User talk:Nhprman/Archive 1

Great Work on Pelagius
Thanks for your contribution to Pelagius. Yes, it was a lift from the Catholic Encyclopedia! I quite like Pelagius and if anything, I was writing biasedly towards him, trying to counter the obvious bias of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Keep up the good work! JBJ830726 05:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate hearing that! Nhprman 18:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, I just had a look at your user page and saw you studied Pelagius in college. How much did you devote to him? I've just had to write a term paper this semester, and chose him as my subject, so I probly don't have as much authority as you in speaking of him. If so, I'll defer to your judgement in the future over disagreements in the article. Carl.bunderson 05:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Year links
The general thinking on linking to individual years has changed over wikipedia's tenure. Folks used to link to anything that had an article, because they were relatively few, and that included years; I remember when all those started to be created (after arguing about whether 1969 should go to the number or the year). Obviously that's not an issue now - so now we have to balance readability and context, which makes it a big judgement call. There is a minor project in the works to remove most stand-alone year links.

Personally, I think individual year links - and even more, links to decades like 1950s - are useless. The chance of something in the year article existing that will add real context to what you're reading is minuscule, compared to the visual stumbling block of the blue underlining. I agree with you that the further back you go the more likely a year link is to be useful - but even years in the 1800s have so much stuff on them that the chances of any connection are small.

On the other hand, there are year categories that make good links - e.g., 1957 in literature in articles about a book or author. Also, now that I think about it, leaving day and date links in birth and death dates (January 17, 1903 - August 5, 1957) are good because you could see who else was born/died on that day/year. I have taken those out, but I shouldn't have ...

What NH paper do you edit? I work for the Telegraph of Nashua. - DavidWBrooks 21:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Fellow Granite State Journalist!
Hey! I just saw your good work at List of mayors of Manchester, New Hampshire, and I was wondering if you'd like to join us at Wikiproject: New Hampshire, our goal is basically to help make content regarding New Hampshire to be some of the best throughout Wikipedia, we've almost taken Nashua, New Hampshire to featured status.

Like David, I'm also curious who you work for, I thought I could find another career after graduating college in 2004 with a BA in Journalism from Keene State College, but I haven't really found a replacement yet and i'd like to stick around this area if possible.

Please let me know if you have any questions in regards to things around here, i'm one of Wikipedia's over 700 Administrators. Thanks! karmafist 03:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Weare Free Press
Sounds great, is it a freelancing position or full time? karmafist 08:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How much does it pay? I might be able to swing something if it's at least $50 per article or whatever, I have no outside sales experience, but I could always tout the paper to local businesses for commissions. karmafist 18:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

ManchVegas AFD vote
Could you please not turn your vote into a heading? There are a lot of AfD entries, and inserting headings in the middle of one makes it hard to make sense of discussions. Thanks. Reyk 07:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Caelestius
The Caelestius contribution is good, assuming it's accurate, which I can't verify. Any longer and it should be divided into subheadings.


 * I'll respond here, because you didn't sign your comment and don't know where you're talk page is. Thanks for the suggestion on subheads. I added them, since it really was "on the cusp" of needing them. It's easier to navigate that way. As for accuracy, I think it's sourced pretty well, but I'll continue to look for more. Thanks! Nhprman 00:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

there's still hope
I'm extremely glad to have one more person in this debate who can think clearly. What people who so vociferously defend their userboxes don't seem to understand is that Wikipedia is not about userboxes. It's about an encyclopedia, duh! We have to get back on the right track, and I'm very hopeful that we will. Thanks for the nice comment, and keep up the good work.--Alhutch 06:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I like your user interest list thing. It seems like a good solution to the whole userbox issue. I'm not quite sure about the speedy deletion of anti-fascism. I know that CSD T1 is a policy and all, but it just seems to make people a whole lot angrier, since a lot of the userboxes are being speedied in the middle of debates on TFD. For this reason, I try to avoid using it. It only heightens accusations of a an anti-userbox cabal. I would have to defer to Zzyzx11 on this.  Zzyzx11 is more experienced than me, and I would trust his judgement on this type of issue. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. --Alhutch 00:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

size of Legislature
I didn't know the NH House had changed in size at all over the years! The things you learn ... - DavidWBrooks 22:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:TFD and Template:User anti-fascism
Next time, please follow the directions on Templates for deletion and tag the template in question with &#123;{TFD}} because that is the tag that links to the keep/delete discussion. &#123;{db-attacktemplate}} does not have any reference or link to that page, and only places the page in the queue for speedy deletion. I think it was because of this misunderstanding that you had to revert both Bratsche and my edits on that anti-fascism template. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Right now, both the deletion process and the enforcement of these userboxes will be slow for the next week or two. There is a ongoing debate on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion on exactly how to define what "offensive", "inflammatory", or "personal attack" is. Some have expressed concern that it is "too vague".
 * Of course, someone posted on Criteria for speedy deletion a list of examples of texts from userboxes that have been deleted under this criterion, including the exact same text that Template:User anti-fascism has on right now. If I could find which userbox was deleted, I would then have evidence to delete User anti-fascism under CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper
You're crazy to include most of the staff - they change all the time and will invariably become out of date, and the information is of no interest to anybody who doesn't work there (and already knows it). Otherwise it's fine. - DavidWBrooks 11:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

template:User disBush,
This is going to sound stupid, but I don't recall deleting that - or, in fact, ever deleting any template. I don't see it on the deletion log. Is there some confusion? Am *I* confused? - DavidWBrooks 02:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Re : Anti-fasc
Hi Nhprman,

They were probably speedy deleted, under the new provision T1 set out in Criteria for speedy deletion. Head for Deletion review/Userbox debates. Take note that a messy userbox war is going on out there, though.

