User talk:NortyNort/Archive1

File copyright problem with File:D-j dam.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:D-j dam.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 04:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: EU2 albion Brotherhood
Hello Sanorton, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (EU2 albion Brotherhood) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! Ged UK  15:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Popfaces
Hello Sanorton, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Popfaces) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! Ged UK  15:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there, sorry, didn't meant to template you twice. Go careful when tagging something as nonsense, that should be used for articles that consist of 'uohriguheigl' or something like that. I deleted these two under A7, no-indication of notability. Thanks. Ged  UK  15:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits
Please only click the minor edit toggle for edits that are completely non-controversial only. I looked through your contributions and almost everything you click as minor and while some of them are indeed minor edits the vast majority of them are not... RP459 (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Simly Dam
Thank you for adding coordinates to the article. Note however that the  you specified is not valid for use with Coord in the English Wikipedia. Dams are usually coded as. For the complete list of valid Coord types, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/type:. --Stepheng3 (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Petrus killings
Hi good start! pity I dont have indonesian article creation hat on at the moment with the appropriate refs to hand - there are quite a few local issues that tie in - but hey it was an important hole to fill! well done on that - I was damned if i could find the style of dash in the link on my keyboard - or maybe it was late at night.... SatuSuro 00:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sad, but interesting subject. I was surprised I wasn't able to find much more info on the killings. Not sure what happened to that link, looked ok but after pasting the title in, it worked...weird.--NortyNort (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

List of pumped-storage hydroelectric power stations
Hello. Nice work on the mentioned article. Please share your views on this suggestion if you have the time. = Regards. Rehman(+) 07:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hoover Dam
I'm planning to do some improvement on the article with a goal of getting it to the main page for the 75th anniversary of the dedication in September, after getting it through FAC. You seem to be the editor who takes the greatest interest in the article, so I thought I would mention it to you. I probably won't start work for several weeks yet, I've got three projects ahead of it. I do have a few FAs and am reasonably sure I can make a good job of it. All help would be eagerly welcomed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt, good idea. I have taken interest in the article and have improved a few sections. I had wanted to reorganize/add some info to it but didn't want to make big changes on a high-profile article without reason/discussion. Now there seems to be a good reason. I will read up on the dam in the next few weeks and develop better knowledge that maybe I can use to help improve the article. I have improved a bunch of dam articles and enjoy it.--NortyNort (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Collaborations are always rewarding. I just happened to notice the 75th anniversary was coming up.  The text is actually very solid, often I have to entirely rewrite the article, I can see that is not necessary here.  My technique is to go through one section at a time, so high profile articles look intact to the reader at all times.  I need to get a few books on the dam, get a little more info on the Hoover/Boulder/Hoover hoorah and I think this will not be a hugely complicated process.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely. I don't think it will be hard as well. The article will need some tweaking and some additions. It is probably on of the best dam articles (don't mind the pun) on Wiki as far as details and history goes.--NortyNort (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add some more introductory historical material I think. I don't have all the refs I want, but no doubt they will trickle in.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds cool, I am copy editing each section one by one and will try and place references correctly and where citations are needed. I am pretty sure the article has enough references, just sections not paragraphs may have been referenced.--NortyNort (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please pay attention to ref formatting, and ensure all refs are in the cite format. Save bother later.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just put one in wrong, whoops. Will work it right next time and fix the others as I go through. Thanks.--NortyNort (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Am I correct that the two 1921 images of the conception for the dam are for if it were built at the Boulder Canyon site, not Black Canyon?  I think it's going well.  A lot of solid bedrock there, just like the dam site, I'm mostly going to fill in holes, work on the referencing, etc.  The "statistics" section is rather trivial, I think it may have to be absorbed or eliminated.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, it was a proposal image for the Boulder (Hoover Dam) site. I reworded the caption a little, it is just the site prior to construction. Yea, the article is in good shape, I think because it is used in the Wikipedia for schools. A lot of the statistics or specifications portion is in the infobox and I will put it into prose in the next few minutes here. Tell me what you think. I think the info is valuable for the readers who want the specifics but it is good at the bottom. In the dam articles I built or revamped, I usually put a specifications section. Thanks for the help.