User talk:Loodog/archive6

Rehoboth Carpenter Family
Regarding Rehoboth Carpenter family - We have surveyed, we have compromised, we have repeatedly asked to user Iwanafish to communicate. He refuses with his snide comments and reversions to non-wiki versions. We have warned him "offically" a lot more than 3 times. Repeatedly, we have asked for mediation, we have asked for help and I do not know who else to ask. Can you pass this up the chain of editors?

User Iwanafish continues to disrupt and vandalize this page and it has spread his behavior to other pages. John Carpenter (bishop) John Carpenter, town clerk of London What else can we do but shut down the articles involved and provide warnings that when they are restored by user Iwanafish that they are garbage? Has wikipedia lost the ability to police itself? I am beginning to think this is a hopeless cause where such bullies can inflict such damage to wikipedia. What else can be done? John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Mount Pleasant, Providence, Rhode Island
Hey, thanks for helping me with the new article. It's my first one and I probably should have held it off the live site (especially so it didn't appear as a total copy/paste job) while I worked on standardizing it. I didn't know how to put a reference section in and put the table of contents and Providence neighborhoods menu up, so I left it out. I want to put up some more relevant stats for the Demographics section than the 1990 Census as well. I'll keep working on it. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CheshireCatRI (talk • contribs) 15:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Courtroom View Network
I have nominated Courtroom View Network, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Courtroom View Network. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 07:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Public image of Barack Obama
Kudos for using math to explain your reasoning. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Providence
Re this, while "hurricane" may be the more popular term, "tropical cyclone" is more accurate. Moreover, tropical cyclones are extremely common in the North Atlantic, so that statement is also false. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone with a compromise for now; let me know if you think it's suitable. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that works. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.You Can&#39;t Clap with One Hand (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I put it in the wrong section. I have it in the right section now. You Can&#39;t Clap with One Hand (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Unity Reggae Band
I have nominated Unity Reggae Band, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Unity Reggae Band. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Earthquake aftershocks
So, if I'm understanding your wonderful work on the Gutenberg–Richter law article, if there were a say 7.0 (Richter scale) quake, what are the odds of a 6.0 aftershock within a several week period? If you like, you can just post your thoughts here, and I'll be able to see them. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.32.215 (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Gutenberg–Richter law says nothing about timing. It just tells you how many magnitude 6's you should get for every magnitude 7.  Omori's Law would be more germane to your question.--Loodog (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Dogsbark.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dogsbark.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Rettetast (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists
Hey Loodog,

I read your revision, and I see you are very confident in what you've read. In your edit, you put a lot of emphasis on the lifestyle that Style intended to build through Project Hollywood. I actually would go further, calling it a cultural revolution. Since it was placed in Hollywood and Style mentioned Tom Cruise and The Church of Scientology as an inspiration, I see this description as well-fitting to the article.

But let me know: what page are you referring to? Tell me what you think is missing. Thanks.

--PolskanPUA (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

New Jersey municipalities on the List of United States cities by population density
I saw your edits to Guttenberg, New Jersey (as well as Union City and West New York) based on rankings in the List of United States cities by population density. I have edited all of these New Jersey articles and I have been extremely careful in making such claims based on data from reliable sources. While I believe that your edits are true, the lack of reliable sources is a major Wikipedia issue. I have tried to find this data ranking by population density from the Census Bureau site and have been unable to find it, nor have I found anything in any other reliable source. In reality, the List of United States cities by population density article is a giant original research effort, taking some data from some states in the country and picking off those that have the highest density. Again, while I think that these rankings are accurate, I'm still unsure that they meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. As an example, the source that's in the Guttenberg, New Jersey article itself (here) only talks about rankings in New Jersey. Any thoughts on how or where to pin this down? Alansohn (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Mayor.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mayor.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Cicilline.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cicilline.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

incivil language in edit summaries...
this is probably unneeded... --Jayron32. talk . contribs 20:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Urb_promo.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Urb_promo.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverts on WP:USCITY
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Loodog: I have no wish to be uncivil on what is a matter entirely outside my area of interest, but I take the strongest possible objection to your continued reverts on WP:USCITY. I would draw your attention to my latest - and hopefully last - post on this matter at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/Guideline. In particular I would point out that you have already committed a three revert violation and that you should therefore approach this matter with considerably more caution lest I choose to take the matter further.

