User talk:Red Slash/Archive5

Larrys Creek
Hi Matt, since you promoted Larrys Creek to Good Article status, I thought you might be interested in its Featured Article candidacy, here: Featured article candidates/Larrys Creek. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 18:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. I enjoyed your all wikilink sentence very much. Take care. Wooo-hoo indeed - it is a pretty good feeling to have an article make FA - thanks again for your help and take care, Ruhrfisch 14:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support on Larrys Creek's FAC - I appreciate it very much. Also, please feel free to edit what is overwikified. Take care, Ruhrfisch 02:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Help us with the Washington template
Hi Matt,

I see that you didn't like some of the changes that I made to the Washington template. May I ask you what you didn't like in particular? Maybe we could come to some sort of a compromise. Along with some other members of U.S. State WikiProjects, I am working on a project to standardize the state templates, and I'd love to have your input. Take a look at the master list of templates at WikiProject U.S. states/state templates, and if you feel like it, join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates. Thanks for your help!

Lovelac7 02:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Matt, Nice job on the Washington template. I like the subtle reddish tint to the gray shading especially. I might have to use that from now on. Thanks! Lovelac7 02:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

HEHE
HEY, NICE da ORGANIZATION iu've done on iur user page and sub-pages. Sorry but i'll copy your style on mine soon.--Walter Humala 05:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Washington State
Washington State was redirecting to Washington for almost two and a half years before you changed it. You didn't have a good reason to change it. When you changed it, one person disagreed with the change and another pointed out that it introduces more confusion. I disagree with your change also. "As for 'Washington State', the phrase does only properly refer to one thing--the university." That is simply wrong. The Washington State Department of Health and the Washington State Department of Revenue aren't departments at Washington State University, for example. Moreover, "Washington State" may be less popular than "Washington state" as a means to differentiate the state from D.C. in prose, but that doesn't mean it's never used in this manner. Some people may even prefer the capitalized version because it constitutes a proper noun. For the broad, international audience we are writing for, "Washington State" most naturally refers to Washington; an abbreviation of a university's name, used primarily in the context of athletics, is subordinate. Punctured Bicycle 07:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you agree with me that "Washington State Department of Transportation" uses "Washington State" properly to refer to the state, then you are conceding that your original argument is wrong: the university doesn't "only properly refer to one thing--the university". You're right that "'Washington State' is NOT how one refers to the WSDOT, the WSDOJ, etc.", but I never tried to argue that it is.
 * My main argument depends upon the principle that Wikipedia is written for a general, international audience. Imagine this: You find a person from Australia or India or Canada. You hand them a card that says "Washington State" and nothing else. Their task is to describe what that term refers to. What do you think they will say? It is unlikely they have heard of the university, though they may have heard of the state. It is also unlikely that they know every nuance of capitalization; to them "Washington state" and "Washington State" are the same. This is true even for the general U.S. population. So, the most natural response is to describe a U.S. state. It is unlikely that someone handed this card would describe a university in Pullman. The fact is, "Washington State" refers to WSU only in limited contexts: it is used in this way primarily by U.S. college sports journalists, and by those associated with or geographically close to the university. I repeat that a general, international audience will miss the subtle distinction between "Washington state" and "Washington State"—why confuse the matter for them? For a general, international audience, "Washington State" more properly refers to the U.S. state. Punctured Bicycle 02:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "If the person was typing with capitals, the university-searcher would doubtlessly type 'Washington State'--the state-searcher would most likely put 'Washington state'." It's equally as likely the state-searcher would type "Washington State". This is especially so for a general, international reader who may not know of the nuances that exist between the capitalized and non-capitalized version, as I've already said. I can even imagine someone from Pullman typing in "Washington State" and expecting the state article to come up. If we want to speculate about how people search realistically, this is my guess: a university-searcher who is attentive enough to use proper capitalization is attentive enough to spell out the whole phrase ("Washington State University"), in which case they would arrive at the article they are looking for. A university-searcher who is "lazy" enough to use the abbreviation is lazy enough to not bother holding shift to capitalize ("washington state"), in which case they would not arrive at the article they're looking for. "Washington State University" and "washington state" account for practically all of the university-searchers; "Washington State" should therefore be left for the state-searchers. But this is only my personal speculation; neither of us have access to data that reflects actual search practices for these subjects. So we must appeal to theoretical, common sense principles like the one I gave earlier: in the general, international context we are writing in, "Washington State" most naturally refers to the state. Punctured Bicycle 07:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

