User talk:Psantora/Archive 2

&lt;br> or &lt;br />?
I just saw that you did this edit. I hope that was just a prank to mess with me, right? If not, here goes:

Which should we use? or ?

Let's examine this step by step:

1: Writing the XHTML code  without a blank is even against the recommendations of the World Wide Web Consortium, instead it should be written as   since then HTML parsers can understand it too. HTML parsers will simply regard  as a "br" with an unknown parameter "/", while they will regard "br/" as an unknown tag name. So we should definitely not teach people to write, but possibly.

2: The "HTML" codes we use here at Wikipedia are not XHTML markup nor are they HTML markup, instead they are "HTML wikimarkup", since MediaWiki processes them just like wikimarkup.

3: Wikipedia mainly uses wikimarkup. The reasons for that is simple: Most people that edit Wikipedia are people who never have made a web page, so they know nothing about HTML, XHTML or CSS. So for them (and even for us old webmaster geeks) it is easier to use wikimarkup.

4: So far I have seen the documentation for MediaWiki talks about "HTML in wikitext" and never mentions "XHTML in wikitext". Also up until recently all documentation listed  as the code for forced line breaks. But some months ago some XHTML enthusiasts went around and edited a lot of the help pages to show the  or even the.

So which should we use? or ?

Well, let's first ask another question: Which markup should we use for bold text?

I think we all know that the wikimarkup  is the recommended one. Mainly because it is simpler to use, especially for the majority of editors that don't know HTML and CSS.

The same goes for  vs. The HTML wikimarkup  is easier for the majority of editors to use, and it is shorter.

Sure, we have a "teaching opportunity" to teach people to use the, but there is a very high risk that they instead will use the   and that would be a bad thing. And believe it or not, many beginners have problems telling " " and " " apart. So they might even try to use the ...

So again, the  is easier for the majority of editors to use, and it is shorter.

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you for that lengthy explanation of  vs.  ! I didn't expect to see that on my talk page! Regarding my edit, I originally just wanted to strike out the three templates I took a look at and updated earlier today, but when I saw all the  s, it was just as easy to do a "replace all" to convert them to  s. To be perfectly honest, I didn't know the history behind the extra space is used, I just assumed it was (more) correct markup. I didn't realize it was due to XHTML "enthusiasts" as you say. I'll assume that it doesn't really matter from here on out (unless you would like to enlighten me further) and I won't make those changes. ~ Paul T +/C 23:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Aside: Is there a significant difference between  and  ? Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. HTML and XHTML are two different kinds of markup. Older web browsers only understood HTML, while some modern special applications (XML parsers) only understand XHTML. The old HTML browsers think that a  is a tag named "br/", which is something they don't understand since they only know about  . But they do understand   since then they see the tag name "br" and a strange parameter "/" that they usually simply disregard. While the special applications that only understand XHTML understand both   and   but not  . So that is why W3C nowadays recommend   when making web pages since then all kinds of browsing/parsing software can understand it.
 * But here on Wikipedia the only two things that are going to read the tag are humans (most of which are editors without HTML and XHTML knowledge) and the MediaWiki software. And MediaWiki nowadays understands all three forms of the BR tag, and converts it to whatever format it wants to output the wiki web pages. Currently MediaWiki outputs XHTML web pages so it outputs . From what I read older versions of MediaWiki only understood , but support for some XHTML tags was added so it would be simpler to cut and paste text from other free web sites.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Other article moves
“DVD Player (software)” might refer to other software DVD players.

But that’s far from how wrong “Software Update”, or even “Calculator (software)” and “Address Book” were.

And the only other article that I think needs renaming is Dictionary (software), to avoid confusion with other software dictionaries (on which there is no article, but, as long as there are articles on application software at all, there should be one). What should it be then — Dictionary (Mac OS X) or Dictionary (Apple software)?