I have no wish to do so, but for everybody's sake, please slow down - the article will still be there tomorrow and you will have a chance to argue your case.

I will only add that I don't understand why you don't replace "US Census figures only" with your suggested "US Census should be mentioned. Others are optional." - I have no real issue with how the lead is worded as it should be interpreted in accordance with the article body, but this suggested wording seems entirely sensible and would go some distance to eliminating any point of controversy.

Best Regards, Muzhogg (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Violation of three-revert rule
You have violated Three-revert rule on Papyrus (typeface): diff, diff, diff, diff. If you continue edit-warring, you will be reported.  Grue  09:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Farecard.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Farecard.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Farecard.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Farecard.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

edit war
I see you attempting to engage in anedit war based on an essay, and that you seem to suggest that an essay trumps policy. Please go to the talk page before reverting aagain.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem with every post I have made that refers to Happy Endings? None of these posts are doing anything but stating facts with valid references, most of the times 2 references. Would you prefer that I put in 3 or 4 references? I would prefer not to get in an editing war and be able to go on to other articles and not have to go in and reinstate everything you are erasing. Is there some way we can resolve this?You Can&#39;t Clap with One Hand (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)GiselleRI


 * Giselle, in general we required reliable Secondary sources to include material. Since a blog does not meet this criteria, you'll need to find another source.--Loodog (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have put in IMDB and Projo references. Why are you going and erasing every edit about the film I have made? Other editors have made edits after me, changing things and not erasing everything. Erasing everything I am writing does not seem like the spirit of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleRI (talk • contribs) 04:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk: Public image of Barack Obama
Hopefully he'll stop arguing ... he might just keep agreeing with himself over and over! But yeah, it's a really obvious case of WP:IDHT, and he very obviously won't change his views. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Disneyland Park (Paris)
Hello. I noticed you added a merge tag on the article for Disneyland Park (Paris). I, for one, am opposed to such a merger. However, I'm not deleting the tag and have instead opened a discussion on the article's talk page. I invite you to leave your thoughts on why the merger should take place. I look forward to hearing what you have to say, and thanks. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Town vs. City
Obviously nobody told us about the cathedral. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sinking Sciences Library (Brown University)
The text you removed explicitly stated it as an "urban legend" rather than fact. While it's obviously not true, it is (or at least was) a pretty popular rumor. However, it's uncited lore, which is still a valid reason to remove. DMacks (talk)

Request for your comments
Hello! You commented on the last discussion about whether to include a Category:Fictional LGBT characters on the Stewie Griffin article. We have a new discussion going for an updated consensus. Your comments here would be appreciated. Thank you,  C T J F 8 3 Talk 03:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep on Plugging
Several editors in your disptue on the George W Bush talk page are... somewhat ... slightly... um... varied in their positions as it relates to what constitutes a reliable source when it comes to a conservative. They may not have any legitimate reason, but will still attempt to get this information removed or prevent its addition. It was pulling teeth to get anything about the economic crisis(its not that serious), mid term removal of attorneys(bush was within his rights), or interrogation policies (waterbording not torture) on the page and at points I was using 3-5 sources per sentence to demonstrate the accuracy until GA came through and made me remove them and leave the points. The position that it is unimportant or not widly supported is on its face patently false. Just keep on plugging and put in enough cites that they can't reasonably say otherwise, which is why they are attempting to ignore certain sections of policy (exceptional sources) so they can claim your sources are not good enough no matter how many you put up. For a funny read, go through the waterboarding discussion and many of them are making the exact opposite point there, arguing that single sided sourcing from the Bush administration is entirly fine for waterboarding is not torture while no arguing that quotes from Bush's own lips tactily admitting to MJ use are utterly invalid. Or it would be funny... but I digress. RTRimmel (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

