User talk:Mkdw/Archive 1

NPP
You're right. I saw a couple that I thought were tagged by mistake and I thought that you were on a spree. My bad and my apologies. - Lucky 6.9 03:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I only regret that I didn't catch my error soon enough.  I was going to revert the error and apologize immediately upon finding it...but you beat me to it.  So:

Least I can do. :) - Lucky 6.9 03:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's for sure. He's now attributing the quotes, but they're waaaaay too big to be quotes.  Thanks for being so diligent.  I'm bagging what are left and hitting the hay.  Later! - Lucky 6.9 07:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Anna Cora Mowatt
I have replied to your comments on my talk page.--Igtrn 06:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you do it yourself, since you know so much about formatting?--Igtrn 07:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Romnick Sarmenta
Hello Mkdw, Can you please tell me what else is required in order to establish the notability of the person in the article I have written. He's a well-known actor and TV personality in the Philippines and this fact is supported by his imdb profile provided in his Biography.

Pszx 08:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

 This actor is very famous, a former child star, and has appeared in many films and TV shows. The fact is, he has won a Best Actor Award from Asian TV Awards held in Singapore. Im sure every Filipino recognizes his name and face because he's well-known and popular in the Philippines.

I hope that satisfies the criteria for notability.

Pszx 08:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

 ok thanks. Pszx 09:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

3G Phone
Write your article before posting it. Wikipedia is a live encyclopdia and any postings are considered publications. You would never see "man writing" in Compton's Encyclopedia. To maintain our standards the article was marked for Speedy Deletion.

Hopefully your article will be up in no time =)

'''WHO IS THIS?? A Bot? This is < > by drmsppedy2, is that a man or a computer program?'''

--Sorry, thought history would reveal my identity

Ok No probs. Thanks undercover wikipedia cop... :O)

Speedy posting of Speedy Deletions
I see that within less than one minute of my creating Dukes of Decazes that you posted a "Speedy Deletion" notice. Perhaps in the future it would be a good idea if you take the two seconds needed to check the "Contribs" sector of the person who just created the "Empty page" to see if: 1) they are a valid and significant Wikipedia editor, and 2) that they have been doing work on the subject in question. That way, you save yourself and the editor both time and aggravation. Thanx. Handicapper 16:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Furthermore please follow Wikipedia's rules for Speedy Deletion. As the creator of the article you are in violation of removing a Speedy Deletion tag which specifically states to counter and Speedy Deletion template you must post a hangon if you are the creator." - - This is utter nonsense. As I stated, you posted your unwarranted notice without checking in less than 60 seconds. No one is required by any Wikipedia policy to post a hangon under such circumstances. And, if youi disagree, then do an Rfc and I will gladly respond. Sometimes it's best to learn from our mistakes and move on. - Handicapper 16:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "If this persists I will report this incident where a full review of all actions and if indeed I have violated a policy, will show up."

Please do. And quote me as saying your comments are total nonsense. 21:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you think my stating what is a fact is a personal attack, then please file a formal complaint at Requests for arbitration. Handicapper 21:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hassles by other user
Thanks for letting me know about that problem. It looks to me as if you handled it beautifully. Holler if the problem rears its head again. - Lucky 6.9 22:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

speedy deletion
"The word "speedy" in this context refers to the rapid decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created."

This means that you should check the dates of creation and recent edits and then allow some time for the article to grow. --Gbleem 00:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

(continued on User talk:Gbleem)


 * Conversation continued Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion discussion.

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Mkdw! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk  01:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

VandalSniper
First, thanks for waiting so patiently for a response on your VandalSniper application, and sorry for the delay.

Thanks for applying to use VandalSniper. Unfortunately, I have the burden of telling you "sorry, not quite yet". You haven't been added to the approved users list yet because we would like to wait and see more edits from you (but we certainly have noticed your good work). Although the requirements to use VS are not set in stone, VandalSniper is a fast, fully-featured reversion tool with the potential for a sizable amount of edits in a short period of time, so this decision must sometimes be meticulous; I hope you understand. Your interest in VS is greatly appreciated, and you are invited to apply after you've made a few more edits. The reason you have not been approved yet says nothing about your value as a contributor – only that we'd like to see a little more of your work on Wikipedia before giving access to the tool.

Again, thanks so much for your interest. If you have any questions or concerns about this decision, feel free to contact me and I will be more than happy to discuss it with you. Again, thank you for helping "keep Wikipedia clean". Good luck, and happy editing! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Editcounters
Just to clarify, they're not encyclopedia articles, and I would like to see them merged sometime soon. Tito xd (?!?) 22:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Under no possible scenario I can think of Edit count as being part of the encyclopedia. To begin with, it is in the Project namespace, which can be seen by its prefix, Wikipedia:Edit count. This page isn't an article either, because it is in the User talk: namespace. Both pages include the text "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", but neither is part of the encyclopedia itself. Articles, by definition, must be in the article namespace. Furthermore, it is purely organizational in nature, and it does not give any actual content; if it were found in the article namespace, it would probably be submitted for deletion as it violates our no-self references guideline. Tito xd (?!?) 22:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that the page is in the project, or Wikipedia namespace, indicates that there is no need to have it written in first person or anything else we would do for an actual encyclopedic article. You're asking to make sweeping changes to the WikiProject edit counters page that are both sweeping and unnecessary, and that isn't generally accepted. There is no need to have either page meet NPOV. There's no need to have a collection of users within Wikipedia be verifiable. Overall, the page is a WikiProject, and is just a collection of users trying to do something. Tito xd (?!?) 22:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I haven't merged the pages. I only indicated that my preference is for them to be merged eventually. But I feel I am talking in circles: WikiProject edit counters is not an article, it's purpose is not to be encyclopedic, it's scope is just to say that there's a group of people that's trying to work on editcounters, and try to welcome new users who are interested in helping out. I see personally that discussing what an edit count is is something beneficial, and since there's no real reason to remove either paragraph from the page, I won't. Tito xd (?!?) 22:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The only thing that Interiot was trying to do was to expand the one-line description of an edit count. Perhaps the adminship bit is unnecessary, but the WikiProject wanted to add a bit more info about edit counts to its page. No one is touching Edit count anymore, but the change of removing all mention of edit counts in the WikiProject page is something editors there won't like too much. Tito xd (?!?) 23:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was the one who added the "see also" link to the edit count page, but I guess that rearranging WP:COUNT would be all right. A passing discussion of edit counts below the welcome statement would be ok, as long as it's not one line, as it was before. Tito xd (?!?) 23:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, that works. Tito xd (?!?) 23:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving me a message. I will try and reply to your message as soon as possible. Mkdw 22:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles tagged for Speedy Deletion
I'm trying to add a comprehensive history of Auburn University's football team.

To keep each page similar I'm formatting them the same way. The reason there are a number of new pages with just the scores is because that is the hardest piece of information at a time.

I was trying to go in twenty years increments. Add the schedule then add more in depth features on each article.

I work for the university so I have a pretty good amount of information to add.


 * by twenty year increments I mean 20 years at a time.


 * Please give me some time to combine all the articles I just created. I will then deleted the stand alones.

Mkdw; please take a look at WikiProject College Football - you'll note that Footballfiji was probably led astray by a typical construct found in the Project's articles (a season navbox) such as Auburn Tigers football or 2006 LSU Tigers football team. AU Tiger ʃ talk /work 05:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we did come down on him a little hard: WP:BITE. Good luck! :) -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 14:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem; aside from the minor nip you gave him, I just mainly wanted you to be aware of the project and that there are guidelines being developed there to manage these types of articles in case you run across something similar again. AU Tiger  ʃ talk /work 15:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Rated RKO
i dont understand why it was deleted? the term did start out in the IWC

License tagging for Image:Qeex.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Qeex.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 08:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Falsely accused
You have honestly confused me by trying to suggest I have made several attempts to "vandalize" wikipedia, I simply created one article. I have not yet edited or attempted to edit any other article. Also in no way have I tried to use more than one IP address, I have only one computer. Please do not falsely accuse me of things.


 * See reverse findings at User_talk:Randel72 for more information. Mkdw 16:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that
With all due respect sir, Did it occur to you however that seeing how the term "mugumbo" is in fact a term dubbed in the midwest that it would make perfect sense that you would trace multiple IP addresses back to the same ISP, seeing how Manhattan, KS (where I currently live) is infact where the term is most commonly used and also the host city to the semi-annual "Mugumbo Fest" is held. Cox communications has a monopoly here and therefore all IP addresses will be sent back to the same ISP. Furthermore I have noticed that already 1 person has commented in the dicussion on the word mugumbo. Probably on of the IP addresses you tagged, seeing how the person is a friend of mine. I hope that this message clears things up further.


