User talk:Noroton/Archive to June 2007

Dates of birth and death

 * Charles Darwin (12 February 1809–19 April 1882)
 * Locations should be included in the biography portion of the body article. For example, "(12 February 1809 in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England–19 April 1882 in Downe, Kent, England)" should be separated to "(12 February 1809–19 April 1882) … He was born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England … He died in Downe, Kent, England".
 * Socrates (470–399 BC) (or "BCE")
 * When only the years are known.
 * Serena Williams (born September 26 1981)
 * For a person still living at the time the article was written.



Citing sources/example style

Citation templates


 * 1) REDIRECT Sheffield Island Light

For galleries: <..gallery..>

Image:immediately type in address|caption <../gallery..>

2005 	Gerald Stern

2004 	Mark Strand

2003 	Richard Wilbur

Useful pages

 * Manual of Style
 * WP:ESL
 * WP:G
 * MoS:DP

Welcome
Hello  and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. Try to be civil by following simple guidelines and signing your talk comments with ~ but never forget that one of our central tenets is to ignore all rules. If you want to learn more, Tutorial is the place to go, but eventually the following links might also come in handy: Help FAQ Glossary Manual of Style Float around until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the random page button in the navigation bar to the left. Additionally, the Community Portal offers a more structured way to become acquainted with the many great committees and groups that focus on specific tasks. My personal favorite stomping grounds are Translation into English as well as the cleanup, welcoming, and counter-vandalism committees. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki projects that you might enjoy. If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Draeco 05:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

hello norton... i dunno how to contact you any other way so this is what im gonna do... STOP touching the Sacred Heart University website.... I work for Sacred Heart and the School is the one who typed out the orginal information. so please stop saying there are copy right laws being broken because they can not be broken if Sacred Heart is the one typing... I am so sick of having to go in every so often and fix what people like you put up there and supposedly "fix"... STOP TOUCHING OUR WEBSITE!!!!!!!

Demographics
Thanks for adding so much information about Connecticut. I did, however, have one concern. You keep moving town demographics to the bottom of the page. This is in direct conflict with wiki style. In an article about a town or city, demographics should be prominently placed near the top of the page. I just wanted to bring this to your attention, and your other edits are fine. Jagvar 19:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a Darien resident too and when I started editing the Darien article in January of last year, the style was explained to me by other users as follows: a town's history, geography and demographics should be placed at the top of the article. Any supplementary town information should follow, and last of all, links. You can take a look at the articles on Danbury, Connecticut, Bridgeport, Connecticut and Litchfield, Connecticut for ideas. Jagvar 14:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Format change on botted pages
First off, thanks for the question, but let me preface my comments by saying I'm on vacation in Thailand away from my comfort zone and don't really have time to give you a thorough answer. When I return home on the 15th, I'll try to do your question justice. First off, I would remind you to be bold, because the best way to solve problems can be to make waves and cause a discussion. I see no problem with adding a section of interesting facts to the article. Actually moving the Demographics section could be a little more problematic, since one of the nice things about bots is the uniform style they create. There's something to be said for that, and WP:BOTS does the saying. On the other hand, by adding your more personalized info, you're overcoming one of the bot shortcomings -- that botted pages are soulless and may never see a human edit. I added a few trifling facts to the arctile on my hometown of Burkesville, Kentucky, but as you'll see they were just plugged into the Geography section where they were appropriate. WP:MOS is the clearinghouse for style guidelines, but I don't have time to pore over that tome right now. Keep up the good fight and I'll talk to you about the 15th. - Draeco 11:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Henri Rousseau
Nice work. Check out footnote coding. Tyrenius 05:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot to learn! This explains it Footnotes. Some pages I've found helpful are here. Let me know if you need any assistance. Tyrenius 20:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Famous people in Wilton
Got your message: I actually don't doubt any of the names on that list, in the sense that I think that it's not true. The general Wikipedia policy, however, is all about Verifiability -- and putting up warning messages when we're not 100% sure that a book, newspaper, or other credible source hasn't already said what we're saying. Your suggestion, "to keep an eye out for references in the press or other evidence," is exactly the right thing to do. If you have a web URL, just surround it in [] marks and plop it right next to the statement. If you want to learn the fancier ways to do it, check out Citing sources. Thanks for asking, and thanks for helping build up the Connecticut articles. --M @ r ē ino 03:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit
I could of sworn it was called the Stamford Advocate, until I checked their website. I corrected the article soon after changing it. I'll remember to check the facts before editing first. Again I am sorry for any problem I might have caused. --thinkpad 19:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence
Hi Norton. I think your addition of these pictures is great, and the link to the website that identifies the people is interesting as well. However, you can't really recognize many personal features no matter how big this image is, and besides for cosmetic reasons, the image needs to match the scale of the other images. The caption should also be concise and to the point. The article is about the person, not the painting, the painter or even the Declaration of Independence. Also, regarding the Delaware folks, Rodney was not even there, Dickinson was strongly against it and says he was hiding in the back somewhere, and Read did not vote for it either, although he eventually signed. So I would really ask that the display be at 300px and the caption limited to a line or two at the most. Perhaps you could do an article on the painting itself, with an enlarged version and the label could provide a link to that article for all the detailed information. Please give it some thought. stilltim 00:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Blueberry
Nice additions; couple of requests - could you convert the new refs you've added to the same style as the existing ones (Harvard style) so the refs list is consistent (I don't have a post-doc degree in computing so don't know how to work those tags), and please avoid adding too many headers for the length of the page! I'm also a little dubious about having all those commercial ext links to grower associations, they're a bit close to spamlinks - thanks, MPF 09:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Noroton - thanks for the details; I'll go through (probably tomorrow) and see what I can work out on which refs belong where (some of them are mine, but not all). I know the numbered refs look nice on the page, but I'm a firm believer in wiki editing access to everyone - and if I've been here for over 2½ years and still can't fathom out how to work them, I hate to think how daunting they must be for new editors without a lot of computing experience. Paragraph length I guess is a matter of individual preference, my own personal feeling is that roundabout 20 lines per header looks best, otherwise, the TOC gets to be too big. For ext links, there's a general feeling that they only go in if providing reference for something in the article, rather than a general link farm; there's some fairly extensive guidelines at WP:EL and WP:NOT, have a look through there and see what you think (after reading through them I usually end up deleting, rather than keeping, ext links!). Thanks again! - MPF 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Guicciardini
Your contribs are interesting: Connecticut, Connecticut, Connecticut, Connecticut, Connecticut, Guicciardini, Connecticut, Connecticut... whoops, how did that get in there?! No seriously -- nice article :) I'm reading his Storia d'Italia for a seminar, nice to get a little background on the guy. --Bookgrrl 17:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks
Hello, Noroton.

While editing pages is so easy on Wikipedia, I still have not figured out how to simply "respond" to a "message." So I will post this note on your page. Perhaps this is the proper way.

I have long suspected that the Robert Fitzgerald-Flannery O'Connor connection to Ridgefield was postal only. Several people have asked me about this over the years. Finally, when I saw what was online here, I went to the town clerk's office, and confirmed that Robert S. Fitzgerald never owned property here (a Robert H. Fitzgerald had land a short distance from Redding in 1948). Then I checked out own newspaper files (I have been editor of the Ridgefield newspaper for more than 35 years), and found a brief, old reference to Robert Fitzgerald, saying he lived in Redding. Our staff at our Redding newspaper checked their files and found that, indeed, he had lived there. They had stories about him from the 50s and 60s and from 2000. His home was not far from the Ridgefield town line and besides getting his mail from the Ridgefield post office, he probably also did much of his shopping in Ridgefield. However, he paid his taxes in Redding, and voted there.

Thank you for your kind words. I am in the throes of trying to update Ridgefield Names, which has grown into a 200,000 word monstrosity. But I enjoy it nonetheless.

I see that you are involved in providing information on many area communities. You are doing a wonderful service.

I have expanded on the Keeler Tavern, Aldrich Museum, and added the Ridgefield Playhouse to the Attractions, Landmarks, and Institutions. I also plan to add a section on Geology -- which is pretty interesting here.