George W.Bush
Hello there. Please note that living persons must be presented with present tense verbs such as "is" following introductions. This is the practice across the entire article. Only after the subject dies does it become "was, served as etc". If you feel that space is wasted, feel free to trim it or edit it but please do not make blanket reverts as such again because in doing so, you deleted the key issue. Evlekis (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge it has always been the practice. I did read somewhere that this was the standard. Never having discussed it, I have adhered to this for about three years and have never met opposition. I could give you a set of examples but I would rather discuss this in good faith. You're the one with the knowledge of these individuals (judging by your edit history), so you know best how to present it. Why don't you edit the section I added to either trim it, reshape it somehow, anything. My only concern is that it conforms to the majority of other articles on living people. Occasionally you do read "Subject was" but upon amendment, it usually sits harmlessly forever. Are you all right with this? Evlekis (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have to see the guideline. It feels very artificial.--Louiedog (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sez who?  -- Zsero (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I could be wrong. But it will have to go to discussion. I leave it all to you for now. Evlekis (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything to discuss, until you provide some basis for your contention. -- Zsero (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Westcampusfromcambridge.JPG
File:Westcampusfromcambridge.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Westcampusfromcambridge.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

William Carpenter (Rhode Island)
Hello,

I went back to William Carpenter (Rhode Island). What else is needed to resolve the maintenance tags? I appreciate the input. Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk indentation standards on Wikipedia
Loodog,

Please review WP:INDENT for a clarification of indentation standards on talk pages. In short, conversations are to be threaded, with replies indicated by the level of indentation. I will admit that this page is not considered official policy (instead being considered an "essay"), but your assertion that a threaded commenting structure is alien to Wikipedia is incorrect and (in my experience) a nonstandard practice.

Best, &mdash;Notyourbroom ( talk ) 16:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sperm Wars
Can't you do a bit more with this? It's just barely longer than one line; you need to make more effort if you're going to create a stub, e.g. cite a couple of sources, or at least an ISBN. Richard001 (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Medical cannabis
Hi! You worked on the article, which is really a good idea. In this edit of the lead section you added a template  which doesn't work (leads to "electronic nirvana"). Would you have a look? I cann't correct it, because I couldn't figure out where you wanted to point to. Documentation of the template is given here. Thanks. →Alfie±Talk 00:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

List of metonyms
I nominated the list for AfD (sparing the template for a regular user ;) Renata (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Yes Means Yes


The article Yes Means Yes has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No evidence that this book is in any way notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. andy (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Yes Means Yes


The article Yes Means Yes has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Advertisement for a non-notable book.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Damiens .rf 02:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sperm Wars


The article Sperm Wars has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Page tagged since January 2009. No subsequent  expansion. No  references. No  links to  any  external  sources or the author of the book  in  question. No  publication  details (ISBN etc.) of the book.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

List of worlds best skylines
I have made some changes,please check. I have just picked the skyline ranking, it is worth to create an article which describes the skyline ranking of various cities of the world.However i have deleted the criteria of points which was based on floors, and their points.which looks arbitrary, however we if it is necceaary to mention that on which criteria the skykline ranking is based can i add this one: The skyline ranking is based on the number of floors of skyscrapers,alternatively.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

American Jews
Hi. Please feel free to mention the prominence of American Jews in the gay liberation and feminist movements. My objection is to lists of people, because they become magnets for more and more names. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Onetenwaterfire.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Onetenwaterfire.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of OneTen
I have nominated OneTen, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/OneTen. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Familyguyskyline.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Familyguyskyline.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. ÷seresin 01:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Freeways in metropolitan Detroit
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Freeways in metropolitan Detroit. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Freeways in metropolitan Detroit. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Onetenwaterfire.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:Onetenwaterfire.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dallas population
Thanks for the edit summary note. I hadn't seen WP:USCITY before then, so I'm going to have to go back and fix the other 6 cities I did as well. Joshua Scott (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bill Clinton
Loodog - Thank you for the info. tuco_bad 21:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC) cgersten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

