User talk:Mrsdonovan

Daniel Fry High School Education
Hi, I understand you are knowledgeable about Daniel Fry. Thanks for the citation. Question for you: What was the (exact) name of the high school and its exact locality where Fry went to high school? There are several  places called Antelope (including one near Sacramento) and several other places called Antelope Valley (including one in the Sierra Nevada mountain range in California, for starters). Without these specifics I am unsure about your now newly sourced claim. We local old timers have never heard of him (and trust me on this. . . I'm right next door to one who knew how the area used to be in the 1920s.) One other thing confuses me as well: according to danielfry.com, Fry attended school in Hill City (MN) where his mother died. Sooooo. . . in what city and state did Daniel Fry attend high school? I would really like to get to the bottom of this. Thanks for your kind cooperation in advance. --avnative 11:12, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is my answer:


 * I'm not sure how to answer my own "Talk" but here's the answer to your questions:

> > What was the (exact) name of the high school and its > exact locality where Fry went to high school? > > Fry attended school in Hill City (MN) where his mother died. > Sooooo. . . in what city and state did Daniel Fry attend > high school?


 * On page 4 of the source, Daniel writes that the poem he wrote "Cloudburst on the Big Rock" was done at "Antelope Valley High School, Antelope Valley, California". That he was actually there is consistent because a few years after his mother's death (and his father's and his grandfather's) he, his Grandmother and sister moved to South Pasadena where he completed his elementary years in the now defunct "El Centro" elementary school.  Antelope Valley is just north of Pasadena, correct? And the Antelope Valley High School history section states that many students came from quite a ways to live and study there during the 1920s.


 * > Without these specifics I am unsure about your now

> newly sourced claim.


 * I find it strange that Daniel's entry causes any contention at all, when there isn't any citations for the other "Notables", most of which I've never heard of. Are the citations hidden somewhere?


 * > We local old timers have never heard of him (and trust

> me on this. . . I'm right next door to one who knew how > the area used to be in the 1920s.)


 * The answer to that is simple, Daniel didn't grow up in the area and I don't remember the names of everbody at my high school either.


 * If you are satisifed, please add Daniel back.


 * Thanks for your thoughtful and civil reply here. Yes, Daniel Fry will be added back.  Please check your email you sent me for the details.  Thanks for your help, and I hope you will continue to add good information to Wikipedia.  I learn new things every day!  Even from folks like you. . .  (smile)  --avnative 06:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

One thing you may not know about Dan Frye
Since you run a kind of single purpose account, you might want to learn an information about Dan Frye, which you might not have heard of before: Logos (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, I am deeply interested in Fry and I am always looking for new information about him, but after fifteen years, anything new is exceedingly rare. I did after all, write his biography.  Logos, I read the short paragraph you linked to and, well, to be blunt, find it uninformative and useless as is typical with anything "channelled".  Why do people consider undefined concepts like "Confederation thought-form vehicular illusion" and "the intelligent infinity behind the illusion of limits." informative?  All I get out of that paragraph, to use an analogy, is that someone said apples are red.  It isn't even unique, as other fringe sources have said similar things  Sean Donovan (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The little piece about dan fry is not sufficient to form an opinion about that channeled source. Besides, citing the law of one books in your self-published book could skyrocket the sales. Logos (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Howard Menger


A tag has been placed on Howard Menger requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Edward321 (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Daniel fry press photo.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Daniel fry press photo.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Crescent Engineering pamphlet.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Crescent Engineering pamphlet.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)