I am wondering about your source for "Of the families to settle in Ridgefield, the Rockwells and Lounsburys owned approximately one third of the land in Ridgefield by 1900." I have never heard this, and have much trouble believing it. That would mean they owned more than 11 square miles -- over 7,000 acres. That's nearly the size of the whole town of Darien. Jack Sanders 23:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ridgefield and Redding
Greetings again. You might be interested to know that I knew Betty Boyd for many years. In fact, she was my boss. Betty Boyd -- or as we knew her -- Betty Grace Boyd Nash -- married Karl S. Nash, publisher of The Ridgefield Press (and eventually, The Redding Pilot). She was the longtime managing editor of those and other papers (that today include the Darien Times). Betty Grace was the daughter of Thomas Boyd, whose World War I novel, Through the Wheat, has been called one of the best portraits of war ever written. She died several years ago. I am not sure she ever knew about the O'Connor reference. For many, many years, she used the "personals" section of the classified ads in her own papers the way we use e-mail today. She would send messages to all sorts of family and friends who she knew read the paper. In 1949, she may have been courting Karl Nash -- or vice versa -- and the ad writer may well have been Karl. A few days ago, I did put a footnote on the Fitzgerald page and changed O'Connor. Guess I better put a footnote on O'Connor, too, as you suggest. I better get rid of that Rockwell/Lounsbury reference. It's just not possible. (In doing Ridgefield Names, I read every single deed filed in the town clerk's office from 1708 to 1900, and recall no sense of vast Lounsbury/Rockwell land ownership. And there is nothing in the local histories that would indicate such.) Thanks and best wishes. Jack Sanders 14:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Still much to learn...
Hi I am having a bit of a problem creating a new page on Branchville, and then linking it. I created the page, but probably did it incorrectly. The address is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branchville%2C_Connecticut, but I think it should have the Connecticut in parentheses. Did not know how to do that -- unless it's simply to put the name in parentheses in the title! Will fiddle with it a tad. Many thanks for your observations and help!Jack Sanders 16:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Onward and upward
Figured out Branchville finally, and all seems well. I believe you are responsible for Georgetown, so you might enjoy the map I upoaded (my first experiment in dealing with images -- basically, I copied the coding you had done on the Ridgefield page). I also made a couple of modifications with respect to Ridgefield's relation to Georgetown, and footnoted the information.—Jack Sanders 18:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

On the subject
You took out a Trump picture from People of Greenwich, Connecticut, saying it wasn't on topic. You can't get more on topic than that. I'm restoring it. And that wasn't "commentary" in the caption, either.Noroton 16:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Commentary is anything that can be considered NPOV. What if I thought he was having a particularly good hair day? I would have a difference in opinion with something you are presenting as "fact". Fair use images should not be used in articles not about the creator of the fair use image (Trump Productions LLC/Mark Burnett Productions/NBC/Universal Music & Video Distribution), or an article dealing in depth with the subject of the image. Lists don't deal in depth. Saavy? --  Zanimum 17:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've just been reading up on the Fair Use page. The people article is not in depth, so you're right, it isn't fair use. I'll be removing some other pics there too. As for "bad hair day" that's fact, not opinion. You shouldn't try to be so literal on the policy.Noroton 17:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the images off. No, trust me, I'm not being too literal of the NPOV policy, although I do appreciate humor. Ask on the Help desk for a second opinion, if you wish. --  Zanimum 17:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm a little upset. I'm killing off my babies on each of the "People in" pages I've created. It's a slaughterhouse.Noroton 17:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's okay, I'm sure I'd be too. However, there are some other people you could add into the article. The articles on Clyde Fitch, Roger Glover and Regis Philbin include free images you could use, plus there's a free image of Mel Gibson, if you don't mind embaressing Greenwich with the pic. --  Zanimum 17:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Georgetown post office
Greetings again! Georgetown post office no longer actually delivers mail. P.O. boxes and window service only. And back in the 1950s, when Georgetown did deliver, Ridgefield residents in the Branchville section voted not to get their mail from Georgetown, but from Ridgefield. Old Connecticut loyalties, I guess. The odd thing is, the town of Redding has FOUR post offices for about 9,000 people: Redding, West Redding, Redding Ridge, and Georgetown. Ridgefield, population 23,000, has one post office, and it's the world's worst.

Derogatory Article.
The article you made concerning Norwalk's education system is very derogatory and makes me feel very unfortunate indeed. What is your aim? Gentlyfloatingabout 19:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing will suddenly be done if someone, possibly an important official, sees that article. Norwalk just doesn't have the funding from the taxes it receives. It is not as rich as the surrounding towns. And it is very sad, especially since that there is nothing that may be done. Gentlyfloatingabout 01:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm being REALISTIC when I say that Norwalk does not have the funding! Gentlyfloatingabout 21:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

pre-Iraq War comments
I voted for Rename and Cleanup for yout pre-Iraq War opinions on Saddam Hussein. I think that the article should definitely exist whether or not this carnation of it is deleted, but I think you need to go back and thoroughly get all major opinions on the matter. This is a topic fraught with controversy, so you need to be prepared to be completely neutral not only in writing style, but in content. Anyway, Good Luck with it! Joshdboz 11:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Joshdboz's comments. This is a very hot political topic, so you have to be super-scrupulous about NPOV. Whether a separate article is needed is also questionable, in my view. The material is interesting and valuable, but might be better used in already existing articles about the leadup to the Iraq war. Also, I'm glad your category on conservatives was retained. I never did understand the delete position on that category. Casey Abell 13:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Iraq War -- changing to Neutral
I think that your latest efforts at improving the article present a good-faith effort at removing POV issues. There is a lot that still needs to be done, however, in terms of its structure. I will see if I can work on it a little more over the next few days. In the meantime, I am changing my vote on the article to Neutral and will see if we can reach a common ground. Andrew Levine 18:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Pre Iraq war
Im very busy with other articles ive been working on. But my opinion is that this should be put under the Saddam Husseinarticle. But if not then it defitnley needs to be renamed. How about Opinions on Iraq War or go to the Iraq Warpage. CMB. --Zonerocks 15:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Help
You could help me if you want with other articles. I am currently working on the Reconstruction and The Changing SouthIf you could make internal links with the words in the article, I would really appriciate it. This is a really good article which could become an featured article someday. --Zonerocks 15:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks, appriciate it. Saved me alot of time. Better get back to fixing this article. --Zonerocks 20:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Great Captain Island/Light?
I like it! The second picture was too big so I made it a little smaller. I dont think that 2 pictures make it crowded, if we get more pictures, we can just make a gallery. Thanks for expanding the history. --Digon3 14:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Bow ties
I can't believe I just waded into that discussion. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, though. Johndodd 01:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto for me, but thanks for the head's up. It was possibly the most well-discussed merger of trival stuff ever, but I was glad to be part of it.  Cornell Rockey
 * I think that if all names are on the list, with a summary on the article page, with all the photos in the gallery remaining on the article page, that will work. As I have said before, I particularly like the photo gallery of bow tie wearers. Doc &#9836; talk 02:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

History of Norwalk, Connecticut
Hi; I've endorsed this revision of this page. Note that I don't have a particularly strong feeling one way or another; I simply made a call and there it is. I don't assert any particular authority to freeze the page at any moment. Indeed, I'm sure this article can be further improved. I just have to question whether you two can do so, right at the moment. Please lend me your ears for a bit while I comment.

and, you seem to be in the middle of an edit war. Page history does not indicate any blatant 3RR violation and, if you think you're not edit warring, this is probably why. Let me just suggest that edit wars come in all shapes and sizes; 3RR only forbids one particular kind. Other edit wars are also frowned upon and occasionally grounds for sanctions. The general principle is discuss, don't revert. This theme runs through many of our policies.

My suggestion is that you both take a break from this particular page. I don't particularly care if my edit stands or if the very next editor who comes along reverts it -- just so long as it's not one of you guys. Let a few other guys get in their licks; see which way the wind blows. You may be surprised at what the rest of the community has to say. Give it a month. Remember, all versions are safely stored in page history; there is no emergency, nothing will be lost. You've both commented on talk extensively so other editors will be aware of the controversy. No problem!

There are many outstanding tasks around here; no shortage of work to be done. Build up some good karma and I'm wiling to bet that in a month from now, you'll both find your concerns fully addressed. If there's any way I can possibly help, just ask.