--AVRS (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Divesture vs demerger
Hi there Psantora,

Apologies for reverting some of your corrections to the "Telefónica O2" article. Specifically on "divesture" vs "demerger". Wikipedia itself has an definition article for "demerger" but not for "divesture". I think that "divesture" is probably used in North America more so than in Europe (which is the region which the subject of the article is affiliated with). Also, given that the company "mmO2" was formed on the London Stock Exchange from BT Group, which was also listed on the London Stock Exchange (which I also believe is the most popular stock market in the world in terms of the number of companies traded), I think it makes sense for the article to use the financial language of the stock market that the subject of the article is most closely affiliated to. Do you agree? Best regards - Jminhas

Jminhas (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to echo Jminhas' comments, "divesture" is not a term used in the UK (and probably not in Europe), whereas demerger is probably more widely known. That, and you probably meant "divestiture" (again, not a term used in the UK as far as I'm aware).  [Jam] [talk] 12:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AppleInsider.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:AppleInsider.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Your account now has rollback privileges. Please only use the tool to revert simple vandalism or test edits, or the right will be removed accordingly. Happy editing to you. Keegan talk 06:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

North Dakota
I noticed that you updated the Wikipedia Commons version of the Republican Primaries County Map some time ago, adding North Dakota's results. Would you happen to still have a source for the by county information for North Dakota? I have had the hardest time trying to find it. ~ Rangeley ( talk ) 15:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Pricing in Infobox Online music service
I agree with your assessment that a description of the pricing model in the infobox is useful. But that was not the category was being used for previously. It was usually used for the actual pricing which not only clearly ran afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG, but in the case of iTunes Store was WAY out of hand as it was listing the price in every country where there is an iTunes Store. Accordingly, I have changed the header for the infobox to be "pricing model" and put in variable/fixed/subscripion/whatever in all the pages that used the infobox. Feel free to tweak this as you wish as I didn't have much free time to spend on it. -- KelleyCook (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

XHTML thingy
Just a little nuance:

and are both correct, although looks tidier. is also correct. alone is the wrong one. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

but this can be confusing and is often written (though correct for XHTML, incorrect for HTML) without the space. Since MediaWiki converts all this code automatically anyway, why not use the simplest, least error-prone code:  ? At least, that is according to User:Davidgothberg. As a bonus the code can be easily copy/pasted to older versions of the MediaWiki software if that is ever needed. Regardless, the only variation of code from the above that can actually break when being rendered is , so I would think it is best to avoid it. Anyway, that is my understanding of it. ~ Paul T +/C 00:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the above,  is incorrect HTML syntax.  Here is a summary:   alone is correct HTML but it is not correct XHTML.  Given that, the best code to use is
 * More discussion here. ~ Paul T +/C 04:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

iPod categories
Hey, I noticed you've gone back and forth a couple of times on whether the iPhone category should be a descendant of iPod. I don't think it should be there -- philosophically, categories should only contain items in them that are logically part of the category itself, regardless of how many levels deep you go. For example, any monument in a city should have a parent category that you can eventually work upwards to "monuments" and to the city's parent category. Category:Windows software wouldn't belong in Category:Microsoft Windows, however, because while they're certainly related topics, neither is actually a part of the other.

Put a bit more succinctly: category B goes inside category A if B is logically a part of A.

Put a bit more savory: A pie category would contain crust, filling, and toppings, but would not include a plate, fork, or hungry Wikipedian.