--NortyNort (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess we can try, but it may fall victim to Peer Review or FAC. As long as everything is sourced.  I'm probably done for the evening, Reading the Stevens book.  Seems a good source.  I'm probably going to move the images around a bit, then, try to keep them in chronological order.  I'll leave that overhead shot more or less where it is because the reader can see the convex face the dam faces to the waters.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That new section is nice. It provides a reader relief before going straight into the contractors. I am almost done with the construction section. I want making a subsection on the power plant and how it was constructed. Some of that is in the Operation#Power Plant section where it doesn't necessarily belong.--NortyNort (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we have any photos that were taken by Reclamation of the labor force at work? Be good to have one.  That is what I'm going to work on next.  Good edits, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, but there are some great ones on the Bureau wesbite. The one of the high scalers is pretty cool.--NortyNort (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably we should have one, in the labor force/construction deaths section, which I intend to expand a bit. What we have now is confused and POV (the description of the strike/lockout seems a bit inaccurate).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, do we have an update on the status of the bypass bridge?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. It is supposed to be complete this November. If you don't hit it up, I will as I move south through the article. I want to expand the environmental impacts/negative consequences section a little too. Looking good though! Since I never did a featured article before, let me know when it should be up for peer review, etc. I'll catch up later, fishing trip now.--NortyNort (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping to list it for peer review in a week or two, then move it on to FAC once my just-finished Ernest Augustus I of Hanover, presently at Peer Review, clears the FAC page (you can only have one at a time). That would give us plenty of time if the FAC should go badly.  Enjoy the fishing, hoping that you aren't high scaling!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. No high-scaling! So, no pic for the labor force section? I'll upload it.--NortyNort (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I added one.--NortyNort (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That is roughly how I think it should look, although a lot of cleanup is needed, such as the conversion of a lot of bare references to cite web (if I haven't cleared them all up when you read this, I would be grateful for your help here). Please feel free to stand up for anything I stupidly changed. We may have to lose still 3 or 4 images, just because it may be too cluttered. I'll keep working on it, but I think it should be ready for peer review in a day or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I like the intro. You really added a lot with the books and all. Do you just go to the library or have one at your place? The only text changes I am mulling over is the reinsertion of the powerhouse construction into the Operation section. The article is about the dam after all but the section is titled operation, not construction. At the same time, the powerhouse construction was a big factor in the dam's construction. See my conundrum? And with the pictures, on the concrete section, I think we can lose the one on the left. I also think we could lose the "Another diagram of parts of the operation" and the pic "Looking upstream from Hoover Dam in July 2009...", the low levels are mentioned more in the Lake Mead article. And I also liked the eagle picture better than the bland floor even though it was bigger. So many good pictures... You're awesome, I cant believe you did all that, I don't think I could've alone.--NortyNort (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I amazoned the books, I tend to do that. My logic on that floor (I hate that picture too) is that if we are devoting 2 paragraphs to True, we need to illustrate something.  The powerhouse problem is that one paragraph subsections are a problem.  So I did the best I could there.  I don't have any objection to adding back pictures except that we might be straining what we can fit in the amount of text.  If you agree, I suggest listing it for peer review.  If that proves not a problem, I will nom it for FA, with you as conom, as soon as my current article, 1975 Australian constitutional crisis clears the page (hopefully no more than a week).  It went faster than I thought it would.  Really, all I did was like the grout curtain, I filled in the holes in the existing structure and got rid of problem areas.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, well I am fine with it. I really like it overall. Would it be the featured article on September 30 or be a FAC and just wait until then? By the way, I used two different reference templates (one long, the other more compact). I am not sure which one was right. I will also be out of pocket for a week in about a week.--NortyNort (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We have to be consistent in how we format our references, that is the major requirement. Can you tell me examples, by reference numbers of the two different?  Well, there is a process on TFA that we have to go through, but I think odds are good to get Sept 30 or else a day plus or minus.  The toughest part is FAC, but I am very hopeful that people will be so interested in Hoover Dam that they'll give us lots of positive comments.  