User talk:DeirdreAnne/Archives/2008/03

WikiProject Birds March 2008 Newsletter
The March 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:MFD.
I had moved it to userspace, but left the project space as a redirect. Nothing444 apparently moved it back later that day. I've now deleted the project space redirect, and moved it back to userspace. · AndonicO  Hail!  09:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll change all the pages linking to WP:PROUD to his userpage, and if he does it again, salt it. · AndonicO  Hail!  02:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

asking for your support
Good day, I am soliciting your input and support for reinstating an article that I wrote called Leo J Meyer. Col Meyer was a soldier who started out in pre WWII National Guard ranks. After being called to Federal service and serving in the Pacific for most of 1942 he attended USAAF OCS in Miami Beach Fl along with several Hollywood personalities. His squad Sergeant was William Holden. He continued thru the war to Japan and returned after it to NYNY. He reenlisted in the National Guard and then transferred back onto active duty. He managed to get his commission reinstated and spent the rest of his time on active Army until retiring as a Colonel in 1971. He actually participated in combat in three wars and was awarded three Combat Infantryman Badges (read the article and the article on the CIB to learn the significance).

Besides telling a story of a man who “just wanted to be a soldier” I intended to wet the whistle of readers with a glimpse of US Army history (federalization of NG, WWII enlisted rank system, etc) hoping to encourage further investigation and learning of that history via Wikipedia.

I began posting the article to Wikipedia in late November 2007. By late January 2008 I felt the military biography was essentially complete without telling anecdotal stories about him and his friends like Hugh Casey for whom Camp Casey, Korea was named. That would only point out his personality and not necessarily be encyclopedic. At the end of January 08 a Wikipedia Administrator nominated the article for deletion. Although there were a couple of administrators who participated in the discussions who supported leaving the article, the decision was made to delete.

Obviously I feel that the Military Biographical Article falls in line with other articles of soldiers like Meyer’s friend Frederick Weyand whose article was the example I followed.

I found that those people who participated in the AfD did not read everything published or what was there very clearly, i.e. I hade posted an image of an article from an Army publication which addressed Meyer’s earning his parachute wings at age 51 and I had included from the get go the title of a book about Scrimshaw in which some of his art work was published by the books author. One complaint about this later was that there was no ISBN. I could not find one but I have found the Library of Congress Catalog numbers for the two books referenced.

I have modified the article and it is currently at User:Meyerj user page. I am inviting you to read it and if you support reinstating it, helping me to do so.

Thank you for your time. Meyerj (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Leo J. Meyer
Please have a look at the DRV for Leo J. Meyer (currently seen at User:Meyerj) located at Deletion review/Log/2008 March. Its my opinion that the article met the standards for verifiability and notability. I would appreciate your input into the matter. Mrprada911 (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thank you for the warm welcome. :) 71.123.183.141 (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: fair use rationale - help?
Hi, you recently deleted Image:Wooly_Rhino.png. Although I was not the uploader, I have been trying to fix fair use rationales where they are justified in hopes of salvaging images and trying to correct other copyvio issues. I had recently added a fair use template and filled it in with what I thought was a satisfactory justification. I'm curious whether my justification was insufficient, and if so what about it was insufficient, so I can correct what I'm doing to save images. Thanks for your help.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, must have made a mistake there, I actually remember that picture and I was sure I saw an "empty" warning in the "purpose" section. I've put it back, thanks for the heads up. Melesse (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

stub types for WikiProjects
Hi Doug - good point about stubs for "taskforceized" projects. It might be worth you bringing that up at Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Stub sorting. Personally, I'd suggest that an intermediate threshold (say 45) might be the way to go in those cases. Grutness...wha?  01:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinion about unified discussions and transclusion
I've been thinking about and trying to use unified discussions ever since my first discussion with you back last year; but they seem to have a several problems: 1) very long discussions can be difficult to work with, 2) the cut and paste loses history (or at least breaks it up), 3) the cut and paste is awkward to do and often the other party(ies) won't even try to do it, 4) third (or beyond) parties have a hard time following, 5) sometimes hard to find old discussions.  Additionally, archiving in general creates history issues.