I think I get what you're trying to do though, which is to group together all of the i... umm... "iEcosystem" articles (iPod, iPhone, iTunes, accessories, third-party tools, etc.), but the name you've chosen for the category, iTunes, is misleading. Hymn (software) is software that works in conjunction with iTunes, but is not part of iTunes itself. AirPort has a feature which lets it control iTunes, but AirPort in and of itself is not a part of iTunes. Separate categories would work well here. Hope this is of some use... happy categorizing!  Warren -talk- 11:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Apple Store
Hello! Do you intend to update the numerous mainspace links that now lead to a disambiguation page? It would have been helpful if you'd done that before performing the move (assuming that the move was a good idea). —David Levy 01:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that many of those articles merely transclude the template (which you've already updated), so they simply seed to have their caches purged. —David Levy 01:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that Apple Store (chain) is a better link than Apple Store (retail). The stores are known as "Apple Retail Stores" on Apple's website so the "retail" term was deliberate.  The online store is called the "Apple Online Store".  The term "chain" can be confusing and also implies that they might be franchised, which is incorrect. ~ Paul T +/C 04:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Have you read the Retailing article (to which you linked above)? "Online retailing" is explicitly referenced.  Apple can use (or not use) the term "retail" however it pleases, and it doesn't change the fact that both the online and brick and mortar Apple Stores are retail operations.
 * 2. In no way does the term "chain" imply that franchising occurs. The operation in question factually is a chain, as stated in the article's hatnote and lead.
 * 3. As there obviously is disagreement regarding the best course of action, I've reverted to the stable setup (which I'm not even convinced needed to be changed). Feel free to initiate a move request or participate in discussion on the article's talk page.
 * 4. Please don't abuse the rollback function. —David Levy 04:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please continue the discussion at Talk:Apple Store. —David Levy 05:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical order?
I'm sorry, doesn't "App Store" come before "Apple"? I'm pretty sure spaces come before characters in alphabetic lists. Let me test this out with Category:Test.User:D z This page should show up before, not after, User:Daniel48 when using "User:D z" as the sorting sequence. According to WP:ALPH spaces come before all other characters as well. Of course, this assumes we are using "App" as its own word and not as an abbreviation for "Application". Am I missing something? ~ Paul T +/C 06:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you appear to be missing that the documentation refers to MediaWiki's technical configuration, not to a linguistic convention. The fact that "usually the spaces or hyphens between words are ignored" is noted in the article to which you linked in this section's header.
 * Incidentally, you also appear to have misread the explanation, which indicates that "a 'blank space' after the name comes before any character" (emphasis mine).  Not that this has any relevance to the matter at hand, of course.  —David Levy 06:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD
An article you have edited List of iPhone applications has been proposed by another editor for deletion; you may want to comment at the discussionDGG (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Bravo on Madoff cleanup
Bravo on the Madoff cleanup. I think I'll remove the Cornfeld link - he and 50 other fraudsters could be linked, but I don't think it adds much. Thanks again. Smallbones (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there really 50 other people who have done similar schemes? I'd be interested to see that list. I thought it was of some interest since they have the same first name and the scope, while much larger with Madoff, is similar in the types of people that were targeted. ~ Paul T +/C 22:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Loopt logo.gif)
You've uploaded File:Loopt logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 23:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Palmsourcelogo.jpg)
You've uploaded File:Palmsourcelogo.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:IPhone OS-only games
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:IPhone OS-only games, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:IPhone OS-only games has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:IPhone OS-only games, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Account creation interface
I've approved your account on the account creation interface, as you requested. Please review WP:ACC/G prior to fulfilling any requests. If you have any questions feel free to ask me or ask in. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ~ Paul T +/C 00:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Boston College Eagles women's basketball
The two deleted edits for Boston College Eagles women's basketball were restored per your request. The page was deleted for lack of content, in fact the entire content was included in the deletion summary (an infobox and stub note). Let me know if you have any other concerns or questions. Thanks and best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Grammar
I'm a bit surprised to see the template un-redirected, because although I too queried whether parameters could be passed, I actually did something about it and updated all article transclusions to point to the correct copyedit with for parameter. Surely now, after consensus, there is no need for Grammar? If you want I can have the same bot go through all the transclusions again... non-article space as well perhaps. Of course, there's going to be a transition period, when people are going to use the template, but that's what the redirect's for, if not ideal. Just to warn you, other people may be more concerned than me about someone reverted an action mandated by a TfD. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold on a minute; I thought you were for "if not, redirect anyway". There's something I'm missing here, evidently. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you aren't missing anything. I thought the template was just redirected, but you changed all the transclusions to include the correct template with the "For" parameter.  Given that I think my change can be safely reverted.  It doesn't really make a difference either way.  Thanks for letting me know. ~ Paul T +/C 20:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I think I marginally prefer having the redirect though, as it has more of a deterent feel about it. It's a toss-up, I know, but this should discourage the template's use (I've changed it back to a redirect). - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, plus it wasn't correctly passing the date parameter. Would it be possible to have the bot go through the transclusions on a regular basis? An additional 5 or so articles added the template during the few days the redirect was changed. ~ Paul T +/C 21:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you ping me, I can do it on a whim - whenever really. I'll try to keep it up to date, but I haven't really got permission to have it run automatically every x days. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Psantora. A few discussions you possibly might be interested in are
Here: Template talk:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template -- here: Templates for deletion -- here: Templates for deletion -- and, um, here: Template talk:Current U.S. Cabinet.  ↜Just me, here, now''' … 02:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Queens Giant
Hi. I can't make sense of your coordinates on the talk page for Queens Giant. It seems as if you posted the same incorrect coordinates as the previous person.