I'd like to repeat that I'm totally uninvolved in this issue; I've never even been to Connecticut, despite having lived many years in the Rust Belt. I don't even particularly worry that the project will fall down if you fight over this article. But I hope I'm able to help preserve two valuable contributors to the project; this I care about a great deal. Thank you. John Reid 08:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Name-holders
Name-holders are people who hold a name. If you clicked on the primary link in the Alexander (disambiguation) page which was mentioned in the name-holders sentence, the context might have been clearer. Please stop cluttering the disambiguation page with stuff that is available in the base name article. -- JHunterJ 21:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You have me confused?
Um, while you are welcome for the note, I do not remember ever having come in contact with you :). I did, however, check through my contributions (Yay for "last 5000 contributions" button) and I can find no mention of your name. Where exactly is this note? GofG undefinedundefinedundefined Contribs 02:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

wrong William Charles
Hi! Thanks for your note at Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Dictionary of Canadian Biography/C re: William Charles. I have disambiguated to William Charles (fur trader) and added a proper link there. Thanks again. --Stormbay 03:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

links to 'years in' (prizes)
might be easier just to put one link to years in poetry/lit in the see also, and maybe mention it at top? i had assumed those links were to the general year things. these also might usefull to viewers to get idea of the hist. context. both of course shld have links to each other, i guess what is 1st linked from the dates on the prizes shld be the 'most likely to be wanted'. which wld this be? → bsnowball 14:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC) sorry, though i had replied earlier. i hadn't thought that thru enough. as yet no usefull thoughts except, tenuously, this looks like a lot of reduplication, might there short cuts like w/ transclusion? random idea, i'll have to think about it. otherwise suspect the 'years in' pages only need the really big prizes, & why can't the poetry go in the years in lit? if that doesn't get to big i assume that wld be better all round. → bsnowball 17:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC) guess it's been almost a week & it doesn't look like there's any concerted opposition :) do you also agree it wld be the List of poetry awards? can do that this evening. (next few hrs) no more thoughts on the years, although i do lean towards having them both under lit. maybe input from the WikiProject Literature [i meant to say WikiProject Poetry!]wld be useful. ps the list of mothers & fathers is great, tempted to add mary & god or god & god just to see how long it takes... → bsnowball 08:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * the merge is done, fairly sure i got it all. for now i moved the non-english with it, can decide on that now i suppose (there's acctually very little of them). yes, i'm aust. agree about that (don't need sep. oz prizes, & yes, small enough to go on 'year in lit pages', one day i'll get around to a real oz po page...) otherwise i guess yr judgement is better on the years in as yr the one doing all the work. &rArr; bsnowball  11:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Bullets
What's with removing the bullets? They are pretty much the predominant style in Wikipedia, and much easier to maintain than having to be careful to have a &lt;br /> at the end of every line. - Jmabel | Talk 05:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still thinking this through. I've been doing a lot of work recently with poetry awards lists and year-in-poetry pages, so I've been looking at various styles and trying to figure out what the best ones would be. When I first came across the "/br" I had the same reaction as you, and you make the best case there is for keeping them (ease of updating and near uniformity). And the Poet Laureate page you link to may actually work better with bullets throughout (I was a little uneasy after changing that one). Here's my thinking: (1) The "br/" stuff at the end of each line is really a minor difficulty that anyone can figure out the first time and sail through all the other times. (2) Making things uniform is a worthy goal, but -- I think --making the page more inviting for the reader is usually more important. Sometimes those two things go together, sometimes not and sometimes maybe we should change uniforms. (3) The reader knows what to expect when he sees the bullets, but in cases where the reader will instantly understand what's being presented, the bullets are unnecessary. The page then looks much better without an unnecessary element. For instance, where a whole page or a section is clearly labeled a list, or if it's obvious that the reader is looking at a list, the bullets are just clutter. (4) If individual lines on the list are long (especially if items take up more than one line), then bullets help and should be retained. (5) In weighing whether to make things easier on the readers or on the editors, the readers' interests should trump the editors' unless something is very difficult for the editors. I don't think that's the case here.


 * Anyway, that's what I'm thinking so far. I decided when I made the change on that page that if anyone strongly objected I wouldn't oppose changing it back. On that page there are lists in somewhat different forms (and there's one spot where I didn't think I could remove bullets without confusing readers), so for uniformity's sake within the page, it might be better to bullet everything. Please think about it further, I'd be interested in what you think. Some pages have tables with a lot of lines in them (and some people have told me they hate all those lines for the way they look). Other pages have much more elegant tables without lines that are easy to read, others have lists with bullets and still others lists without bullets. There's a wide variety right now on the literary awards pages, and I'm trying to find the best examples and make those formats more common. Regards, Noroton 18:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have any really strong feelings about this, just a prediliction for keeping things relatively uniform. If I wanted something without bullets, I would use an appropriately formatted table (done with wikitable syntax).


 * By the way, another sometimes useful possibility if a list is very long is to make it multi-column: &lt;div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> [content goes here] &lt;/div>. I'm sure you could do something similar with the &lt;div> element or CSS to suppress the visibility of bullets in a list (much less error-prone because the style issue is dealt with in one place, at the top of the list), but offhand I don't know what it is; it would involove re-styling the &lt;li> element. - Jmabel | Talk 18:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

List of people in Greenwich, CT?
I came across this page via Google, and I had a couple questions:

1) What is the standard for inclusion on this page? 2) On a more personal note, why exactly did you choose to include Bruce Zirinsky (my father), and what is your relation to him (if any)?Jzirinsky 22:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Jzirinsky


 * Response, in reverse order, and probably longer than what you were looking for: (2) I really can't remember if I included him or if someone else did. For instance, a number of people add names to the Greenwich page and I often move those names to the "People in Greenwich, Connecticut" page; I recently changed the name of that page to "People from Greenwich, Connecticut" and for any of those reasons you might have picked up my name even if I didn't originally add him; but it's also possible that I saw his name in the New York Times and decided to include him -- I have some vague recollection about that, but I'm not sure. Since I tend to "patrol" that page, I may have seen someone put up the name, then did a Google search to see if I should take it down and then seen the Times article, I just don't know. If I was the one who included his name, then my only relation to him was reading his name in that article.


 * (1) I've thought about this a lot: The standard should be that someone is nationally known for some prominent endeavor. Not fame, but "notability." If I recall correctly, he was the lead lawyer in some mergers or acquisitions of some very major companies. To me, that seems notable enough, although it's a gray area. My thinking is that someone who is the CEO of a major company or of a company that is known nationwide should be on these lists (I put the CEO of Morton's Steakhouses on the New Canaan page, for example) or someone who is centrally involved in some nationally known thing should be on one of these local lists. The architect or builder of the George Washington Bridge, the inventor of the Hoola Hoop, an actor involved in a few movies in more than a tiny role would also be people I'd put on these lists.


 * In most cases, by the way, I simply clicked on the "What links here" item in the "toolbox" at the left of the page for the "Greenwich, Connecticut" article and when I looked down the list and found prominent people, I added them to the "People from Greenwich" list.


 * If you feel uncomfortable with his inclusion or think it may be a violation of his privacy, please feel free to take his name off -- or if you'd rather I did, I can do it, and I can see that it isn't put back up. Noroton 22:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Year in Poetry
At Poetry of the United States, you added a bunch of "year in poetry" links. So, I said to myself, OK, wonder what there is of interest there. And I clicked on the year of H.D.'s birth, only to see that her birth isn't even itself on the page (which would be OK if, say, it focused on what was published that year, which it doesn't), which only contained something like four items in all. So... are these "Year in Poetry" pages substantive enough to be worth linking to? - Jmabel | Talk 01:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That makes sense; the question then becomes, though (and I promise this is not hostile) is it useful to link from birth dates? I can definitely see linking publication years this way, and building up a good list of what was published; but, sure, have at it, I was mostly wondering if this was something you were building or if you were linking into a half-abandoned scheme that someone else had built. - Jmabel | Talk 01:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the "year in poetry" and "year in literature" pages should certainly interlink; I suggest, though, that you link from "year in literature" pages to "year in poetry" pages only for examples of the latter that have some substance and are worth a click; as there are more of these, add more links.

