User talk:Gateman1997/archive4

Map in infobox
That wasn't my idea - the huge Washington infobox already has it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 18:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm the person who's been doing the maps on the Washington project. The original discussions behind the maps are here. In principle I like the idea of including other information on the maps, including major junctions. Unfortunately, at that small size it's hard to include much detail other than the route itself and have it make sense on the map--some of them are just ridiculous as it is. In fact, I'm thinking of redoing the maps with thicker red lines now that it looks like they're being reduced from 190px to 150px in the routeboxes. At that size, junction information will just become an illegible mess. That said, now that I've recreated all the maps in SVG format they can be scaled up arbitrarily, and there's a lot more detail you can see at 800px. Let me know if you have any ideas. --phh 00:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:US 395.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:US 395.gif, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

SPUI RFC
I have filed an RFC regarding User:SPUI's disruptive behavior. You may comment or provide additional evidence at Requests for comment/SPUI. —phh 02:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So who is JohnnyBGood then?
I'm sorry, but if there was another user out there who had that much in common with me, I'd be frightened out of my mind. You seem to be taking it rather well. — Apr. 1, '06 [08:45] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>

Also, I'd like to hear your response to the remainder of the summary, rather than the fact that you don't endorse it. Why would anyone expect you to? — Apr. 1, '06 [08:48] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>

No, you made no reply to my explanation that SPUI was merely fixing a double redirect rather than deliberately inhibiting page moves, as you had been doing. — Apr. 1, '06 [09:58] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>

"Good faith?" Cue laugh track. — Apr. 1, '06 [10:06] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>

Whatever, Johnny. — Apr. 1, '06 [10:13] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>

Changing the subject to something we agree on
Re: Christopher Walken, it seems evident that he is alive and breathing. I wouldn't call it vandalism, more like an April Fools' Day joke. See the link I cited in addition to your own. — Apr. 1, '06 [11:06] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>

SPUI and all that stuff
I'm uninvolved in the SPUI RfC, and, for the record, I don't have a high opinion of SPUI. But I've been shown some pretty strong evidence that is being gathered in relation to JonnyBGood. No, as of yet the evidence is not conclusive, but some pretty determinded people are working on it, and if there is a conclusion to be found, rest assured that they are going to find it. They always do. I'd strongly suggest that if you have anything further to say on the matter that you say it now. If really don't know anything else, then my sincere apologies for this post. There are a lot of us that know how frustrating SPUI can be and, to some degree, strong reactions to him are understandable.. --Doc ask?  12:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you want me to say to them. They seem pretty determined to drag both our names through the mud in their zeal to defend that ass SPUI. Doesn't shock me. From the day I first interacted with him the guy has had his own little bodyguard squad of admins protecting him just because he's made 50k worth of edits, most of them being page moves and redirects however so I don't see what they think he's added to the project. But I will try for what it's worth. As for stalking you, there is nothing in the rules I've seen that says I can't track your user contribs or SPUIs or Rschen's like I do. I use them as a kind of watch page. If someone would like to point me to where that is wrong, then please do so, otherwise I'll continue to do so as I please. JohnnyBGood 18:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship
A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you knidly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 10:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images on User:Gateman1997/babel
Gateman1997, the use of fair use images on User:Gateman1997/babel is a direct violation of Fair_use item #9. The Wikimedia Foundation has established a policy that heavily restricts their use outside of the main article namespace. Your user subpage is not part of the main article namespace. I have no desire to get into a revert war with you. Therefore I'm requesting that you please remove the images as I removed them. Please understand that I am in no way attempting to frustrate you or otherwise anger you. I am simply attempting to protect Wikipedia against copyright violation claims and adhering to Wikipedia policy as noted above. All the best, --Durin 16:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Gateman1997, thank you for your response. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this. While different interpretations may or may not be valid, the Wikimedia Foundation has taken a firm stance against fair use images being used in userspace. Please see the policy I noted above. With particular respect to your claim, that policy states "All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided". Therefore, while your claim of fair use might be legal, it's proscribed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Therefore, the images need to be removed from your babel subpage. Thanks, --Durin 16:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * One left; the Giants logo. --Durin 16:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

almaden expressway question
Hey Gateman:

I am trying to find out if there is any information available anywhere, other than the brief entry on wikipedia,  about the construction of the Almaden Expressway in Santa Clara.

