User talk:Rogerd/Archive008

Undeletion request
I noticed your an active admin right now and was wondering if you could handle a undeletion request? Could you undelete all the revisions of User talk:Moe Epsilon/Header? There are more pages, but I won't know them until I see the past revisions of this. Thanks! — M o e   ε  22:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I did so, but it doesn't look any different... I can check with another admin if you need me to --rogerd 22:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, but it is, see the past revision I needed every Archive undeleted as well if you could get this for me. —  M o e   ε  22:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅, you need to remove the CSD tags though. Yonatan talk 22:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks....--rogerd 22:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me too. — M o e   ε  22:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can get the speedy tags, but I may take a few minutes since my computer isn't reading the large archives well. — M o e   ε  22:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think everything is fine now. Thank you for your help :) — M o e   ε  22:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

date formats

 * sorry, i was under a vague impression that it was generally best to have dates in the format i changed them to. i'll switch them back now, unless you've already done it. best,  tomasz.  01:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Burrowing Owl
I know you already supported, but User:Wsiegmund has used his software to edit the Burrowing Owl shot I took...if you care to take another peek.--MONGO 05:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please tell this editor to behave
This editor User:Propol is engaging in personal attack on me, under the false delusion that I'm a sockpuppet, which I am not. This is uncivil, and poisions the editing process on the Peter Roskam bioagraphy.

Please do something about this, assuming wikpeida policy is now the rule of the Darwin jungle?

Thanks.Jakeleglarry 04:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

University of Kentucky
I am going to tackle the history tonight since the domestic partner benefits section is fleshed out. Per what I said on its talk page, the history is brief and wholly unsourced, and my long-term goal for the article is to bring it to good article status.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rogerd-Seicer's updating the University of Kentucky history section is way our of line.There is no way the domestic partner benefits should be highlighted as a lengthy History 1.1 section. This topic may be of interest to Seicer but it is not that large a historical topic at the University of Kentucky in comparison to more significant events. This topic probably merits a two or three sentence entry further down in the text. Please intecede as a Wiki administrator to put this in perspective. Thanks, Must remain Anonymous for legal reasons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.80.21.136 (talk • contribs) 12:18, June 10, 2007 (UTC)


 * So, did you bother reading my comments on improvement? I plan on finding additional articles and citations to help correct the deficencies on the remainder of the History section; fleshing it out will solve your concerns. And remain anonymous? You are posting through an IP address...  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 15:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply to the anonymous poster: I have no intention of using my admin status to intervene with Seicer on this issue.  He has not broken any rules and has acted in good faith.  I may disagree with him about the emphasis that this topic has in the UK article, but my role here is as an editor, just like like his.  --rogerd 15:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rogerd- That is fine. I believe Seicer has broken the Recentism guides in the lengthy section in History 1.1 on partner benefits. I suspect there are lots of editors who can see this and will edit this as appropriate. Anon (?) posting in accordance with Wiki IP guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.21.136 (talk • contribs)


 * I believe you are just looking for someone to blame and/or to force discipline upon my good faith edits. As previously stated, I plan on expanding the History so that it will be "longer" than the domestic partner benefits -- so your reasonings should be mostly abated. I don't edit Wikipedia 24/7, but I plan on at least starting on the editing tommorrow during work. Now can we stop with the threats of administrator action when none is needed?  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the domestic partner benefits, I am going to try to condense it tomorrow while at work. If you can give me your input, comments, or correct/revise anything on there, let me know. My goal is to shift it from four to two paragraphs, while maintaining its purpose.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds good, thanks. I am out of town, with limited access capabilities this week.  I will try to give you some feedback.  Thanks again. --rogerd 12:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)
The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Weird
Thanks, Rogerd ...not sure where he came from...oh well.--MONGO 05:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeronimo Bassano
Hi Roger. I was wondering if you have a moment to look over Jeronimo Bassano to see if it is alright as written. I wouldn't mind MONGO's views too. The more views the merrier, I say. Thanks.--Andy 11:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 19:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Marina Sirtis.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Marina Sirtis.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Marina Sirtis.jpg fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: There is a free use pic of Sirtis at wikicommons under the same name To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Marina Sirtis.jpg, 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. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Marina Sirtis.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)
The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirk Kirkpatrick
You might want to take a look at Kirk Kirkpatrick. The article looks like a pretty easy case of vanity and a candidate for deletion. The article was started by User:Macrhino, who clearly is Mr. Kirkpatrick when comparing the information on his user page to the biographical information on Kirk Kirkpatrick. You might just point out that he should create a nice user page with all of that information, rather than a Wikipedia entry.139.80.18.108 23:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I had thought that might be the case.
I had considered that she would already know, I am of the opinion that if she had not known, it was best to rectify the matter. I thank you for deleting the message, it had not occurred to me unfortunately that it would draw attention to it.Tennekis 01:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for semi-protecting my user and talk pages. Glanced at your user page. I'm a fan of Howlin' Wolf, too -- and John Lee Hooker and Muddy Waters and B.B. King and Bobby Bland and Eddie Vinson and Bessie Smith and Billie Holiday and Roberta Hunter and KoKo Taylor and, and, and.... I even like Bonnie Raitt -- very softcore and with a country edge, but still talented. Yep. Nothin' like the blues. :) deeceevoice 21:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'm really not very good at keeping track of such things, but I appreciate the efforts of those of you on troll/vandal patrol. Regards. dee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeceevoice (talk • contribs) 02:21, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Wku logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Wku logo.jpg. 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. BetacommandBot 19:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