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Whoever wins, Wikipedia loses! I'm a janitor trying to "pick up the pieces" without getting too much into conflict. Hopefully, with time this whole fisaco will just blow over. ;) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 03:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, as Mailer Diablo said, the userbox war is increasing so much that I cannot keep track of it anymore ... and I really do not want to get into the heated battles either. The conflicts have really spilled over to TFD and DRV. What I can tell, its more like a "first come, first serve" type of deal where whoever puts a box on TFD or marks it for speedy deletion first is the first person who, after bumping into it for the very first time, believes it should be deleted under the criterion. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

out to get me
It's the people that were playing with Geno Petralli - a topic I care nothing about, that I was asked to help with. Check the talk page. That kind of stuff gets old fast ... - DavidWBrooks 14:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Carrel
If you ever need help enforcing NPOV, just ask and I'll be happy to consider the specific issue at hand. I think there are plenty of level-headed people here although, come to think of it, most of them are probably more level-headed than me! What I have learned, though, is that not everyone has the same definition of NPOV. For example, in one article I contributed to (or tried to contribute to), over-enthusiastic NPOV enforcement made it difficult to add any verbiage at all. Indeed, someone even suggested that the most NPOV way is to have the article be a simple list of dictionary definitions with no commentary! Anyway, to make a long story short, I have been burned by my own anger issues when negotiating with other editors (or should I say tilting with windmills?) and these days I try to spend more time away from Wikipedia. Still I'm willing to join the fray when I sense a kindred spirit. --Smithfarm 21:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I sympathize and agree with you on all points. What I am trying to learn is to take these episodes as learning experiences. Wikipedia is a great place for learning about one's own self. Tolerance and acceptance of others, however difficult, is for me the only way. If I can't feel tolerating and accepting, my aim is to be silent and not intervene at all. Once I can tolerate and accept the other, then I can make a rational decision on what is the best way to proceed. Maybe the best way is to have the person banned, but (I have learned) that is no excuse for me feeling angry, thereby effectively punishing myself over the issue. I'm not trying to give you advice here, but only to relate my own experience. Perhaps yours is similar? --Smithfarm 10:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a balanced treatment is necessary and I believe it will come. For example, back in January I got involved in the homeopathy article and got really disgusted with the scene there. Yesterday I looked at it and was surprised to see that a lot of good work has been done on it (along with a lot of rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth work, with lots of reverts). I gave up on it back then because I decided I wasn't emotionally stable enough to contribute, yet somehow the good work went on without me. I learned an important lesson - that I'm not the only cog in the wheel here. Supportive likeminded people are here, too, I just don't see them. So the situation is definitely not hopeless. As for the Carrel issue, I'm willing to help you but only if we can both keep our heads cool. It may be that we will have to tolerate some skewed verbiage on the page for awhile but I'm convinced that if you want it badly enough a way forward will be found. I went through this in the Holism in science article. I thought it was hopeless but in time others came and the most vocal opponents eventually backed down. The article is fairly stable now, the disputed warning box has been taken down, and, while there's still lots of room for improvement, I'm pleased with it. So... don't despair and don't give up on Wikipedia. There is opposition in all things. Sorry if it sounds like I'm mentoring you - not my intention. Actually, I'm mainly trying to encourage myself. Specifically to the Carrel article: I posted to the Talk page about the Qutb/Islam/Ossama section and am waiting for a reaction from the guy. --Smithfarm 18:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Audis, Userboxes, and your very good idea
I like your user interests list idea; it makes much sense to me, and solves the difficulties people are having with userboxes. Regarding the Audi one that I edited, I was going through this list of userboxes sorted by # of uses, deleting the ones that were not used by anyone, and I felt that the Audi one could be rephrased into one focused on editing articles, so I did. I don't personally plan to edit the other ones on the Auto subpage (although I may if I come across them), but I agree that they should changed that way too. If you haven't see it yet, you might want to look at the Userbox policy poll; hopefully, it'll offer a way to resolve the userbox issue without the need for a proclamation from Jimbo. But it's really nice to see that Jimbo's request did change some people's minds - and produced quite a nice idea, in the process! Keep up the good work! JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 06:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Leaving so soon?
No more debates, thats sad, I enjoyed debating with you. Just when you brought up concrete examples, you are now leaving. Sadly, you are the very first person to ever question the 35 country article? I have posted this argument for years, and everyone has just ignored it. For the first time, I finally have someone questioning the very foundations of my argument, which is refreshing. This is a real admirable trait.

I want people to viciously question and attempt to actively destroy my arguments. It forces me to learn and grow.

Well best of luck. No hard feelings on my side.

And BTW, I consider myself anti-American in many respects, so your charcterization of me personally being anti-american is well founded, charcterizing everyone who criticizes American foreign policy as anti-american has less merit. Again, best of luck.Travb


 * I admire your honesty here, and your willingness to learn. In the heat of debate, it's hard to step back and take a breath and see both sides and I'm glad you can do this. As for the subject matter at hand, I am not anti-American, but understand completely that "cheerleading" without thinking leads to mindless patriotism, which helps no one - espcially those studying history. I truly believe in a balance between that mindlessness and the extreme, unrelenting hostility some express without (in my view) thinking things through in the context of history. That said, I don't think you'll find too many Americans (right OR left) who are totally satisfied with the way things are going, and most people are honest about past and present flaws in our nation. But they get justifiably defensive about admitting those flaws when they think their words will become fodder for someone they perceive will use them to take examples to extremes and fail to acknowledge ANY goodness in America's history or culture. Later, Nhprman UserLists  17:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Template re-creation problems
Template:User against Iraq war of aggression, which you deleted on 2 April, continues to be recreated. It has been subsequently deleted by two other admins. Is there a way to permanently delete this divisive box, or at the very least take the author aside and explain what "delete" means (along with other important lessons on WP:NOT) ? Nhprman UserLists  21:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Nhprman: I've dealt with it by adding a "page is deleted and should not be recreated" notice at Template:User against Iraq war of aggression, and protecting the template page. That way the userbox won't be able to be recreated, other than if it is recreated under a different name. If it springs up under a different name, do let me know, and I'll zap it. I really wish people wouldn't make templates like this one that stir up so much unrest on Wikipedia. Hope this has solved the problem. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes & MarkSweep
I don't presume to speak for ArbCom, but it seems like User:MarkSweep's discipline from the committee is a result of how he went about the deletions, not about the merits of the deletions themselves. In their decision, ArbCom specifically singled out the disruptive nature of some of MarkSweep's actions, such as wheel warring, misusing rollback, edit warring, and other issues.

Disruptive useboxes vs. disruptive warring
Can userboxes be disruptive? Certainly. However, I feel like the constant fighting over the deletion or creation of userboxes, the constant streme of reviews & discussions on the same, and the lengths people on both sides have gone to to make a point, are even more disruptive & divisive than the problem that these actions were originally intended to solve. I havent been involved in the discussion on userboxes, primarily because it's the kind of debating society merry-go-round that Wikipedia should not be.

