User talk:HaarFager

Special:Contributions/HaarFager Special:Contributions/PaulLatimer

Image copyright problem with Tutanhkamun tomb statue edit 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Tutanhkamun tomb statue edit 1.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 STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:1910Fruitgum2007.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:1910Fruitgum2007.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. LegoKontribsTalkM 23:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Gallery in article
Your addition of an image in a new gallery within the station wagon article has been removed. Please note the WP guidelines (see: WP:IG). The article already contains images that are interspersed and near the relevant text. Adding a gallery does not help illustrate this article and should not be a "not a tool to shoehorn images into an article". The link to Commons provides a more efficient way to navigate among pictures of many brands of station wagons. CZmarlin (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations HaarFager! Your image Image:Monarch In May.jpg was the Random Picture of the Day! It looked like this:. - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Ron Dante 3676gf.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ron Dante 3676gf.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

POTD notification


Hi Haar,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Monarch In May.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 15, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-08-15. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simon Magus in popular culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theodore Roszak (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) 08:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Gateway Arch, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How would I go about leaving a citation? The incident happened to me personally.  I spoke about it, along with a few pictures I posted right after the incident happened and the story can be found on Flickr, a popular photo-sharing site.  Could I use that article to get a citation for this Gateway Arch page and the incident?  Here is the article on Flickr:  Me Photographed By The Security Guard.  Just let me know.  Thanks!  Kenny  HaarFager (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Information published in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. Unfortunately, if there are no reliable sources to corroborate your incident then it is inappropriate for inclusion. As I hope you can understand Wikipedia editors are not themselves considered reliable sources. DonIago (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Highway articles in the US
These are written west-to-east or south-to-north to follow the direction of the mileposts as posted along the highways. That's why the US 66 article is written as it is, and flipping it would make it inconsistent with all of the other US Highway articles. Also, assuming you gained consensus for such a change on the talk page, you can't just flip the subsections around, you'd have to totally rewrite all of them, you'd have to invert the order of junctions in the infobox and in the major intersections section.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have totally rewritten everything to reflect an east to west journey - which is the way it was used the most. Refer to all the Dust Bowl refugees that traveled that way.  Due to the special needs this single roadway provided, flipping it this way makes sense.  It's a special case and needs to be highlighted.  So, it makes much more sense to list it this way, does it not?  Kenny  HaarFager (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You just flipped the state subsections around, so instead of starting at Chicago, you started at East St. Louis and proceeded northeasterly to Chicago, then jumped to southwestern Missouri, etc. You did try to rewrite the Texas subsection, but everything's been reverted. Again, the national collection of Interstate and US Highway articles are written south-to-north and west-to-east, and the overwhelming majority of state highway articles are written that way too. Such a radical change would need prior discussion on Talk:U.S. Route 66 first.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What you reverted back was before I rewrote everything. I have that re-written version on my end and I haven't uploaded it yet.  Why would it need discussion?  It's not so radical at all due to the nature of this one roadway.  Why didn't you respond to that point?  Oh, and one other pertinent point of information.  Have you never heard the song "Route 66?"  One of the first lines of it goes "It winds from Chicago to L.A., more than 2000 miles all the way."  It was written that way because that was the most-used direction people took on the road.  Kenny  HaarFager (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your proposed changes have been opposed. Thus, you need consensus to implement them. That the song was written that way is immaterial to the discussion. Unless you can point to a source that actually says the westbound traffic outnumbered the eastbound traffic, which I doubt you can because I'm sure the two directions were roughly equal like all other roadways, the default still applies: south-to-north and west-to-east.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I will let you prove me right. Repeat to me here in the most common manner the Wikipedia article itself refers to the direction of the roadway.  If you do not respond, I will take that as agreement to my arguments and go ahead and upload the new version I have written which rightly refers to it as a "Chicago-to-Los Angeles route." Kenny  HaarFager (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're line that says "I'm sure the two directions were roughly equal like all other roadways" is based upon what data? Show me the facts.  Kenny  HaarFager (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All of our various articles use the common expressions "east–west" or "north–south", yet they all are written south-to-north and west-to-east to follow the directions of their mileposts as per standard convention laid out in WP:USRD/STDS. If that is your contention, then you have a radical change to propose reversing the directions of thousands of articles based on an expression of the language and not the hard data concept of which direction the mileposts flow.