 * See reverse findings at User_talk:Randel72 for more information. Mkdw 21:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
The pages up on Vicki Polin, Victoria Polin and Mark Dratch were vandalized. The pages used to be linked so if you type in one name the other would show up. I don't know how to do this. Someone removed both pages from Wikipedia. They also removed the page of Rabbi Mark Dratch. Both individuals are addressing violence (either sexual violence or domestic violence) in Jewish communities. Is there a way to protect both pages from any more vandalism or from being removed?

Welcome Pages
Yeah, I noticed that. I meant to put them on their talk page. I am nominating them for speedy deletion. Sorry. -- andrewI20 Talk 05:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you've been working hard too. :)-- andrewI20 Talk 06:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

don't mess with texas
hey gurl.

thanks for rv'ing the stuff i did. i regret it now.

thanks again!

thank you,

jo

Sending warning messages
Hi, when you're sending a varning message to a vandal, could you use,  , etc., instead of just  ,  , etc. It means that the text of that particular template will be added to the talk page of the user instead of the user just seeing a sort of mirror image of it. Two advantages are that if the actual template is vandalized, the message you have sent will not be altered in any way, and also less load is placed on the server. For more information, please see WP:SUBST. Cheers. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 10:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

 * Thank you for liking my practical joke, and thanks for the barnstar as well. I actually copied it from Reywas92, so I suggest you give him a barnstar too. I actually thought someone had vandalized my talk page when I first read it; it's very funny. Well, thanks again. | A ndonic O   Talk  00:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert on my user page
Thanks for reverting the vandalism. Keep it up :) SMC 03:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

VandalSniper
Okay, I'm sold. Be sure to warn vandals, use "subst" where appropriate, and keep the principle of civility in mind (obviously, although you don't seem to have any problems with that as it is), and I'm sure you'll be a great asset to RC patrol. Thanks for your interest; now for my boilerplate welcome.

Thanks for applying to use VandalSniper! You have been approved. If have not already done so, you may find instructions to install VS on the project page.

As some of the libraries VandalSniper runs on are currently in transition, there have been a few issues reported with setup. At the moment, Linux is the most compatible platform for VS. If you have questions or problems, you may find help on the project page or its talk page. Please also feel free to contact me for help and I will do my best to assist you.

Thanks for becoming a part of one of Wikipedia's best new software tools! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that you're a psychologist?
Are you sure that you're a psychologist? As in you got your Bachelor's degree or you're a credited psychologist and recognized by a professional order?--Janarius 20:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

UserPage
Hey Mets. I think you have a great UserPage. I copied and modified the page to make it my own, I hope you don't mind. I also gave you credit at the bottom of my page. Mkdw 19:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Mkdw! Glad you liked my userpage!  Yours looks great now too! — Mets501 (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images
I was not aware the deleted image was an out of date logo for the operation. I deleted it on the grounds that it was a lower quality replica of the undeleted image, under WP:CSD criteria #1. If you intend on using the historical logo in the article on ITunes, then feel free to re-upload it and use it on that article. As for removing them from userboxes, the use of fair use images in userboxes is strictly prohibited. Please see Fair use criteria item #9. Fair use images are not to be used outside of the main article namespace. This includes userboxes, other templates, or userpages. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to ask. Also, note that you do not have to do "   . If instead you use " Image:Itunes.png " it provides a link to the image without transcluding the image. Thanks, --Durin 20:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Nobel Prize in Physics
I don't understand your edit comment on Template:Nobel Prize in Physics. Please explain. --Srleffler 07:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed the point (or perhaps I have missed yours). This template is no longer being used the way it was intended. A couple months ago an anonymous editor went through and removed the template from nearly all the articles it was on. The editor replaced it with a bit of wikicode that links back to the template (but doesn't "call" the template). This was a poor way to implement the apparent goal of reducing the size of the navbox. What I am trying to do is reimplement this the "right" way: replace the template with a small template that just links to the list of names found elsewhere.

Now, I completely don't understand your reply to my message. The new template is just a box with two links in it, nothing else. There is nothing for users to "fill in". I have no idea what you are talking about.--Srleffler 07:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at the situation and try to understand it. Look at the code actually included on the laureate's pages, say for example Anthony James Leggett. The template was removed from the pages of the laureates some time ago. I am trying to fix this by putting the text that is actually being used into a template. This new template happens to have the same name as the old one which is no longer being used, for convenience. Your argument seems to have to do with the "navbox" layout, but that layout is no longer needed. It is not being included on the pages of the laureates anymore, and hasn't been for some time.--Srleffler 07:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

vandalism
*groan* I didn't even notice until now. Thanks a lot. That guy needs a boot up the proverbial, and pronto... riana_dzasta 08:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I keep blocking his IPs, but he keeps returning. Academic Challenger 08:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

All admins have the tools to do that, but only a few, not including me, actually know how to block ranges without blocking huge areas. I will be here for a while to watch the penguin article and our user page, which are his tragets, but he has been gone for a few minutes so he may have given up anyway. Academic Challenger 08:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Traditional Catholic Reflections and Reports
I saw the notes regarding problems (notability) and am open to deleting this page if it is not helpful.

Our is an international catholic / ecumenical news site and theological archive, but I don't want to appear to be violating wikipedia rules.

Paxus

Thank you
Thank you for barnstar, David! Max S em 08:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

continuing vandalism
I guess I spoke too soon about him giving up. Now I'll just block those IPs on site. Academic Challenger 08:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh! Well, it was actually for having your userpage vandalised so much, but I thought I'd make mention of his thoughtlessness too... riana_dzasta 09:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC) ;) No worries. Have a good one! riana_dzasta 10:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

User pages
Thanks for pointing that out. It is of course his right. I sent him a message instead. I think it's more a case of "new and doesn't know" rather than "doesn't want to". All the best. --BlackJack | talk page 09:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Bill Murray
Sorry. I was drinking tonight. I feel bad. I messed up the bill murray info. Dpn't ask why. Bill rubbed me the wrong way in that flowers flick.

I'm sorry. I'm leaving. Message left by Sambo2.

Barnstar
Thankyou. --<font color="#0000FF">Armadillo <font color="#000000">From <font color="#FF0000">Hell 16:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

IRC
Hmmm, I'm not really much of an IRC user (first time I used it was the day before yesterday, actually). But WP:IRC might have what you're looking for... riana_dzasta 10:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * :o And you're using my Wikidefcon! Wow... a template I made adapted is actually being used. I'm flattered. riana_dzasta 10:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't mind at all - I nicked it from Misza13, anyway. I would've gone with his version, but I wanted the colours on my userpage to match :p *vain* riana_dzasta 10:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, I'd be most flattered :D riana_dzasta 10:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, champ! If you don't mind, I'll just de-italicise you - I was keeping admins' names in italics, just for personal reference. Hope that's OK with you. Cheers! riana_dzasta 11:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry about the late reply, my mum decided to pick an argument with me :s It's 10:30PM now - I should probably get going, have lots of exam revision to do tomorrow. Take care! riana_dzasta 11:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey there!
I like your format! I may just take it, Mya!

-Ted in Boston


 * Sure go ahead. Not all of the content was created by me though. Lily Towers is responsible for some of the design, so you may want to ask for her permission to use some of the content. Let me know if you need help. Mkdw talk 08:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver
I am trying to find the problem with the external or footnote error between 37-40 but cannot seem to find it. Everything looks intacted to me and another user also mentioned that it looks alright. Am I missing something? Mkdw talk 05:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SOmeone partially fixed them for your, but the refs still need work. The format is inconsistent. Cite php is preferred. Notice for example that some have "Retrieved on..." and other web refs don't. Be consistent. Rlevse 10:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Footnote 40 has an error--it won't retrieve, it needs fixed ASAP. I'm working on fixing some other ref formatting for you, starting with PDF refs. Rlevse 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've fixed several refs for you as samples, including #40. If you fix the rest, I'll change to support. Let me know if you have questions. Rlevse 00:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

About the "New Messages" Joke...
It was hilarious! I'm still laughing at myself for falling for that. I can't believe I actually fell for it! Good work, and I award you with my gratitude. That was the first actual laugh I had all day. Two thumbs up, Mkdw! -- Mara <font color="FF9900">Neo <font color="FFCC33">127 talk  03:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - Hello, fellow Top 20 Wikipediholic. We... are.... insane...