Any thoughts on transcluding separate discussions on user talk pages? Thus they could be fully transcluded on all (sometimes more than two) talk pages while active and simply linked when it comes time to archive. No need to formally archive then and the history for each discussion would always remain intact rather than bouncing around. This would lose the advantage of the orange notice bar, but that has it's drawbacks too, since if someone responds to an earlier post and then another editor responds to a later post, only the later one will be noticed unless you check talk history. With transcluded discussions, editors can just watchlist them. Obviously it requires some easy way to create the new discussion, but a template could easily be created for this. What do you think?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1.) I'm not sure why they would be.
 * 2.) Well, when I repaste, I make it clear in the edit summary the source of the comments, so that they can be traced.
 * 3.) When in Rome... : )
 * 4.) Not sure why that would be either? (Not sure if I understood that sentence, though.)
 * 5.) Check your edit history and sort by "User talk"
 * As for transclusion.. I suppose if you want, but it sounds very much like more trouble than its worth. Also, as you note, editors may get confused. "Separate page" discussions are usually policy/process (Wikipedia-space) discussions. I guess I dunno if having a transclusion page for every posting to your talk page is a good idea. - jc37 03:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom.Mevlie
Who is that? I do not know who that is. DangerTM (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok
I did get most of your reply, and I think you're right. Given that I don't plan to be an active contributor here (I don't have time for both sites and I'm not sure if that would even be ethically right), it will surely seem like some sort of "manual" spamming. Not very tasteful. Besides, I'd need to feel really comfortable with the quality of the www.pop-cult.org article. I've only done it once in an article that I though might be ok. (I'll acept whatever the reaction of the wikipedians is). I'd only do it again very sporadically if I feel that a linking would be right (avoiding at all cost making a routine out of it).

I don't care much for tv.com, but regarding your comments about IMDB, I feel that users now what the site is all about and what to expect from it: lists of credits. I've done some filmographies in the past, and is as reliable as wikipedia, I give you that, but it is also quite handy for starting a research. And that's why the site's entries are almost in every sidebar of every movie article in wikipedia. It really gives the researchers clues to where to find more accurate sources. And that's how I see both Wikipedia and Pop-Cult Guides, as useful listing of researching directions and sources. You know, ''according to this author", "in this book", "published in", "by", "as you can also see in this site", "this happened".

What I didn't get of your reply is how does "If you are an active contributor and you have other information on your userpage that can be seen as helpful to this project, then it might be ok to mention your experience on other sites very briefly and maybe leave a link, but only on your userpage." fits with the whole thing. Some terminology (like "this project" for instance) confuses me a lot: which project? what userpages? what experiences? From what I get you're talking about some sort of help pages, right? The information to link wouldn't be in user pages but in finished, complete, sourced, verifiable articles (at least way better than an IMDB article) with contrasting information that I also feel secure comfortable about.

Thanks for your thought, and thanks beforehand if you take the time to reply to me again.

--20-dude (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VegKilla/List of Zeitgeist Claims
Hey there. Would you please point out where I've been incivil. I think that, if anything, I have gone out of my way to be nice and polite to an editor that has launched multiple attacks on my character. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments
I appreciate that. I try my best to remove vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.230.26 (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks
Hi Doug, Thanks for the welcome and reminder to log in when I change my own posts :-) Joost 99 (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Horse article
On Horse I may be mistaken about where it should be put but there should be SOME SORT of reference to unicorns. Somewhere. Unicorns are an important mythical extension in popular culture of horses. --KittyKAY4 (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. I added Unicorn to Horses, in the "See also" section. --Una Smith (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ping
EdJohnston responded to your comment on my talk page, so I added my comment there as well to preserve the conversation.