 * As for your last comments, it is common sense that highways have roughly equal traffic in either direction. To state otherwise would be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary sources. If your contention, "It was written that way because that was the most-used direction people took on the road," stated before mine, is that westbound traffic outnumbered eastbound traffic along old US 66, then you sir are the one who needs to provide a source to back that contention. The song could just as easily have been written with that line to make the rhyme "L.A. ... all the way" (emphasis mine) work out. And for that extraordinary source, you'd need to turn to actual traffic surveys, not anecdotal evidence from literature or song.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make a radical change in flipping the direction of the route description, you're going to need to propose it on Talk:U.S. Route 66, succinctly lay out your arguments and see if you attract a consensus among interested editors for an exception to WP:USRD/STDS. Until then, consider the wisdom behind WP:BRD: Bold, Revert, Delete. You were Bold, but have now been Reverted. The next step is to Discuss and persuade others of your ideas, not just implement them anyway.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Kenny, the standard adopted almost universally in the United states is that milepost 0 is at the west end of an east-west highway. It is therefore logical to assume that for an east-west highway the beginning is in the west and the ending is in the east. That is the standard adopted by the US Roads Wikiproject. Almost all other highway related projects have adopted a similar practice. Wherever the government agency that maintains the highway places milepost 0, that is the beginning of the road. If you want to argue this convention is wrong, fine, but that discussion needs to take place at a much larger venue than this user talk page, as literally 10,000+ articles are affected, including previously reviewed featured and good articles. I'd start at WT:HWY, and I'd use a much more solid rational than song lyrics when going against a convention set by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Dave (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dave, you mention that "almost all other highway related projects" have adopted a similar practice. So, what you're saying is that there are exceptions?  That's all I'm proposing, is another exception.  And because the article makes a good case for the direction it was created to be for, all I was saying that should make a great case for another exception in this case.  Route 66 had no part in California in the beginning, so where exactly was the first mile marker with 0 on it?  Route 66 was taken off the maps I believe in 1985, and I take that to mean it's no longer a government sponsored road.  Yet another reason to treat this road special.  The song only came along to base what the general consensus of the road was, which was to "motor west."  Kind of the like the cry from the previous century here in America, "Go West, Young Man."  This was just another version of that same ethos.  Kenny  HaarFager (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There's HWY, the international Highways Project, as well as the projects for Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, India and the UK in addition to USRD. A quick survey reveals:
 * HWY has no set standard, and really has very little in the way of article standards in general.
 * AURD follows the direction set by increasing chainages or SLK (straight-line kilometres), or the increasing direction of the house numbers along a roadway. Other options are based on official sources or from a largest settlement to the smaller one.
 * CARD follows the direction of the kilometre posts, increasing from 0. Generally these also increase south-to-north or west-to-east as in the US.
 * HKRD runs south-to-north or west-to-east.
 * INRD lacks article standards.
 * UKRD follows the increase in mileposts/driver location signs, which generally increase leading away from London or Edinburg.
 * So, to answer your question above, most projects follow the core of the USRD standard: follow the increase in official distance numbers. The exceptions are that some projects so so unorganized that they haven't set standards.
 * The US 66 designation may have been completely decommissioned in 1985, but we've treated other decommissioned highways by the same rules; see U.S. Route 16 in Michigan and U.S. Route 25 in Michigan for example. Just as US 66 was routed concurrently along various Interstates before it was finally decommissioned, US 16 was replaced by I-96 and US 25 was replaced by I-75 and I-94. In both cases, those Featured Articles are written in the standard directions, west-to-east and south-to-north respectively, to follow the mileposts that would have existed on those roadways.  Imzadi 1979  →   09:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do understand the point, from a historical perspective, the USA expanded east to west, and often the development and non-official description of most of our transcontinental infrastructure (not just US 66) reflects that. However, it doesn't persuade me. I can say with 99.9999% confidence that if and when someone produces a Straight Line Diagram or other historical document from the relevant DOT's, it will show US 66 was mileposted the same as any other transcontinental highway that still exists; with milepost 0 at the western terminus. The closest thing I've found so far is the Arizona Route 66 Association does have a mileposted guide of the original alignment that is mileposted west to east; however, there is no official source listed to show that these were the actual mileposts for US 66. . The larger point being is that the US Roads wikiproject has developed a standard that is working to maintain the thousands of articles they try to maintain and is backed up by official government documents. I would need to see solid reasoning to convince me that it would be better to effectively abandon that standard by exempting any road where someone makes a historical or pop-cultural argument, possibly resulting in dueling standards on some articles.Dave (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Maple River Winery


The article Maple River Winery has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:NORG Cannot find any reputable secondary sources that support its notability."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rogermx (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Actresses from Scranton, Pennsylvania has been nominated for discussion
Category:Actresses from Scranton, Pennsylvania, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — swpb T 13:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Covington Cross Title Screen.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Covington Cross Title Screen.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 not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bald Eagle St. Louis Zoo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bald Eagle St. Louis Zoo.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use 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 in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 14:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Quote: "Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged."
 * So let it be written, so let it be done.
 * HaarFager (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)