I really don't know how I got such a high score on a new account. I answered it truthfully too, which makes it even sadder. I guess I was born a Wikipediholic.... -- Mara <font color="FF9900">Neo <font color="FFCC33">127 talk  12:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Feature Article
All these FAC opposes for Vancouver don't seem to have any reasoning and are mostly ficticious. I really hope they don't pull down Vancouver's FAC decision. Lily Towers talk 10:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. And you can't just reach over and smack 'em either. I don't know why rain-forest-man (or woman, but probably a man) didn't just make an edit himself instead of bringing it up where he did, since he has made edits in the past. On the upside though, is that if we're getting lots of non-constructive feed back in the FAC process, it's a sign that there's not any blatant problems with the article, only minor ones.Bobanny 16:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah no kidding. Mkdw talk 08:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hiya
Not bad, thanks! Been studying for exams all day, thought I'd take an hour off and... do some wikilinking. Sad. :) How's the Vancouver FAC going? riana_dzasta 08:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, give me a while to read it through though - the last time I read it was during the last nom, as far as I remember... riana_dzasta 08:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. riana_dzasta 10:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Btw... I won't reveal your secrets... but I love the easter egg you've got on your 'new messages' bar... xD riana_dzasta 13:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey David, there are a few concerns on the first and second FACs for Vancouver that haven't been quite addressed - you may wish to look over them. I'm going to bed now, but I hope you and others can get them sorted! Cheers, riana_dzasta 17:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not popular, I just talk a lot :p Good luck with your show! I just finished my biology exam today, so I'm free until Saturday when I have chemistry... then 5 more days until maths... and then I'm free! Can't wait... :) I noticed all the changes that have been made to the article, I honestly think it'll make it. Good luck once again, I hope your show goes really well! riana_dzasta 05:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver
Thank you for your contributions to WikiProject Vancouver and Vancouver. Your organization and work to improving these articles all across the board have been exempt. 142.35.144.2 23:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver message
I might. I'll see what I can do. -- Selmo  (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it doesn't want to work properly for me. Sorry. -- Selmo  (talk)

Skookum1 archive - yes, pls
Yes, thanks, I have no idea how to do it myself. There are items that I've been meaning to respond to (still) that I'll have to remember are on the archived page(s), if I ever do remember to answer them ;-) (ADHD and all that....). BTW I just got a "you have new messages" thing the link for which was "Special:MyTalk" but the "last changes" directed me to Practical joke; guess I should source who did that, if it can be sourced.....not quite vandalism but definitely a prank-call, so to speak.  Advice?Skookum1 21:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Studio 58
Category:Vancouver needs to be diffused; that is, as many articles as possible need to be recategorized in more specific and appropriate subcategories rather than directly in Category:Vancouver itself. This is not a negotiable rule on Wikipedia; categories must always be kept to their absolute minimum possible size. There are alternate ways of achieving the categorization goals you want, but moving things back out to Category:Vancouver which properly belong in more specific subcategories is not one of them. Bearcat 09:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just created Category:Education in Vancouver a few minutes ago. I haven't moved any articles into it, though. Bearcat 09:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Music of the Lesser Antilles
Hey, just pointing out that your pending FAC comment has been addressed: Featured article candidates/Music of the Lesser Antilles. Thanks, Tuf-Kat 03:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Vancouver
Hey man, performing arts eh? That's my thing too.

Anyways, I did some major formatting work on the project page (sidebar and stuff) and the talk page. Check to see if your ok with it. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 04:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

FAC, again
I agree - many of Joke's comments are highly subjective (i.e., a matter of stylistic choice, not incorrect or correct). It's extra-frustrating because he/she's coming along now just when we're thinking there's almost a consensus, rather than a week ago when everyone was a critic. In his/her defense, Joke's begun putting some work into the article (re-wrote the intro, not a whole lot better, but a little cleaner, IMO), which makes it easier to assume good faith and to appreciate his/her comments as constructive. Selmo, Skookum, and DS13 have been editing the article again too, so I guess it's a matter of waiting and seeing where the dust settles (they'd just better not mess up the footnotes!).

I think my real frustration right now is with the process. This thing's been an FAC for a while now, so is it just going to be ignored like it was (more or less) the other two times it was nominated? It's supposed to be decided by a consensus of participating Wikipedians - does this mean unanimous? Do we have to obey every flippant or whimsical suggestion that comes up? Does it depend on the mood of the admin whose job is to make that judgment call? Perhaps we're being punished for someone else's busy schedule. I'm not sure how long I can hold out before going to other FACs and making comments like "With the inclusion of incredibly boring details like the latitude and longitude, the very idea of this becoming featured is patently absurd" (to be read in you're best upper class British accent).Bobanny 17:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On another note, thanks for the archive boxes - and the suggestion to archive my talk page. I've been meaning to do that for a while, but could've put it off indefinitely without the nudge. Bobanny 23:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Joe sure seems to have some wierd objections. We're bad writers? How? The prose is bad? Why? He fails to assert. -- Selmo  (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

People
I'm confused about the "people" list on the wiki-van page that I thought you could clarify. 1st, the original list as I understood it, was of people who either needed an article, or needed their articles evaluated to see if they were up to par. If that's still the intention of the list, then they should eventually be promoted of the list altogether (right now, Pauline Johnston and Bryan Adams should probably be booted from the list). Also, is the new thing with the A,B and C categories something different than the evaluation on the VanProject tag? Vancouver articles are supposed get rated there and given a priority, and this seems to be the same thing. If it is, I don't think its a problem, because these articles are probably getting more attention than they would otherwise, whereas I don't think many Van articles have been evaluated. Cheerio, Bobanny 07:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hectare
Hi David, I tried to correct a page and apparently you corrected it back? Not quite sure why..

An hectare is bigger than an acre. If there are 49 people in 1 acre, then are going to be more than 49 people in 1 hectare. If we were using, say, square feet, the number of people per squre feet would be lower than the number of people per acre, but as the unit gets larger the number of people fitting into that unit is going to get larger. The extreme case of the largest unit, say where one unit = the size of the city of vancouver, then the density is going to be:

600,000 people / area the size of the city of vancouver

The number of people in the unit increases as the size of the unit increases... the number of people does not decrease.

The math works like this:

( 49 people / 1 acre ) *   ( 1 acre / 0.4049 hectares )  = 121 people / hectare

The acre unit cancels out. Leaving a unit of people/hectare. 121 to be aproximate.

If you can point out where I'm wrong, let me know.

Cheers, jonathan jscarter@gmail.com User talk:142.151.171.133

FYI
User:220.76.86.232 and User:211.196.211.215 are on the same ISP, and the latter is blocked, and TigerLilly is blocked indef, must be all the same person. --207.67.146.196 08:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Mom
Hiya! Thanks again for all the hard work! 220.76.95.128 14:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You must be from Toronto
When the ref for house prices didn't work and I supplied a new source to back up my edit, it was reverted to the original because apparently the old reference was better than the new. I checked again and the link finally worked, making available information for Vancouver and Toronto. The old edit quoted the source by saying "most expensive housing option in Canada", but added that Vancouver was "just ahead" of Toronto, a wording that wasn't even stated by the source. Which also is a gross understatement, given that what the source Italic textdid Italic text say was that Toronto, the closest city behind Vancouver, "trailed by a whopping $120,000", which you removed for reasons unknown. Double-standard much?
 * Comment left by - See User talk:Vestpa for reverse findings.

Not sure which "relevent text" you said you kept, but words such as "whopping" I thought were perfectly legit, afterall they were quoted from such a credible source. And if nitpicking at grammar can warrant removal of an entire phrase as opposed to an edit, it might be useful to add that it makes little sense for "a two-storey house" to be "just ahead of Toronto" as an expensive housing option. Unless Toronto itself is a housing option, perhaps we should take that out that last section altogether my friend. Who added it anyway?

Vestpa 06:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

FA Metal
Thank you very much for the award. It means alot to me. -- Selmo  (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ditto that, and thanks for the kind remarks. Kudos to you for taking this bull by the horns. In my mind, the rest of vanproject articles will move ahead more easily now that there's a precedent and a standard set.Bobanny 05:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting my work
What happened? I created a selected article page, and it gets deleted because the "author requested it". I dislike that, because I get the feeling the my contributions are worthless.