Victorino Matus
The only source in the article does not qualify as a reliable source, because it is a link to the subject's employer's website. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you read WP:RS? When a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Has this material been previously published by a credible, third-party publication? User:Zoe|(talk) 17:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've posted to WP:AN trying to get further input on this. If they agree with you, then I won't bother you any more. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

List of years in poetry
You've been doing great work on the years in poetry pages! If you've got any ideas or come across thoughts for the Poetry Portal, it could really use some other perspectives for good articles, poems to list, etc. Best, Sam 23:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The easiest way to add things to the portal is to go to the "archive" page (it is generally linked to at the bottom of each box), choose a week or month coming up, and click on the link for that week - then you can add in the poetry, quote or article. Once you do it two or three times, it becomes second nature.  I'm not very active on Wiki at the moment, and more just trying to maintain some of the things I've contributed to in the past, like the Poetry Portal and the article on Poetry, but there are only about three or four people contributing to the Poetry Portal, and after a bit it is pretty easy to see who has contributed what.  After the years in poetry project gets a bit farther along, I think it would make sense to propose it as a Featured List. I'd also like to use it as a basis for really fleshing out the History of poetry page, which is in desparate need of help. Sam 00:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1913 in poetry
Hi ... I'll echo the above comments to say what excellent work you've been doing on the years in poetry. I never dreamt that they would get this far so fast!

I see you moved Bridges' laureateship to the 'Awards' section in 1913 in poetry. To me this doesn't feel quyite right. The U.K. laureateship is only given when the old laureate dies, so it is not a regular thing like most awards. To me it seems more of a 'title' than an 'award' or a 'prize'. Because it only happens a few times a century it seems me to better categorized as an 'Event'. The other laureateships are all categorized as events. I guess we should agree on this, and then make all the years consistent. Cheers. Stumps 07:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I noted that some of these categories are labeled "Awards", some "Awards and Honors", and made this one the latter just so it would fit if we leave it there. I am neutral as to whether it goes under Awards and Honors or events, but do see the virtue in consistency.  (I do think we should specify that this is British or English Poet Laureate, however, and not just indicate "Poet Laureate", as I note is sometimes done). Best, Sam 14:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Kensett Image
I noticed that you added an image of a Kensett painting to the article on him. Your subject is Darien Shore. In my opinion, this is a minor example of his work and does not enhance the article. The one image before you added yours is one of his masterpieces. I would respectfully suggest that the image of Darien Shore (and the other one since added) be removed. I welcome your comments. JJ 13:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I still feel the Darien painting should go. The image is too small, the frame detracts (although I could "remove" it), and, in my opinion, the quality of the painting is weak.  I agree that The Old Pine is a good painting. JJ 20:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll eliminate the image and change the title (a bit) on the other.  I am not opposed to a gallery, and I'll get back to your with some suggestions.  Mount Washington from the Valley of Conway should stay where it is in the article.  It's one of his very best works.  JJ 20:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's one from my site which you're free to use: http://whitemountainart.com/OnePageImages/chocorua_jfk_101.htm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnJHenderson (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Here's another fine example: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/k/kensett/kensett_beacon_rock.jpg. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnJHenderson (talk • contribs) 21:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
 * We'd need a larger image of Bash Bish: http://www.nationalacademy.org/perm/images/kensett.jpg. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnJHenderson (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
 * This images is not true to its true colors: http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/viewOnezoom.asp?dep=2&zoomFlag=0&viewmode=0&item=15%2E30%2E61. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnJHenderson (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
 * A great painting: http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/viewOnezoom.asp?dep=2&zoomFlag=0&viewmode=1&item=25%2E110%2E5. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnJHenderson (talk • contribs) 22:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
 * We'd need a larger image of: http://www.montclairartmuseum.org/SearchCollections_details.cfm?id=98 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnJHenderson (talk • contribs) 22:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Another fine painting, and from Darien: http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/viewOnezoom.asp?dep=2&zoomFlag=0&viewmode=0&item=74%2E24 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnJHenderson (talk • contribs) 22:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Gallery of Images
If you wish to see an exmaple of how I used a gallery, please see the article on White Mountain art.

Kensett was a great artist, and there are dozens of fine examples of his works. I'm still considering your comments. 76.179.170.248 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC) This message was from JJ 21:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Painting Descriptions
On another topic, the title of paintings should be consistent. I use the following as my guidline. <artist name (birth-death); painting title; current owner. For example,
 * John Frederick Kensett (1816-1872); Mount Washington from the Valley of Conway; Collection of Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts.

Your title, especially of the Darien painting, it too long. And, the auction price of this painting seems unnecessary, especially as part of a title. Auction prices are, really, a whole separate topic. If the user wants more information about the painting, he can click on it. Please tell me if you feel I'm wrong. JJ 20:29, 8 December 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 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Against the Day
Hi,

I have yet to finish reading AtD (it's my Christmas treat) but I can assure you that as soon as I have done so I will aprticpate in the improvement of the Wikipedia entry, which, at a glance (don't want to spoil the surprise!), is looking fantastic already.

Thanks

Martin Hinks 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Academy Award
Thanks for making such a good contribution to the Academy Award article, to be honest I simply did not want to find all those references and I'm glad you took the initiative. Also to be honest, that was the first time I had ever been accused of vandalism and sockpuppetry because of one edit, so I may have been overhasty dragging it to the RfC board, but look what a positive outcome it had!--Dmz5 07:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:FredChappellPoet.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:FredChappellPoet.jpg. 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. 04:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

1860's articles
Hi there, I deleted some sections of it because having empty sections there was a litle bit of a waste of space and will take up unnecessary room on the servers, but if you are going to add information to them eventually then I'll leave them, and I can fully respect that, anyway great contributions! Have a great New Years Eve!

Respectfully... Tellyaddict Talk 18:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

19th century
Nice going on getting the years set up for the whole 19th century; it will now be much easier to add information from some of the lists of poets that focus on poets of the last couple centuries. Sam 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Tackling the 18th century
It's been a long time since I've read much Byron; I'm planning on pausing a bit on creating the basic years (maybe a week or two) and spending some time adding to the pages we've created. With two centuries of basic pages, we can cover a lot of the national poetry lists (I just did the Modern Greek one, for example); once we get the 18th century in, it's possible to add all of the Russian poets and their works. But doing this is a good way of remembering all that is out there. Sam

Notability of events in poetry
Hi, I've left a comment on the relevant talk page. And BTW yes I did start the years in poetry pages, but had no idea that they would grow so rapidly. I'm amazed at how much effort you have put in on them!! Stumps 02:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

List of bow ties
I looked at your changes and changed my vote. What you added is interesting (take care to avoid WP:OR, though) and I think it could merit an article (or be merged into Bow tie). I still think that the list itself is fairly pointless. :: mikm t 02:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a note to tell you that I agree. Your new content is good, and merging it into Bow tie (which is rather short) sounds like a good idea, but I still think that the main list itself is pretty useless. I've also changed my vote. Hut 8.5  18:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Bowtie list page
Hi i get the message you left me on my discussion page and i had just given my vote to keep. Its a pitty some people really want to shred other people's work citing things just as unencyclopedic, well anyways i find the list on that page interesting and it shouldn't be deleted. Wish you good luck, cheers, --HappyApple 03:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message
Noroton: thanks. Could you in future please leave messages on my talk page?--Poetlister 22:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

