User talk:Hag2/Archive 1

December 2008 to 7-days ago
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | The enclosed is collapsed for usability. December 2008 to 7-days ago. B-Class downgrade
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following conversation took place in August.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Well, hmm. I don't know that there's much meaning in downgrading the assessment level on this article. The difference between B and C is mostly based on extensiveness of referencing, comprehensiveness of coverage and writing, and honestly, I can't see that it doesn't meet B-Class. The major difference in the article's content would be scrutinized at the point where it was nominated for good article status. In an article like this, where the routine reader would be looking for information, I think most of the questions would be answered. Right now, whatever it is lacking is more of what you want it to say, not what an uninformed reader would miss. Personally, I still think it is a bit heavy on the quotes usage and I'm certain a GA reviewer would have problems with that. Otherwise, don't worry too much about the B-C difference. A great many people don't even bother with the assessment grade. I also think that a new assessor would rate it B as well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC) reclassification

I'm not sure where you mean, I don't see a new topic on reclassification on the Casolaro talk page. The old talk page material on that page needs to be archived, some of it is 3 years old. If you are wanting to open a new topic on this, you can just post a diff link with your note and not copy and paste the whole comment to another page. To get the diff link, go to your talk page history page and right-click copy the "(last)" link for my posting. Then all you need do is paste the link between two brackets [] where you make reference to my response. That's more workable and less refactoring. If you aren't sure about how to do that, let me know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC) copyediting Hi, Dixie, I found a few footnotes missing in places so far. I'll keep looking. Anne Teedham (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I just finished Inslaw's lastest additions, and I hope that is what you wanted? Anne Teedham (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

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


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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (See File:CasolaroDanny.JPG subsection: a detailed Fair use rationale for Danny Casolaro page)

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


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


 * If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Feydey, I need to have you explain in detail what exactly is wrong with the information on the File:CasolaroDanny.JPG page. To the best of my knowledge, I have tried to insert all relevant information in the detailed Fair use rationale for Danny Casolaro .  If something is missing somewhere, please tell me exactly what that is, and where it should be inserted, and how to insert it.  It looks to me as though, inserting the tag  ...somewhere is sufficient.  If you know where, please tell me.  Thank you. [14:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)]

Please add a license as the image does not have information on its copyright status. feydey (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to add to the section marked "license".  Is that satisfactory? Toby Ornott (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good by me, Toby. But wait until we hear from Feydey.  Thanks.  Hag
 * This is a good page: Image copyright tags/Non-free, possibly use Non-free fair use in. feydey (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll insert the  in the place Toby Ornott suggested, and see how long that lasts.  Thanks.--Hag

discussion regarding Corn quote I'll take a look at what is going on later this evening and get back to you on it, if that's okay. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks. It's not all that important.  I think I just hurt someone's feelings that's all.  But I think I have explained myself well enough now that the butt-person will understand there are no hard feelings.  I noticed butt- when you reverted something butt- did with the Corn quote.  I then ignored everything until I saw butt's comment on the talkpage.  When I checked elsewhere, it looked to me as if butt was some kind of instigator just looking for arguments centered around sematics and logic and that sort of thing.  Then when I got to butt's talkpage I saw that you and someone else had "welcomed" butt with what I was about to say.  Sooooo I stepped overboard and told butt that talkpages were not supposed to be for personal platforms to exercise silly arguments etcetera.  Last night, butt- then went up and down Danny's talkpage cutting and pasting butt's previous remarks into obscurity, then further clarifying whatever butt was trying to convey in the first place, and eventually thoroughly turning the complete page upside down into lots of bolded corrections, revisions, etcetera.  Anyway,...to make this short: I've had my say and I am going to ignore butt unless butt continues with butt's silliness. I had asked for your opinion just because I wanted a second opinion on whether I was over acting.  I think I was.  'cuz butt just seems to be fairly naive, and annoying.  &mdash;Dixie Brown (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if the user is refactoring talk page content, revert it and let me know and I'll leave a warning about refactoring. The small amount I've looked at tells me he's less interested in the Casolaro article and much more concerned with bashing the person whom you quoted. I don't think you're wrong. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, Wild. "Refactoring"?  New word for me.  I'll look that up, read about it, and then I will not be so ignorant.  Thanks again.  Talk to you later.  Dixie.