Cost-benefit analysis
That said, the argument that Wikipedia is not mySpace is good, but, taken to its logical conclusion, would eliminate the Userspace entirely. I find I understand editors more (both for better & for worse), when I can know what motivates them & what they're passionate about. Even if the benefits of userbox removal outweigh what would be lost, I don't think the benefits are large enough to outweigh the ongoing arguing & warring about changes to the userboxes.

Why am I telling you all this? I wanted to show my perspective on this, in good faith, in the hopes that we can both learn from one another & focus on improving article space instead of either advocating for userboxes or advocating their deletion. I don't want to fuel the fire, so I'm bringing this up on your [User talk:Nhprman|talk page]]. While I'd like to discuss this on my talk page, just drop me a line there if you'd prefer we talk here. Ssbohio 04:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

regarding comments on Jimbos talk page
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/THINKSTARSHIP/Think_Tank_Theory

Actually, we have a very similar process for very different reasons.

I agree that there ought to be more structure in theory than currently exists. I am in fact, trying to generate that structure for the purposes of my own project.

Please come on by and add your insights; perhaps clue in some good links to wikipedia info, and so forth.

Obviously we have a very different way of going about solving the problems that we see in front of us.

I hope that you can see that this could hopefully evolve into something that Jimbo would actually read and maybe even answer.

Thanks!

TfD nomination of Template:User antifa-01
Template:User antifa-01 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. PS: I know this a heated subject. I don't care either way on the subject. This was a technical nomination only. If you wish to have a go at somebody, please pick somebody else. If you wish to have a go at me, then fine but I won't respond. ➨ ≡ Я Ξ  DVΞRS ≡ 22:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Nhprman
I want to say that I think some of the things I said to and about you recently regarding the userbox controversy weren't fair remarks and admit that they were meant to provoke conflict. While I still don't agree with you that all userboxes have to go, I see your point that there is no way a lot of these templates can remain, on issues such as politics, one way or another. Though I really think you may have hardly noticed my remarks among all the others, I still want to apologize in the unlikely case that any of my thinly veiled personal attacks struck home. --Khat Wordsmith 21:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't give it a second thought! I don't recall being offended by any of your comments. We simply have disagreed on this issue. "No harm, no foul", as they say.Nhprman 22:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Kewl. I figured as much. Still, I felt I had been immature, so I was compelled to apologize if for no other reason than to make myself feel better. --Khat Wordsmith 22:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. ;-) I still don't know where you were immature, but I think recognizing it (even if it doesn't exist) is very mature of you. I wish people who really ARE immature would take your lead! P.S. My main reason for opposing political and divisive userboxes is because they are being used for social networking and to build coalitions within WP. That's not why this site exists. See my lastest comment on the Tfd page. Nhprman 23:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Not Drug Free deletion motion
You left a message on the deletion page of the 'not drug free' motion, responding to one of my comments... I left one right underneath yours, could you go check it out? Cheers --DragonFly31 17:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks. And thanks for your constructive comments! I think one-on-one discussions should advance the debate, and I think ours is doing just that. Nhprman 17:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, please note the "User Interest List" on my User page. It's my solution (one of many out there, I'm sure) to the Userbox Template problem. Nhprman 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is true, the way you have set up you page is pretty good. But userboxes have advantages that your way doesn't have: they are easier, quicker to read, have a little picture template as well that adds to their appeal. They are shorter as well and incite the reader to read them more than yours. (I am being honest here, not critisizing).--DragonFly31 16:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I always accept constructive criticism in the spirit it was intended, so thanks for your comments. The advantages of the List is that it is immediately amendable, very changable (attractive colors and any text you want), easier or just as easy to create (cut and paste the original to a userpage) and does not cause endless debates, as the community Userbox Templates do. The text in Lists can still offend of course, but they are limited to one user page, so they are not recruitment tools being used to rally tribes, though visitors can certainly learn about a person's interests and even biases from the List. The Userbox's little windows are also a source of debate when "fair use" images are used in them, something, BTW, I always thought should be allowed without the controversy that they've caused. Anyway, to each his own, as they say! ;-) Nhprman 17:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Fascism Userbox
Thanks for making the new and improved anti-f userbox. I love it, and use it on my userpage :)--FairNBalanced 04:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant it in jest, but hey, it works as irony I guess! Nhprman 05:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It IS funny, and apparently they just deleted the original (because it was working yesterday). Your replacement fits rather nicely --FairNBalanced 05:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You must understand that I despise Templated Userboxes, but think what you've done (cut-and-paste the text onto your page) is the solution to the entire problem. As for the box, it reflects the hypocricy of the Anti-fa folks, who ruthlessly destroy all boxes critical of the Left, and insist they be deleted, but held onto the anti-fa box for dear life (until it was finally deleted, that is.) Eventually, all Templated boxes will be deleted. Nhprman 14:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Opinions vs. votes on Templates for deletion
I wonder why you believe that my "It's funny" is not a valid opinion but your "Per x and y" is one. Yours basically means "Me too". In my opinion yours is simply a vote why mine is a short opinion statement. This is exactly the reason why I decided to stop using the "per" thing earlier today. Friendly Neighbour 08:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You make an interesting point, though technically, "it's funny" isn't a criteria for saving or deleting under the speedy delete criteria. When I say "per Doc" or whomever, I (hope) I'm agreeing with an already-stated position that added something substantive to the debate over the criteria. You realize, of course, that this isn't a "vote," it's a debate, and it's setting a precedent for the deletion policy, right? Many people don't seem to get that, and say "Keep. It's funny." (or, worse, "Keep. I got my right to express myself.") But you do have a point and maybe I should express my opinions rather than simply chiming in on others' comments with a "per x" - although there are SO MANY of these. I'll have to cut and paste!