Nevertheless, I was wondering if you could help me with the correct location. I basically know where the tree is and how to enter the area; I was just looking for the exact location to save time. I plan on stopping by one day and getting some good pictures of it, hopefully good enough to upload on the page. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. -- EnjoysButter (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2009 (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 (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Secondary school edit
Hi,

Looks like this edit broke the use of attributes on a few articles, as brought up on the talk page. Unlike page links, an attribute with an underscore is actually a different entity to one with a space. I've reverted your change. Any thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rosiesplacelogo.gif)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Rosiesplacelogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Images of Barack Obama
Hi Psantora, you created a lot of imagepages without media and just this category on it. Why? This images are from Commons, this is why we have a whole universe of Obama images on commons:Category:Barack Obama, you dont need to duplicate this to Wikipedia ;) Your new created image pages should be deleted, please done create any more of them. --Martin H. (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Google Wave logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Google Wave logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

iPhone, units sold, SPS
Hello Psantora. I admire your contributions to Apple articles, and I just wanted to clear up a few snags. I understand WP:SPS, but I disagree that linking to the image description page is self-citing. Rather, it collects all data from numerous press releases, all cited, in a way that would be inconvenient to do on the image talk page. (Space is particularly tight in the infobox; I'm trying to have minimal line breaks in logical places.) In the interests of avoiding an edit war, I have added a link to the table to the citation you propose, which I have retained in the infobox. Is this an acceptable compromise?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we could work that out; I really like your most recent edit. My only question is concerns the difference between geocoding and geotagging. As I understand it, the former involves latitude and longitude and meaningful locations (street addresses); the latter is the camera embedding the location in the metadata. So all three models geotag, right?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure. I wasn't sure if there was a difference between the two (and if so, whether the three versions of the phone supported one or the other or both) so I kept it the way I originally found it. ~ Paul T +/C 03:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Your opinion would be appreciated on Articles for deletion/Let's Rock (event). Fences &amp;  Windows  01:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Allen-Beville House
Hi Psantora, I see that you recently edited the Allen-Beville House article and claimed that it was a National Historic Landmark. This is not true; the site is only listed on the National Register of Historic Places. For further information about the differences, I suggest reading these articles. The two are commonly confused, but not all sites listed on the NRHP are NHLs. NHL is a special designation given to only about 1500(ish) sites in the US, while there are over 80,000 sites listed on the NRHP.

Also, the "designated" field of the infobox is no longer used (that's how I was able to see your edit); see Template:Infobox nrhp/doc for more information about updated syntax. Sorry for the confusion! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

BC
Hey, don't forget to check my comments over at Talk:Boston College! I know it's long, but you took issue with a lot of stuff and I wanted to be comprehensive. :-) Talk to you again soon, I hope! --King of the Arverni (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:User wikipedia/rollback
HI, I saw you added rollback to this template. May I ask that you take it off again please? I for one used the userbox because I didn't want that symbol. And I think most users who have rollback are smart enough to find out how to get the symbol. An alternative would be to add a parameter to the user box template called, which would allow users who want both the userbox and template to add   to their page. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Manticore has reverted this, with pretty much the same reasoning above. If you want to add the parameter I suggested please do. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: The Cult of Sincerity uncontested WP:PROD - undelete?
I've restored it. Feel free to work on the article now. Regards. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Apple Inc.
Hello Psantora, nice to meet you. I'm Airplaneman. I might be mistaken about this criticism section template, but as far as I looked, it was added in August. It's a very minor thing, but I thought I would bring it up to avoid further confusion. Regards, Airplaneman  talk 15:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Check this diff where the tag was removed. ~ Paul T +/C 06:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Paul,

I was looking at one of your edits for iphone sales stats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iphone_sales.svg

Now the graph only has results upto Q2 2008, i was wondering if you had the information to upgrade it to either Q1 2009 or Q2 2009 as it would be really useful for my project. If not could you tell me where you got those stats and ill try and do it myself.