Peer review opened here.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, it is a great story with great pictures, thanks for posting. I was actually just watching TV and it was one of these shows about how the earth will change after we all go away. Well, they showed the Hoover Dam collapsing in 200 years. I want to e-mail them to tell them I felt otherwise, haha (pending the Glen Canyon Dam doesn't collapse upstream which is a definite possibility). When I was on the tour there, the guide said they used about 3x as much concrete as they really needed to. As far as the references, some were were all in one line while other were broken out line by line. The power plant and water demands subsection shows it.--NortyNort (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes no difference, format is still the same. I took the hard hat tour, I think before 9/11, and as I recall the guide said the same thing.  First, if Glen Canyon stays put, Hoover would never go away.  If Glen Canyon vanished, I still think it would be a thousands of years situation, especially if the spillway gates were open.  Few things impress me, I've seen too much, but Hoover Dam did.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, I did the basic tour in 2008. Standing on the penstock was cool. But the best was just looking at something in awe that was built almost 80 years ago. It was so far ahead of its time.--NortyNort (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was 1996 in my case, I was out there for the Jets/Cardinals game. Only game the Jets won all season.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder about that lead image. I know it's Ansel Adams and all that, but it is a fairly distant shot and black and white.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should use this instead of the existing bypass construction image.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is good. I was actually trying to see if I had one like that from my tour for the transport section. There are also some good ones here as well, like the first. Can we reuse the one you proposed?--NortyNort (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure, any image taken by a Federal government employee in the course of his duties is public domain. Not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We could get in touch with the public relations people at the dam and ask if they have a better photograph of True's designs.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, it is an external site of the Central Federal Lands Highway Division, so that makes sense. I think this pic would better replace the current one of the bypass in the transport section. I like the one above that I suggested (or one like it) for the main image. It shows the dam and the spillways working. I honestly think a dam w/ bypass pic would look awesome but when it is completed. Thoughts?


 * I looked at the artwork section of the Bureau's website and they talk about this sculptor Hansen a lot and he isn't even mentioned in the section. There are some cool pics of his artwork too. I found a good one of True's design here as well and uploaded the pic and put it in. I am turning in for the night but I want to insert a small paragraph or some sentences about Hansen and his sculptures tomorrow. He was instrumental in the architecture too. If you get to it before me, feel free.--NortyNort (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hanson did the "star map" as I recall. Sure, if you want to take  a crack at it first, feel free.  I'll play backstop.  Yes, I think the shot of the dam with the bypass in front of it will become popular.  The bridge is going to have a sidewalk on it, that should be fun and lead to a lot of dam pix.(by Wehwalt)
 * Ok, I made the text insertion along with some images. I know there are a lot of images but let me know what you think. Always better to experiment. I would make this article a slideshow if I could. The artwork has a lot of meaning and it would be good to show the reader some pics to see what we are talking about. I also put a worker death image in the construction death section.--NortyNort (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks good (I've been busy and a bit distracted today). I would rather be told to remove images later if it comes to that, and perhaps argue about it.  A lot of times, you write, and the images are a second thought.  Here they are integral to the article and really make the article, in my view.  What was your thought on the Ansel Adams pic?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds cool. We could move the Adams pic and replace the "Hoover Dam from the air" pic in the Naming Controversy section with it. I can crop and put in the one from the Bureau site too. --NortyNort (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's good, go ahead. It's just, well, Ansel Adams is Ansel Adams and all that, but ... I cropped the roadway one to make it show better.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. Yea, the cropped roadway looks better. When I first saw it, I had to look a little harder in order to understand the roadway in it.--NortyNort (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved the labor force section to the front of the construction. It seemed to me to make more sense.  It felt like going back to the beginning after reaching the end the other way.  Also, it contains a certain amount of exposition, for example, that Crowe was General Superintendent (we don't talk about him that much).  When are you going to be away?  I think the article is very strong, though no battle plan for FAC survives contact with the reviewers.  They always pick up on something you didn't expect.  It is the first time I've been involved in an article with the luxury of an almost endless supply of images ... speaking of which, don't you think the 2005 image in the concrete section is a little amateurish?  