 * Frankly, I don't understand the deep attachment to keeping Userboxes as templates. I do understand that it's a rather arcane and technical suggestion to Substitute them and turn them into pure text, taking them out of template space. I guess people feel threatened by the change. If someone was trying to delete ALL personal expressions from Wikipedia on User pages, that would be another issue and I'd oppose that. Generally though, I think it's a bad idea to give people yet another excuse to mistrust me, so I don't encourage people saying "I'm an (anything)" on the User page. But if someone really wants to use a "user-fied" text-only Userbox on their page, and express a political or religious opinion, I certainly don't oppose it (unless they're using it to threaten others or advocate a heinous act, like pedophilia.) I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from a bit. Nhprman 16:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Several points:
 * 1) A statement "as per" or "I agree" is simply a vote for a previously stated opinion. It certainly isn't a new point added to the discussion.
 * 2) "I like it" or "It is funny" is a pretty stupid point in a discussion (yes, I freely admit it), but still a point. I did it on purpose. The counter argument "this is not funny" is a similar quasi-argument of someone who just hates all userboxes and wants them banned. You know whom I mean. The one who is able to add a spinning crucifix to a userbox used by a hundred people to make his WP:POINT.
 * 3) The "discussion" is actually a kind of vote according to most paerticipants. Just read the next day May 13. These are some examples: "Please read the reasons there before you vote here", "This section applies to all userboxes below, so move your votes upwards", "I extend this to every relevant mass-userbox vote below this point", "User firearm seems to be the only one listed, and is the only one I have voted on individually." etc., etc. and I covered maybe 10% of the day.
 * 4) Frankly, I don't understand the deep urge to raze Userbox templates. They are a funny source of ideas for making one's userpage more interesting. They were here before I came, therefore I treat them as an ancient tradition.
 * 5) Maybe they will vanish per change of policy. This would be fine with me. But the ugly partisan warfare Cyde & Maxwell started by defacing User Christian with the cynical intent to start a war to eraze all userboxes (sorry if I don't assume good will but a spinning crucifix on my userpage do not make me to eager to do so). Therefore as long as I am allowed to use my opinion/vote (whatever people call it), I will do so.
 * Sorry for this serialized edit but my Seamonkey seemed to have some problems with such a long edit. Friendly Neighbour 17:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree somewhat that saying "It's not funny" is not a good argument for the result the nominator intends - i.e. simply moving Userboxes from Template space to User space. The merit of the boxes is really a separate issue. If they remain in Template space, however, "funny" or POV boxes should probably be dleted, since they must adhere to the mission of WP, and that's to write an encyclopedia - nothing else. But I've come to believe they're fine, as long as they are "user-fied" and are only on user pages. I do wish people would understand that moving them does not mean DELETING them. Would you support moving them out of template space and into user space, now that you know they will not be deleted?
 * As to point one, I also tend to agree. I'll be specific and spell out my reasoning. It will probably be more effective that way, too. Nhprman 17:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think I started writing in the middle of your edit! Nhprman 17:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems the Seamonkey 1.0.1 which I now test is too clever with edit boxes. It remembers where in the edited text I started. The downside is that after filling up one full edit window, it keeps returning to the top making me type blindly. Funny. Now, I know that if I want a long edit with this browser version, I need to make it in a text editor. Friendly Neighbour 17:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's understandable. I'll copy 4 and 5 below if you don't mind, and respond below, too. Nhprman 18:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 4) Frankly, I don't understand the deep urge to raze Userbox templates. They are a funny source of ideas for making one's userpage more interesting. They were here before I came, therefore I treat them as an ancient tradition.
 * 5) Maybe they will vanish per change of policy. This would be fine with me. But the ugly partisan warfare Cyde & Maxwell started by defacing User Christian with the cynical intent to start a war to eraze all userboxes (sorry if I don't assume good will but a spinning crucifix on my userpage do not make me to eager to do so). Therefore as long as I am allowed to use my opinion/vote (whatever people call it), I will do so. Friendly Neighbour 17:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The spinning Crucifix and wordy description really were over the top, and while Cyde and Maxwell were making a point, I'm not sure they were making a Wikipedia policy-sized WP:POINT, which I would reserve for offenses such as deleting ALL userboxes, then saying "See, they should be deleted."


 * As for Userboxes themselves, and the conflict over them (which predates me, too,) I just answered someone else's question about the "Userbox War" and I think the same overview would be appropriate here, if you don't mind hand-me-down postings :-)


 * "The debate over Templated userboxes - the "Userbox War" - dates back over a year, probably earlier. In a nutshell, here's how I see this situation: As templates, Userboxes can be (and have been) used to "rally" people of a certain group (Christians, Anti-Christians, Leftists/Rightists, etc.) to support or revert article edits and even to delete or support Userboxes during debates like this one. As templates that are linked together in one place, that lend itself to the creation of categories such as "Wikipedians who are Pro-Life" etc. This is divisive (divides the community into "tribes") and inflammatory (encourages others to create opposing boxes and groups of users.) Those two words are important because, according to "speedy deletion" criteria for deleting templates ("T1" and now "T2",) it means they can be deleted. Bear in mind most Templates are used in the creation of articles - as info boxes, warnings and other notations. So another argument is that Userboxes shouldn't really be there at all because they are out of place. Both are good arguments against having them as templates, IMHO. By "Substituting" them, they remain on Users' pages, and new ones can exist as text, and can be copy/pasted into User pages rather easily. There is a FURTHER argument being made that Userboxes shouldn't exist at all here in ANY form, because they are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia (to edit an encyclopedia.) But that's really a separate argument, one that I feel it will completely go away if people vote to Delete and Subst. these boxes now."


 * I hope this helps. Nhprman 18:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Private communication
If you don't want to list your email address with Wikipedia you should consider posting an alternate method of contacting you privately, such as an AIM screen name or a PGP public key (so that we can encrypt messages to you and simply leave them on your talk page). -- Cyde Weys 03:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll give you one guess what my AOL IM is. (Hint: It's the same) I'd love to talk. - Nhprman 03:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Templated Userboxes being "saved" by misunderstanding of process
Your comments at Deletion review are right on target, but I don't think people "get it" about Templated Userboxes. They see the attempt to move them from Template space as an attack on their "favorite" box, which is "funny," after all. I think mentioning "not funny" in the nominations skewed the discussion. So did posting Tfd notices on the boxes, which proves the point that they are being used for social networking, in violation of WP policy. Others seem willfully ignoring polices and guidelines. Anyway, I had to say this to someone. How disheartening that these apparently will all be saved in Template space, since all I see is "keep, keep, keep." - Nhprman 20:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

(I moved this because it got caught up in the newsletter, below. Sorry. Nhprman 20:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC))