Thanks Tom user:kinnth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinnth (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Super Bowl champions nominated at WP:FLRC
nominated List of Super Bowl champions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Matthewedwards : Chat  17:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

citation format
Hi. I checked the guidance that you pointed me to. While I see three references to square brackets (all in favor), I do not see any against their use. Putting the square brackets in is a step in the direction of full citation, and therefore I would suggest appropriate. Nothing I read militates in favor of their deletion (in fact, one could have only square brackets, without the refs around them, and that would be acceptable as well though not preferred ... this is as clean, and a step closer to an inline citation. If you are considering a statement in the guidance that you feel militates in favor of deletion of the brackets, please point me to it.--VMAsNYC (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A full citiation would include information about the publisher. Using square brackets actively hides (some of) this information. I apologize for linking the incorrect section in my edit summary.  See Manual of Style (links) for more information. Basically this discussion is pointless, you/we are better off just improving the references to include the additional information. ~ Paul T +/C 04:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That also doesn't mandate the removal of the square brackets. If anything, it suggests that you should leave the square brackets in and -- if you want to improve upon it, add text. Nothing whatsoever that you have pointed me to suggests (let alone mandates) deletion of the brackets, which of course brings the citation one step further away from an inline citation.--VMAsNYC (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quote:
 * When placed in the References and External links sections, these links should be expanded with link text, and preferably a full citation, including the name of the article, the author, the journal or newspaper the article appeared in, the date it was published, and the date retrieved.
 * Link text includes the actual url. A numbered link can be cryptic after a reader already clicked on the numbered link that brings them to the reference section.  There is a much clearer section in the WP:MOS somewhere that spells this out, but-again-rather than arguing it would be better to just fix the reference. ~ Paul T +/C 04:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, found it. Footnotes. The 2nd bullet down. ~ Paul T +/C 05:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, are you just trying to be difficult? Quote: (bold emphasis mine)
 * Again, that suggests that what you should do is add text. Not delete brackets -- only to require other editors to subsequently reinsert them.  You are pushing the citations a step away from their ideal form, not in the direction of their ideal form, which is a waste of your time and the time of whatever editor might improve the citation subsequently.  It is a disservice as well to the article.  Again, nothing in what you have quoted in the three quotes mandates that you delete the square brackets -- quite the opposite.--VMAsNYC (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When citing a website within the ref tags, include a name for the site inside the brackets for the URL. Unnamed URLs appear as numbers, so   results in the footnote being displayed as [1]; the reader clicks to the numbered footnote only to see another number. Thus, use a name in the link to display the website page title in the reference list, as in this example:  .

Also, there is a bot that goes around inserting titles to naked urls within references; if the link is just a number it gets skipped. Adding the brackets back is trivial and often unnecessary and the confusion that can arise from numbered links within references is worse than having the naked url. It is also easier to see duplicate references that should be combined.