GWB article
I noticed you just created the article Public perception of George W. Bush. You may not be aware, but the Criticism of George W. Bush article was previously named (up until a couple weeks ago) Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush. I'm afraid this new article is simply a duplicate of the currect criticism article. -- AuburnPilot talk 06:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "I'm pretty happy about removing that"; as you should be. I actually think it is a great idea to move it to a separate article, but you also removed the main article link to the Criticism of George W. Bush article which has been the main article for that section for as long as I can recall. I believe it should remain the main article with the new one as a see also just below it. The two articles are about the same general information, but the original article still contains more content as a main. I'll blame editing at 2am for my very poor explanation here on your talk page. ;) -- AuburnPilot talk 06:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm....scratch that. You did exactly what should have been done...I misread the change you made...-- AuburnPilot talk 06:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom questions
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.


 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
 * 2) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * 3) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Portfolio for ArbCom
On Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first (from their questions page), and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom results
Don't take them personally or even as a judgement on your value as a Wikipedian. People are just looking for a certain type of person for arbcom. You still rock, even if you like Wazzou.  young  american (ahoy hoy) 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I take that back. You think the best pizza comes from Olive Garden. You likely do not rock, then. :)  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 01:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dobamug.jpg
Hey Matt Yeager. There is a lively debate about use of promo photos on wikipedia. My name is Jeff and I Do not support the interpretation of WP:FU as implemented by user's like User:Chowbok. They believe that Wikipedia should be free of all promotional photos that are "replaceable with an equivalent" (i.e. an amateur photo from flickr). Their rationale is being debated in many places, and take it a step further believing that all promo photos should be deleted and let someone else deal with finding and uploading a free alternative.


 * WikiProject Fair use
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use specifically this thread
 * Requests for comment/Chowbok
 * Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Chowbok
 * User:Chowbok/Robth%27s_RFU_Explanation
 * Image_Talk:Jennifer Granholm.jpg

And many other places I've no doubt missed.

I and many others who support use of fair use promotional photos have not been successful in changing the actions of Chowbok and rampant deletion and changing of many hundred's of useful images from Wikipedia articles continues. One good example is the Jennifer Granholm article which had a great promo photo replaced by a terrible photo. I seek to raise the profile of this issue through challenging promotional photos on high profile article's like this one. I'm sorry, really I am, but fair use policy as implemented by Chowbok has left me with few viable options.

I invite you to join the battle for Promotional Photo usage on Wikipedia and the protection of Fair Use concepts. --Jeff 08:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Arby's
Hey Matt, dig your arbcom statement.. don't think I'll vote as any support at this point might look moral, but keep fighting the good fight. Deizio talk 15:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Kiona, Washington
Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply, if you can.

Thanks! --Vox Causa 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Dobamug.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dobamug.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Chowbok  ☠  22:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Benton County
Thanks for the big improvement in the Benton county article. The list of wineries is an important update. retired_poppi 18:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dablink
''Explain, please. How does this provide any formatting at all? All it is is just the text placed in, wrapped up in a little div box. What does that accomplish?''