 * I completely agree with you. The mention of "not funny", although controversial, it's stated on official policy and that's a thing they cannot change, see WP:TFD. The problem is that people like the UDUIW or similar "clubs" (an encyclopedia with clubs?) just don't care about improving the Wiki, they only want their "tiny-red-userboxes-permanently-consuming-server-resources" and nothing more. This is totally out of control, a policy about this will be really helpful. PS: Nice work on the interests' list btw. &mdash; SHINING  EYES  02:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This issue really has been out of control. I think Mackensen has the right idea with his proposal and I'm sure he's had other admin's feedback on it as he devised it because it's very well thought-out and comprehensive. It's very positive and has the potential for refocusing the discussion away from the merits of individual boxes to WHERE they should reside. Your frequent comments during the discussions, I see, have had the same effect. And thanks also for your feedback on the User Interest List concept! ;-) - Nhprman 02:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"American"
Hello and thanks for your comment. I knew that would come up sooner or later, so I'm happy to explain. There are a couple of reasons. The primary one is that each U.S. state is a distinct entity, rather than merely a national subdivision. Without going too much into politics, my rationale is that while some subdivisions are provinces, districts, etc., a U.S. state is a sovereign entity, equivalent in many ways to a nation unto itself; therefore, saying that someone is "...from New Hampshire" is sufficient to establish nationality. In addition, to say someone is an "American from New Hampshire" is redundant and eliminating the "American" makes for a smoother introduction. And, finally, I dislike the term "American" when applied to the U.S. (and always opt for "United States" when possible) since everyone from Nunavut to Tierra del Fuego is an American. This might go against some established policy, and if it does, I'll immediately admit wrongness...but that's the case I make. Don't hesitate with any other questions/comments. Paul 04:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC) (P.S. on an unrelated note, I categorized Manchester, New Hampshire and pretty much everything to do with it...seems like a nice state you have up there.)


 * The thing is, some people don't necessarily know that New Hampshire is in America. Without looking it up, can you tell me which country Okavango is in?  -- Cyde Weys  04:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes
You wrote: "You can keep it. Just not as a template. If you vote "Delete" it will be saved as text, and you can cut/paste it onto your site. Please consider changing to "Delete and Subst" (substitute as text.)". How can I get the text of deleted userboxes? I have had several of my collection deleted over the last few months, and I have only been able to recover a few by directly asking nice admins one at a time. Thanks! --M @ r ē ino 22:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * While I've dropped out of the Userbox debates for a while, I'll answer you here. As I understand it, when a box is "Subst" ("substituted") the box remains as-is every place the box currently exists on user pages. So if you have a box that's Deleted and Subst'd, it stays as-is, but it's simply no longer a template. The admins who are deleteing massive numbers of boxes these days (in an attempt to try to solve some big problems with Templated boxes) have promised that they will Subst every one of them, so nothing will be lost. Then, some industrious person can take the text of all these boxes and put them into a single, central location, maybe where the templated boxes are currently. As for the ones deleted, all I can say is you can recreate them as text on your own page. My page used to have several, and once I noticed they were being changed as templates (sometimes saying things I didn't want them to say) I found a way to create them as text-only boxes. (Substing them myself would have had the same effect.) Nhprman 01:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So basically, I have to catch a box before it's deleted and copy the content? Oh, well.  I was hoping there was some way that I could get the content for boxes that admins promised to subst but never did. :(  Thanks for answering, though! --M @ r ē ino 05:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could do that. Those nominating them for deletion said they would "Subst" them onto the user pages where they currently exist as they are deleted. If they're on your page, they'll stay there. If they aren't already on your page, they won't be there, for now. However, they'll soon be moved over to a central page where everyone can cut/paste the code. At least that's the plan. These boxes are VERY easy to re-create and I'm sure someone will be very busy doing just that. Nhprman 05:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I really like your user interest list -- it is a very nice alternative for people who don't like userboxes. Have you considered putting them in template form, so that it's easier to find other Wikipedians who share your skill set? --M @ r ē ino 22:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Putting it in template form entirely defeats the purpose of it and makes it no different than userboxes. -- Cyde Weys  22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Marenio, I have to agree with Cyde. And one of the big problems with Templates is that they do what you suggest. Someone discovered that issue-oriented Templated Userboxes, linked together, created "clubs" of users. That's contrary to Wikipedia's mission, and led to POV edits and POV actions. Though I suspect that wouldn't happen if the User Interest List was turned into a template, I suppose it could. I hope the list catches on - and I hope YOU put a List on your page! Thanks for your comments! Nhprman 01:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Pioneers.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Pioneers.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.65.227 14:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes: A New Proposal
Hey, I've noticed that you've been active on the Userbox deletion page, either strongly FOR or AGAINST the use of the new T2 for deleting userboxes. I have noticed that most of the community is strong in their opinions on this issue; for that reason, I created my own proposal which attempts to create a middle ground for the two groups, and finally get this debate settled once and for all. I welcome your input into the proposal, as well as your (non-binding) vote on the straw poll. Thanks! // The  True  Sora  01:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't hate it. I'm not sure it solves the problem of social networking, though. It's 99% of what's wrong with Templated Userboxes. Also, I'm not sure moving boxes to the User space is any more "extremist" or radical than moving them to an entirely new space. At any rate, I've technically sworn off discussing the Userbox Wars for the sake of my mental health - for a little while anyway. In the meantime, good luck. - Nhprman 03:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Bep photo
You said: "Why was the BEP photo deleted so quickly? The "warning" template you added noted it would be deleted in a week. It seems to have been deleted immediately, though. Also, MANY other artists' pages include promotional photos (See Eminem for instance, among other groups and acts) so why wasn't the uploader simply allowed to include the template to answer the Copyvio challenge you made against it? Not a huge issue here. It wasn't me who used the picture. I'm just wondering."


 * The tag was incorrect.  The copyright violation was blatant, the uploader even claimed that the picture was scanned in from a magazine.  Thus, I believed it qualified under WP:Copyvio for speedy deletion.  Do you think I was incorrect?  Do you think even though the copyvio was blatant, we should have left it in place for seven days?  (That's a serious question, I could be wrong that copyvios should be dealt with immediately if they are blatant).  --Yamla 23:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. Thanks for the clarification. I didn't catch the user's earlier comments and it appeared as if it was a staged promotional photo. - Nhprman 23:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:JSRHS.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:JSRHS.JPG. Wikipedia gets hundreds 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. 06:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Manchester
I'd agree with you about Category:Manchester, New Hampshire being a perfectly legitimate category because, if you take a look at the edit history, you might note that I created it.

Regarding my removal of the categories, I did so because Mayors of Manchester, New Hampshire are already within the category "People from Manchester, New Hampshire." Therefore, it is "redundant."

