User talk:Schi

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! If you need help feel free to drop a line at my talk page. :) --Actown e 06:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Environment
Hello and welcome to WikiProject Environment! --Alex 08:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to Question
In response to your question on Talk:George W. Bush administration, I sorted the list of resigned Cabinet officers by the order in which the offices were created. --TommyBoy 18:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Little Miss Sunshine
I see you've removed the notation of plot ripoffs from the Little Miss Sunshine page. How does one document a controversy? If you are in denial that such a discussion exists, perhaps google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=national+lampoon+vacation+little+miss+sunshine

and you will get enough reviews that compare the two movies to spend your whole morning reading... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.66.112.5 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC).
 * I had never heard of such a controversy, but I'm certainly willing to believe that one might exist. If you can identify a good article or two that support your claims, then you should put your edit back in with links to those sources.  However, while a quick Google news search shows that there have been a lot of comparisons, I don't really interpret any of these articles as documenting a "controversy" over LMS' originality.  I think more neutral language, something like "Critics have noted many similarities to National Lampoon's Vacation, including such and such..." would be more appropriate. Schi 16:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving pages
Hi there, you moved Talk:Little Miss Sunshine to Talk:Little Miss Sunshine (film), but it appears you did this simply by cutting and pasting the text of the article to the new article. By doing this, you've sacrificed the entire edit history for the article. For future reference, if you move articles again, use the "Move this page" link. Using this method will preserve the history for the article as well as move the associated talk page. Cacophony 06:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I know that I was mistaken in moving the talk page, but I'm actually pretty sure I did use the "Move this page" link. If you look at the history of Talk:Little Miss Sunshine (film), you'll see that the edit history is preserved there. It looks like whoever moved it back cut & pasted. Schi 17:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Colbert Report
This is an easy question to answer : 1) take the article and summarize it, remove material that is not seen elsewhere in the article (like time when it runs) and bring the article in the subject by making it easy to read and follow. or 2) go to WP:LEAD for a complete guideline to improve it. Lincher 21:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Edward R. Olbermann
The fact that O'Reilly won't even mentioned his name should be proof enough?? Olbermann has a pretty scary obsession w/O'Reilly attacking him usually nightly-A real professional--Bairdso66 23:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny heading. Response left on talk page and reproduced here:
 * I don't doubt that Olbermann is more vocal in the rivalry than O'Reilly, and, although it is irrelevant to the discussion, I agree with you that Olbermann's obsession with O'Reilly is ridiculous. However, this assertion ("Over the next three years, the rivalry has grown to enormous proportions. Olbermann has been more vocal about the conflict than O'Reilly.") is POV/OR.  Unless we find a source that says something along the lines of "Olbermann is way more into this rivalry", we can't just rely on our viewing of their shows to support the claim, because that would be original research. Schi 23:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, I think the sentence about the "rivarly going to enormous proportions" should be removed. I think Olbermann see's it as a rivarly and O'Reilly let's his ratings do the talking. Thanks for responding--Bairdso66 04:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yanks/Sox
I agree with most of the changes you made to the Yankees Red Sox rivalry page, but one of the fact tags you placed seems unnecessary. The sentence, "This was the most recent of several player-fan incidents during Boston-New York games at either venue over the years," is not an opinion; it's just a statement that it's the most recent. A lack of other (more recent) news can't be cited; there's nothing to cite. Besides, it would be easy to find old news stories that call it the "most recent" even after some new event happens. I wouldn't have a problem with removing the sentence entirely, if you're worried about the article not being updated in a timely manner when something new happens (though I doubt that will be an issue with this topic). It's kind of complicated and I'm not sure if I made any sense here; if you're not clear about what I mean, please feel free to say so. Kafziel Talk 19:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was careless placement on my part. I meant I would just like a source documenting the incident, not that it was the most recent. I've just moved the tag. Schi 19:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I put the cite in there. Kafziel Talk 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikiproject Biography peer review of Pat Buchanan
Well, a problem I saw is that the section with the citations is lost. Some parts of the article may also be missing. Some editor may have done something wrong by mistake. I don't know! I'd suggest you try to achieve a compromise. These circumstances are always difficult. If you don't find a way to co-exist, you may be involved in edit-wars etc., which are not pleasant situations. If you see that the problem is getting deeper, you can ask for a mediation by one or more other administrators. I think this is the procedure. Generally, I'd suggest you remain calm and avoid "hot" disputes. Such situations usually don't have pleasant outcomes for anybody.--Yannismarou 13:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jwebb-Annandale.jpg
I noticed that the image you uploaded is licensed by the flickr user as noncommercial and no derivatives. --tomf688 (talk - email) 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I uploaded a new image at Image:Jim Webb at rally.jpg, which is a flickr image that is appropriate for use on Wikipedia since it only requires attribution. You can include Flickr images on Wikipedia as long as they permit all use.  This is a complicated issue since flickr users can change their licenses (even though that is not legally true; once an image is licensed under a CC license, it cannot be relicensed). --tomf688 (talk - email) 21:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Links normally to be avoided
I won't revert your reinstatement of the lead-in to "Links normally to be avoided", but I have put my reasons for the deletion at Wikipedia_talk:External_links/workshop. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 19:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

George Allen
The reason for the footnotes portion of the Infobox was that we were constantly reverting edits trying to put Webb into office. I am changing it back. Please discuss this on the talk page if you feel that it should be changed. Stealthound 18:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

iPhone
''Even if the undeletion was improper, how was the speedy delete proper? Which of the criteria for speedy deletion did this meet? '' - recreation of previously deleted articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The previous consensus for deletion was that this was even less than vaporware, but unannouncedware, and as such, pretty much was the epitome of crystal ballism. Writing a new article which didn't address those concerns doesn't matter, if it's still got the same problem. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposing to merge List of basic classics topics to Classics
Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dartmouth Review
Hey, no problem! I know what it's like to be the only person trying to resist someone who doesn't quite get WP:V -- frustrating as hell without backup. Dylan 21:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Environment barnstar
I have created a barnstar for WikiProject Environment. Please visit the talk page to vote for the barnstar since there are no votes for 2 months. OhanaUnited  03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about Romney political views/positions article
HI, A while ago, you helped motivate the creation of a new section which became Political positions of Mitt Romney.  The section got bumped out into a separate article entitled Political views of Mitt Romney. In case you're interested, there's a discussion underway about whether it's an improvement to name it Political positions of Mitt Romney, over at Talk:Political views of Mitt Romney.
 * -- Yellowdesk 16:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Record Task Force
Hi Schi! I'm looking at your user page--maybe you'd be interested in joining our task force? It looks like you'd be a real asset to the team. Cyrusc 21:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Series of tubes
An article that you have been involved in editing, Series of tubes, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Series of tubes. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:BrightblackMorningLight.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BrightblackMorningLight.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Roman inquires
Your input would be appreciated at
 * Reference desk/Humanities
 * Reference desk/Humanities
 * Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)