on "famous"
Thanks for your reply. I wish I had come into that debate sooner; I really wanted to sink that damn list! =P I'd actually expect that a list of bow-tie wearers has a more coherent criterion than a list of tall people. I would warn you though; adding "famous" to any title is inevitably going to be reverted out of the title later, possibly quite quickly. Per WP:PEACOCK, "famous" is really not a word that belongs, in many editors' opinions. The thing is that we don't have any objective criteria for evaluating "fame". The only thing we have is WP:BIO for notability, and if someone passes BIO then it's hard to argue that they don't belong anywhere else that they might reasonably be placed. The tall men list actually used to be "list of famous tall men" but that got taken out and I don't expect that it will ever be put back. — coe l acan t a lk  — 22:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Catullus
I have read over the new article, and I must say it has changed signficantly. I don't know exactly what you've added, but the notes on scholarly debates, suggested translation and symbolism all seem to be up-to-scratch. They also cohere greatly with what I studied myself. The references at the bottom of the page are great for supporting evidence. I'm happy to see, that my own original notes have been kept, and that people have just expanded on them. Thematic unity and disunity is something that scholars have argued over for centuries - and will continue to do so unless we find more Catullus hidden somewhere. All-in-all I think you've done a great job and if you'd like to help me out with any other sourcing, or debates that you find, feel free to edit the Wiki Books project.  I look forward to working with you in the future. Alakazam138 11:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I only have limited access to academic libraries too at the moment but I do have Quinn, who can be used to reference many things in the article. Quinn briefly mentions the poem as being inspired by a couple of Hellenistic epigrams by Meleager of Gadara (not one of Wikipedia's fuller articles that, by the way). I suspect Anyte might be relevant too. The trouble is, unless you have a reliable source saying so, this constitutes original research. There is a poem by George Gascoigne ("Of all the birds that I do know/Philip the Sparrow hath no peer") which is almost certainly influenced by Catullus 2 but I can't find a critic saying so. You might find a translation by a notable English poet though. I think Richard Lovelace translated quite a few poems by Catullus. Cheers. --Folantin 14:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I use Daniel Garrison and some online sites for my references. If you'd like to type up the Quinn's viewpoint then, that will lead to some neutrality and potential discussions about scholarly debates. if you are interested in working on the WikiBooks project of Catullus, then let me know and we could sort soemthing out - perhaps a division of the work load and some standard templates. Let me know what you think. Email me if you like? Alakazam138 14:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of palindromic phrases in English
Your comments in the AfD were added before two related articles were added to it as a group nomination. Please clarify whether your vote applies to all 3 or not. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 02:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Catullus Textbook
Thanks for relaying that message back. My late reply is due to the fact that I was on holiday in Berlin. Back now in England. :D I think Folantin would be a great help to the Textbook because of his knowledge of Catullus' influence after death. Thanks for that scribe's message too, that could open up a large section on scholarly debates about the Catullus we have - and whether its accurate or not. If you'd like to help, then let me know. Also what ae your main specialties or interests with Catullus? If you just like it, and haven't studied it as such, then I'm still happy for you potentially work on the subject. It would be a learning curve perhaps. :D Alakazam138 14:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Death lists
Hello. Per your vote at Articles for deletion/List of Deaths in Scream, could I please draw your attention to this multiple AFD. Cheers. The JPS talk to me  15:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you comments. Am I alone in thinking that those death sections in articles are hideous? They are also redundant with the plot section (which discusses them in context), and looks completely childish. The JPS talk to me  19:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:Winfield High School (West Virginia)
Thanks for commenting on my talk page. As for the article, I've changed my vote to Keep, per the changes. Talk to you later. Alex43223Talk 23:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Noroton. You've made a good example of enormously improving an article in such a short time. Good job! Regards. PeaceNT 03:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)



has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. → You're welcome PeaceNT 03:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
Oh, thank you as well; you've improved the Lone Horn/One Horn (good one on the redirect) article with adding the info/photograph to it.  on camera (t)  23:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a word of advice. If you are just setting up the pages and returning later to fill them please state this in the edit summary when you start the article. Otherwise empty new pages are likely to be considered for deletion by new page patrollers. Cheers Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding subjects being of interest the future.
As a guideline, notability is generally permanent. The requirement is for multiple independent reliable sources, and once those exist, they generally exist forever. (Although if the sources do disappear completely, then we have no way of verifying, so we could not include it). (:&mdash;siro&chi;o 20:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Article for Deletion comment
Thanks for your note on my talkpage about changing your view on AfD. its good to know people read them! I was strating to think they werent! --PrincessBrat 20:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Schools, Afd
Hi, Ive just seen your comments on the afd for Colby High School and had a read of your schools essay and I agree with you 100%! Im trying to keep the City of Portsmouth Boys' School article from being deleted. The article is much more referenced than the Colby article. Please do drop by the AfD and discuss your thoughts. CPBS. LordHarris 04:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry meant to reply ages ago. Thanks for your support on the CPBS article - it was definately one of the larger debates about a school wikipedia has had for a while. Ill keep paying attention to the schools for deletion page as its on my watch list, but I have missed a few. If you occasionaly see a few that really need keeping then please let me and ill drop by the review process. Anyway thanks again!.LordHarris 00:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you very much for your work on listing the school deletions. It's a topic that I'm interested in, and I'm glad that someone's keeping up with centralizing the discussions. :) --Elonka 20:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Cape Coral High School
You're most welcome. The compliment was well deserved.

Didn't know that about WP:SCHOOLS. That's one of those policies that will be debated for quite some time. I'm personally of the opinion that pretty much all schools, particularly high schools and up, deserve an article because they are often a major focus of their respective communities. The only problem is that they so often attract high levels of vandalism — I'm constantly having to deal with vandals for nearby Hoover High School (Alabama), not only because it has a healthy share of rivals and detractors, but also because of its visibility on the MTV show Two-A-Days. I used to deal with a lot of these people when I was the managing editor of the Hoover Gazette, and I still see it now working for The Birmingham News. (I just filed a story minutes ago for a county baseball championship game they won.) School articles can be "high maintenance," to put it mildly, but so can articles for many other notable subjects. It just goes with being Wikipedia.

Anyway, thanks for greatly improving the Cape Coral article. I'll dig a barnstar out of petty cash when I get past my deadline tonight. :-) Realkyhick 02:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Deadline has passed, the Sunday Metro Edition is put to bed, so now...

Copyright Question
Hi, I posted my opinion on the copyright issue at the AfD page, but my understanding is that if a list involves creative thought or arrangement (as opposed to a mechanical process lacking creativity), it is protected by copyright. This one's entirely creative and subjective, so it is an original work of authorship and protected. That's my understanding anyway. Interesting issue, thanks for sending it my way. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Plymouth-Canton Marching Band
Hey, thanks so much for your support as well as communicating with me. I'm a fairly new comer, so edits are a little more difficult! :-D