If you have any other anger to direct my way, please feel free; it has to go somewhere, right? :) Happy editing. Paul 00:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I did notice that about the cateogry Manchester, New Hampshire. And It's brilliant, really. Thanks for doing that. Putting historial mayors there makes abundant sense, considering every other aspect of life in Manchester (sports, schools, malls, slang terms, even the Manchester Transit Authority.) Why wouldn't the political heritage of the city be included here? The category, as it stands, is topical. The history of who has governed there is beyond acceptable. If this was some less trivial category, I'd say "what the heck, leave it out." But mayors? Come on. Let it go. Pretty please?


 * As for Joseph Abbott, he was a ...um... "carpetbagger" and it is part of his story that he's from NH. It's useful that he's categorized there, and since this is a well-established norm on WP to categorize people by state (Category:American people by state), I think this, also, is a legitimate category and proper categorization. - Nhprman 03:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Keep up your editing as well, especially on New Hampshire-related articles, which reflect the effort of many dedicated editors. Paul 15:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're certainly most welcome. ;-) - Nhprman 15:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Long time, no talk...
More than most, I've njoyed talking userbox politics with you. Now, I find we're both on userbox-related breaks, it seems. I feel so much better editing articles. I was really getting wound up by the way some on both sides just kind of pile-on to any convenient argument. I'll probably be back, once it seems like a solution can be reasoned out. The current discussion is doing nothing but stress me out! That said, I noticed some text you wrote in Jimbo's talk page. I think the guy deserves what he gets, what with the way he's behaved so far, but I was wondering if you might consider whether your response could be feeding the troll? This guy obviously wants a fight. He's threatened up to & including legal action. What u're telling him is right. It just might be a good time to take a breath and not give any ammo to a guy like that, you know?--Ssbohio 00:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. I'm wading back into a debate I should stay out of (the UBX debate). I feel much better since I stopped arguing with these people and started EDITING articles again! Thanks for the reality check! I'll stay on break! ;-) Nhprman 00:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think if they just left it to us, we'd hammer out a UBX policy in a couple weeks. Darn that consensus thing... :-)   In other news, I recently created a new article for the first time, on the Hanoi Taxi, a famous aircraft that just retired after 40 years in Air Force service.  It felt much better than talking to Cyde & company about not speedy'ing userboxes. :-)  --Ssbohio 00:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That article looks great, and very extensive. Good work! On the issue of policy, frankly, I'm very pessimistic. Jimbo likes to refer to the "parliament of 6 billion" (i.e. the world) editing WP, but even with the more likely 6,000 active editors, I don't believe it's ever likely that a so-called consensus will be reached among them, especialy with an artificial 66% threshhold, which makes it a "vote" and makes WP into a direct democracy. Nice theory, but direct democracies don't work in practice. Collaboration and consensus for articles - that works, beacuse it's small scale and only those really interested in the article self-select themselves to work on them, making the article better. But for huge policies like this, no. It's Utopian to think a mob - composed of many who do not even edit, let alone create, articles - can decide this. And this is a fundamental issue that could determine WP's future existence as a NPOV encyclopedia. Jimbo needs to pretend he's the administrator of a small chat board and needs to just set some more thorough parameters than now exist, just like every other chat board admin and interactive Website owner online. Until then, we're going to have controversy (make that: "THEY" are going to, because I'm out of it! ;-) - Nhprman 04:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Green template
Hi Stephen, thanks for your hint -- currently, I'm less involved in Wikipedia than a year before, and I didn't monitor closely the ways template disputes should be resolved.

Regarding sunflower images: there aren't that many by me, and none that I would use for the template. If you want to have a look for yourself, you're welcome: http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=me&q=sunflower&m=text. But anyways, I guess to replace the template photo with another photo wouldn't resolve the dispute.

-- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 18:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussions not Votes
I was reading your comment in the deletion discussion of "Pan-blue and Pan-green Userboxes", and I was curious about that. I often see the comment that they are discussions to reach concensus not votes, however I've seen a lot of AFDs result in an admin declaring "no concensus" because a couple of people show up, make no point and claim the opposite side of all logic and don't respond to counter arguments (probably because they've left an opinion and don't watch the page). So how does this actually work around here? If you have 4 deletes and 4 keeps and the 4 keeps are citing "just because" as their reason, and the deletes are citing policies and guidelines and various reasons not to, are the admins just out to lunch or am I missing some important part of the process here? --Crossmr 07:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Magni
Do you feel strongly about this not being a redirect? This is not consistent with the others. All of the info on the page is available directly from the show's article. I am asking you here because I like to engage in discussion rather than doing reverts. --Brian G 03:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By "redirect" do you mean that the links on the Superstar page should simply redirect to the (same) Superstar page? What's the point of that? That makes sense only for those performers who don't have articles yet. Three of the performers (Storm, Patrice, Josh) have their own articles, and I expect all of the performers will have their own pages sooner or later. Don't you? These people are "notable" and are therefore eligible for articles under WP rules and guidelines. - Nhprman List  16:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I was not more clear. I meant that there is not enough material in the Magni article for him to have his own article.  Magni should redirect to the show, which has all the same information for now, until such time as Magni has more notable information.  This is consistent with Zayra Alvarez, Jill Gioia, Dilana Robichaux, and Matt Hoffer, who all had stub articles created that were changed to redirects, until they become more famous.  Please check out the additional discussion on the talk page for the show Talk:Rock Star: Supernova. --Brian G 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Asher...
Hey there,