Worcester population
Oops, I got mixed up about who made which change to the Worcester, Massachusetts article, and in reverting your change I referred to you as an anon. Sorry! Anyway, the lower poulation figure you gave (175k) was the original Census data, but per this source there was a successful challenge that upped the official tally to the 182k figure. JamesMLane t c 09:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Elizabeth Kucinich
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Elizabeth Kucinich. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Kucinich (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

DART Light Rail article
I'm glad we both agree that a DART Light Rail article should be split from the one on Dallas Area Rapid Transit. But something about your justification got my attention; For a system that only carries 60,000 of the 228,000 riders in the system, there seems to be an overemphasis on it here.

Just for the record, you're not basing your support on the level of ridership, are you? Because it really shouldn't matter if DART Light Rail is more crowded than the IRT Flushing Line(and if you've been there you know how crowded that train gets). Since the article places that much empasis on the light-rail division, splitting it off is a must. DanTD (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I just wanted to get a clear sense of your position. Thanks. DanTD (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

pdf = probability DENSITY function
Please. Edits like this one could lead readers to think that "pdf" stands for "probability distribution function". That is wrong. Some people are actually so confused that the mix "probability density function" (pdf) with "cumulative probability distribution function" (cdf). We shouldn't be contributing to that confusion. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * pdf can stand for either. So it's not wrong; it's not even less ambiguous since CDF's are just called cumulative distribution function.  It's just one convention.--Louiedog (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a convention that probabilists and statisticians use. This is a good example of why Wikipedia should not be considered authoritative. Besides, the function you referred to in the article was a probability density function, the bell-shaped curve. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

....I have now filed a correction with PlanetMath, as follows:
 * It is very unfortunate that you use the term "probability distribution function" rather than "probability density function" for this concept. Usually "probability distribution function" means the _cumulative_ distribution function, not the density function.  Many probability distributions on the real line don't have density functions with respect to Lebesgue measure on the line (in particular, none of the frequenly seen discrete distributions do) but all such distributions are fully characterized by their CDFs.
 * Your nonstandard an inconsistent notation in that article is also unfortunate. First you use a capital X for a general event.  Then later you use it for a random variable.  The latter use is standard.  Switching notations in mid-stream like that is bad style; it is obviously going to confuse some readers.
 * A capital A, B, C, D, E, or F would be quite conventional for the "event" usage; a capital X for the random variable should remain as it is.
 * A capital A, B, C, D, E, or F would be quite conventional for the "event" usage; a capital X for the random variable should remain as it is.
 * A capital A, B, C, D, E, or F would be quite conventional for the "event" usage; a capital X for the random variable should remain as it is.

Michael Hardy (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And the convention of the probabilists and statisticians is not necessarily the convention the population at large, which is who wikipedia is written for. Contrary conventions exist which means that any one choice is not wrong.  You may wish to see to it that wikipedia adheres to one convention or the other in its article in the interests of clarity, but neither is wrong.--Louiedog (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are written for anyone who can benefit from them. In matters requiring professional expertise, readers are best served by finding out what usage is standard among professionals rather than among confused people. They are often looking for a way out of such confusions. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:36, 15 April

2010 (UTC)

On the note of changes made to top populated cities and change to Raleigh's population. I just wanted to make sure the two matched. I put the population from the Raleigh article on the top city populations page. Exsiiron (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: San Jose California population estimates
Editor: Regarding your comment on my talk page; I have always followed Wiki guidlines when editing articles. If you research the history of edits on that page, you will see that I was not the one who removed U.S. Census Bureau estimates. I have never removed Census Bureau estimates. As per WP:USCITY guidelines, "City proper population (U.S. Census figures should be used. When appropriate, other reliable estimates may be included as a supplement to Census figures.)" It is not inappopriate to include the suppplemental figure provided by the California Department of Finance, as they are the state agency responsible for conducting state census research. The only reliable supplement to U.S. Census Bureau estimates are conducted by each state, (the agency in each state responsible for demographics research). Their research methods are accurate, and are partially based on the decennial census figures. I have discussed this with some friends who are tenured professors (in Sociology and English, at Stanford University). They agree that CA DOF figures are probably more accurate than U.S. Census figures because of the methodology used. It is unfounded speculation to state that an agency like DOF "inflates" their population figures, even if you believe that they have "an agenda" to secure more federal funding. Their main responsibility is to accurately calculate population estimates, so that state funds can be allocated accordingly to cities and counties within the state based on the population estimates. When I get the opportunity, I will review the comments/info on the discussion page.