 * The template puts the text inside a div with class=dablink. That CSS class does two things:
 * It provides the visual formatting of indentation and italics (which you won't see if your browser is still using the CSS from a few days ago. Bypass your cache.)
 * It allows the browser to know what kind of text is contained in the div; a link to a disambiguation page. This is useful for automated tools that extract the content from pages, creating print editions of the page (which don't need disambiguation links), etc.
 * It's also a lot easier to type and read than HTML. Not everyone who edits the encyclopedia is technically-inclined. — Omegatron 06:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole truth and nothing but the truth
What does this phrase have to do with Miami? Neon Merlin  01:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason I asked was that you had redirected the phrase to Miami, Florida. This redirect is up on WP:RFD. Neon  Merlin  16:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Inventor works for me
As per requested, I live in Kennewick. Also, I know you because I have at least one class with you and I won't tell you who I am until the very last day of school. Do you like my run-on? *Laughs maniacally*
 * It seems like you thought you knew who I was, but sadly I do not play the drums. I changed it to be correct. Frumfst  (Talk ) 03:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Washington userbox
I really like the Washington userbox on your user page (the one about us not being "Washington state" or "Washington, D.C."). Did you make it yourself? I didn't find it as a template on Wikipedia and think that it'd be cool if you made one available to other Washingtonian Wikipedians. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, just wanted to say I really enjoyed your "The Real Washington" userbox, it made my day (shows you what an exciting life I have). It was... so truthful. Thanks again, Hojimachong talk con  18:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

re: "direct links outside of mainspace"
In a recent edit to Be bold, you reverted a change with the comment "we have to not give direct links outside of mainspace". I don't mean to be argumentative but says who? The wikipedia space is still part of the project. WikiMedia links still work. Http-style links run counter to all the references that I know about in the Manual of Style. And piping links is explicitly against the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages.

If the rules about linking have changed, I'd appreciate a pointer to that decision. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Response re the bad faith suggested move on United States
That user could have just have easily posted a question to the talk page (as many other WP newbies have), and then one of us regular users could have gently set him/her straight. Instead he or she had the time to go read about the rather complicated "Requested moves" procedure. That is why I am suspecting bad faith. Someone with that much time on their hands could have easily read the talk page before posting and noticed the prominent FAQ link. If the anon IP user does turn out to be a genuine newbie and demands an apology for my aggressive response, I will give one if and when that contingency arises.

But if the anon IP user was a troll looking for a rise, someone has to flag their inappropriate behavior for the overworked admins. I have no apologies for vigorously defending the integrity of the encyclopedia. --Coolcaesar 05:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. With the benefit of hindsight, I'll concede that I probably overreacted.  That's what happens when I edit WP after a long day at work.  I'll try to exercise more discretion in the future.--Coolcaesar 07:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Matchbox
Hi. I replied to you at my talk page, to keep the conversation in one place. Just letting you know. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary
I've taken to often humorising my edit summaries when it's vandalism; A guy gets bored patching the place up. HalfShadow 00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism
Forgive my triteness. Look at the diff I provided, specifically your edit summary. Look at what exactly you were reverting. You were calling my previous edit vandalism (that's what "rvv" means). (The entire idea of an edit saying "rvv, look at the discussion" is absurd; if it refers to a talk page, it's a content dispute, therefore not vandalism.) I was calling you out for labeling what I did vandalism, certainly not calling you out for vandalizing. Matt Yeager <b style="font-size:medium; color:#B46611;">♫</b> ( Talk? ) 20:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid the way I used the "rvv" abbreviation was somewhat detached from its word-for-word meaning (it was rather aimed at the way you were reverting changes without discussing), which was quite careless of me - my apologies. I hope we can agree that neither of us meant to explicitly accuse the other one of vandalism and let's try to cool down and go about that move discussion in a peaceful and productive way. Regards - Cyrus XIII 05:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Jim Nobles
I have added a "" template to the article Jim Nobles, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Thiebes 13:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Bob Dole Memorial Ocean
A tag has been placed on Bob Dole Memorial Ocean, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This "article" only redirect to Pacific Ocean and there does not seem to be any evidence that the Pacific Ocean has otherwise been called the Bob Dole Memorial Ocean after searching on Google.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Scc4fun 00:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Queen sacrifice example
Did you see Articles for deletion/Queen sacrifice example before re-creating the article with the "rvv" summary? Lupo 12:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:UM
About your confusion about my tagging of a userbox for deletion, read through WP:UM, it should contain the information you need :-) — M ETS 501 (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've read it, but if it's not policy, then it doesn't stand against someone's good-faith opposition, right? Hey, be bold... but don't be reckless! ;) <b style="color:#DF0001;">Matt Yeager</b> <b style="font-size:medium; color:#B46611;">♫</b> ( Talk? ) 06:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but once I've migrated a userbox and a bot has updated all the references, tagging it for deletion what not at all controversial or reckless. — M ETS 501 (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would think that when it's come under protest, yes, it is mildly reckless. Just mildly (heck, it's userboxes =P)... butstill. Do redirects hurt? <b style="color:#DF0001;">Matt Yeager</b> <b style="font-size:medium; color:#B46611;">♫</b> ( Talk? ) 06:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, and I personally don't think redirects hurt, but many deletionists do, and since all of the redirects had been bypassed, there's no reason to keep them around. — M ETS 501 (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done
Glad to see that junk gone from Wikipedia is an encyclopedia‎. And it's nice to see you around, Matt. I like the continued fnord, which has now migrated to your talk page.