Anyway, I've made the showcased photo page, and declared directorship. Thanks for your work on the portal. -- Selmo  (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my tone was a bit harsh. Indeed, I have no problem with others edting the portal (it's a wiki after all, becides, WP:OWN disallows this). My only concern was the admin that deleted my work (ie they don't appear in my contributions. Agian, I apologize for any uncivility. -- Selmo  (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Award
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

Re:User_talk:Reedy_Boy
Hi, Sorry for not replying about this message before, i dont actually remember getting it!

I am not sure why this happened, and you were right to revert this part of the edit, and i have put it on the AutoWikiBrowser talk page, as it would seem it is a minor bug with the code.

Thanks for alerting me to it

Reedy Boy 22:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:ITunes old icon.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:ITunes old icon.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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. Fritz S. (Talk) 11:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

iTunes logo
Um, actually, Mkdw I think that only the most recent logo is necessary; see Microsoft Windows as an example. Linux does not even have an official logo, but one is still posted. Scoutersig 16:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow, my first comment does look like I think all the old logos are a bad idea; I do not think that. I agreee with keeping them in the article, just not at the top of the page. (See also my comment on the iTunes talk page, which I hope makes it sound like I know what I'm saying.) Scoutersig 15:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

iTunes
Than why wasnt every logo displayed? Just the aesthetic? If you have more than the current logo displayed, than you should have everyone. I'll be taking care of that. --Alegoo92 19:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) --Alegoo92 01:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you so much for the The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. I'm going to move it to my user page.

As an extra Thank You, here's a Chocolate Chip Cookie Smiley: Pedia-I 18:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

DYK
Cool. By the way, I think it's almost ready for FP status. -- Selmo  (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

user page protection
I semi-protected your user page. This means that anons and new users cannot edit it. I did not fully protect it because then you couldn't edit it until you become an admin. this should help though. Academic Challenger 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

PartofWPCANADA
While it's a good idea to have this template on the Vancouver article, the talk page says it should only be used on portals and WikiProjects, not articles. Thanks -- Selmo  (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A Question
Did you ever get VandalSniper to work on Mac? I tried a while ago with no luck. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect "Vandalism" charge
Dear Mkdw, You have accused me of vandalizing the Lord Byng Secondary School Wiki-page.

It is true that I edited that page to make 2 changes.
 * - I changed an incorrect spelling of "Candian" to Canadian".
 * - I sorted the "Notable Alumni" into alphabetical order.

I made no further changes, neither adding nor deleting material.

I do not know if the information on this page is correct as I have no knowledge of the institution, for example:
 * if either "Cory Lee" or "Noot Seear" (strange name) went to the school.

If you have reported me for vandalism, I would appreciate you withdrawing that complaint.

I believe you have made an honest mistake as there were a number of vandalism edits after mine.

Regards,

--User_talk:202.63.40.179-- aka --User_Talk:JohnI--


 * See reverse conversation on User talk:202.63.40.179.

WP:UW
Hi,

You have put yourself as interested in helping out atWikiProject on user warnings. We are now at a stage where we are creating the new templates and are wondering if you are still interested? If so please visit the overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 08:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Canada News Portal
(The current numbers are optimal for Safari, Firefox and Internet Explorer at 1024 * 768 and 1200 * 1024)

Really?

I find that odd. I'm running Firefox 2.0 at 1024/768, and this (Link to Image) is what I get. If you don't feel like opening it up, the text is hidden underneath the information portal thingy for some reason. User:Logical2uTalk 15:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of possibilities, but I'm fairly confused by the implications they have. I am running Fasterfox, which might be cropping some of the templates off, and then Firefox expands the rest. the Canadian News page is the only one that has that problem. It might be because of the "Box within a box within a box" set up it has, compared to the "Box within a box" format the others appear to have. User:Logical2uTalk 20:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't appear to have helped :^\ Odd. I'll check it out in IE, I guess. User:Logical2uTalk 01:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just checked it out in IE, and, oddly enough, the right side of the information box are cut off. User:Logical2uTalk 01:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Notification of speedy deletion
I see you marked Portal:Current events/Redesign for speedy deletion. If you mark someone's page for speedy deletion, it is good practice to notify them on their talk page. Also in this case, I don't believe speedy deletion is the appropriate response. This was a work in progress for a portal redesign. You yourself said it belongs in a user sandbox. Therefore don't try to delete it, simply move it to a sandbox yourself. --Dgies 00:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Vancouver
I feel like I'm not doing much on it, so I would like to become the director of another showcase section if it's alright with you. Thanks. -- Selmo  (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. -- Selmo  (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Quebec/QCOTW
Hey, there. Just letting you know, there's a bit of an easier way to accomplish that -- see WP:MOVE. :) Luna Santin 10:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
<div style="align: center; width: 75%; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px black; background-color: ForestGreen;"> '''
 * Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays ! | <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black;">A</b> ndonic <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:Black; font-size:small;">O</b> <i style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:Tan;">Talk</i> 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

. 

bridge
I like your Lion's Gate photo. Do you have a higher resolution version you could upload? Also, that'd be Burrard Inlet, not the Fraser below. Thanks, and happy X-Mas and all that, Bobanny 22:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ledge Raids
Please see Bobanny's talk page under BC Legislature Raids meddling.Skookum1 21:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Portals review
Hello Mkdw, very thanks for your kind message sand suggestions. I feel, some of my arguments were personal and could be avoided. I will comment on the Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Vancouver soon. Still some of the arguments are good and it is better to work on those issues, viewing as featured portals. Shyam ( T / C ) 15:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:UMB
Remember when you adopt userboxes to use the "move" command to keep the history all in one place instead of just copy/pasting. I've merged the history of User:Mkdw/OSX back. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Film/TV lists at Hollywood North - wikification and separate lists?
Been wikifying the TV series first, was going to move onto the films next. Wondering on the one hand, as these are all titles, that they should maybe be in italics; also wondering about formatting the list into bullets or two columns of same; or else migrating the works to "List" pages; Vancouver's TV list seems a bit short; I'll check on reelwest, UBCP and other sites I've got linked; depends on how far we go back, too - Wiseguy was made a long time before Hollywood North as a phenomenon earned its name; if McCabe and Mrs. Miller and Carnal Knowledge are listed in films (haven't looked) then earlier TV stuff like Wiseguy should also be here. Rumble in the Bronx is probably listed, but there's a host of B-grades made for US/international markets, e.g. the second in the Xtro franchise, which was an early up-and-comer in the local biz, B-grade though its market was. Reboot was shot/made in Victoria primarily...Vancouver's Hollywood North machine is also behind Alberta-shot projects like Legends of the Fall and Brokeback Mountain and The Assassination of Jesse James (not yet released); Alberta is its own "node" now, of course, but Legends of the Fall was definitely shopped out of Vancouver, and most of Jesse James' local casting went through here also. What's that J.Lo thing that was made up in Kamloops? And wasn't The Russia House made on Bowen Island? There's another one with Richard Gere, playing an architect, that's actually set here, rainy Hwy 99 and dark skies and all, but can't remember what it's called at the moment......the other reason I dropped by about this is I'm wondering if there shouldn't be Category:TV series produced in Vancouver and Category:Films produced in Vancouver, which would include both US-market and Canadian/int'l market productions. Mind you, it's pretty extensive when you include visiting stuff like the German production Dreamship (their version of The Love Boat, more or less, which shot only one episode here...I know because I was background in it.). Speaking of background, Pathfinder (film) opens on Jan. 7.....I'm the "third viking from the left", with downturned horns and a shiny, sharp nosepiece that almost took my nose off a couple of times (and left one stuntman with a couple of stitches when he wore it....); I'll be the guy knocking a First Nations guy's head off with a flail/ball-and-chain....(whoops I might have just broken the non-disclosure, but at least this isn't the Pathfinder talkpage ;-)).Skookum1 02:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong - POV vandalism on History of Chinese immigration to Canada
It's me, the whiteboy bogeyman, back at it; while I was blocked I watch HongQiGong smugly boast that he could revert things since I couldn't stop him; he's deleted mainstream history, including in the latest revision/deletion concerning the Governor's protection of Chinese miners, and also concerning well-documented Chinese mining practices, including the pulling up of stakes while othe miners were in town. I'm not about to launch an edit war here after what I've just been through, I'm not about to get in a major conflict with Hong here- but I would like an admin, preferably a BC one versed in our history, to slap him down some and also restore these materials. He also deleted the old POV tag while I was away - I was the one who placed it, originally, and exactly for reasons of biased/censored content like the type Hong obviously prefers. His smug remarks, such as the inline comment made when I was blocked - deserve a reprimand. If not, indeed a BLOCK for PAIN as well as vandalism. Doncha think?Skookum1 06:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