pls read up
pls see

Wikipedia Watch
While it may be true the info was unsourced, it appears to be accurate. User:Katefan0's talk page has been permanently protected, including an accusation Daniel Brandt forced her from the project. -Nard 09:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That may or may not be true, but this is an area where we must use the highest standards of verifiability. --rogerd 12:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye, especially when dealing with fine folks such as Mr. Brandt. -Nard 12:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Throwback uniform
Just to let you know I've provided some information regarding your question on the aforementioned talk page. Hope it's useful. 89.240.146.78 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A comment of yours
"'That it vandalism. I have removed it. If she wants to put headers a the top of her talk page, she can, but you shouldn't add nonsense without her consent, especially when she is on wikibreak.''"

I'm sorry, sir, but this originated from a joke at User talk:Dfrg.msc, and it is not vandalism because I know the user (Phaedriel) and added it before she went on Wikibreak. She also congratulated my sense of humour off-wiki. Good day. &mdash;  15:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)' P Я I N G'' ε r α g ђ  15:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Highest Awards for gallantry
Just to let you know i have replied on the talk page to your question. ''They might, although i do severely doubt it. I think the links do seve a useful purpose, if they want to then they can. With article such as Nazi Germany and South Vietnam it would be a valid assumption that someone might want to learn more about them. We could link it to all of the Military of X articles? thoughts?'' We could ask WP:ODM for opinions. Woodym555 19:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Kathlleen Sullivan, Reg.
Hi, I was looking through Wikipedia & was shocked that it had, but minor reference to the Pioneering Journalist, Kathleen Sullivan. I wrote it out for the community. I have been a fan of her since I was a kid. She is a true journalist. All of her awards are public record. The IMDB site shows her tv appearances and the like. As for the rest....it comes straight from her resume. Her life has always been quite public. Everything I wrote of her is true... And, too add to it, I happen to know her. Thank you, Robert Todd. P.S. she is also in text books for journalism.

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Wandalstouring 10:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you're an abusive administrator
Don't you know that you can only delete copyvio images if they are uploaded by "conservatives"? , ...--MONGO 21:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)
The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

World Series templates
My sense from what I've done and other from the Baseball Wikiproject that have worked on the template have been to only put players that either played in that particular World Series or played a major part in the season but for whatever reasons didn't play in the World Series. For example, I put Ralwy Eastwick on the 1976 Reds template because although he didn't play in the WS, he played a big part in the season an likely didn't play due to the fact that the Reds had a relatively easy 4-game sweep of the Yanks. If you feel that certain players are omitted, please add them, but I wouldn't be in favor of putting all of the players who played that whol year on the template because adding players who were traded away, released, or September call-ups to the template would be kond of an information overload. Hope this helps answer your question. - Masonpatriot 15:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Andy Griffith Show
Why did you revert my addition to the 'Cultural references' section. It is true and it is as valid as any other in that section. 82.24.213.54 23:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Propol the Wiki Welcome Wagon person
This is very nice comment MR Propel makes. , it show good faith per wikipolicy. Now, is this going to be some kind of asinine Wiki version of everquest or Warcraft MMOG or are we going to play nice?TEAMCrocko I need some protection for this "Keeper of the sock". Thanks.TEAMCrocko 04:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)
The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Tubby Smith "vandalism"
Huh? I have no idea why WP:AWB inserted that text, but that's hardly vandalism, and you reverted one change per WP:MOS. Thanks for the heads-up, though. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see that from your history, vandalism is definitely not something you do, sorry. You might want to check out other edits you have made with AWB to make sure it isn't malfunctioning.  --rogerd 01:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks I appreciate your understanding, Roger. I took a peak at the edits around that one and didn't see anything funny. Maybe just a once-in-a-lifetime quirk? Thanks again. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Erin Dolgan
Hi, I am a contributor of this article and was surprised to see that I had been contacted about this article. No contact was ever made. I am sorry that the article sounded like PR piece. I was just trying to get in all the information. I am offended that you gived no merit to the National Independent Publisher Awards of which she was one of thousands of books entered.onl Apparently you consider only commercially published books worthy of merit. You'd be amazed at the famous books that began as independents. ''::My main interest here is the new user, not the article itself. I wanted to leave an example for her of the difference between a press release and the start of an article.'' I would think that as a new user you would try to help me correct my errors instead of "trying to teach me a lesson". You don't want any new authors here? I thought this was the purpose of the site.