You might want to look at his talk archive a bit. I certainly did not "bite" him during his first few days, when I figured he was just another regular newbie. Many of us tried to help him nicely (myself included) by pointing him to places where he could read up on Wikipedia guidelines before he repeated his past mistakes. As you said, education changes behavior, and we certainly did try to educate him about Wikipedia. However, he made no attempts to change his behavior, and certainly made no attempts to read the guidelines we asked him to look at. You said that "one warning and then threats do not change behavior"...well the archive features many, many warnings. Among many other things, he has: Many of us are tired of him ignoring our advice. Sometimes a little e-slap is a good thing to straighten someone out. And taking a look at his contributions since my last post to his talk page, he is behaving. You can't go on being nice forever. Gzkn 00:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Recreated a speedily deleted article on himself three times, using two different sock puppets.
 * Repeatedly removed/tried to tamper with the speedy deletion tags on those pages.
 * Used a sock puppet to try to influence the AfD vote on his second article.
 * Joined the welcoming committee and proceed to welcome members solely on the basis of the new user creation log, even though we pointed out to him multiple times that he was welcoming blatant vandals, users that didn't exist, and many, many users that had yet to even contribute to Wikipedia. He ignored our pleas with him to stop.
 * I can see now, after viewing the archive, that there was a bit of discussion with him about his earlier activities. Many, many new users get excited about being here and start editing up a storm and it almost always results in upseting long-time users. I will encourage Asher to edit more gently. Nhprman List  02:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Next time, could you please refrain from making sarcastic comments (such as as opposed to you, a "veteran," who has been here since way back on Oct. 19, 2006) until you've researched a little further? I'm not harsh to other users (actually I think this user is the first, not counting the test4 messages I give to prolific vandals) unless there's a good reason for it. Thank you. Gzkn 01:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly, everyone who's a user here for more than a week seems to become an 'expert' and that attitude is rampant. We all need to be a bit less judgmental, a tad less bossy, and a bit more understanding. That was my point, and I stand by it. But if there are specific actions or abuses by new users to be criticized, as in this case, there's no question I'm all for doing so, and you did what was completely right in this case. Thanks. Nhprman List  15:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
There is no discussion of a proposed deletion. As the template itself says, "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason." I will however note that I am highly likely to nominate this article at articles for deletion unless verifiable evidence from reliable sources is added to the article. --Pak21 16:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remove the prod template from any articles you object to their deletion. I would also note that some of your comments are certainly non-civil and could possibly be interpreted as personal attacks; I would advise you to moderate your tone slightly. --Pak21 16:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think these are overly aggressive deletions: none of the calendars I have nominated show sign of having "been addressed in depth in reliable, published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself" (my emphasis), as suggested by the guideline on notability. If such sources do exist, please feel free to add them and I will be very happy to change my opinion. Until then, these calendars are fundamentally non-verifiable as defined by Wikipedia, and as such should be deleted. Cheers --Pak21 17:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Subcategorisation
I'm assuming you've already read the very first sentence of WP:SUBCAT, as referenced in my edit summary: "In straightforward cases an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory", but I have to admit I have trouble seeing which bit of this is not clear to you. Category:Leap Week Calendars is obviously a subcategory of Category:Proposed calendars, which is obviously a subcategory of Category:Calendars, so in most cases an article should not be in all three. Possibly you think this isn't a "straightforward case". Well, it is. I suspect you you think that because WP:SUBCAT is "just" a guideline, it doesn't mean anything, so you can continue pushing these non-notable items onto Wikipedia. This is just plain wrong: guidelines are formalised only after consensus has been established, which is how Wikipedia works. Ignoring them is possible, but generally you should have a very good reason for doing so, and so far all of your views on this case can basically be summarised as WP:ILIKEIT. --Pak21 22:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A Happy Ending
Good news... Have a look at Lunisolar calendar and its edit history. You'll find the material from Simple lunisolar calendar and Hermetic Leap Week Calendar have been merged and we are now free to merge material from the other deleted articles to appropriate subheadings. I did not ask for others to involve themselves like this, but I'm really grateful people like SwatJester do involve themselves. At any rate, I'm still new and a relatively slow editor, but I'll do what I can when I can to retrieve the material. Just thought you'd like to know. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 00:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
(from User_talk:Greatwalk)

What was the deal? Did you think someone was forging my name during that AfD? For some reason, my comments were deleted. = Nhprman 06:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, that was my mistake...I've copied two monobook.js scripts and didn't know what would happen if I clicked the red vandalism link. I was looking at your popup contribution tree at the time, so I managed to tag two of your edits (one was to my page) as vandalised and reverted.  I did put both comments back, though, and apologised in the edit summary.  A little embarrassing, really...so sorry. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 06:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

SISS
Thanks for your attention to the SISS article that I had tagged with unreferenced and inline fact tags. The article does provide several references at the bottom of the article. However, the article does not provide inline references, which is the prefered method of providing references per Citing sources, whether as footnotes, inline references, or Harvard reference. What are your thoughts pertaining to how to improve references of specific claims in the article? ChicagoPimp 17:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response and thanks for adding the references into the article. Going forward, I DEFINITELY will be wary of adding the unreferenced tag and will focus on the fact or citation tag.  On a related note, I, too, am an inclusionist (which is why I tag and NEVER delete) and found the content in the article interesting.  On a second related note, the notion of "tin-pot dictators" or "owners" cleansing content is something I have been experiencing more and more on some of the WikiProjects.  I enjoy referenced facts, usually without regard to the notability.  Thanks again!   ChicagoPimp 21:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've given up
I've given up on trying to remove all the links to newsmax.

Why? because there are too many for one person to remove them all.

I will continue to protect a few articles from it's lies but other than that wikipedia will either have to protect it's self or suffer. Burntapple 20:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to NHPrMan
Hello! Thank you for adding my calendar proposal to the Calendar Wiki site. I appreciate your openness to ideas, which is what I thought Wikipedia was about. Although I had not checked in Wikipedia for sometime, I only recently noticed the welcomed comment that you left on my "talk page".

Best wishes to you and again, thank you for the very kind comments and inclusion. I look forward to updating the proposal on the Calendar Wiki site. You can not imagine how you have restored some of my faith in the goodness of my "fellow man".