Yes, I do need some help. I have news paper articles dating back to 1999 as well as a House resolution passed about the band, (if that helps). If you could give me some tips or templates to help me out, I would REALLY appreciate it. Thanks!Refusetobesilenced 22:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your comments! You were really helpful and am thankful that there are people out here who don't just wanna chew you out for being and idiot, but will actually help you learn the ropes! Thanks again! Refusetobesilenced 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Torrington, CT
I see you added some census numbers to the Torrington article. I appreciate it, but something looks "off" about it, the placement of it looks weird. I left it alone, but could you see if you can do anything about it? Thanks. Wikidan829 03:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Rubbing against the edit links, I think the problem is. I'm not very good at formatting this stuff yet, I've only made minor changes like fix grammatical errors, otherwise I would try to adjust it myself. Wikidan829 03:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you're probably right. I'll see if we can get some help on that. Thanks. Wikidan829 03:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the table to after the first paragraph to get it "around" the town box at the top. Still bumps the edits but it's not in the middle of the screen. Wikidan829 03:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: School deletion discussion list
Thanks for your message, I overlooked that instruction. I'll be sure to add them to the top if I come across any school-related AfDs in the future. Cheers! --Nick—Contact/Contribs 05:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Connecticut Metro-North Rail Commuter Council"
Please stop adding this link to station articles. It may be a valid link on the Metro-North Railroad article, but station articles should only have links related directly to the station. Thank you. --NE2 13:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a reason to add it to the main Metro-North article. But if we add "whatever would be obviously useful to readers interested in the topic", the station articles will be full of links to Metro-North-related sites, town-related sites, sites about railroad stations, etc. --NE2 13:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not "overwhelmingly obvious" to me that the link is useful. If I want links specifically about the station, I'll go to the article about the station. But if I want links related to the system as a whole, I'll go to Metro-North Railroad and look. If I want links about the neighborhood or town around the station, I'll go to the article about that. --NE2 13:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems like would be a reasonable link for Noroton Heights (Metro-North station). That URL has not changed since June 2004:  --NE2 14:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I just used the search at the bottom of their main page. --NE2 14:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if there aren't any useful pages like that, for example with Greenwich, then we shouldn't have a link. If there is something specific in there that you think should be in the article, add it and cite the page as a reference, like this:
 * According to Jim Cameron, chairman of the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council, the four stations in Greenwich are among the worst on the New Haven Line.
 * --NE2 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's better to give the information directly than to link to a site that might have more information. Again, this would be like putting a link to the main Metro-North site on all of these station articles, because there might be information there that's not on the station page. --NE2 14:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The external links are not part of the article; they are additional resources that should be included only under certain criteria. Please read External links. --NE2 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Topix"
You should alse read External links in relation to this; the site seems to be a mix between a blog and a search engine results page. --NE2 15:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that a number of other pages have similar links: I still don't think it's a good link, but I won't revert you on that. --NE2 15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Trainweb.org
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Dirk Beetstra T C 20:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to explain this a bit further, since you were already adding these links earlier as well and I see there is a discussion on this subject above. These links are not symmetrically and directly linked to the subject, there is only a direct link, no symmetry.  As an example, a link on a page about a specific type of car should lead to a link on the manufacturers page about that specific type of car; a link to the manufacturers homepage is not symmetrically linked to the car, only directly.  Also, the initial part of WP:EL states, that only information that cannot be incorporated into the wikipedia should be linked, and the page you linked to does not contain information that can not be included (actually, it does only provide some information about the council).
 * Moreover, the way you were adding these links is, under the wikipedia definition, spamming. It then does not matter whether or not the links are appropriate.  Hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please tell exactly what in WP:SPAM applies to the links I added. When you write "It then does not matter whether or not the links are appropriate" really tells me most of I need to know about your point of view. If you have any interest at all in our actual readers, how can you write that? Commuters are concerned about their individual stations and are likely to go to the Wikipedia articles about those individual stations. If they have an interest in their stations, they're quite likely to be interested in the Connecticut Commuter Council, and very likely for the SAME REASONS that they're interested in their stations: because the commuter council addresses concerns over stations as well as other aspects of service. In the REAL WORLD which doesn't quite match in this case a particular BUREAUCRATIC RULE constructed by WIKIPEDIA BUREAUCRATS overly concerned with rules, the links have a quality that the "External links" rulebook doesn't actually address: THEY ARE O-B-V-I-O-U-S-L-Y USEFUL TO ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE WRITING FOR. The individual station pages are not very large and it is hard to imagine that they ever will be. The individual station articles do not now have more than a few links and it is extremely difficult to believe that they ever will. Over-attentiveness to ridiculous rules on your part is hurting actual readers. Have you actually thought about that? Shouldn't that be your FIRST thought? "Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links" -- two or three external links on a page do not actually make a directory. Wikipedia "should not be used for advertising or promotion" -- what are you talking about? The Commuter Council was created by the same state Department of Transportation that has authority over the stations. The Commuter Council is meant to be of assistance to the commuters who use those very stations. Think about that. Those commuters should NOT have to hunt down the Metro-North Wikipedia page then look at its external links section, a much larger page with many more links than the individual stations. And where exactly would this "symmetrical" article be where the Connecticut Commuter Council would fit in perfectly? The Metro-North article or something else? Please review WP:IAR, an official Wikipedia policy that you have very directly violated. It happens to trump a mere guideline. The operating word there is "improve". If I seem angry that's because I'm very angry with you and the other editor: You have acted and explained yourself without any regard to how these articles have been "improved" for the real readers who they are meant to serve. Please explain yourself. Noroton 04:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. You should also consider this, from WP:POL: "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Noroton 04:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Further, the Connecticut Commuter Council addresses concerns at individual stations in its meetings, as noted in the minutes of those meetings posted on the web site I linked to. At various times, unpredictably, the minutes of the meetings will address concerns at individual stations. Therefore the links are extremely useful to readers of individual station articles who, every now and then, will want to see whether the commuter council's meetings addressed something of interest to that particular station.


 * Why haven't you shown in your message any interest or concern with how readers actually use our articles? There is no other justifiable purpose in editing Wikipedia than that. None. It needs to be your first priority. Whatever rules you use need to be consistent with that first priority. Or those rules need to be junked or ignored as per WP:IAR. Noroton 04:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see you are angry, I will answer, but may sound cynical or retorical every now and then, my apologies for that. Please understand that the links were now removed under the guideline WP:SPAM - "... wide-scale external link spamming, ... ", and later in the same guideline "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.".  Also, the way you were adding makes could make me think that you are involved in the Council, which would be a conflict of interest, but since I do not have proof either way, I can only think that.


 * Just inbetween, your link addition was already contested, it might have been better to discuss the individual additions on either a wikiproject page, on WT:EL, or on the individual pages (taking into account you can always ask for an RfC), or considering other alternatives.


 * Now considering the specific link. You are linking to the homepage of the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council.  Nowhere on the external page that you linked on Danbury Metro North station does it show the word "Danbury", hence, the link is not symmetrical (the link is not on-topic), because the page does not tell about this specific wikipedia page.  There may be a deeper page under that homepage that tells about the Danbury station (how it was build, when it was build, how one can access it, if it has a toilet, if it has disabled access, whatever), but that is not the page you linked.  And even then, the specific page should not tell about all the stations, but about only this one (still the symmetry rule), and as an external link it would still not be appropriate, because the information can be incorporated into the wikipedia (see the intro of WP:EL).  Or you could add content to the page which you retrieve from that page and use that specific sub-page as a reference.  Just as a warning, please note that we may define mass-addition of non-specific sentences like "This station is represented by the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council " as spam/canvassing as well; the linkfeed does not see where in the document a link is added; we only see if a link is added quite often, or that one user is adding a link quite often.


 * Considering WP:IAR, that does apply to me as well; I do believe that the page gets better when this link is not there as the link (to this specific page on the site) does not tell anything about the stations (and the wikipedia page would comply better with the policies). The page would become better when adding content, and adding links that tunnel people away from the wikipedia does, IMHO, not make the encyclopedia better.
 * I know policies are not set in stone, but that does not mean that we should ignore them at all, and I am sorry, but in adding this link I believe you ignored three policies and guidelines, which is more than 'an occasional exception'.


 * Let me try and provide a solution (though I have not reviewed if it is really possible). I would suggest to write an article about the Connecticut Railway Commuter Council (here is the caveat; I hope the page would pass wikipedias notability rules).  The external link would be directly and symmetrically linked to that page, and you would only add it once.  The addition of a sentence linking to the Council-page might be considered canvassing when performed on a set of articles, but you could do that in a consideration of really adding more content to the article.  Hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
For your wise and well informed comments at this deletion debate. You should take a peek at WP:AFRO futurebird 18:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

copy of email
Hi Ms. Hollick,

I saw your post at the deletion discussion for the "Helen Hollick" article on Wikipedia. My User Name at Wikipedia is User:Noroton. I said in that discussion that if someone could find articles about you or reviews of your books, I would change my mind. If you could email me back and confirm that you wrote those comments on the deletion discussion page, I'll immediately change it back.

I have plenty of experience in editing articles and, if you'd like, I'd be happy to add information to the "Helen Hollick" article in order to keep it in Wikipedia. If we can show that you've been the subject of articles in reliable publications (even a local weekly newspaper would be fine in that regard), then I'm pretty sure that would convince just about everybody to keep the article.

If you can send me some quotes (or, even better, full texts) of articles about you in any daily newspaper or other reliable publication, I would be happy to add that to the article (or help you in adding it if you prefer). I would need enough information for a footnote, particularly:


 * 1. Name of author (if there is a byline)
 * 2. Exact headline of the article or book review
 * 3. Exact date of the publication (if daily) or issue (if not daily)
 * 4. Exact name of the publication
 * 5. Page where the article appeared, if you have it

In order, these would be the best articles to use (all should be independent of you and it's better if they were independent of any organization you belong to):


 * a. Large-circulation publications
 * b. Small-circulation publications of with nationwide circulation
 * c. Regional newspapers
 * d. Local newspapers, daily or weekly

If articles are on the World Wide Web, that would be better, but not blogs or someone's personal Web site.

Articles about you would be better than book reviews for this purpose. At the absolute minimum, two articles would be useful, and Wikipedia rules have said that a subject with multiple, independent, reliable sources is notable enough for an article -- but editors don't always follow the rules, and more would be better.

Facts about you would be better than comments about you, but overall, the more the better of everything.

You can add the information yourself to the Wikipedia article and just put the footnote information in parentheses, and I or some other editor will put it into Wikipedia style.