PS I was going to be dragging out the cites for these tonight, but as you can see from my User Contributions I've been hard at adding BC Wikiproject tags and ratings and tidying up things here and there on BC history stuff...still drafting my AFD statement for the Bornmann thing (want to cite-link certain things but been preoccupied doing legitimate Wiki work; I may seem like I like conflict, but I don't....).Skookum1 06:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mkdw - for your consideration, read this. Skookum1's bias is obvious, and his incessant soapboxing, annoying. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Funny how you found out so quickly it was Mkdw I'd taken this to; you must be following my User Contributions. I'm flattered....Skookum1 06:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and you'll notice that all the content on that part of the Noticeboard is Hong's "soapboxing" against me, pullling things out of context (and picking on my use of "colourful" language and "tell it like it is" analysis). style from many motns ago (and without proper cites) as a means of defending his current vandalism needs no further comment. The lines of mine he's quoted were in response to insulting or racially-biased analyses of his own, or of others in the same "discussion"; pot calling the kettle black as far as the personal attacks thing goes. I've learned my lesson; but Hong came back and did unwarranted deletes right after his 3RR block ended (and as explained his deletes here really also are 3RR, as he'd deleted the same stuff, or stuff like it, long ago).Skookum1 06:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

PS I notified Bobanny of this, as she's also "into" BC history, and might do the same for Fishhead64; I did discover on his talkpage that Hong was blocked overnight for 3RR, and notified William M. Connolley the admin who blocked him of these edits as well; they took place immediately when his block ended (and really they're 3RR, since we've edit-warred about the same content last spring). Cites for the deleted material are in the Akriggs and Ormsby, as well as in Hauka and Morton.Skookum1 06:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying that humiliation is "one of the driving forces of the Chinese cultural ego" is just your simple "tell it like it is" analysis? Come now. But anyway, I'll let Mkdw and others make their own judgement. I can find other examples of your so-called "tell it like it is" analysis, or what I would say are borderline racist comments. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Hong, see red herring. The issue is not an isolated quote of mine, without the context it came from, from several months; it's what you did tonight, and while I was blocked, and your trigger-happiness on removing things that don't fit with your prejudices about BC history, while leaving in uncited stuff that does.  Whatever.  I was hoping to see it was Mkdw who'd responded here; but it's just you "after me" again...which falls into the harrassment/personal attacks category (various visiting admins please note).Skookum1 07:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, with your claim that you've "reported me" for vandalism, yeah I would like to know exactly where you reported me, and state my own case. I stand by my point that your bias is apparent, and it manifests itself in your edits and your comments. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Following Wiki guidelines on conflict, this is my notice of disengagement and you can keep on sniping at me here, or anywhere else you can find to try and throw red herring issues to evade responsbility for your conduct.Skookum1 07:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To Mkdw and others, please see my further statement of disengagement posted on Hong's talk page as per Wiki conflict guidelines. I also submit that Hong's interpolations here as well as his sniping in the edit comments on the history article cited and elsewhere constitute harrassment.Skookum1 07:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION <BR> Please take this conversation somewhere else. Mkdw talk 10:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thought you were an admin; what's the appropriate arena for (a) content disputes/vandalism/edit wars and (b) personal harrassment?Skookum1 23:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC) PS I"m not the one who turned it into a "conversation".Skookum1 23:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin. I would like to be one day, but at the moment I am not. Sorry. Mkdw talk 04:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have bothered then...it's just you write and code with such authority ;-) Skookum1 04:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, have to start somewhere on the road to adminship, however I didn't do so well on the Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Vancouver. Mkdw talk 05:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Have to have a look at that discussion. Could it be because there are still issues with the article the portal sources, or is it layout or ?? Guess I'll read the discussion and see what went down. This place (Wikipedia) has so many different procedures and protocols it's hard to know where to turn for what (as with my query above).Skookum1 05:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

SVG??
Is it possible to upload SVG files, and have wiki automatically convert it on the fly to png? If so how do I do this, when I tried to upload an SVG it said it was not a recommended format, I did not see a way to force it to go. I noticed in the uploaded files area you have a couple that are .svg.png. --Green-Dragon 06:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images in portals
When articles are selected, a free use image replaces the first fair use image. There is discussion to change this, however. -- Selmo  (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Bornmann AFD
I know you haven't positioned yourself on this particular, um, affair, and are probably trying to stay non-involved, but in your capacity as a British Columbian please see the Erik Bornmann AFD] for my recent posts on it. It was extended as I had had an unfair block during most of its duration and the original decision to redirect was revoked so I could "testify". Please read all my posts and comments and also follow the links/cites provided. I am not asking you to make a vote, but I am fielding this around BC WikiProject people as it's the kind of thing we're also going to run into on everything from CasinoGate to Fantasy Gardens to Fastcats and more; even historical scandals and bios are soft-soaped often enough - it's just that this one is so blatant. I'm not partisan here - but I do feel that this is a test of Wikipedia's integrity (as well as of my patience).Skookum1 04:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi; saw your post on the AFD, and thanks. Something else I realized a while ago, in the course of having to "dig" to find rascalpatrol's userpage, and hence all my previous problems, is that the sig-link that he uses goes to User:rascalpatorl, not User:rascalpatrol.  He must be typing it directly, instead of using the four tildes.  Not sure what that's called, or where to report it, but it's definitely kind of squirrelly and there's no way Wiki technology would generate such a mistake, and a consistent one, too.  Try it - click on his link on the AFD and see where it goes - it's go to User:rascalpatorl.  Not exactly a sock puppet but definitely a willful deception.Skookum1 07:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Or it could be a genuine typo when he was setting his signature under Preferences. That way he wouldn't be typing his signatures directly. Carson 09:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that Clayoquot goes to Kla'quot, for instance. But while his sig on the AFD goes to the correct place (now adorned by a sockpuppet notice from Bobanny) his sigs on the article's talkpage do not (e.g. this item)...I'd thought earlier that the one on the AFD did, too, but I just tried it and it works correctly and there's no sign of a change to it in the edit history of the AFD.  Maybe he's changed his prefs since all this began; I know that this was the case last week because the only way I got to his userpage and wound up in hot water over it (can't find my block log, but if you can, check out my statements in the unblock template if you can find it) was by hand-typing "user:rascalpatrol" in the search window, as clicking on his links went to "user:rascalpatorl", which has no user contributions at all so couldn't have been right...Be bold is a Wiki guideline, so I was...and got slapped down for it (though wrongly and the block was ultimately revoked).Skookum1 09:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of GVRDlogo.jpg
Hi, just letting you know that I've reduced the resolution of the image by 80%, to better comply with fair use guidelines. Regardless of that, however, using the GVRD logo for illustrating the Web Resources section of the Vancouver Portal doesn't qualify as fair use, as far as I know. Carson 05:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

new BC Wikiproject Userbox template
Made a stab at a userbox; check 'er out: Template:User WikiProject British Columbia (use ). Fudged around with the colours and borders for a while, tried to use colours taken from the dogwood but wound up blue-adjusting the background, not quite happy with the bkgnd colour but it's better than the grey-transparent on the Vancouver userbox. Trying to think which stubs are needed; I think one for mountain and moutain range stubs (there'll be hundreds of these...), though the dogwood won't do for that; could use it for parks stubs, though, no? There's already a protected area stub that has a thing from the US Southwest on it; might as well replace it with the dogwood (d'ya like the dogwood? It's from Wikimedia Commons...I thumbed it down though). Trying to remember which other stubs are needed....bio-stub I guess for biographies, I'm thinking one for communities/settlements, have to think what else. Suggestions? Skookum1 02:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

More BC stub templates!
Have a look at the templates section of the WikiProject; prob. will make some more before bed (mountains, rivers will be so numerous that it seems necessary; not sure about islands, which could keep the geo-stub ).Skookum1 09:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Confusion over Bornmann's role
Hi; saw your edits on the AFD; Langara College had made the same mistake, but you'll note the date on the source brought up, which I guess Langara College might have been sourcing from, too, but it's from the opening of the whole affair, the original headlines. He plea-bargained or whatever it is he did - I'm not sure I'm allowed to say that around here - but the confusion over this is a delicate matter, and it's why "they" are monitoring the site. But they created the problem by hiding the public record and so there's confusion in Wikispace when people come looking, which is what happened with Langara College. I myself originally came to try and remember some of the details of what happened, and couldn't find anything at all but the flame war; I made the reverts to collate all the evidence in one place, and one copy-pastable document too...