Just wanted to let you know - Revolving Bugbear  17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Adminship?
You may have noted that we've not had people closing MfDs as quickly as we used to. :) It does evidently come across as "more official" if such discussions are closed by an admin. Would you be interested in becoming one? John Carter (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 Revolving Bugbear would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Revolving Bugbear to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for adminship/ . If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.


 * Nom is up. If there's anything you'd like me to change, say so; otherwise, John Carter is up. - Revolving Bugbear  19:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Third Party
I have re-entered my request more concisely. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahoalton1 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional question on your RfA
I have asked a new optional question at your RfA. You might like to take a look when you're next online. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt and courteous response, and apologies for not noticing the link to your contributions on your user page. I would encourage you to try working on longer articles after your RfA has succeeded, as I find this is the best way of getting to know the way the 'pedia works in practice. I certainly found it was all too easy to get lost in admin-focused tasks when I first gained the tools and not all that satisfying.
 * Oh, and I enjoyed the article on Moka Express, though I've never heard a stove-top espresso maker called that. My taste runs to stronger coffee -- we've had a Gaggia at home for years now, and it would be right after the cats in those items I'd rescue in a fire! Happy caffeine consumption, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your time. I responded on the mentorship page, our postings just crossed. God Bless; Geoff Plourde (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Internet Working Again!!!!
I'm really, really sorry that I've been AWOL. Our internet (Charter) has been refusing to work, we just got it back up a few hours ago. Looking forward to getting back into the Wikiverse!-Lee Ramsey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.1.144 (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!
Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Code pink
I've pretty much given up on any real discussion on the article, but I would note that 67.77.145.89 is doing drive-by inflammatory inserts. Semi-protection might help, as this individual misrepresents both sides. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Doug, thanks for the invite to continue editing Codepink article. I would like to do this anonymously, as even getting a Wikipedia handle (which I have), and then posting stuff even remotely critical of codepink (even if the material meets Wikipedia's criteria) will only invite codepinker's wrath on me. I have faced this before, and do not wish to engage with that intolerant lot again. And believe me, they never quit hounding anyone who doesn't see things in exactly their way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.51.236 (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Article importance scale for WikiProject Equine
Hello. WikiProject Equine is discussing an article importance scale here. Your POV would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!
Hi Doug, Thanks for your welcome. I created an account with Wikipedia last January, and was primarily interested in posting an article about Outcomes Research Consortium (ORC), which is a world class, non-profit, clinical research organization. After writing and posting the article, it was immediately deleted – apparently because ORC lacks notability. My appeals to the deleting editor went without response. I remain interested in seeing the article posted in Wikipedia, and I am wondering how to proceed. Any advice or comment is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Dsessler 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Request with complaint
Doug,

I am dealing with an editor who is effectively vandlising my contributions to Wikipedia. For example his editing of the page on 'Maternal Deprivation' has made it useless.

He has been acting in 'bad faith' and I need somebody as good as he is at using Wik to make sure the true picture comes through. Because of my lack of experience I have put the complaint up as a html page at;-

http://eventoddlers.atspace.com/WikCOMPLAINT1.html

Can you help?

kip

PS I have just completed a new video clip on YouTube, 'John Bowlby and Maternal Deprivation' at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx5kRNb5ILs

talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no difference between "contributors" and "editors." You and Fainites have the same authority and ability to edit articles. He probably is more familiar with procedures, style, content guidelines and such, which may give him more de facto input, but he does not have more authority de jure. [[User

78.149.143.239 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

congratulations
A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Kingturtle! I noticed when I came back from a brief visit to the Commons that I seemed to have tabs I'd never seen before.  I will most carefully review the reading list!--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on your successful request for adminship, Doug! For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 20:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A thank you note on the top of this page should be enough. And if anyone honestly deserved an unopposed adminship, it's you. The only thing I apologize for is maybe bringing you in too early to get 100 votes and be on the WP:100 list. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats, good luck. Malinaccier (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

'Grats, man, on your unanimous RfA. I'm sure you'll do great. If you ever need anything, just let me know.