Specifically, I am interested in finding information about a house that CalTrans moved. CalTrans moved the house back maybe a few hundred feet to make way for the expressway, and I'm trying to find out if any records about that move might exist anywhere.

Do you know how I might find such information?

Thanks.

pm.

New England
Those are not different routes - they are a single route that happens to cross a state line. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 04:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have replied on Talk:Route 9 (New England). --SPUI (talk - RFC) 04:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

SPUI RFC
cleaned up the page once already, please don't add comments inside others statements again. Instead, create your own response section to address your concerns. I've reverted your comments (but you can get them from the history and put them in their own section). —Locke Cole • t • c 09:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Cookie cutters
You're right, The Stick was not a cookie cutter. It was not especially well designed, but it made up for that with its poor location. The cookie cutters, as I see it, were the concrete donuts, the round ones that looked like they had been produced by a gigantic cookie cutter: Washington, New York NL (2/3 of one, anyway), Atlanta, St. Louis, Houston, etc. Wahkeenah 03:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

NH routes in Maine
Those routes actually cross into Maine, and are signed. See. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 18:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

State Route 208 (Maine)
I'm rather curious about your move of this - I thought you opposed putting the state name in parentheses? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 18:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hiya!
I just noticed that your userbox-box has an empty image for the "I use Mozilla Firefox" userbox. Currently, you have your own userbox in this space, but the image file that it points to "Mozilla Firefox.png" is non-extant.

You may wish to use user browser:PrefersFirefox instead, or perhaps link to the image used in that userbox "User browser firefox.png" instead.

~Kylu ( u | t )  23:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have any interest in Template:MLB
please join the current discussion at Template talk:MLB. As a member of WikiProject Baseball your opinion is particularly valued. Thanks. 66.167.139.143 08:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

your userpage image
I found the kitten-killing masturbation connection truly funny, but unfortunately images that are "Fair use" can't go on userpages. Sorry. I'd remove it if I were you before a copyright nazi does.-- The  i  kiro  id  (talk) (Help Me Improve) 17:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

CorbinSimpson's Request for Adminship
Thanks for voting in my request for administrator rights, even though it failed (13/30/4). Sadly, work has forced me to respond to you all using a substituted message rather than a personalized response. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that administrators, to me, should be chosen and approved by the community, and I will continue working to become a better editor and Wikipedian. No matter what the alignment of your vote was, I will take your comments seriously and use them to improve myself. If you wish to discuss your comments personally with me, I would be more than glad to talk about things since the RfA is now over; just leave your concern on my talk page and we will sort things out. Thanks again for voting, and happy editing! -  Corbin  Be excellent 

Fair use image removal notification
I've previously removed fair use images from your userspace, and you have raised a concern about it. I've started Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals. You may wish to review and comment. --Durin 13:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are still interested
Requests for arbitration --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Talledaga.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Talledaga.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —fuzzy510 05:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are going to contest the deletion, please make a comment on the Images for Deletion page linked to above, and do not remove the links. With that said, I suggest that you consult WP:FUC, where it is clearly stated under criterion #1 that unfree material should be transformed into free material if it exists.  While nobody has taken a free picture, the fact remains that since Talladega is still in existence, one could be taken.  The fact that nobody has taken the initiative does not change this.  It may not seem completely fair, but it's how it is.  I suggest that you look at prior images that were listed in the same manner, since there is a precedent for this decision. --fuzzy510 18:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if I'm misinterpreting where the free material is coming from (which I am certain I am not), its relevance here is clear, since it clearly states "if the subject of the photograph still exists, a free photograph could be taken." I stand by my marking of the image.  --fuzzy510 18:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Baseball Stadium
Thank you for correcting me.

I've now added dimensions (as an optional field) to Infobox Stadium, would that mean that (now) Infobox Baseball Stadium could be replaced by the more generic Infobox Stadium, or is there some further information still missing?- David Björklund (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Break
Unfortunately, I will be away from Wikipedia for a few months. My access to the site has been limited and I can only get on during a few hours a week. However, during summer my schedule changes, and thus I am unable to get back on Wikipedia.

You may contact me however, at Wikisource or by email (keep me updated on the arbcom case, I will be able to respond)...