Please understand that anyone can edit a Wikipedia article. This occasionally results in vandalism, often from children, but vandalism is very easily erased and tends to be erased in less than a day. You have absolutely no special rights to the content of your Wikipedia article, but Wikipedia has strong policies about articles on living people in order to avoid libeling them. Original content (or "Original research") is not supposed to be put on Wikipedia, only information that has been published elsewhere.

I'm sorry this email is so long. I will post this one email on my user page (not any other emails) and link to it from the discussion page where you posted. It's a little unusual to take information directly from the subject of an article, but as an editor (just another word for " member") of Wikipedia, I think it should be all right to get previously-published information from you (and certainly all right for you to add it on the article yourself if you want).

Best wishes,

RE: Helen Hollick
Thanks for the heads up, the article looks much better now. I have changed my vote to keep. B mg 9 1 6  Speak to Me 23:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Delivery Man
<div style="float:center;border-style:solid;border-color:blue;background-color:AliceBlue;border-width:1px;text-align:left;padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Trampton 12:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

AFD
Hi there, I have changed my vote to keep on the discussiion now it has refs it meets WP:V and I think it now passes WP:BIO, I'd be happy to help with any work needing doing on this articles, just simply leave me a message! Regards -  Telly addict  14:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Connecticut Rail Commuter Council
Hello, I have noticed that you are adding  (or a variation of this) to quite a lot of pages. I am currently working on reverting these edits, as I feel that this information would be better conveyed on Connecticut Rail Commuter Council, as the information does not seem to be directly related to the subject matter of the article. Thanks, and have a good day. Kyra~(talk) 21:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not reverted all of your edits, but my current reversions will stand until we discuss this. Regarding your wish to inform readers on where they can go if they have complaints with the station, wouldn't it be easier to have a "see also" section? That way, all information is contained in one place, and the relevant information is contained within one article. With this method, if the information changes, edits to multiple pages can be eliminated, as you would only have to update the article on the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council (for instance, if the URL changes for some odd reason). Also, as brought up by User:Beetstra in the discussion on WT:EL, the information "is not symmetrically and directly linked to the subject of the article, they have an indirect relationship."


 * Also, as stated by WP:EL, links should be placed on "pages [that] could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic" (emphasis mine). While this is not a directly an external link issue, as you are adding information, I still believe this applies to some extent.


 * As for your discussion with Beetstra, I will have to agree with him/her, as while you are no longer adding raw links (if that was the reason s/he reverted in the first place), the information is not not "symmetrically and directly" related with each individual train station. As such, my suggestion of a "See also" section would seem to make the most sense. I will be more than happy to add such a section to the pages that I have reverted, should you wish. I hope you have a pleasant day. Kyra~(talk) 22:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Rescue From Deletion Award
I hereby award you this honor for your work during the Niggardly AfD discussion. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 10:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Saddam's Record
I completely agree with you, of course. I was just pointing out that there is a difference between Saddam and, say, Hitler - Europe in the mid-20th century had not seen cruelty and massacres on the scale of the Nazis since perhaps around the time of the French Revolution, over a hundred years earlier. Saddam is merely the worst of a bad lot. Taking in the whole Muslim world, one could also point to Sudan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Somalia... There are plenty of examples of brutal governments; Saddam is just the "worst of breed". Brianyoumans 17:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done RaveenS
 * As I know just Saddam has used Weapons of mass destruction among all Muslim rulers if we can count him MUslim.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq
Hi, I think there should be a main article (Human rights in Iraq) and it could have some sub-articles like what you mentioned. But at present it's just a disambiguation page therefor I can't change my vote. God bless you.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I propose to make an article even a little article because people usually don't search Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq. I agree with a separate article for Saddam era.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have chnaged my vote after re-reading the article. I hope it can even be better than it is now. Keep up the good edits. Crested Penguin 05:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on this article - I've amended my vote to Keep on the basis of the work you've done. StuartDouglas 09:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude you r0x0rz! Splendid work on this article! Hurrah! Cloveoil 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Faisal's slave
Thank's for the tip about that picture. I've now posted it to the appropriate place in Islam and slavery and wait to see who might get huffy about that (bound to happen). BTW, did you know that the Sultan of Oman brought slaves with him to Queen Elizabeth's coronation in 1952?DavidYork71 04:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

copyright violation
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as American Poetry Review/Honickman First Book Prize, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.aprweb.org/bookprize/bookprize.shtml, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:American Poetry Review/Honickman First Book Prize and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:American Poetry Review/Honickman First Book Prize with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:American Poetry Review/Honickman First Book Prize.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:American Poetry Review/Honickman First Book Prize/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:American Poetry Review/Honickman First Book Prize saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! killing sparrows 19:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Poetry_Review/Honickman_First_Book_Prize"

Re: my copyvio tag
THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT VIOLATION WHEN YOU REPORT THE FACTS. THERE IS NO COPYING OF TEXT HERE EXCEPT THE BARE FACTS. NO ONE CAN POSSIBLY HOLD A COPYRIGHT ON A LIST OF AWARDS. APPLY YOUR BRAIN TO THIS. IF THIS GOES THEN EVERY LIST OF AWARDS IN WIKIPEDIA MIGHT AS WELL GO WITH IT. LET'S START WITH THE ACADEMY AWARDS. IF GOD GAVE YOU NEURONS BETWEEN YOUR EARS, USE 'EM. I SEE NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY THOUGHT WENT INTO THE IDEA OF PLACING THIS TAG HERE. NO ORGANIZATION THAT GIVES OUT AWARDS WOULD EVER CONSIDER THE LIST OF AWARDS A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. EVER. UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. THEY PUT THEM ON PRESS RELEASES. NOW WHY WOULD THEY POSSIBLY DO THAT IF THEY HAD ANY CONCERN WHATEVER ABOUT COPYRIGHTING A LIST OF THEIR AWARDS? BOOKS REPRINT LISTS OF AWARDS A-L-L T-H-E T-I-M-E. THINK! HAVE YOU NEVER SEEN A NEWS STORY ABOUT THE ACADEMY AWARDS WITH A LIST OF AWARD WINNERS FOR THAT YEAR? Noroton 22:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC) And don't tell me I'm shouting. The copyvio sign is shouting and I need to be heard over it.

Hi there, I have been going through lists of 'orphan pages,' looking for obvious cut and paste jobs. I usually take a quick look at the page and if it looks too 'polished' or the article has that 'PR' feel to it, I check the website refs, or the obvious possibilities if no site is listed. If I see a word for word copy of the text on Wikipedia (and it's not an obvious mirror), well, that seems like a copyvio to me. Sometimes I leave a stub and explain why on the talk page and/or the creators page, but sometimes I don't. I usually check the creators previous edits also, as this (95%) usually shows single edit users or IP addresses. In this case I did check the Hx but I did not look at your edit hx. I apoligize. Looking back at the article it is not a word for word copy, it's pretty close, but given your edit hx I should have contacted you first, or simply added some links and passed on. My mistake. If you look at my edit hx I hope you will see that I am not some loose cannon randomly blasting away, which might lead you to think I would respond to a reasoned approach, try it sometime. It's the honey/vinegar thing re: fly entrapment. By the way, would you mind looking at a few of the other pages I've tagged and see if I'm being too touchy about the copyvio thing, always nice to get constructive, positive feedback. Thnx --killing sparrows 02:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC) PS I think it better form to post comments on the article's and/or user's talk page rather than the article, that's the dirty linen/public thing. --killing sparrows 02:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC) PPS Looking at the WP:CP page I also see that I should be using speedy delete rather than what I have been doing, I'll change my ways. That's the live\learn thing, right? --killing sparrows 02:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note on shouting, it's the template, not the editor, go shout at the template page, or see above re: fly entrapment.