As for "wasting my time", the removal of the brackets was only part of the edit in question (which you reverted wholesale despite the other changes to the article). I didn't edit the page for the explicit purpose of removing the brackets, I only noticed them once I was already editing the page to remove a redundant category and fixing the order of the sections. ~ Paul T +/C 05:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ''This discussion is continued below. ~ Paul T +/C 02:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The Shells
Hi -- I would suggest that we change matters (but you would have to guide me as to how we do so) so that a search "The Shells" brings one to what is now the page "The Shells (band)". That's because that is the page of the modern band up for an MTV award, while the other is "The Shells (doo wop band)" is a page about a 1950s band that no one (but me, largely, it wold appear by the # of views) seems to search for much half a century later. Can you help me? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, you'll need to get an admin to perform the move since there is more than just a redirect to The Shells (band) in the page history for The Shells. I'd suggest reaching out to the admin that helped you earlier. If that doesn't work you can bring the issue to WP:RM and they should be able to help you.  Sorry! ~ Paul T +/C 20:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is truly sad -- I had assumed by your edit skills that you were an admin. You should run for one; I will be happy to support you.  Thanks -- I will bother the admin who helped me before.  These disambig revision issues are a bit beyond me, I fear.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not an admin. I don't think I'd want to be one except that I'd be interested in being able to see deleted edits and edit protected pages. Moving pages can be a bit tricky when there already is content on the page you want to move an article to. It will ONLY work when the only content (and edit) on the destination page is a redirect to the article you want to move to the destination page. Otherwise the only way to complete the move is to ask an admin (generally on WP:RM) to perform the move for you. Of course, you can move an article to an empty page without a problem. ~ Paul T +/C 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There you go, speaking to me in Wikitongue. ;-)  --Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah, sorry. Let me try again. Moving a page by a regular, autoconfirmed user (like you and me) requires one of two conditions: 1) moving to an empty page, or 2) moving to a page with a single edit that redirects to the page in question - in this case the only page that we could move to Mojo Radio (WPLJ) is WPLJ. ~ Paul T +/C 21:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'd look into WP:PT to make sure that the modern band qualifies as the "Primary Topic" for the term The Shells. This will determine whether the page should be moved. ~ Paul T +/C 22:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've helped Epeefleche with a previous move on this article; and I've now moved the new band's article to The Shells as requested. Let me know if any further admin assistance does become necessary here. :) ~ mazca  talk 21:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, all! Psantora: a question. Do you think that those terms that are red-linked are notable enough to create articles? If so, I guess I could try my hand at that.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. I have no idea if they are notable.  I would imagine the other nominees are but I doubt the label is yet.  I haven't done any research on it so this is just my first impression.  See WP:N for the notability policies. ~ Paul T +/C 23:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about the other nominees, but haven't had time to check, sorry. Will when I get a chance.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

2 questions
Hi. Two questions. 1) Are you wikistalking me? I notice that after our recent disagreement you applied warning tags to pictures that I put up threatening to have them taken down, and otherwise made edits to a large percentage of articles I've edited.  I had understood that that wikistalking was frowned upon.  2) As to the two pictures which you indicated require rationales, I thought they were supplied. Please help me understand why the explanations were not sufficient, and how I can better explain the rationales so that the warning that you attached to them can be removed. Thanks.--VMAsNYC (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The rationales you provided for two of the images are incorrect because they are not actually album covers. If you want to have a portrait of the band take one yourself and upload it under a free license.  Generally, photos of living people cannot be used under fair use unless the photo itself is the subject in question (such as for an album cover).  The argument is that since the person is living anyone could take a picture of them and release it under a free license.  Second, a fair use rationale is needed for every page that an image is used on.  So while you have a correct rationale for the band page, you did not provide a rationale for the album page.  As for "wikistalking", I'm just trying to improve the quality of the articles on the site that I happen to come across.  Yes, I did look at your contributions but only because I noticed the block discussion on your talk page and I wanted to find out what it was about.  I'm not following you and as far as I know I haven't violated any guideline.  I apologize if I made you uncomfortable, that isn't and wasn't my intention. ~ Paul T +/C 20:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought that the image of the back cover and inside cover of the album were fine to use as well. These are all images from covers of the album of the audio recording, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the work or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question. They are being used solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, on Wikipedia.  I explained what proportion of the copyrighted work is used.  They are low resolution. It serves the purpose of describing the band and album, which are the subjects/topics of the articles and photos.  The images are photographs of the album.  Is that enough?--VMAsNYC (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My understanding of WP:NFCC and WP:NFC only allows for the actual album cover, not any other photos that might be present in/on/as part of the album. Also, you are using the images of the band to depict the band, not the album.  Any Joe on the street could easily take a photo of the band and release it as free content and since the images can easily be replaced it fails WP:NFCC and does not qualify. ~ Paul T +/C 21:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the both the essence and the rationale is met. I propose to add the following to the rationale:

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
 * 1) It illustrates an educational article about the album, and about the band insofar as it mentions the album, from which the cover illustration was taken.
 * 2) The images are used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic [you can check this, for example, by looking at the cover photo seventeen magazine used in their story about the article -- it was the inside cover photo, not the front outside cover photo].
 * 3) The use of the cover will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original. In particular, copies of the image could not be used to make illegal copies of the album artwork on another CD.
 * 4) It is a low resolution image.
 * 5) The image is only a small portion of the commercial product.
 * 6) It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

With those changes, and with captions more clearly identifying the photos as album cover photos, are we squared away? I would like to find a way to make this work, with your help. It would be a shame not to have the photos, and I think that the criteria are met (even if a better job could have been done of explaining why -- but I am happy to do that now).--VMAsNYC (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not disagreeing that these photos qualify for fair use, the question is regarding Wikipedia's policy on non-free content. Just because something could be fair use, the fact that a non-free alternative is(/could easily be) available prohibits any use of the fair-use content on Wikipedia.  The album cover is just fine (although it could be argued that there is no need for it on the band's article), but the other two images are essentially just portraits and violate WP:NFC.
 * Quote:
 * Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images. 
 * There is nothing about these photos that are in any way specific to the Album. They are just being used to identify the band and they can easily be replaced. ~ Paul T +/C 23:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate. These are photos from the album covers. They fall squarely within the album cover rationale. Others, such as Seventeen Magazine, have used them when describing the band and album, see. Both of these photos are specific to the album. That's why the previously mentioned article about the album and the band uses that photo, of the three cover photos available. All of the elements of the fair use rationale are completely met.

As far as the use of the album cover in the band's article which discusses the album, that of course is not only appropriate it is commonplace. Just take a look at the Wilson Philips article, for example, or the Grateful Dead. One thing we should do more clearly is state however that the pix are from the album.

Examples of photos of album covers other than the front cover exist, and everyone in the industry knows that the word cover "covers" front, back, and inside covers. And Wikipedia has inside and back covers reflected. See for example, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,. You can't just "read in" the phrase "front" before cover -- that's not what it says, and the reason for including all covers is that they match the rationale and the plain language.

I think that you wikistalked me and are now giving me a hard time because I disagreed with you on the prior issue. I would hope that you would stop. Thanks.--VMAsNYC (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, other articles exist with this problem. I would argue that many of the images in the Wilson Philips article (especially the promotional image used in the lead) fall under the same policy and should be removed.  The Grateful Dead article is a good example of when an album image should be used on a non-album page.  It provides critical commentary in the prose where it is being used and is specifically tied to that spot in the article.  It also has separate FURs on the image page for both articles it is used on.  Of course, this only works for the album cover itself.  Some of the rest of the examples you are citing (Def Leppard, The Velvet Underground) look like examples where the additional images on the album are notable and the images themselves are controversial and actively being discussed in the article.  The major problem with the photos you uploaded is that they are being used for decoration.  The actual cover is the only image that meets Wikipedia's policy since it cannot be replaced with a free alternative.  The other two images do not identify the album, they identify the band and free images can be created to replace them.  There is no critical commentary about the two additional images and there is nothing about them that is notable enough to require commentary.  There is an essay that explains the fair use issue pretty clearly.  (There is another essay that I can't seem to find about fair use and free content using food and a potluck picnic as a metaphor.)  Feel free to open/move this discussion to a different location so that other people can more easily comment.  The fair use problem is pretty well established policy from what I understand.  Again, I'm not stalking you.  There was a discussion on your talk page about your account being blocked and it is only prudent for me to investigate what the block was about.  That is how I stumbled upon the images and unfortunately they do not meet the current policy.  Any disagreement or "prior issue" as you describe it has nothing to do with this discussion.  I would appreciate it if you would refrain from ad hominem attacks. ~ Paul T +/C 00:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I said you should feel free to open up the discussion elsewhere. I was thinking we could move the discussion to the talk page of the article in question so I wouldn't get a notice everytime there was a response to the discussion.  I'm interested to see what User:Mazca has to say about this.  Aside from the issue with the images, which I think can be considered separately from the rest of the content in the article, which diff is more constructive and inline with the WP:MOS?  or ?  My only concern when I edit Wikipedia is the quality of the content.  I happened to be reading this article and I noticed things that I could improve.  I don't appreciate the implication that I'm trying to disrupt "your work".  I'm trying to improve the project. ~ Paul T +/C 02:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've posted my thoughts on the conduct issues on my talk page - overall, I don't think there's anything that needs dealing with right now, and suggest both of you stick to discussing the content of the articles. On that note, I've started a thread on Talk:The Shells about the non-free images. Hopefully we can keep the discussion of the content centralised there. Thanks all. ~ mazca  talk 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop wikistalking me, deleting perfectly good edit, despite my entreaties in my edit comments. If you want to discuss any proposed edits here, I am happy to -- but you have been consistently engaging in dispruptive edits. Thank you.--VMAsNYC (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --VMAsNYC (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that this is in reference to these notices on WP:AN3. ~ Paul T +/C 21:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Shells
I left a message at Talk:The Shells about putting this article up for AfD. Do you have any thoughts? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Shells
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Shells, 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. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 11:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