I'm not really sure when I'll be returning. Possibly in August or September... although I signed up to take AP Chemistry, AP Language, AP U.S. History, Pre-Calculus, Spanish 4, Physics, and Eschatology and Hermaneutics. Don't know how the homework load will be. But rest assured... I'll be back.

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:BuckShawAbove.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:BuckShawAbove.PNG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:MemorialStadium.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:MemorialStadium.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Possibly unfree Image:BuckShawAbove.PNG
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:BuckShawAbove.PNG, has been listed at Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion
Hello! I noticed that you have identified yourself as an Anglican, and so I thought that you may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion! Cheers! Fishhead64 23:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify
You said on SPUI's talk page, "Freak, Johnny, PHenry, Northenglish, Nohat, and Rschen were also equally as culpable and yet they're all skating through scott free on this which isn't kosher." I agree that it takes two to tango; however, I'm curious as to exactly what you find me equally culpable for, as I have made exactly four page moves, none of which have anything to do with the Arbcom case. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 07:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your apology. There's no need for you to change anything, since as far as I can tell, you only made the comment on SPUI's talk page.  I voluntarily added myself to the Arbcom case because at the time it seemed that the more people involved in the case, the more likely SPUI was to accept arbitration.  I disagree with SPUI's methods, and I also disagree with some of the methods used in retalliation against him.  Thanks for your input on the case as a fellow relatively neutral party. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:MemorialStadium.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MemorialStadium.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 05:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject NASCAR proposed standards
WikiProject NASCAR needs your help! We are in the process of forming our proposed standards which, when complete, will hopefully become a Wikipedia guideline. The guidelines will help editors understand Wikipedia consensus about things like which NASCAR-related articles meet notability standards. Please stop by and let us know what you think! Recury 22:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:JohnThurman.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:JohnThurman.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. fuzzy510 08:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:SchottStadium.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:SchottStadium.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. fuzzy510 08:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:MonsterPark.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MonsterPark.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:MonsterPark.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:MonsterPark.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. fuzzy510 05:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Image
Hi Gateman. In case you are not aware, Image:God-kills-kitten.jpg is a fair-use image, which means that, for legal reasons, it cannot be placed on userpages. Please remove the image from User:Gateman1997. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, as I see this has been brought to your attention before with no action on your behalf, I've gone ahead and removed the image. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Cicero's
Hi, Thanks for the message on my talk page. I've had a look at the revised version of the article and it's certainly much clearer now why there might be a case for keeping an article about a single pizzeria. The link for example gives some weight to the notability arguement. A few points:
 * 1) I'm seeing something like 30 distinct Ghits in total.
 * 2) The current outlet is the third of the same name.  The first two (under the original owner) seem to have had more character and more connection with Apple (as far as I can tell from Google). At least some of the more enthusiastic hits refer to the earlier incarnations.
 * 3) It's not at all clear to what extent the current incarnation is a genuine reopening of the same restaurant  for example seems to be suggesting it's just two guys from NY using the same name.  The article suggests much more continuity - that may very well be the case, but it seems unverifiable from here.
 * 4) The Best Pizza of Silicon Valley 2005CitySearch.com  seems to be an audience vote You voted for the best Pizza in Silicon Valley, and we counted. Its not clear how many votes might have been cast and how open the vote might have been to outside influence - I'm not saying there's anything suspicious about it, but I'd like to know more about the voting system before deciding.
 * WP:CORP represents rough guidelines rather than policy.

If you'd like to add anything to above I'm certainly happy to consider further!