By the way, no, you don't need to thank everyone. Many people do, but it's not really obligatory.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear  22:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankspam isn't really looked highly on by a lot of people, and with a unanimous RfA (I'm envious), you'd have a lot of people to thank. But I think that the clear opinion of all involved is that you are more than qualified for the mop. Great to have you aboard! John Carter (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good! I didn't want to blanket all those pages with thank you's. I'm sure I could've figured out how to do it with AWB, but what a pain to get a flashing orange bar saying you got a message only to find that it's a thank you for taking the time to participate in an RFA.  At least for me, I participate in RfAs to help the encyclopedia, not to engender good feelings with everyone.  So, for anyone looking for their Thank You message, it's at the top of the page.  :-)--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Some advice, from AGK
Congratulations on your recent acquisition of the mop. I offer to you a few words of wisdom:
 * Start slowly and carefully. There's a huge temptation to start flying through your new duties as soon as the 'crat pushes the button - resist it. Avoid close calls for your first week or two, and leave it to those who happened to get their tools a little earlier than you.
 * Be sure to connect in with other users on IRC, if you can. There's a whole pool of channels there where you can get assistance in your newly-acquired buttons, and get your new colleagues used to your name.
 * Be ready for criticism in your first few weeks, but at the same time don't be a push-over. If you feel worried over a decision, get another user to take a look at it.
 * When blocking, ask yourself if everything you've entered into that form will benefit Wikipedia: is the block length sufficiently long to prevent further disruption by a vandal, or is it so long that it will put them off ever returning? Is your protection just going to be a minor hiccup in the edit warrior's grand scheme of disruption, or will it hinder the growth of the encyclopedia?

Best of luck with your new buttons, and don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any queries.

AGK § 21:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Useless user pages
...note that I think it's mostly only the "nothing but userboxes" pages that I have any real issue with .

And what, pray tell, is the difference? One set is dreck using text, and another is dreck using userboxes -- and there's not the slightest qualitative difference between the two, on any level from policy through intent. Userboxes are not "Get Out of Jail Free" cards indicating Serious Editors, they're tools for social networking, and if there's no actual editing/creating going on, then it's simply someone's substitute for MySpace. Your distinction is completely arbitrary.

And as for temporary papges, as far as I'm concerned, I'm using them exactly as intended: as a housekeeping tool to mark pointless pages for eventual cleanup. Simple as that. --Calton | Talk 12:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal opinion needed
A lot of images of dubiously copyrighted characters are being considered for deletion in the commons here. There seems to be a question about the real copyright status of many of these images. Being somewhat more familiar with the law than most of us, I think your input would be more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I took a quick look and I'll try to comment but the confusion there is pretty bad, no understanding of the difference between copyrights and trademarks, etc or what can be copyrighted. Of course, if you want a real legal opinion you can only get that from Mike Godwin, I can only really comment on general definitions and how these articles mesh with our internal policies.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have asked you a few questions there based on Commons policy which I do not think, by your own admission, you take into account.  Specifically, if you cannot use those images to create a novel comic book featuring the character depicted within those images, then they do not comply with Commons policy as I understand it.  I would appreciate your clarification as to whether I would be infringing on any copyright held by producing a comic book using those images. If a derivative can be created which infringes copyright, those images do not comply with Commons policy, going by Licensing. Hiding T 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a situation
An individual held in rather high regard by many of us, who is also someone very few of us would ever dream of criticizing, has been accused by certain parties of a few recent indiscretions. Unfortunately, given the nature of the situation, the reliability of the accusers is open to question. The editor in question is our highly regarded fellow admin, User:Bishzilla, whom some parties have accused of practicing unauthorized urban renewal in Tokyo again. Unfortunately, given the rather understandable emotional state of many of the witnesses, very few of them are remotely what one would consider "realiable". "Barking mad" is probably a better description. Anyway, there is some consideration of perhaps holding some sort of "hearing" around the first of next month to see if the allegations are reliable enough to merit a possible recall proceeding. I have very serious reservations that the other lawyer I know of, Newyorkbrad, might not be particularly useful regarding this subject as per his comments on Bishzilla's RfA here. I have already mentioned the subject to the admin in question at User talk:Bishzilla. Anyway, I think it would be very useful if you could provide some input in this matter. You owe me one, and I'm calling it in. ;) John Carter (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