more Shells
An editor has undone your redirect of Written Roads, the article on the Shells album, and has restored the article. You may be interested in commenting at the merge discussion I started, Talk:Written Roads. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Shells
Hey Psantora, this article is at AfD again: Articles for deletion/The Shells (folk band) (2nd nomination). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 17:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Conduct RfC
A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you participated in the prior RfA.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:
 * (a) posting their own view; and/or
 * (b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:


 * RfC Conduct
 * RfC Guide
 * RfC Guide 2
 * RfC Rules

--Epeefleche (talk) 09:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

iPod Touch images discussion

 * In case you're interested, I'm having a friendly discussion with User:Seraphimblade about File:Ipod Touch 1st Generation.JPG and File:IPod Touch 2.0.png. They claim fair use on the grounds that a photograph or rendering without the icons would not convey enough information to serve its purpose, and have been nominated for deletion. I think that the renderings IPod Touch 1G.svg are 2G are as good as we're going to get. Personally, I'm starting to favor deletion, but I wanted for everyone to get a chance to weigh in first. HereToHelp (talk to me) 05:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Church of Reality
This article, to which you have contributed, has been nominated for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Marcperkel/Church of Reality
User:Marcperkel/Church of Reality, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marcperkel/Church of Reality and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Marcperkel/Church of Reality during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

iPad prices section
Hey

Can you discuss this on the iPad talk page before removing it as it seems to have been added and removed several times? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See my reply there. You could have also just read the edit summary. ~ Paul T +/C 17:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I read your edit summary, but as that section has been added and removed before it needed to be discussed in more detail :). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:GruberMW07.png
A tag has been placed on File:GruberMW07.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Macintosh Revival
Hello, ! You've listed yourself as an active member of WikiProject Macintosh, which is currently seeing very little activity. We are trying to revive the project and your help would be appreciated. To see who is active and who is not, we will be listing all active members under "status pending" in the project's participant list. Please move your name to either the "former members" section or "active" section. Hope to see you in the "active" column! For more information on how to help the project, visit the How to help section at our project page! · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Macintosh FAR
Hi, I've seen you around on Apple-related articles. Macintosh is undergoing a featured article review and if you are able, any help you can give the article would be very appreciated. It's the only Apple FA, and it's worth defending. Thanks, HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Macintosh Role Call
Hello, ! You've listed yourself as an active member of WikiProject Macintosh, which is currently being revived. Your help would be appreciated! To see who is active and who is not, we will be listing all active members under "status pending" in the project's participant list. Please move your name to either the "former members" section or "active" section. The role call will end May 31; please move your name now if you are still interested. For more information on how to help the project, visit the How to help section at our project page! &middot MonoBot04:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Urchin logo.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Urchin logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Google Ad Manager logo.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Google Ad Manager logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Google PowerMeter logo.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Google PowerMeter logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Bold italics in Template
I have reverted your edit to Apple hardware since 1998. That style of bold italics can't be used to show unreleased products. Bold is used within templates to indicate the current page. For example, If a user clicked on iPod mini, a discontinued product shown in italics, it would be shown in bold italic text. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)
Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Treehouse of Horror
Please weigh in on Template talk:Treehouse of Horror, so we can generate a consensus. Thanks, Fixblor (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)