thanks, Theo Thanks for your help on organizing. Much appreciated. Dixie 15:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Improving My Comment (ihaveabutt's commentary)
I did a lot of work to clarify and fix (my) prior comment. Is it still concerning, the way you noted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabutt (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, you suggest that Corn's quote is imbalanced due to his choice of words (or perhaps his election to use three dependent sentences in order to construct a much longer main sentence&mdash;for instance, (1) Anomalies do not add up to a conclusive case for murder...; (2) [the] suicide explanation is unsatisfying but not wholly implausible; and (3) the possibility of murder is intriguing but the evidence to date is not overwhelming.) Overlooking what Corn writes for the minute, I want to know: have you read the entire article? Hag2 (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how word choice and 3 dependent sentences is involved in my concern with Corn. There might be a misunderstanding.  I don't know if you have had a chance to read the corrections I needed to make, which are clearer.  On my mytalk page, you raise very pointed concerns, and I took steps to clarify, but I still don't fully understand (when you mention philosophy, grammar, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabutt (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2009  (UTC)
 * Yes. I have read your clarification.  Have you read the entire article?
 * Incidentally, you do not need to continue using the talkback feature; I am "watching". "Watching" is a feature which you will understand much better by clicking the element at the top of your screen called "My watchlist", and by digesting the various elements of your "My preferences" (e.g. "editing" and "raw watchlist" etc.).  Lastly, your html-coding is a less acceptable standard around Wikipedia than using the standard Wikipedia guidelines of the Tutorial.  For instance, when you click open this particular correspondence (in order to continue), you will note that I not only removed your capitalized heading, but also your coding for blockquote style.  What you received instead, was the use of the colon .  The more colons  used in a conversation, the farther to the right each person's remarks are made.  Another element common to Wikipedia formatting, is "level structuring".  I will demonstrate "level structuring" the next time.  When I do, you will then note that our conversation has been moved to the top of the page under the section marked Danny Casolaro.  I will do that next time, not now. Finally, it is considered polite etiquette to sign your comments with four tildes (~) whenever you are anywhere except on your own talk page.&mdash;Dixie 20:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We need a new means through which to make sure we understand each others' view before adding new matters. Is your comment, the one my my mytalk page the way you wish to keep it?  My original question was whether my question it still concerning you, the way you noted on my mytalk page?--Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I am happy to see that you have discovered the use of the colons. "Level structuring" is useful in keeping a discussion organized with related subject matter. I used it (in this case) to keep everything on my page (with respect to Danny Casolaro) confined to the Table of Contents heading "Danny Casolaro".  Since this is my talkpage, I am allowed to do this.  Some editors will monitor various Article Talkpages and perform "refactoring" which I understand to be something on the order of "organizing a talkpage" for cohesion, clarity, summary, and a few other things.  Since no one has been much interested in the article Danny Casolaro, I assumed this privilege of refactoring for the Danny Casolaro talkpage during the course of the previous six months as a form of "maintenance" for the article.  This should not imply that I have any privilege which another editor is denied; it should only be understood that I saw a need for organization, and became the "custodian".  There are other editors in the background who "keep an eye on me".  So far, those editors and I have disagreed only on a few minor points.


 * As far as I can tell, your position on the Corn quote is that it is not a good one to be using in its current position within the article. I disagree with you.  I doubt seriously that you and I will come to a meeting of the minds on this issue ever.  If you feel strongly that your position should prevail, then submit a WP:Request for Comment on the appropriate "Request for Comment page".  When you open a request, it invites the entire community to your debate.  I welcome such a move; there has been very little interest from the main community regarding this article.  The more the merrier.


 * I am solely interested in the factual content of the article. Currently, there are several areas of questionable material, and I should be marking those with appropriate inline template tags.  Yet my primary interest has taken me elsewhere, into the tangential areas of the Inslaw Affair.


 * This does not mean that I am walking away from Danny Casolaro. It means that you are free to edit whatever you object to; and if it is acceptable to the other editors of Danny Casolaro, then consensus will prevail.


 * I encourage you to make use of the Request for Comment if you feel that Corn's quote is unacceptable. I believe if you take the time to study everything which I have written regarding Danny Casolaro over the course of the previous six months you will discover that I am not certain if the entire article is encyclopedic.


 * However, I am glad that you have been persistent; there appears to be a major problem with the quotation&mdash;that is, it is written currently as one, long construction, yet upon closer examination, it looks as though the quotation should be separated into two, distinctly separate quotes. As soon as I can confirm this correction, I will make the necessary changes.  Perhaps this alteration may help to further clarify the issue? &mdash;Dixie 20:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an extended post that has been collapsed for improved usability.' ''
 * }
 * }

Spellchecks
With reference to, you're very welcome. Thats what I do :) Wiki Roxor talk  01:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Richard Mohun
Thanks for your note on my talk page, I can see the edit comment wasn't meant as anything more than a comment on why youstopped your copyedit at that point. I appreciate your copyediting efforts and thanks to them (and the contributions of many others) the article is much improved. I can honestly say that this is the probably the most editors that have ever been involved in an article I have created (even my FA didn't generate this much comment!) but I can see that everyone is just trying to make the article better. Hopefully it won't be long before it is up to GA standards (which is probably as far as I can take it at the moment) and I can move on to some other topics. Once again thanks for your edits - Dumelow (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

PJ Haarsma
Hi, I am reviewing your article, PJ Haarsma, for GA and have left some comments on Talk:PJ Haarsma/GA1. Please feel free to contact me with comments or questions. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Mattisse. Thank you for your notification.  I've been watching carefully as I am the nominator.  However, Kethra is the principal editor so I am going to notify her too.  She worked diligently on both PJ Haarsma and The Softwire over the course of the past months, and I am sure that she is excited to see how her efforts are progressing.--Dixie

Giovanni Di Stefano

 * I'm not prepared to accept any terms that give fred a special status.Geni 16:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * GDS has asked me to ask you to contact him via email the next time that he is on the US (December). He says that he will invite you to New York (I would have sent you an email, but you don't have it enabled). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)