep it on just what is notable, noteworthy, quirky and historic. You don't have to give a full history on each and every person, place or thing. Trim what doesn't need to be there, source what does and I think you have a GA on your hands. More trimming and polishing for FA. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 09:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Overall


 * Thank you for taking time to look over it. I see in many places you mention a lack of citations, but for text of two or three sentences with information from a single source, I just placed the citation at the end of the two or three sentences instead of at the end of each one. So almost everything you see does have a citation, except perhaps where you noted "Village of Briarcliff Manor", but I could easily give it one and will. Sometimes an entire paragraph was based from one source, in which case I also feel it it more appropriate to have a single citation at the paragraph's end. The references, like 19, 20, and 1, always is a continuing problem as the page evolves, and it will largely need to be fixed as it happens. I'll try to catch as many existing ones as I can now.


 * About centennials, I read somewhere about guidelines on their mention, so I'll probably just mention the centennial and its events, as well as a short mention of the semicentennial and its book publication, and the dodranscentennial with another history book publication effort. In the "Neighborhoods" section, as well as "Religious life" and other large sections, not only would it be tough giving them their own articles due to a lack of information, independent notability, and RSs, but much of the information directly relates to the village. I'll see what I can and would prefer to cut down. About bolding neighborhood names, I couldn't seem to find a guideline on it. The original article still has it, as well as a bulleted list, both things that I have been trying to avoid in favor of the more formal prose writing. Seeing as bolding is usually used in WP for the article title and its equivalent names or acronyms, I dislike the use of it for neighborhoods, which are sometimes a mere fraction of the whole. As well, that brings the question of whether the minor neighborhoods mentioned in the last paragraph of the section should get a bold face. For a guideline, I can't even rely on developed articles, which mostly have links to articles about their neighborhoods, because most FA municipalities are generally much larger locales than this small village.


 * I'll add about ancestry, that's a good thing to mention. For economy, you just think I should cut out most of the second paragraph? The bonfire is not mentioned in any of my several print sources, especially because it dates to around 1994. So not only do I not know anything more about it, but I couldn't even cite it if I did. About notable people, the WikiProject Cities US guideline mentions that prose form including their connection with the village is preferred, especially for GA or FA articles. And if this grows, it can get its own "List of people from Briarcliff Manor" article. And I know I fit a lot of history in the page, which you have said should be trimmed in a few places, but this village is largely about its notable and interesting history, it's one of the factors that makes the village most notable. So I would like to keep historical information in some place or another.


 * Thanks again for taking your time. I encourage you to see as I make changes related to your review, and see if I make the changes in as strong or as weak of a manner as you had intended.-- ɱ   (talk)   15:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed a file deletion tag from File:BriarcliffSealOld.png. When removing deletion tags, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Werieth,


 * Welcome to Wikipedia as well. I have intentionally removed your di-orphaned fair use tags from File:BriarcliffRose.jpg and File:BriarcliffSealOld.png three times now now, only for you to put the tag on to both files again. I already had added the reasons for retaining the images in the "Other information" field of the non-free use rationale template; both images will have beneficial use on the Briarcliff Manor article. This detail should have prevented your tag from being placed on the files all of the numerous times that you did, after that rationale was given. Please remove the tag and refrain from adding it again.


 * Thanks.-- ɱ   (talk)   17:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I will not remove the tag. You have 7 days from the time the file is tagged to include it in an article, if you do not the file will be deleted. See WP:NFCC. Werieth (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I will remove the tags, because as stated on the tag itself: "Please remove this template if a reason for keeping this image has been provided, or it is still used in articles." And I a reason for keeping the image has been provided. It's as simple as that.-- ɱ   (talk)   18:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What eta do you have for adding them? Werieth (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I can't claim to know what an 'eta' is in this context; but I assume you want to know the provided reason. As stated above, I listed that reason in the "Other information" field of the non-free use rationale template of both files, that the images must be retained, I plan to add it to the article on Briarcliff Manor, New York as a beneficial contribution to the information in the article.-- ɱ   (talk)   19:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ETA refers to Estimated time of arrival. We cannot keep unused non-free files around indefinitely. If a file gets deleted as an orphan and you later want to include it in an article all you need to do is contact an admin and have them restore the file. Werieth (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * PS instead of adding talkback notices to my talk page u or ping both achieve the same thing if you include them in the response here Werieth (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll consider those alternative templates, thanks. You didn't seem to answer my statement, that there is a provided reason, so the di-orphaned fair use tags have no place on either file.-- ɱ   (talk)   20:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC requires that non-free media be used. There are no exceptions to that rule. If you remove the tags Ill have to escalate the issue. The file has already been un-used for 20 days, use it or it will be deleted. Werieth (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw the page and am aware of that, but the tag wouldn't say that it can be removed if it shouldn't be. Clearly if there is a reason stated on the image file to keep it, it will not be marked for deletion. Whatever the case, I'll get off your nerves and stick it in the article.-- ɱ   (talk)   21:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)