'Sta luego,  Λυδ α  cιτγ  17:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers
Regarding that cheerleading stuff in George W. Bush. I don't understand why the guy insists on having it. Sure, he was a cheerleader but it doesn't really matter. I guess he's just trying to make Bush look silly. Thanks for removing that. ViriiK 01:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Uglykahs.gif
Thank you for uploading Image:Uglykahs.gif. 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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. —Bkell (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Elegance.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Elegance.gif, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Policy on George W. Bush
I noticed you removed the section about the clear skies act, saying it wasn't notable because it didn't make it through committee. The inclusion of that subject is actually under discussion here; I thought I should probably bring it to your attention so you fully elaborate on your thoughts. Basically I would argue that it is notable enough to include for three reasons: First, it gives the reader a broader picture of Bush's political beliefs, without it I feel we present an incomplete view of his policies, as readers may be unsure of where he truly stands in terms of environmental protections. Secondly, just because something failed to be implemented doesn't mean its not noteworthy or significant, his plan to privatize social security also failed but it definitely warrants inclusion. Which leads into my last reason, that its noteworthy because it was a major piece of legislation that failed to pass through the republican dominated congress. While some might argue that his policies have been ineffective, until the republicans lost control of congress Bush has been effective in getting his policies implemented. The only other things which come to mind that he has failed at was (as I said before) his social security plan and a few nominees. The simple fact that he couldn't get it to even a floor debate in the republican dominated congress makes it worth mentioning (in my mind at least). Anyways, I look forward to discussing this further with you at the talk page.--<font face="papyrus" color="darkblue">Mbc <font face="papyrus" color="black">362  02:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Archived, and removed messages that didn't warrant a response. Anyways, thanks for your input on the global warming section.  As for the Iraq War discussion, I'm going to re-insert that material this weekend unless you have any remaining issues you want to discuss.  Thanks.--<font face="papyrus" color="darkblue">Mbc <font face="papyrus" color="black">362  11:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Uglykahs.gif
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Uglykahs.gif, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Hi, Matt. I don't really know how, but I came across your userpage, it made me laugh, so I decided to drop a note! I mean, come on, you like music and The Princess Bride... I kinda had to! haha, Cheers-  Cat tleG  irl  '' talk 05:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, I got smiled at! [[Image:smiley.png|20px]] Thanks, that brightened up my day a little. I even stopped by Cattle judging and rewrote it some, so there. I'm glad you like the Princess Bride, isn't it amazing? See you! <b style="color:#DF0001;">Matt Yeager</b> <b style="font-size:medium; color:#B46611;">♫</b> ( Talk? ) 22:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, glad it did. Wow, that rewrite was great... I've been meaning to do it for ages, then start and kind of... stop. You did it really well, thanks!
 * It's an amazing movie! Cheers-  Cat tleG  irl  '' talk 08:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Running up the score
In the reversion of my edit to this article, you summarized, "misuse of language." The article is nearly completely without sources. It contains opinions written by you. Softening your opinions is not a "misuse of language," but conveying your personal feelings as encyclopedic is. (I would have rather simply deleted the opinion but if I deleted all the opinions from the article, not much would be left.) This is one of the weakest articles I've read. I hope you will dedicate time to citing the parts of it that are true and deleting the parts that cannot be backed up. --Wordbuilder 02:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)