Dl yo ns 493  Ta lk  19:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering if you'd had time to reconsider your vote on the AFD for Cicero's Pizza after the new information that has come to light that it is notable and does meet WP:CORP. Thanks. Gateman1997 04:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My opinion is unchanged regarding this article. Two of the sources for the article are unreliable, the blog and the reviews on the AOL cityguide. Reliable sources says: "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources." As for the remainder, the Courier article doesn't work for me and articles of the quality of,  and  don't really serve to demonstrate notability.  Perhaps the AfD will be relisted as inconclusive by the closing editor.   (aeropagitica)    (talk)   06:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your userspace
Userspace is not a place to keep articles, least of all deleted ones. Please stop continually recreating User:Gateman1997/Cicero's Pizza. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 18:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not? Isn't the userspace the place to Sandbox? However I've seen no policy that says I can't use my userspace for encyclopedic uses or uses that fall under WP:USER. Besides I like that resturant and disagree with it's deletion since most of the delete votes were in error. The establishment did meet WP:CORP. Gateman1997 20:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Tillamook Rock Light
Hi, I see you made a redirect for the article I started from Tillamook Rock Lighthouse to Tillamook Rock Light. I'm not an expert but I see "lighthouse" gets more Google hits than "light". The NPS Maritime Heritage Program appears to prefer the designation "light", while the NRHP's listing has it as "lighthouse." Personally, I think it makes more sense to have it on Wikipedia as a "lighthouse", as that is how it appears most people refer to it, and also for consistency with the other lighthouse articles, but I'd like to hear why you think it should be "light." Also all the links to the "lighthouse" need to be fixed to reflect the change. Thanks! Katr67 14:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I'll buy that. Where was the discussion? As a wikiresource myself, I'll probably go ahead and fix the redirects when I come across them. And I'll go ahead and take care of the Oregon entries. So what about lists? Seems like "List of Foo Lighthouses" still works, right? Katr67 02:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I had better not join any more Wikiprojects. Lighthouses are just a side project relating to Oregon for me (I'd like to make sure all the Oregon ones at least get a stub soon). Mostly I'm working on Oregon communities and that's going to keep me busy for a while. But if you get a project going, I'd be interested in knowing about it. And man, those highway articles are crazy--I dabble in them a bit too, but they give me a headache. Katr67 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Alligator Reef Light
I see you are converting a number of article names from "lighthouse" to "Light". You may not have noticed, but I started the above article with that name, but another editor changed all the lighthouse articles I had started from "Light" to "lighthouse". As I am not an admin, I haven't been able to change them back (with redirects in the way), although I have been able to start more articles using "Light" in the name. I also noticed that you proposed a lighthouse project to another user. There was a bit of an informal effort a few months back to improve lighthouse articles, which resulted in the Template:Infobox Lighthouse. Having reached my personal goal of having an article for every known lighthouse in Florida, I'm not keen on joining another project, but you can see who works a lot on lighthouses from the histories of the lists. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  13:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Final state highway naming conventions debate
Gateman1997, your participation is welcome in the State route naming conventions poll. Please give your input as to the process by 23:59 UTC on August 8.

Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Lighthouse project
That would make a great example. Would you like to go ahead and update the project page yourself? Thanks! --Draugen 05:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Current mac project collaboration
The current WP:MAC collaboration is Apple II family. Please devote some time to improve this article to featured status. — Wackymacs 13:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

oops
oops, sorry! I was stupid and didnt read the bright glowing orange box before i edited your page. My apologies. atanamir 19:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

{subst:idw|Image:GilletteStadium.jpg}}

Statue of Liberty
I hope you do not mind but I have added the Statue of Liberty back as a lighthouse and put in some references in the discussion. There is a detailed history of the Statue of Liberty as a lighthouse at http://www.lighthousefriends.com/light.asp?ID=581 --- Skapur 17:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted content
You have recently created the article Cicero's Pizza (Cupertino, California). This was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies from Cicero's Pizza via Articles for deletion/Cicero's Pizza. Please do not re-create the article: if you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a review at Deletion review. Kevin_b_er 04:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I urge to seek out deletion review then, as the page didn't seem to change very much from when it was deleted at AfD. Kevin_b_er 04:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion
Hi I noticed you speedied and article but not it's talk page? What's the use of leaving the talk page, discussion or no, if you're going to speedy the article? Gateman1997 04:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * From WP:CSD, CSD G8 only applies if no deletion discussion is present. As for your article, it appears almost unchanged from the original deleted article. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Greetings
Hello Gateman, I'm not a new user even though my contributions are a little bit poor. I only wrote some useful and brief articles on Uruguayan geography, most of which were read by native speakers and corrected in the way they considered more appropriate. My aim is to keep in touch with people from USA, UK, Canada and other English-speaking countries. As you may notice I'm a Spanish native speaker, born and raised in Uruguay, South America but living in Catalonia, Spain (near the border with Andorra and France). Among my interests are American and English literature, language, American culture and geography, etc. I study English linguistics at college, in order to become a teacher someday..ah.. and by the way, I'm 20 years old. In the Spanish wikipedia, I wrote a large list of American authors from Beecher Stowe, Douglass, Chopin, Smith, Garrison Lloyd and Bradstreet to Rowlandson (most of them are translated from English into Spanish). Right now, I'm writing about Canadian territories and provinces, and about the American State of Idaho. William Shakespeare is the most important I've ever written before, and also has a star :) Well, that's all for now and sorry if you report some terrible spelling mistakes (sometimes I don't know how to write or in which way I should do it). I hope you can help me in my stay and let me feel comfortable in this wonderful experience, being my second place in wikipedia (after the Spanish one) and my third home. Kind regards,--Gustavo86 01:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