Sure, it shows a huge expanse of concrete but there are better images available I'm sure that show the whole dam and still leave the viewer with the impression of a lot of concrete.  Ah, the luxury.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that move was good but I am partial to moving just the labor deaths to the end of the construction section. There were so many people involved in the dam. Like John L. Savage was the Bureau's chief design engineer and he developed the concrete cooling process among other things. Like you said, the reviewers and those that aren't familiar will pick it our fast. I do think that image is at the top of list of images we could remove if we had to. So many cool images though.--NortyNort (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * oh wow, I just saw all the new images added. hmmm...maybe a photo gallery at the bottom for excess images? There are just so many relevant to the article.--NortyNort (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Galleries are disfavored. The Bureau of Reclamation has a huge stock of online images, wish other government departments were as good.  I wish I could squeeze this image in.  The Constitutional Crisis article will almost certainly pass this weekends (four supports to none at present) and that means that we could nominate Hoover Dam whenever we want.  Do you want to do it then, or wait until you get back?  It will take, most likely, about three weeks for it to go through the process.  I expect it will pass, but you never know.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, that is nice. You could replace it with the image on the left side of the Concrete sub-section. This Monday I am moving and may not have my internet set up until the end of the week. If I miss a week of the FAC process, I can still catch up but I wouldn't want to leave all the work to you. We do have a lot of time, it could be a FAC 2 months before the dedication date.--NortyNort (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind, it all will work out. I wanted that concrete picture there to show---a huge expanse of concrete.  Most of the pictures have something to do with the subject matter of the subsections, the way I've done it.  And there are all these great images.  this, for example.  I"m trying to make sure we have as many bites at the apple as possible if FAC fails.  We nom once the crisis article is done, there's time for three bites at the apple by my calculation (if a nom doesn't go through you are expected to spend a couple of weeks working on it).  I think this will pass, but I am cautious because I don't deal with science/technology that often, my only other foray into the field was Matthew Boulton, a very different article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds like a plan. I like the photos you used. This is the best dam article I have seen and I don't think there is a dam FAC article now too. (Don't mind the puns) It is a big structure and has a great story and I think the article reads and shows it well. Most of the dam articles are technical and have a bland history. The Three Gorges Dam is probably the next best dam article I have seen (and it needs a lot of work).--NortyNort (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Hoover Dam is a thing to itself. No other dam matches it in the public eye.  The literature would not be there, and images would be mostly user made.  I'm going to stop playing with the images, it is enough.  I think we can justify all the images, but we might have to cut a couple, we'll see.  As far as I can see, it reads well, gives the reader what they want to know, and is comprehensive (there is stuff we don't include, I found a page on the wartime efforts to protect the dam (Crowe felt it didn't need much protecting), but perhaps at some point a "History of Hoover Dam" article could be written to include stuff like that.  I think we will hear that pun a lot of times before this is done, and it is used in the article too (the quote about Hoover having drained, ditched and dammed the country.  Since the crisis article picked up 2 supports last night, I expect it will be promoted when the FA delegates go through things this weekend, and as soon as I see it is done, I'll push this one in.  Just put the dam up the flagpole and see who salutes (first, find your flagpole).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No actual dam is a FA, but Rampart Dam, which was never built, is a FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, i've seen the article before but didn't see the FAC. This BOR photo database is awesome, I found a photo of John Savage for his article!--NortyNort (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The little bronze star in the upper right of the article is a dead giveaway, but all I did was check WP:FA. That image archive is an utter gold mine, some shots of dignitaries who have few or no free use images in their articles.  I threw one into the Ickes article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was a young editor at the time of reading it. One of the pictures I put in John L. Savage's article is of him and other engineers overlooking the Black Canyon. Yet another great picture.--NortyNort (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the Featured Article Director's delegates is going through FAC as we speak. I am hoping she will promote the crisis article, and if she does, I will nom Hoover Dam immediately.  You cannot have more than one article there, you see.  Hoping this does well (knock concrete).--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All good to go. Nomination is [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hoover Dam/archive1 here].--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. The write up looks great. I will try to check as much as possible, my desk was packed up yesterday and I am sitting on my floor now.--NortyNort (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Good work!