Jcheckler (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

hello loodog
I have explained my position on the talk page of public image of Barack Obama Thank you, Efcmagnew (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Yuppie
You might be interested in the recent discussion in Yuppie (which at one point you nominated for deletion). Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits On San Jose Article
I noticed you deleted the sentence in the opening paragraph which stated: "San Jose is now the largest U.S. city north of Los Angeles and west of Chicago", and left the rationale: [ (NYC, Philly, Chicago are North of LA. LA, Phoenix, Houston are all west of Chicago) ]. The statement I made was conditional. The conditions of the statement are that San Jose is the largest U.S. city BOTH north of Los Angeles AND west of Chicago, NOT ONE OR THE OTHER. Obviously San Jose is not larger than the cities you mentioned, and in that case the statement would not be factual; but the statement could be interpreted two ways. The English language is full of words (and as such, sentences) that have more than one meaning, and it's up to the reader to interpret the correct one. If the reader is literate, then he will interpret the correct meaning of the statement. He will figure it out. It is subjective, but that does not make it incorrect or unfactual. It was a factually and grammatically correct statement. If you look on a map (or Google Earth), you will see it's true. That space represents a huge geographic area of the United States, and I thought it was an interesting fact worthy of inclusion in the article. It has a historical basis in fact as well. For a long time the Bay Area was the largest population center west of the Mississippi river and San Francisco was (and still is) the banking capital of the U.S. after New York. The Bay Area still contains the headquarters of more Fortune 500 companies, than any other metro area except New York and Silicon Valley is the largest technology center in the United States. This illustrates my point of how the Bay Area is the largest metro area west of Chicago, and north of Los Angeles and it's sphere of influence extends literally across that region.

Jcheckler (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Populations means UNDERLYING the two samples
I think this edit was a mistake. They're not population means of the samples; they're means of the populations from which the samples were taken. When you start calling them "of the samples" you invite confused reader to think that they're the means of the samples, which of course is wrong. If one fails to distinguish between means of samples and means of populations, then the topic of the article becomes incomprehensible at best.

I've rephrased it in a way that I hope will obviate the confusion that must have led to your edit. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

TeX usages
Please notice that if you write this:
 * P(14 heads) + P(15 heads) + ... + P(20 heads)
 * P(14 heads) + P(15 heads) + ... + P(20 heads)

within math tags, it comes out looking like this:
 * $$ P(14 heads) + P(15 heads) + ... + P(20 heads) \, $$
 * $$ P(14 heads) + P(15 heads) + ... + P(20 heads) \, $$

But if you write this:
 * P(14\text{ heads}) + P(15\text{ heads}) + \cdots + P(20\text{ heads})
 * P(14\text{ heads}) + P(15\text{ heads}) + \cdots + P(20\text{ heads})

then you get this:
 * $$ P(14\text{ heads}) + P(15\text{ heads}) + \cdots + P(20\text{ heads}) \, $$
 * $$ P(14\text{ heads}) + P(15\text{ heads}) + \cdots + P(20\text{ heads}) \, $$

The latter form is standard. Contrast the two:

\begin{align} & P(14 heads) + P(15 heads) + ... + P(20 heads) \\[8pt] & P(14\text{ heads}) + P(15\text{ heads}) + \cdots + P(20\text{ heads}) \end{align} $$


 * The first one has no space between the numeral and the word "heads". The second has a space because it was included within \text{ heads}, between the left brace and the letter h.
 * The first one italicizes the letters as if they represented variables; the second does not.
 * The dots between the two plus signs look different. I prefer \cdots rather than \ldots between plus signs, and \ldots between commas.  I think the latter is pretty much universal.  The former is a matter in which usages vary somewhat.