''::The new user hasn't apparently been back, so it's probably not worth restoring the article and taking it to AFD. I definitely agree that the original intent was blatant advertising'' No this was NOT BLATANT advertising. The blatant part was to list an author and tell her bio. She is an award winning author writing a book to PREVENT CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE. At no place did I place instructions on where to go to buy the book, the price or the book, or even reference her website. Author=bio. No advertising! Please reconsider, and feel free to edit to your heart's content to make sure it follows the guidelines. I respect this site and had no intentions on violating it's guidelines. Feel free to contact me by e-mail if you wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RKChesnutt (talk • contribs) 20:00, November 25, 2007

Hi - Although it clearly started as a PR piece (I commented to the creator here), I thought I'd chopped it down to a fairly NPOV near-stub. It still struck you as blatant advertising? Looking at the timestamps, I think you must have been looking at the rewritten version. No big deal, but I am a little curious. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I considered the fact that she was self-published made her probably less than notable. If you want, I can restore it and we can use the normal WP:AFD process.  --rogerd (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My main interest here is the new user, not the article itself. I wanted to leave an example for her of the difference between a press release and the start of an article.  I don't know how hard it is to win an "IPPY" (I notice we have an article - Independent Publisher Book Award), but assuming it's somewhat real and somewhat exclusive I'd think writing a book that medals would establish sufficient notability.  The new user hasn't apparently been back, so it's probably not worth restoring the article and taking it to AFD.  I definitely agree that the original intent was blatant advertising (the creator seems to be author's publicist!). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm responding here. Feel free to as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! -- Rick Block (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki guidelines for Talk pages
Deleting somebody else's contribution to the Talk page, without their permission, is very very poor wikiquette. Don't do that again. - Theaveng (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * When you attempt to turn talk pages into a blog, it is within policy to remove comments like this and this. --rogerd (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely...neither of those comments where the least bit helpful in writing an encyclopedia.--MONGO (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Improving accurate info is better than deleting it from Wiki any day
Your deletion of info added to Memphis Belle by User:81.145.242.3 was totally counterproductive. His info was accurate. Wikipedia says Memphis Belle was the first B-17 to complete 25 missions over Europe in WW11. It wasn't, the Hells Angels was. You could have discovered that in a couple of minutes on google, but no, you deleted it. So he didn't source it. Ok, but you could have, with little effort. This is supposed to be a collaborative exercise here. Yet again we revert to an innaccurate article, and have probably permanently frightened off an editor. I left a message on his talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.69.153 (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and cite the information then....No one is stopping you from entering info that is properly sourced. --rogerd (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing stopping YOU from entering it either. Typical of the knee-jerk  brigade.  You deleted accurate information and left Wikipedia  with an inaccurate article. Bravo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.69.153 (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have the the reference, you obviously do. If you just did it instead of attacking me for following the rules, this would be done.  --rogerd (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't have the reference because you did absolutely nothing to help develop the info added by User:81.145.242.3. Had you done so, you would have found the ref in a couple of minutes. So let's recap -- I am criticising you because you deleted accurate info and asked someone else to do something that you as a Wiki editor could have done yourself. Saying that you were following the rules is an absolute copout. Help other editors -- don't discourage them. Improve Wikipedia by helping to authenticate articles that need authentication. Don't just delete accurate info because of your precious rules. What about the most important rule of all, that articles need to be accurate? Isn't that what Wikipedia first and foremost strives to be? You have been told that Memphis Belle is inaccurate. You removed accurate info from that article, but leave embarassingly inaccurate info in it. Sheesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.69.153 (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You claim that the information is inaccurate, yet you provide no evidence to back it up. If it would have taken a couple of minutes like you say to find the reference, then why didn't you do it???  Instead, you spent your time coming here and attacking me.  I don't know that it is inaccurate because all I have to go on is your baseless charges. --rogerd (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What makes you so special that people have to do research for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.77.151 (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset)
 * Huh??? for me??? You are the one that claims the article is inaccurate.  I am not sure what you base this on, but if you have verifiable cites for it, then go to it.  I have no research to do, since I am not the one asserting that the article is wrong.  You are.  If you know for a fact that it is wrong, then go fix it and cite it, instead of repeatedly coming here and attacking me.  You are beginning to act more like a troll than someone who wants to improve Wikipedia. --rogerd (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wes Montgomery Guitar on the Go.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Wes Montgomery Guitar on the Go.jpg. 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. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hudson Institute
Hi. Not sure if i should be writing here as this relates to a post DEC15 issue. Anyway, you recently reverted one of my edits to Hudson Institute as pejorative and POV. My edit was a change of the label "corporatist-leaning" to "neoconservative". I did this primarily because the Hudson Institute was already on Wiki's list of neoconservative think tanks, and it's association with several prominent figures whom are also referred to as neoconservative in their respective articles. In addition, the editor who originally added "corporatist" didn't adequately justify use of the term, and is might be confusing for readers/misleading. I'm open to suggestions but I think it should stay. Thanks. King of Corsairs (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)