California SR infobox discussion
Gateman1997, you are invited to participate in the (definitely less structured than WP:SRNC) WT:CASH infobox discussion. Please feel free to share your thoughts and ideas. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sjmunicipalstadium.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sjmunicipalstadium.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ccwaters 02:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:NatBaileyAbove.PNG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:NatBaileyAbove.PNG, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. ccwaters 15:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC) -- ccwaters 15:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:TonyGwynnAbove.PNG
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:TonyGwynnAbove.PNG, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 11:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Spartanabove.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Spartanabove.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 13:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Seven Foot Knoll Lighthouse
Hey Gateman...I was just curious why Seven Foot Knoll Lighthouse was moved to Seven Foot Knoll Light. I worked at the Baltimore Maritime Museum (which the lighthouse is a part of) for several years and it is definitely called the Seven Foot Knoll Lighthouse (not simply light)??? --ScottyBoy900Q ∞ 15:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Weis
I know the flag says San Jose, but it was in San Francisco, both clubs had their flags up. --MrCalifornia 23:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Template:NFL Stadiums
I added what keeps the full name of the stadium on one line so we don't get things like "University of Phoenix Stadium" or something to that effect. It just looked very strange on the CFL and the NFL one to see half the stadium name in one line and the rest of it on a second Pharos04 08:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:KCMUNI.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:KCMUNI.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cara2005.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cara2005.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 03:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:NewOaklandPark.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:NewOaklandPark.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Marlin 39A.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Marlin 39A.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 19:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:SchottStadium.jpeg)
Thanks for uploading Image:SchottStadium.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 19:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:LeaveyCenter.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:LeaveyCenter.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 19:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:VeteransField.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:VeteransField.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Newsletter Issue #1

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Images listed for deletion
Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them. Thank you. Bigr Tex  18:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:IMP S80.GIF
 * Image:IMP S2.GIF

More road signs
More of your county route signs have been listed for deletion. Please see Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them. --Iamunknown 06:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Newsletter Issue #2

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Apologies for the late delivery. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:SJMSS.PNG
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:SJMSS.PNG, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 18:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:VeteransAbove.PNG
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:VeteransAbove.PNG, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 21:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Listdevlighthouse listed for deletion
A template that you created, Template:Listdevlighthouse, has been listed for deletion at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 4. The reason for the listing is explained there. Discussion will now take place on that page to determine whether the template is deleted. You are welcome to participate in the discussion; however, please do not remove the deletion notice from Template:Listdevlighthouse while the discussion is in progress. Thanks – Qxz 23:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

BC Place Stadium WP assessment
Hi. We, the members of the Olympics WikiProject, are currently defining the assessment criteria for the many types of Olympics-related pages. I'm the one that has tagged the most of them, so far but, even though we haven't still decided any criteria for Olympic stadia, I think in general these articles should be considered Low, except for historical/very notable stadia (e.g. Panathinaiko Stadium). But that's just my opinion and there's still a chance that it may be given a higher priority.

So, if you think this stadium, which hasn't even hosted the Winter Olympics, has a special argument to occupy a higher place on the importance list, please discuss it on the project talk page before changing the project banner assessment tags. Thanks. Parutakupiu  talk 16:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Active user verification
Hello,. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:MLS Team
What "damage" was caused? It seemed to me that now most logos were high resolution, although in the past only 120px. Please point out where the problem was. Thanks. // Laughing Man 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Inactivity notification
You have been declared an inactive user and your name will be removed from the newsletter distribution and the projects you were a member of. '''If this is in error, please contact me on my talk page. Do not restore your name to the list. Regards, Rschen7754''' (talk - contribs) 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:BCPlaceAbove.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:BCPlaceAbove.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 11:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:VeteransAbove.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:VeteransAbove.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 11:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Gateman1997/Cicero's Pizza (Cupertino, California)
I have added a "" template to the article User:Gateman1997/Cicero's Pizza (Cupertino, California), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Calton | Talk 06:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed it as it isn't an article. It's part of my userspace. Gateman1997 02:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

According to two different sections of WP:USER this is exactly where a page like this belongs...