 * Thanks! This is quite the project going on.--NortyNort (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested Article Barnstar

 * Thanks!--NortyNort (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Skempton Building
Thank you for your concern NortyNort! No probs! See you later! ;) --Joubi (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of AFD header warning
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. BilCat (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC) My apologies, I did not see the template within the one of the edits.--NortyNort (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that a good-faith AFD nomination is NOT generally vandalism, and the AFD header clearly stetes that it should not be removed until the discussion is closed. - BilCat (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The wiki software sometimes edits the newest version of the article, when you've only seen a previous version, so it can happen at times. PLease try to be more careful in the future. And I've reworded the heading above, as that was added by my template. - BilCat (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphan tagging
It's a good idea to watch new pages and patrol for orphans, but several stubs I just did were tagged as orphans even though they already had several links at their creation. We may wish to slow down and give an article a hour at least before we tag it......Cathedral Peak (Montana) has 5 (6 counting my userpage) links already. Thanks...happy editing.--MONGO 01:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't know about a delay.--NortyNort (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Brandweerinformatiecentrum voor gevaarlijke stoffen
Hello NortyNort. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Brandweerinformatiecentrum voor gevaarlijke stoffen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Unit commensurability
An article that you have been involved in editing, Unit commensurability, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Pahranagat1.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Pahranagat1.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 07:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Manic-5
Hello NortyNort. Was just cleaning up random dam-articles and came across Manic-5, which you created. Would you mind if merge that article to Daniel-Johnson Dam (which you created too)? Since both share the same topic (the dam and its power unit), i thought it may help in further expansions and gain popularity; something like a parent article. I will wait for your input. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 13:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rehman, yea, that sounds good. It would definitely help the article out. Thanks.--NortyNort (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; will proceed with the plan. Sorry for the late reply, just came back from a holiday. Best regards. Rehman(+) 02:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Karkheh-dam.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Karkheh-dam.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 21:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

DJIA chart for May 6th
I'd be happy to make the chart, but I'm having trouble finding intraday data. I would need DJIA value for every few minutes for most of the day and as much data as possible between 2 and 3 PM. For the other charts I've made/modified, I've been able to find csv files which include daily closes. Here all the excitement happened in the middle of the day. Do you have access to this data? Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Portugues Dam
As it was before your edit, the article had already been judged to be too wordy when it was recently nominated to a WP:GA. See here -->. I have reinserted the info (modified somewhat) to reflect what you are explaining, but we need to keep focus in this article, that is, not go into tangents that are not directly related to Ponce itself. I objected for another reason: the Dam is not finished yet, so there is no new lake in Ponce yet. Remember this article is about Ponce and its features; a lake that doesn't yet exist is not a Ponce feature. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Bollinger Bands
"Bollinger Bands" is the correct usage. John Bollinger, CFA, CMT Bbands (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the discussion is closed. While I can't confirm you are John Bollinger, his website had the proper term usage. --NortyNort (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)