Michael Hardy (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was wondering if it could be rendered any better! My TeX is not so fluent.--Louiedog (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:RenewableconsUS.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:RenewableconsUS.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 created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Image Screening Bot (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

NIABY and NAMBY
About your deletion of uncited text from NIMBY: Did you make any effort to determine whether sources exist? Because they're easy to find, e.g., a scholarly paper about translating the acronyms into Hungarian.

It's important to remember that Wikipedia's policies require that a reliable source exists, not that it already be named in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Cites
Hey Loodog! You are doing some fantastic work at Lyndon Johnson! Bravo! I hope this doesn't sound like nagging, but I just want to remind you that citations should have more than just a bare URL (I forget to do that when I cite, so no worries). If you would like to brush up on citing or need help, you can re-check out WP:CITE. I thank you for your excellent contributions and I hope that I do not come off as nagging. Thanks! --Schwindtd (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Obama's narcissism
With all due respect Loodog, I never claimed that Obama had been diagnosed as a narcissist by Dr. Vaknin, merely speculated to be. While I personally doubt that Obama is a narcissist given his grovelling, obsequious and indecisive personality, the narcissism charge has indeed been seized upon by many of Obama's critics as a quick Google search will show which is why I thought and still think that it should be included in the article. --194.81.33.10 (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Pasadena
Good job on wording in Pasadena. Thank you. Happy New Year! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Densityhisto.jpg
Hi Loodog, on File:Densityhisto.jpg, it says that you were the original author. The file is used on List of United States cities by population. Herein lies the problem, the data is not referenced in that section of the article, and I've been trying to find the page where the data is derived from. Would you be able to help out with that? I appreciate all help! Thanks much and Happy New Year! --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Providence test


Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mhiji 02:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Tucson Proposal
Oftentimes discussing a proposal at the Sarah palin article can become confusing and hard to follow, especially for editors that come in after a discussion has stared. To facilitate future discussions and give editors a point of reference, can I refer to your proposal as OPTION #1...? Buster Seven   Talk  20:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on June 7, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/June 7, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors or his delegate, or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! ۞  Tb hotch  ™  &  (ↄ),  Problems with my English?  16:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

 

Providence is the capital and the most populous city in Rhode Island, and one of the first cities established in the United States. Located in Providence County, it is the estimated third largest city in the New England region. Despite the city proper only having an estimated population of 178,042 as of 2010, it anchors the 37th largest metropolitan population in the country. With an estimated MSA population of 1,600,856, it exceeds that of Rhode Island itself by about 60% due to its reaching into southern Massachusetts. Situated at the mouth of the Providence River, at the head of Narragansett Bay, the city's small footprint is crisscrossed by seemingly erratic streets and contains a rapidly changing demographic. Providence was founded in 1636 by Roger Williams, a religious exile from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. He named the area in honor of "God's merciful Providence", which he believed was responsible for revealing such a haven for him and his followers to settle. One of the first American cities to industrialize, Providence became noted for its jewelry and silverware industry. Today, the city's economy has shifted into the service industries, though it still retains significant manufacturing activity. (more...)


 * That is awesome. Thanks for notifying me.--Louiedog (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Gentrification
I believe that you have mistaken me for being an advertiser. I removed the promotional statements with this edit. Thanks-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC))


 * Great, appreciate it.--Louiedog (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

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

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

complex numbers and wellorders
Hi Loodog,

I just wanted to drop you a note to explain my reversion of your edit at well-order. You noted correctly that the complex numbers cannot be turned into an ordered field while respecting their algebraic structure.

I'm afraid that's completely beside the point at the article in question. We're not interested in the algebraic structure, just in whether a wellorder exists on the set, with no further structure at all. Given the axiom of choice, there is definitely a wellorder on the complex numbers (as on any other set). If AC fails, there may not be a wellorder on C (though there still could be). --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)