 * It's not an article? Then what's it doing on Wikipedia?


 * In any case, this list argues against the notion that using userspace as a permanent holding facility for not-ready-for-primetime not-articles doesn't pass muster, as does this, this, this, and this. Others have been simply speedy deleted, but I don't have immediate access to that list.

...and doesn't appear to violate any portion of WP:NOT that your template linked to


 * From the section I linked to:


 * Wikipedia is not MySpace. You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not:


 * 1) Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own  user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.


 * 2) File storage areas. Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.


 * This not-article was already blown out of the water at AFD, and you've made no attempt to bring it up to snuff whatsoever for nine months. Yeah, tagging it was the right thing to do. --Calton | Talk 05:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't have anything that pretains to this page. This page isn't a personal webpage so it doesn't violate part 1, nor is it a file to be stored as it's not an image so part 2 doesn't apply.


 * Noooo, they exactly apply, as you using Wikipedia as a webhost to hold and display content which has explicitly failed inclusion rules AND you are glossing over the fact that part two does not explicitly limit itself to "images". As I said, inappropriate recreations have even been speedied: some I found in a brief search include:


 * (AFD)
 * (AFD)
 * (AFD)


 * Once again, practice and precedence are on my side. If you don't believe me, try recreating the GNAA or Brian Peppers articles in your userspace and see how long they stay up. --Calton | Talk 06:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And as stated before there is no time limit beyond on development in the userspace beyond "permenant" which has no definitive ending per any of the policies you've shown nor any I've seen.


 * Where does it say "there is no time limit"? I'll also note that you're completely ignoring the numerous counter-examples to your claim. --Calton | Talk 06:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not ignoring the counter examples. But since they've been deleted and have no history I can't review them other then their article names


 * Oh, for God's sake, I included the links to the MFD debates for four of them AND you can click on the "log" link to the right of all of them on my user subpage AND on the three I listed a few lines above to see the reason for deletion. The basic point, which doesn't even require those aforementioned simple and obvious steps to understand, is that recreations of deleted articles or things which have never even aspired to be articles in the first place are deleted all the time.


 * Also where does it say that there IS a time limit.


 * Nope, you made the explicit claim that it said there was no time limit. Show me, don't impose your own self-serving interpretation. --Calton | Talk 06:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't show you what's not there.


 * So don't claim something that isn't there, then. --Calton | Talk 06:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I'll thank you not to do the same implying that it is in the userspace permenantly.


 * Ah, so you admit that you made it up. On the other hand, nine months of making not one single edit does all the implying that I need about "permenantly", thank you. --Calton | Talk 07:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The page is being brought back the the userspace 1 year later. (ie:July).


 * Really. And this is obvious how? Or more to the point, why? And it needs to hang around untouched for a year on Wikipedia why, exactly?


 * Also can you keep your attitude down to a minimum if you're going to post on my talk page.


 * As long as you minimize your wikilawyering, excuses, and insults to my intelligence, fine and dandy. --Calton | Talk 07:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I came here initally to leave you a friendly notice that I'd pulled the tag.


 * And I came here to explain why you were dead wrong, on rationale, policy, and practice. --Calton | Talk 07:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've no more wikilawyered this evening then you have


 * Other than re-interpreting WP:NOT, adding new clauses to policy ("there is no time limit beyond on development in the userspace beyond 'permenant'"), and ignoring practices and precedences (which I listed for you), no. --Calton | Talk 07:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if that's how you're going to misinterpret my statements this evening...


 * You ignored the plain wording -- and in my opinion, the plain spirit -- of WP:NOT, added a non-existent time clause, and pretended not to see links contradicting your position placed directly in front of you. That's not "misinterpretation" -- and WP:AGF policy nothing to do with that. --Calton | Talk 07:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)