The point is that this is WHY the page is needed, and it has to contain current facts - Omar Jack was very wrong in removing the current events tags, but then he's just wrong, period - or else, by obscuring events, people believe what they want to believe; by not having the current events tag to remind people information is changing and will be changing soon, because of the trial, they're giving the idea that everything is static... And/or because of the scattershot and only reconstructed nature of the story and events now, and a reading/hearing of a 2004 news item, without forgetting there's been other copy since, people have to be able to not be confused about this stuff. I had nothing against Bornmann, I only wanted to sort out what happened, and got caught in the crossfire....

But since the other copy about this since those original headlings has mostly been in the independent media and the 'zines, and including CKNW and its various guys in their print guises, and the big media has mostly obfuscated or shoved it aside, people are confused as to what happened, but they know about the scandal. Because it's not in the mainstream media people don't know the facts, but they know about it, and that's a bad thing for EB or any of them, in my estimation. They should be wanting a clear and concise record here to vindicate them, since they've got nothing to hide...

Which is why having to reconstruct it is such a pain in the a** ; it means reading everything, for one thing. So the effect of destroying the record here had the counter-effect of creating the illusion that he was charged, because there's the sensationalism of the original headline, and also as a primary resource, or primary source that is, even as just as a demonstration of the lurid nature of the scandal when it happened...primetime TV for at least a few days anyway, then muzzled pretty much. Baldrey tried to write it off a while ago; the point is that it's a historical record around here and if it's false, people will believe anything they want. And if it's not there, it's not that it's not unimportant, and then people who do want to find about it can't, and that will make them dig. And read everything.

I imagine it'll make quite a few good books by various authors, eventually, once it's all out in the open, whatever it was that did go down. My original point again, though, before I leave you alone about all this, is that Bornmann and Marissen should realize that if their online profile isn't full and complete about stuff that people already widely know, it will look bad for them. And give people the impression they have something to hide. Which is why, I'll bet, Bill Clinton never screws around on his own Wikipage...hmmm. Maybe we should propose it as a model? Compromise is everything.

Right now they're hissing mad, although maybe they're waking up It may only be a sockpuppet hydra, but since Tompettyfan got there it's at least a two-man show; or maybe they're waking up to Wiki rules and editing carefully and mindful that other people are trying to make sure the information is correct, and complete, according to what's allowed by Wiki rules and is expected by Wiki standards, such as are evolving in so many areas; the complexity of "Wiki legal culture" must boggle them in its complexity and in fact its subtleties, as I found out in working the language/system during the unblock...

Anyway, before I sign off I wanted to ask you to stop by the merge discussion that splits off Talk:Talk:Skwxwu7mesh Uxwuimixw in the discussion on the merge with Squamish Nation and the differentiation/structure of all the band, people, language and native community articles that intersect but have different categories, and of the list of First Nations in British Columbia, and its talkpage, too. Been busy tonight at points, when not playing music...just checking in but it occurred to me to ask you to look at some of the different articles that have been written around BC in that topic area, as linked out of that discussion anyway; maybe I'm thinking I should lay out a guide to the Indigenous People's project-structure for BC and other Wikipedians working on these articles, or who might be? Basic layout, where things are and the range and scale of articles needed (lots); check out Nisga'a and Gitksan for density of local culture being able to represent itself in Wikipedia; and also I found WikiProject Local History, which is interesting in the same light.

Likewise I'm wondering about the table/list of categories I'd compiled on Buchanan-Hermit's sandbox page (I'll link that later when I find it again...) so we know what things new articles might need of BC categories. And it looks like some of those stubs will survive, that I just made, as you probably noticed; but I have to resubmit them, and someone has to make them right, so it's done right. Hope you like the infobox, and sorry for the long scribing - it's late, and I was playing music.....Skookum1 09:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Nameless" IP address vandal active on Bornmann page
Hi. I made some change "back", and put back in stuff you'd just added with a 74.*.*.* IP address-type decided wasn't necessary. Langara College is watching, and I know Bobanny and the other BC Wikipedians all have this on their watchlist right now, as yourself; contacting you as yours were the most recent, before "they" got the cutting knives out again. POV watch big-time on this one...haven'g noticed any changes on the Legislature Raids page yet...but I'm sure they'll be back....Skookum1 21:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "74.104.19.225" is a non-traceable IP address - IP address locators can't find it. This was also the case with IP addresses on either the Bornmann page, and on the Ledgegate page; one of which the IP address locator couldn't even identify the country it was coming from.  Typically IP address edits in these articles have come out of Ontario, by the way....Skookum1 21:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just left a note with Proto about Omar Jack's latest
Please see Ongoing vandalism by sockpuppet at Erik Bornmann page at Proto's talkpage.Skookum1 02:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fresh vandalism of Talk:Erik Bornmann
Please see this.Skookum1 19:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And to remind me why I'm actually here...
I wrote this last night, in the wee hours: an article on the Rock Creek Gold Rush - brand-spanking new and been shoved aside because of the "War of the Puppets". Also made the redirect for Rock Creek War, since there wasn't a point in two articles (as there is with Fraser Canyon Gold Rush and Fraser Canyon War). Nice to write about something other than, well, you know....enjoy, and please add anything or fix anything that seems fitting. Unlike r.p. and friends, I don't have a problem with other people editing my Wiki contributions....now for the Omineca, Big Bend and Wild Horse Creek....Skookum1 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal tweaks
Just FYI, although I'm presuming you'll see them on your watchlist... I've made a few minor tweaks to some of the Portal sections. Details are in the edit comments and on one of the talk pages. Cheers. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  07:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a big deal about the "archive" tag, although... keep in mind that the tag adds the text "this is an archive - do not edit" (not the exact phrasing) to the page. It's usually intended for pages/discussions that are done with, and for which a permanent record of their final state is desired. Using it on text that is currently "live" discourages input to that content. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  20:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