Paul Markel 21:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

165.234.208.106 21:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:BobSullivan.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BobSullivan.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The original fair use notice is as follows: "Promotional photograph of Robert Sullivan, Jr., candidate for OK governor in 2006. Image is offered on the candidate's Website for the purpose of inclusion in press kits, and is therefore fair use under Wikipedia guidelines. ) "  This is a political candidate's image, released by his campaign to the public and the media, and is therefore in the public domain. Please stop overzealously deleting images that are perfectly acceptable for use on Wikipedia, or by any news-related Website in America. His political campaign is over. He lost. The Website is gone (as far as I know) and so is the image. If you want Wikipedia to be a pictureless, text-only place, go about your pointless Jihad. - Nhprman 06:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This image is clearly not in the public domain, so I have replaced the tag. --Pak21 07:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you're wrong. The image was s campaign image, released to the media. Good luck in your continuing mission to denude Wikipedia of content. Pathetic. - Nhprman 17:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel very free to bring this issue up at possibly unfree images, fair use review or any other forum you feel like, but I can assure you than an image released to the media is not in the public domain. You would also be advised to be more civil in your comments. --Pak21 18:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For the illustration of an article on Wikipedia, yeah, it's public domain if it's released to the public and the media. Unless you clever folks here have your own definitions, which you probably do. Look, I'm sick of these endless "process" debates and my patience with WP and the little dictators who run it has grown so thin that over the last year that it's hard to be civil, since it's not civil to engage in a Deletionist Jihad, as some here are doing. All I see is a mission to SHRINK content, which is bizarre and totally counter to the idea of an encyclopedia that is truly helpful. So as I said, knock yourself out, delete it. - Nhprman 21:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Public domain is a well-defined legal concept which is very different to "released to the public and the media". Despite what you may think, this is not a Wikipedia-specific definition, but one with a very long legal history. --Pak21 21:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I assure you that this a very narrow view of public domain. Somewhere along the way - when I wasn't looking because I didn't care - the perfectly good "Promo Photo" template that explained that this is a promotional image was eliminated and this "non-free" nonsense was dreamt up by the admins here (admins who must make Talmudic scholars say "Why must they make things so COMPLICATED?") Political campaigns routinely release photographs to the press and public, knowing full well that they will not be waiting until 70 years after their candidate's death to use them. The 70 year rule (and others, based on age of release) is the ONLY legal definition of Public Domain. There is no "right of publicity" (i.e. individuals retaining rights to "official" photo images) for elected or appointed political figures images released to the public. If Wikipedia has invented one, that's another issue. BTW, many of the "10 criteria" dreamt up on the "non-free content" page seems entirely arbitrary and have no basis in law. - Nhprman 22:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And of course, pak21, your over-aggressive hyper-deletionism and narrow interpretations of rules here (even the reasonable rules) has been noted before. You seem to get away with it, and are emboldened to continue and expand the crusade. I wish you would be inspired to CREATE articles and not simply decimate and "cleanse" them of content. - Nhprman 22:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:HeadshotJoshLogan.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HeadshotJoshLogan.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 09:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What an amazing amount of doubletalk. If the policy of Wikipedia has become "We don't allow photographs of people on Wikipedia unless they are snapshots taken by the people who upload them," then the policy should be just that one sentence. All this nonsense, designed to give Rambo admins a woody by "warning" people about images then cleansing Wikipedia of all freely-available publicity photos of public figures is LUDICRIOUS and a waste of time. I'm done fighting this particular battle, though if I ever get to meet my hometown hero Mr. Logan, I'll snap a photo of him for the site I created. - Nhprman 17:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Aristean calendar
Dear Stephen,

I sincerely thank you very much for your defence of the Aristean calendar for inclusion in Wikipedia. It was eventually deleted by Closing Administrator sandstein. But don’t you worry. I know that the Aristean calendar is destined to replace the Gregorian calendar in His time, sooner or later. Most likely, sooner. As Jesus said in Acts 9:5: “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.” There are stumbling blocks in the implementation of the Aristean calendar but eventually, it will prevail. Logic tells me that it is the best, not because I am its author, but because I have made comparison of various solar calendar proposals.

Your comments in Wikipedia on the Aristean calendar seemed to have made some editors mum. These editors may just be stumbling blocks. We shall overcome.

I admire you for your varied interest and in sharing you talents for the good of the whole.

Best regards, Aristeo Canlas Fernando 11:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Aristeo Canlas Fernando
 * Aristeo, thank you. Even though I do not agree with your calendar or the religious claims behind it, I think it's very creative. I find the attitude of some of these editors to be very detrimental to the future of Wikipedia. They are very fearful of including new content and that seems contrary to an encyclopedia's mission. I forgot to do this, but I hope you saved the text of your article. Please place it on the Wikia Calendar wiki article on the calendar, which allows original research (though I believe you have actually gained some publicity and noterity from this, and it is NOT purely "original research." in the Wikipedia definition.) - Nhprman 17:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Stephen,


 * Thanks for saying that the Aristean calendar is very creative. It started as an inspiration in 1992 as: “31-30-30, start on Monday”.  And it developed from there.


 * Maybe for Wikipedia, the calendar’s religious aspects should be excluded. However, in the Wikia Calendar, which I thank you for referring it to me, I will include these.  I was surprised when I found it already uploaded there for development.  Karl Palmen, an active intelligent discussant in CALNDR-L group, did it.


 * I noticed that the calendar, although one of the best proposals if not the best, has turned people off because of its religious association. Even though the proposal is good, I gained notoriety because of this religious aspects, especially from among atheists.


 * The dates of the birth and crucifixion of Jesus were revealed by a spirit which I heard in 1983. But it was only in 1999 when we connected to the Internet that I checked them out.  I embarked on my own research after no one came forward to verify it.  I found the crucifixion date of Jesus on August 17, 1 BC to be correct in 2003 and His birth date of May 23, 33 BC in 2006.  I have included August 17 and May 23 to the calendar in the 1990s but I did not have yet their proofs.  Now, I am very confident that the revelations are true and correct and I can explain them.


 * I thought one reason why Wikipedia rejected the Aristean calendar was because it is an original research and thus, did not have acceptable citations. Anyway, the scans of the newspaper articles together with the text in Geocities hopefully will authenticate the claims.


 * I am very thankful to you for your help in defending the keeping of the Aristean calendar in Wikipedia. It seems that eventually, it is still the consensus of the community of editors that is taken into consideration by the Closing Administrator whether to keep the article or delete it.


 * Best regards,
 * Aristeo Canlas Fernando 14:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Aristeo Canlas Fernando
 * Aristeo: Yes, Karl put a one-line description up there and yesterday, I found a cached copy of it online and put the rest up. You'll have to add the wiki formatting and bulleted links you had on Wikipedia to the Wikia article. They didn't survive the move. The religious aspects of the calendar and its origin will hold it back, I think, from wide acceptance. But as a matter of fairness, it deserves to be heard and seen by people so they can decide for themselves whether it's worthy of acceptance. In another, non-Wikipedia venue, that can happen. But here, the restrictions on original research won't permit it. Keep discussing things over at the Calendar Wikia. - Nhprman 18:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Stephen,


 * Thank you for putting the cached copy of the Aristean calendar to Wikia. I was really surprised to find there what was in Wikipedia.  I guessed that it must be you who did it so I came here.  True enough, it was you.  Please accept my sincerest thanks.  I will make the necessary adjustments including the links.


 * Best regards,
 * 210.49.90.7 11:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Aristeo Canlas Fernando

Replaceable fair use Image:Coxheadshot2.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Coxheadshot2.PNG. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your thinly veiled threat to delete every image I've uploaded is pathetic. I think Wikipedia's tinpot dictators and their Jihad against fair use images are pathetic, and I'm just about done with Wikipedia beacuse of bullies like you. Please remove the Cox headshot post-haste. It will not phase me in the least because, you see, I have life. - Nhprman 03:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)