FFA
Hello. Ive Noticed that you have posted something on the FFA Talk page so most likely you are part of FFA. Ive Recently proposed Wikiproject FFA. And I would appreciate if you voice your on it. Thankyou. :) --Iwilleditu (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal For Task Force in WP:Ag (Ag-Ed Task Force)
You recently comment me on my proposal saying it should be a task Force and i agree so if you dont mind commenting on my propsal for a task force at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Agriculture thankyou. :) --IwilledituHi :) 23:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Forcing clean-up tags
(copied from elsewhere)
 * Gavin, removing tags is as much editing as any other process, I for one am unaware of any policy that says when an article is tagged for improvement don't remove the tag unless you have improved it - in fact the very suggestion is very unwiki. I expect that Wassup considered that this improved the articles.  Too many clean up banners or stale banners can be just as bad as articles with faults.  You cannot demand that other editors do not edit or only edit in ways that you think best.  I agree with Wassup that if you think the articles are not notable you should AFD them and if you think they just need sourcing - well then the tag is inappropriate at the very least.  Sorry to jump in here on Wassup's page but that's where this is being discussed apparently.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, Gavin does this all the time. Just check his edit history, it won't take long to find it. Someone removes one of his tags, and he goes to that user's edit page and/or the article's talk page and insists that it be replaced. If you say the tag is not needed, or fix it not up to his specifications, then he tells you that you are in the wrong and POV-pushing. It's gotten so that those who see him regularly don't even bother anymore because we get the same broken-record responses from him. The problem is, he's right and everyone that disagrees with him is wrong (no matter how many may disagree with him), know what I mean? Check out his talk page too, you'll see what I mean. (frustrated, exasperated, sorry, just needing to vent.) He has been warned before about heeding WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF as well, but that seems to fall on deaf ears. BOZ (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, the latest unprovoked attack against me here. BOZ (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Bishy
It looks like there might be at least an abortive attempt to recall the above administrator around the first. Unfortunately, given that editor's prior statement that she would consider burning anyone making such a request to a crisp with her radioactive breath, I'm not really sure how many people are going to be willing to indicate a willingness to recall her. However, maybe very early next month, it might make sense to have someone examine the testimony of the survivors, possibly in Bishzilla's presence (given her size, it's really hard to do anything she isn't aware of), and see at least if there are any grounds for a recall request. We might need someone to at least present the evidence for review by others. I can understand your not wanting to do anything to risk your being willing to continue to function as an admin, or, for that matter, function in any way whatsoever, exact maybe as fertilizer, so soon after becoming an admin yourself, but given the delicate nature of the situation, I think it would probably help to have someone else make sure I don't screw up too bad, and, well, maybe anger a given extremely tall party in dire need of many, many breath mints too seriously. John Carter (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Council roll call
Hi there. You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Council participants list. The WikiProject Council is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating in the inter-project discussion forum that WT:COUNCIL has become, or you are interested in continuing to develop and maintain the WikiProject Guide or Directory, please visit WikiProject Council/Participants and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list of participants. If you are no longer interested in the Council, you need take no action: your name will be removed from the participants list on April 30 2008.