IP Address changes to Hollywood North
You did so much work bringing this article into tow and common sense, but there've been a series of edits by IP addresses, probably more to come, "putting Toronto first". I was gonna do an undo/revert but the database was locked; I'll try again in a few minutes but this is a heads-up; I'm deferring to your authority and the citability of all your changes (and cool head). Does serve, to me, to demonstrate exactly what is so puerile about the Torontonian attitude towards its version of the national reality, overriding all others; something like "me too" plus "me first".....Skookum1 (Talk) 18:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Come Together
David, I know we've had problems in the past regarding vandalism, but I don't want that to get in the way of cherishing a good joke on someone else's behalf. Take a look at User:Cynthia18 and the ridiculousness of everything she talks about regarding the iPhone. Come one, we should really share a laugh about all of this and call this whole war off. Cheers. 210.92.207.2 11:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood North - POV template?
Thought of putting a section-POV template on the new stuff by User:Donteatyellowsnow, who's clearly from California and highly prejudiced against the Canadian film industry; placed a bunch of fact templates and moved his "attack edits/contribs" to the bottom. He'll be back I'm sure, and no doubt you've got this on your watchlist, but wanted to consult with you about the section-POV template, and also wondering about placing a warning about vandalistic edits/content on Donteatyellowsnow's talkpage.Skookum1 21:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mkdw, I've reverted your "speedy deletion" tag at Runaway production (I've moved it from Runaway film) as it is a valid industry term, even showing up in a BC government report. I've also restored the section in Hollywood North as it is a valid addition. I rewrote it to reflect the changes I made at Runaway production earlier, and it does provide background on the issue from a perspective other than our own. (Otherwise, we run the risk of getting accused of POV editing ourselves.) Anyway, you might wish to rework your note on Donteatyellowsnow's talk page to reflect the above, and the fact that you actually reverted my edits - not his/hers. That editor already seems pretty riled up about the subject, and I don't want this to devolve into an edit war. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  07:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, without meaning to stoke things up, but it is worth noting, somewhere (and citable, too, I think) that Hollywood itself began as runaway productions from New York; it was also about tax breaks and cheap land/costs relative to New York's skyrocketed turf, as much as it was to get the sunshine and oranges. I agree about the edit war, but I'm obviously pretty particular about people "having their way" with this topic, for all the citable reasons Mkdw has worked hard to compile, too.  The POV tone of the new stuff was a bit shocking....even by my standards.  Point is the competition/animosity with Hollywood is a part of the film industry environment here now; the place is always on tenterhooks about what L.A./Cali may or may not do, and the industry as I think Mkdw exists on razor-thin ice, and pretty much always has; it doesns't have the backing of government infrastructure and sweeping legislation/resources allotted to it like forestry or mining, for example, and even during the tax credit thing one of the cabinet ministers, resisting a further break, opined (very briefly, and bypassed his comment later without comment) that if the film industry didn't like it they could move to Ontario....er, what??!!.  Anyway, I can see there being a need for the gist of what Donteat's talking about; not his tone, or the unsubstantiated rationale.  I've been meaning to stop in on one of "my people" who's been around for ages and would know; but it's not like this name was "invented" by Vancouver to try and steal something from "the real Hollywood" (Hollywood doesn't own the film industry as a concept; it just likes to pretend it should have a monopoly), it was conferred upon us from within industry slang.  Toronto, on the other hand, did deliberately start packaging itself around the name and also pretending it was all about itself (I won't go on as I have before...).  But the hype/paranoia within the L.A. film unions and (only some of) the production/money community is very hot sometimes, as we've seen here; the issues are there; it's a question of how to tie them into what relevance they have within an article on Hollywood North.  There may be some, but only as a side-reference (we lose productions back to LA regularly, too.....and most actor roles (less than 5 lines) go to out-of-towners, and auditions are only held here to qualify for the tax credit, with no intention of hiring a Canuck and his/her funny way of saying "about".  No, seriously, and that's citable, although I can't remember the article it was in - in the West Ender or even the Sun I think, and I cant' remember when....Skookum1 11:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree about the new stuff from "Dont" - there's a definite agenda there, especially when you look at some other contributions that editor has made. (Check out the edit histories of Runaway production and Film history to see what I mean.) However, I do think there is a place for this "industry reaction" in the Hollywood North article; again, I think it can serve to beef up the article, along with details about the rivalry, the "tentative" nature of the business, and the fact that - as Hollywood was to New York, and as we are to Hollywood, other jurisdictions are eager to get some of Vancouver/Toronto's business. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  19:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely too esoteric for this Wikipedia article, but Jane Jacobs' theory of import replacement is at work here; economies learning to make what they previously had imported, and getting so good at it that they export it back to the place they were originally importing it from. Anyway, just made some notes on the article's talkpage about "if we're gonna have all this content, then we need to have all that content", "that" content being the specifics of tax regimes and other stuff vs the information now there on Cali/D.C. legislation, etc.  I'm not saying the stuff that's there even needs to be there but if it is, then corresponding material on Canadian/BC/ON etc. laws is needed, or this article becomes APOV.  And either of you guys (Mkdw or Ckatz) I'd appreciate it if you'd drop by the Oregon boundary dispute some time, or at least have a look over it relative to the entrenched/increasing USPOV content/tone there, even though it's part of "our" history just as much as "theirs"....Skookum1 19:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

template:click
Hello again, Mkdw. I've understood the project to remove template:click didn't provide enough documentation, so it wasn't rare some wikipedians like you have some doubts about it. I have tried to change that adding more documentation. Please, let us know if it answers all your questions. Best regards, --surue&ntilde;a 20:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As you haven't made any further comment, I assume you don't have more objections to the project to remove this problematic template, am I right? In that case, can you remove the (used in a non-standard way) disputed banner, please?. But don't hesitate to make additional comments at the talk page at any time. Thanks! --surue&ntilde;a 17:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood North
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Hollywood North, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Langara College 01:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed numbers
I noticed you changed the numbers cited on the article for hollywood north i took those numbers from the cited document. You added that 19 features were produced when the document says 39 not to mention you altered a few other figures and added some. where are you getting those numbers from? since their not in the document that was cited.

Brodey 01:12 January 15th 2007

Template
I've fixed the template. -- Selmo  (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protecting Vancouver
Done. I'll probably unprotect in a few days, but hopefully this will teach the spammers a lesson. Academic Challenger 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be possible. Academic Challenger 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure!
Okay I will review you, and of course you are allowed to borrow some coding from my page, this is "wiki" after all ;). <font color="#7b68ee">Arjun 02:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Review is done. Cheers! <font color="#7b68ee">Arjun 02:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Mkdw/House
Removing formatting content and reducing the size of the text by a considerable amount to one of my userboxes is helpful and could be considered vandalism. Please do not tamper with userboxes that do not require further maintanence. You talk page is 112kb too long. Wikipedia recommends pages over 30kb be archived. Mkdw talk 04:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My talk page is currently 112kb long; if it's "112kb too long", doesn't that mean that the optimal length is 0kb? :D
 * Note that accusing editors of vandalism without basis is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. In the vast majority of cases when dealing with experienced editors, neither editor will be "vandalizing" in a dispute; it will simply be the result of misunderstanding. Consequently, throwing "vandal" around left and right without consideration is likely to cause countless disputes, and is sure to resolve absolutely none. It is thus advisable to only use it to report genuine vandals.
 * The template in question uses depracated formating that will break many of the WP:UBX tables, making it useless to many users. There is no visual difference between the two formats, so there is no reason not to use the non-template-within-a-template version. I apologize for the change in font size; that was simply a copy-pasting error on my part.
 * Also, your talk page is 12kb too long. Wikipedia recommends pages over 30kb be archived. :) -Silence 05:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The template I used for the userbox is the 'standard' method in creating a userbox. See WP:UBX. Please stop changing it. Also there is a visual difference. It shrinks the text to size 7 font making it barely legible and its far more esoteric and less user friendly. Mkdw talk 05:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I also want to add, in response to the WP:CIVIL, the userbox is on my namespace. The article User_page talks about the general convention of user namespaces and respecting that they are in the namespace of others. While to do belong to the community, its considered 'polite' to not change pages on users namespaces with out asking. Who's threatening who now with WP:CIVIL, especially since in the case that you changed the userbox from its standard to another format and made it illegible to read. In my opinion I saw that as vandalism for it reduced the quality and integrity of the page. If it was a misunderstand then I apologize, but since you've done it twice now, I dont think there is any confusion. Mkdw talk 05:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Conversation moved to User_talk:Silence.

Editor review
I hope you found my advice helpful and my pleasure as far as my edits to your articles were concerned. Some people use Editor reviews to get a feel for editor opinion before going for RfAs and some don't (admins sometimes ask for reviews too...). I thought I may as well address the RfA question in case you had it in mind- I should think you'd be a strong candidate in a month or two. But don't feel you have to go for adminship if you don't want to. By the way, it does say he founded an academy in the dif you linked me to on my talk page. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 07:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No probs. Congrats on the featured portal- guess I was looking at the nomination for that through difs only and didn't notice it was over :). WJBscribe (WJB talk) 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 10:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Cat and the Canary & citations
I've left a note at the article's talk page and the FAC discussion regarding the citations and your edits. Please examine the Notes section carefully, and you'll see all the required information is there. Dmoon1 16:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Opinion requested - PSAC title
Hi. Please see and  re the best/preferred name for an article on Puget's Sound Agricultural Company (that's my own pref).Skookum1 00:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey man
Can you review Portal:China in the candidate page to see if it meets featured criteria? Thanks!