Archimedes Plutonium
Please revisit the discussion. Uncle G 13:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pittsford Mendon High School
Your comment on Articles for deletion/Pittsford Mendon High School was gratuitous and entirely unnecessary, but greatly appreciated. It's great to see that there are folks such as yourself who will also work on behalf of the many worthy school articles out there. Thanks agan for the complement. Alansohn 19:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/East Middle School
Ah, now I see what you meant. I recognized the name but didn't think anything of it. Nice job connecting the dots. While this looks very suspiciously like a violation of WP:POINT, I think WP:AGF may require us to assume he sincerely believes that this article should be deleted. I still say either way we have to call 'em as we see 'em. If we let the behavior of others influence our "votes", we're still being manipulated (although maybe not in the direction we think the others are driving us). Plus, we risk appearing inconsistent and losing a little credibility to people who only notice our bottom-line "vote" without taking the time to study our reasoning. But I can't blame you for being annoyed and "voting" the way you did. Anyway, I have clarified my civility comment to state that it was not directed at you. See you around! --Butseriouslyfolks 06:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I replied. (Much the same as Butseriouslyfolks's reply above: possibly WP:POINT, but WP:AGF). Sancho (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability and schools
Heya. I started a discussion on the talk page for WP:N, and cited your essay on school notability. Would you care to weigh in on the discussion? Thanks, --Dennisthe2 19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Do You Know Me?
You said: Hi Carolfrog, Thanks again for that barnstar. Something just struck me. I used to know a Carol. She liked frogs. I think I still have one of her old business cards with a frog on it. Lived in -- I think it was Jersey City. Did some work for a credit card company. Beautiful woman with a vivacious personality. Had some of the same interests you have based on your suggestabox results. Hmmmmmmmm..... Noroton 04:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm the same Carol. Sorry.  :)   Thanks for wondering, though. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 01:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

:)
<div style="float:center;border-style:solid;border-color:blue;background-color:AliceBlue;border-width:1px;text-align:left;padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. I hope we have settled our differences and can now be useful to wikipedia. I am sorry for my irrational changes in opinion, and hope you forgive me.Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy 23:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Global warming conspiracy theory
Quite a few days ago, on the afd thread for this article, you wrote "But it would have to be shown that the theories — the actual crackpot beliefs, not some over-the-top rhetoric — have attained enough notability for a Wikipedia article. Show us evidence that that's likely to happen and I'll change my mind to "Keep", or join us in deleting this article. " Since then, I've produced articles in Fox News and elsewhere, statements from Inhofe and his followers plus references to black helicopters, world government and the Bilderberg Group on one side, and numerous critical references to conspiracy theory on the other side, including from a senior minister in the British government, referring directly to TGGWS. So, I'm inviting you to return and vote "Keep", or give me an idea what additional evidence you need. As UBeR has said, I can produce all the evidence I want, and he won't change his vote, so the likely outcome is "No Consensus" regardless JQ 10:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you - much appreciated. Springnuts 08:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed vote
Hi, I have changed my vote from merge to keep. Thank you for your efforts. :-) Manik Raina

re: List of people...
Hi Noroton, I'm wondering if you have read any of the comments I have posted on the talk page of List of people who went to heaven alive regarding Mary, Jesus, Enoch, etc.? I see you removed the Translation (Mormonism) section but several other points I raised have not even been commented on. I don't want to start an edit war by just removing what would be the bulk of the article. The only person who seems to qualify is Mohamed, especially with the term heaven being used. I think we have a grouping of people with more differences than commonalities as I have outlined in my several notes. Thnxs, killing sparrows 16:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Noroton I've summed up what I feel are the problems in some detail for your consideration. Please know that I do see a commonality in the persons, just not enough to pull together in one article at this point. Thanks again for all your work on this article. killing sparrows 18:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

See my Talk Page. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 21:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- ReyBrujo 03:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Spam
Sorry you have having such a difficult time on the discussion page. Since you have requested comment, here's my two cents: The reaction to the addition of two paragraphs was swift because it is a major change made without sufficient agreement on the changes. You may want to reconsider WP:CONSENSUS. Your current line of argument presents it basically as a vote on your proposal. That really isn't what consensus is and pushing your agenda so strongly diminishes the power of your message (which I agree with): to encourage civility. I would recommend waiting a while for the ideas to sink in, then proposing a small, specific change to the guidelines that you feel is most important. For instance, of the two paragraphs you wanted to add, the first basically reiterated material that is already incorporated into the page. The main thrust of the 2nd paragraph is a change to the pattern of warning templates in regards to established editors. This is a big change and the paragraph is not clear. "Spam" generally involves multiple links across articles, but you refer to "a link" added by an established editor. It seems this would fall more appropriately under WP:EL than WP:SPAM. As for the warning tags, it could be noted on the project page that using templates to communicate with well established editors is discouraged, it is not inappropriate. The templates themselves are pretty carefully designed to respect WP:CIV. The last section about second-guessing yourself isn't really useful to the guidelines. If anything, it has been discussed on WP:EL that responsibility for justifying an external link is on the editor who adds the link. That isn't to say that discussing the validity of links is not important - but again, this moves the discussion back into the realm of WP:EL, not WP:SPAM.

For what it is worth, I would also recommend against using the talk page of WikiProject Spam to voice your complaints about specific editors. This seems more appropriate for user talk pages. Guidelines are meant to change slowly over time with the input of a wide variety of editors. Good luck. Nposs 04:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Scream trilogy
Hello. Based on your comments in a previous discussion, you might be interested in Articles for deletion/Scream trilogy. The JPS <sup style="color:purple;">talk to me  22:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

deletion etiquette
Sorry about that, I have done so in the past was exhausted and forgot. Chris 21:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Trumbull's painting
I'm fine with the repetition as long as there's a good reason. You could put something in a caption to the second image that would explain its presence, e.g. "reproduced for comparison with key". The problem is that it doesn't really help; you need to enlarge the key to be able to read it, at which point the second image isn't visible any more; and the image itself, at the low resolution of the page, doesn't afford much detail either.

What I'd suggest doing is creating a new image that consists of the key and a reasonably-good-sized version of the Trumbull painting together, and using a thumb of that on the page, so that when expanded readers can see and compare the two easily. How does that sound to you? RandomCritic 13:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:PostcardPublicLibraryThompsonCT1908pstmk.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you uploaded the same image twice: as Image:PostcardPublicLibraryThompsonCT1908pstmk.jpg and also as Image:PostcardPublicLibraryThompsonCT1906pstmk.jpg. The latter copy of the file has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 22:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hey, Noroton! Just wanted to stop by and thank you for the kind and informative comments you left on my talk page. Cheers! &mdash; † <span style="background-color: #ddd; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 11px; padding: 3px;">Webdinger BLAH 22:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Don Imus
Hi, Perhaps it was inadvertent, but you had a Cat:Don Imus on one of your userspace pages. Just wanted to let you know I've deleted it per WP:CAT  JGHowes <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Presidential names
Hi, could you add some input at Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidential names It looks like they are at it again. Jjmillerhistorian 10:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

External Linkage
Wow, it's too bad this "internet" thing won't last.

Thanks for the heads up - I see you had some fun w/r/t the Commuter Council and all that. I'll just have to stay vigilant, I guess.

Agerstein 17:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

People who did NOT live in Ridgefield.
You have to be kidding me, right? Why on Earth should there be an subsection in the Ridgefield article about people who didn't live in the town? How about we tack on Hitler, Stalin, Clinton and billions of other people who never lived in Ridgefield to that list... they've never been residents so surely these people are deserving of recognition, no?

Listing people who have never lived in a town is far and away the stupidest thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.118.129.76 (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Do you remember Al and Catullus? :D
Hello there Noroton, I came across you earlier on Wikipedia and it rung a little bell. I've been plodding away at the Catullus project and seemed to remember you offering to help sometime later when you had time? It's starting to take on a real WikiBook appearance, my ambition is to get it featured. It's a long shot, but I've got a couple of good team members to help me at the moment too. If you reconsider leave a message on my talk page: theres a link to it on the front page of the project. The Poetry of Gaius Valerius Catullus. Alakazam138 21:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Help With Harassment from 69.118.129.76
fyi, now that 69.118.129.76 has been blocked from editing the List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut page, he/she is now harassing me and other editors. unbelievable. —BaseballDetective 03:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

RE:List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut
Hey there Noroton. You probably will see my opinions on List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut shortly. Just thought I would inform you. It is not looked upon well to contact a user to ask for there opinion in a controversial discussion. I personally don't think it is wrong, but I though you should look at WP:CANVAS. Please don't take this wrong, just friendly advice. :) -- <b style="color:#880000; font-size:small;">Random</b> <sup style="color:olive;">Say it here! 02:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right of course. By the way, I'm going to voice my opinion over there now. -- <b style="color:#880000; font-size:small;">Random</b> <sup style="color:olive;">Say it here! 19:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)