Melon ‑ Bot  ( STOP! )  22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA
Hi Doug. Just a note of appreciation for your support on my recent unsuccessful RfA. I'll be back in a few months with more experience and more coaching; hopefully I'll still have your support then. Thanks again - Tan   |   39  00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous users tagging pages
''BTW, there's nothing that prevents you as an anonymous account from tagging pages as you mentioned here: Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed#At_least_add_the_POV_dispute_tag in the same way that confirmed accounts can. Of course, the tag has to be appropriate and I understand there is some question on that point.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)''

When it is a protected or semi-protected page, as this one is (or was at the time), anonymous users are not allowed to tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.194.69 (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2008

Hey Doug

 * Remember me? The Transylvania Portal guy.

Re: Do you understand this?
Somebody reuploading a deleted image? Absolute madness! east. 718 at 10:07, March 22, 2008
 * By the way, congrats on the mop - don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page or on the admins' IRC channel if you need help with anything. Good luck! east. 718 at 10:08, March 22, 2008

Backlog
Hello, I notice that you have interest and experience in copyright issues. I am wondering if you have time to address some of the backlog issues that are accumulating at Copyright problems. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs) 14:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Transylvania portal
One of the first things to be done to determine what content is available and appropriate for the portal is to determine what content is available. I might recommend that you place a request at Bot requests to have all the articles in the Category:Transylvania and its relevant subcats with an appropriate banner, probably that of Romania. Then, later, go through and assess all those that fall within the categories in question. That would give you a better idea what kind of content you have available to work with. I've started a selected article page for the portal similar to that of the Portal:Scientology at Portal:Transylvania/Selected article. It might help to create similar pages for the other parts of the portal as well. Generally, you want at least five articles in rotation for any given section. However, if you're not sure there are enough quality articles to fill all the sections, you might want to look at Portal:Montana, which has more humble aspirations. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion under G12
I have declined your request for speedy deletion of William Hamilton (soldier) under G12. You stated that the content was online but you did not provide the url, so I had no way to verify the violation. If the material is not online or appears to be a violation but is not blatant, please use copyvio instead of G12 and add the page to WP:Copyright problems. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is probably one of those nice mixups that are caused when the article layout is a mess. The original G12 tag was added because a highly possible indication for copyright violation was posted right into the articles source in the first revision: . The layout, along with the Online text copyright © 2003, Ian Lancashire for the Department of English, University of Toronto. Published by the Web Development Group, Information Technology Services, University of Toronto Libraries. line is 9 out of 10 times a sign that there is a copyright violation as it almost always signals a copy and paste of a website.


 * However, having looked a little closer at the text, there is a section called "Notes provided by RPO". Perhaps the notes section there had to be the header for a references section where the copyright section had to be. No idea if that is the case, and in fact, i don't really mind if it is, as i cant find any website copyvio..


 * Other then that, does this qualify as an encyclopedic article? 95% of the article consists of a poem. Unfortunately, i have no idea what guidelines apply to poems (Never seen one around). Any thought on this? Thanks in advance :). Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
So, any reason you don't at least have rollback or do you just not need it?

I've never asked for it. In fact, I don't even know how to ask for it, nor any idea how it works. In short, no reason whatsoever other than inertia. --Calton | Talk 20:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try it out in the sandbox later, where I'm sure to do limited damage. Emphasis on "limited". --Calton | Talk 21:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Need Help
I made and added to a contribution to an article about ESPN play-by-play announcer Rob Stone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Stone). Now I'm new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I seem remiss about what constitutes encyclopedic content or what crosses the line of opinionated or "soapbox-grade" material, but my work on this article has been deleted twice by user identified only by an IP address and I thought it would be appropriate to seek some advice before turning this into an edit war.

Thank you! RobtR3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robtr3 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Incline.gif
Undeleted. That was an oversight of mine.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 19:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Bowlby etc
If you actually do want to understand roughly what it's all about then the talkpage of Maternal deprivation is as good a round up as any as all parties pretty much express their views. Fainites barley 22:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)