The teamwork of us Vancouver people on building Portal:Vancouver was great :) <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Mais oui! 11:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Never use the "Minor edit" button to attempt to disguise reversions. And while I'm here, the "oh I forgot to fill in the Edit summary box" is not very convincing I'm afraid. To my knowledge I have never failed to complete it in about 40,000 edits - not since my first few days anyway. --Mais oui! 12:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Advice
Please take note of my comments at Talk:Vancouver. BTW your 3RR report is incorrect, please take care to re-read WP:3RR and note the 24hr bit. I'm not going to handle the 3RR report, but personally I think you'd be better to remove the report, stop edits to the article for now (don't worry if it's left at The Wrong Version) and gain consensus on the talk page. Thanks/wangi 14:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think I am incorrect on my WP:3RR please say so on Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR. I don't understand how you can 'take this on' with out doing it through the admin noticeboard. I've read WP:3RR and I still feel I have justification. As far as your comments on Talk:Vancouver I agreed to stop editing awhile ago to avoid getting into an edit war. My first edit on Jan 23 was to move history section back to History of Vancouver and Mais reverted the flags section before I had a chance. My second edit was immediately reverted by him for 'not having an edit summary' which I thought was a simple misunderstanding, but he did it again after that. This user is exceptionally rude and I find it hard for anyone involved to advise ignoring his comments, insults, and reverts to an article you've spent 3 months working on including a Featured article review. Anything else that I would only guess could be labelled as disruption would be our argument on the Talk:Vancouver, but I thought that's exactly what its for, discussion? Mkdw talk 16:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course you're free to ignore my advice, I was just trying to be helpful and diffuse the situation - I'll offer a full refund :). By not editing the article I meant not editing at all, the matter is trivial and it does not damage the encyclopedia if the article is stuck at either of the versions until the matter is resolved — it's more productive to focus on discussing the issue. Having a thick skin and backing away from a confrontation are the best ways to get progress on these sort of issues. You're both good productive editors.


 * Admins aren't tied to only working through the Admin Noticeboards and other such pages, we can try to help outwith them. And when reporting 3RR it's within a 24hr time frame. Ta/wangi 16:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

new use of "H.N."
Hi; avoiding putting this on Talk:HN because of the archive/blankslate there that's been established, but found myself with a wry grin tonight - I usually have Entertainment Tonight blaring while I'm writing after dinner (it's either that or Coronation Street, as I don't have cable...) and the American edition said "next we're going up to Hollywood North - the SUNDANCE Festival!" And she didn't mean the avalanche of Canadian films and actors/directors there; the Canadian edition (on right now) did use it in that context; but it's clear that the writers for the American edition didn't care, and/or were content to fudge Park City and its filmfest into the Hollywood North paradigm. All I could do was smile....Skookum1 03:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yellowsnow's latest
Is that or is that not an incorrect use of the AFD template? Because if it was a correct placement, the link to its discussion page at the AFD area wouldn't be redlinked, right? I almost reverted it but am unsure of procedure here; does he have the right to randomly place the AFD tag? Or is this one step short of vandalism? Or is it just vandalism plain and simple?Skookum1 03:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed it, and am prepared to accept any repercussions for that action, on the basis that the fundamental claim used for the AfD is flawed. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  04:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Runaway production
Mkdw: I saw your edits at Runaway - thanks for getting the internal links as I'd been meaning to go back for those. I've tweaked a few of your edits as I think that some of the earlier stuff was more appropriate - nothing major though. I'm also toying with pulling the "POV" tag. While there certainly are issues to be addressed, Donteatyellowsnow actually accepted the rewrite of the first two sections that I did earlier today, so it might be a good idea in the spirit of calming down the article. What do you think? --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  07:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I swapped in "notable", but it didn't read quite right in this context - so I've removed it altogether. What do you think of "pioneering"? --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  08:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mkdw, I don't want to tell you what to do, but... you might want to seriously consider removing your last message on "Dont"'s talk page. While that editor certainly has removed tags in the past, a check of the article history will show that he/she didn't remove it in this instance, and in fact left it intact through a series of edits. The POV tag actually came off during Agent 86's cleanup yesterday. I know tensions are high right now, but removing that message - given that it is in error - could prevent things from getting worse. Just a thought... --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy   18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for alerting Langara - the message was sent to that page as well, to a similar sub-page. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sending warning messages
I was not aware. Thanks for the heads up! Cheers. — Aiden 11:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for the wishes, David, I hope your holidays were fantastic, too :) Take care, and I hope 2007 treats you well! Cheers, riana_dzasta 14:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your latest warning to Donteatyellowsnow
Sorry about the time lag in letting you know, but I've posted a response to the warning you left on Donteatyellowsnow's talk page. He might not have removed the template you were referring to. Agent 86 22:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:GVRDlogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:GVRDlogo.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 14:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Suresh
I've read the sources and looked into it, she's not really notable anymore than a kid who calls the fire dpt. and winds up 'saving' an apartment full of people- and then winds up on CNN the next day because they're "A hero" -- febtalk 10:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not reverted comments. I have, however, removed a message which was intended primarily to insult my judgement and lessen the value of my opinion, which was added after I specifically stated that I had reviewed it. -- febtalk 11:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read CIV, if either one of us is going against it, it would be you. There is ONE comment above the line, which is mine, and I have made it very clear that I have A: Never based an AFD bio vote on the article itself along, and B: Reread the article. In addition, it is NOT a comment or vote by you, so I am not in the wrong for removing it. -- febtalk 11:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Purple Heart
I wanted to respond to your comment at the AFD for PFC Howard Johnson II, but didn't want to clutter the page. As you might (or might not know), the Purple Heart is given to those who suffer combat injuries or death by enemy action or terrorist attacks. All of the OIF and OEF combat deaths and injuries were presented Purple Hearts, which means sadly, a lot of people, or their families, were presented the medal. However, one thing I wish to ask is this: what kind of medals does someone have to be presented with in order to obtain notability. I know about Knighthoods, Hero titles, the Medal of Honor and top orders, such as the Order of Canada, but can you tell me where that "inclusion criteria" exists? I am not asking to change your vote, since you have your opinions, I have mine. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal peer review
Hello, Mkdw! Since it has almost been a month since you nominated the Canadian current events portal for peer review, I hope you received good feedback on how the portal could be improved. If you would like, you could keep the portal listed at the portal peer review for more suggestions for improvement and ask the Wikipedians here for feedback. Also, if you think the portal is ready, you could nominate the portal for featured status. Either way, I hope you've received helpful reviews! Cheers, <font color="#4169E1">S <font color="#120a8f">.D. <font color="#120a8f">¿п?  § 03:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message on my talk page. I have nominated the Portal:Current events/Canada as a Featured Portal Candidate. The time has come and I think its safe to remove it from the Peer Review list. I don't see it likely that it will get more feedback anyway. As a regular on the Peer Review board, do you have any advice for the Portal. User:Rfrisbie is on WikiBreak right now so I feel relatively alone on this project. Mkdw talk 11:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done
 * Nothing comes to mind right now — best of luck with the nomination! Monitor the page regularly and try to fix any suggestion reviewers might have. Happy editing, <font color="#4169E1">S <font color="#120a8f">.D. <font color="#120a8f">¿п?  § 12:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh
Thanks David! 'Preciate it :) Clearing out CAT:CSD is... more fun than I expected it to be ;) Hope you're doing well! riana_dzasta 11:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's terrible! Not that I haven't done it before... this place is far too addictive, and I suspect it will become even more so now :) riana_dzasta 11:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

FP Nomination
Hi, although I'm on an indefinite break, I'll keep an eye on the Canada Current Events FP nom, since I already encouraged you to go for it. I'll put it under the "continuation rule" and help out if needed. Since I'm off the clock, so to speak, please make any replies about this topic here. Good luck, Rfrisbie 13:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Knock it off.
How about you knock it off and let me have my user page the way it was. I have no idea what you're talking about with the Chicago vandalism, but it wasn't me. So mind your own business and leave me be. Thank you and I hope you have a great day, evening, night, or whatever the case may be where you're from. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.0.108.141 (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
 * If you are wondering about some of the warnings you are receiving, I suggest you take a look at the contributions associated with your IP at Special:Contributions/208.0.108.141. If you're using a shared computer or using an ISP such as AOL that rotates your IP, you may want to create a registered account to separate yourself from vandals that may be using your IP to destroy content on Wikipedia. I would also like to take this time to remind you about WP:CIVIL and not bite other users on Wikipedia. Mkdw talk 06:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it
Um, I was civil toward you and i did not bit you. I said please and thank you, and even wished you a good day. You can't get much more polite than that. I'm very blunt in the way i speak to everyone, but I'm usually polite in the way i do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.0.108.141 (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
 * When you leave comments such as "mind your own business and leave me be." that then can only be described as a 'textbook' example be being rude. Tone and most importantly how you interact with other editors on Wikipedia is very important and failure to do so can even result in being blocked for disruption. Just keep it in mind and I'm sure you won't have any problems. Also I strongly suggest you register if you are the not person responsible for the numerous incidents of vandalism caused by this IP. Also, you can sign each of your replies on talk pages by adding ~ to the end of your message. Mkdw talk 06:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)