User talk:Tstrobaugh

Categorization
Regarding editing the categories, I'd like to point out Categorization/Categories and subcategories. Since High-IQ is under Category:Giftedness and Category:Psychometrics, both of whom are under Category:Intelligence, the latter is unnecessary. I think that if the HiIQ cat is used, then either Gifted or Psych but not both should be used, since HiIQ is in both already. -- Avi 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * About Category:High_IQ_societies, you are correct that it is under both Category:Intelligence and Category:Giftedness (which itself is under Category:Intelligence this is where the double entry is) but Category:Psychometrics is not under Category:Intelligence. It is a "see also" if it was under Category:Intelligence all the pages on psychometrics would show up under Category:Intelligence, but obvoiusly they do not. You are correct this needs cleaned up, there is already some discussion at Categories_for_deletion If you think that Category:Psychometrics is already under Category:Intelligence then you would have no opposition to me actuallly putting it there?--Tstrobaugh 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My point was only that if an article is already under a sub-category, it does not need to be under the parent category, unless there are extenuating circumstances as described in Categorization/Categories and subcategories. I think that if an article is in Giftedness, it does not need to be in Intelligence. I could see though that an article could remain in Giftedness, even though it is in High/IQ. That was my point and opinion. -- Avi 19:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:ISPE.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ISPE.jpg, 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. BigDT 19:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You asked on the image description page why use of this image in userspace is not allowed. Please see WP:FAIR for the relevant policy on fair use images.  Wikipedia's goal is to have completely free content.  Unfortunately, sometimes this is not possible.  For example, if you are talking about a television show like Star Trek, you may need to use a copyrighted screenshot in order to identify what it is you are talking about.  In such a case, the copyrighted image is used for an encyclopedic purpose.  The benefits gained from using the non-free image outweigh the concern of having non-free images on the site.  User pages, however, do not serve an encyclopedic purpose.  With userpages, Wikipedia gains no benefit from having the non-free image.  Thus, they are not permitted.  I hope that helps explain the issue. BigDT 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI Mega Society Judgement
As you may have heard the Mega Society article was deleted awhile ago, at the end of an acrimonious AfD/DRV process. There is a wide divergence between deletion policy (as defined by various policy guideline documents) and deletion practice, as implemented by admins (who claim to be following the "spirit" of the law). Consequently there are lessons to be learnt from the experience, which will not be obvious from reading the guidelines. Here are some tips for future conduct:


 * Single purpose users are frowned upon and were a frequent bone of contention during the AfD and DRV processes. So I urge you all to "establish" yourself as Wikipedians: create, edit and even ... delete articles!  There are plenty of articles that need attention.
 * It is a very good idea to put something on your user page, (it doesn't matter what) to avoid showing up as redlinked users -- being redlinked will count against you in any debate.
 * When voting, include brief reasons which are grounded in policy (votes not backed by reasoning may be discounted; too much reasoning will be ignored).

Given the bias against soliciting (see judgement) I may not be able to contact you again, so I suggest you put the Mega Society in your watchlists. The closing admin's comments on the Mega Society:


 * Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similiar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits.  This is good news for you.


 * The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Wikipedia to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable.  Wikipedia is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight.  Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted.  The others supporting your view were.  I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Wikipedia, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known.  In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity.  It is a firm practice within Wikipedia, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)


 * If your supporters were more familiar with Wikipedia, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it " faster, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show.  Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So the outcome was not entirely negative, although I was disappointed by the admin's rather cavalier approach evidenced by the response to my enquiry:


 * .... why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, nor did I solicit them.  I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith? ...... --Michael C. Price talk 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

to which I received this rather off-hand reply:


 * User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

which didn't fill me with confidence about Wiki-"due process".

Anyway, my grumpiness aside, the Mega Society article, is presently under userfied open-development at User:MichaelCPrice/mega, and will reappear at some point, when (hopefully) some of the ill-feeling evidenced during the debate has cooled. I am very heartened by the article's continued development, and by the development of associated articles. Thanks for everyone's help!

--Michael C. Price talk 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Civiq Society
Hi. I saw that you removed the notability tag in the Civiq Society article. I have contended the notability of this society in its talk page (please read it), supporting the view of the editor that originally added the tag. My opinion about this is flexible, (if there are lists of Pokémon characters and X-files episodes, maybe high IQ societies deverve their place in the encyclopedia). However, I still feel somewhat uncomfortable about this article. My question is: what distinguishes Civiq Society from * Cerebrals   * Colloquy    * Elateneo/s Society    * ePiq * Giga   * Glia    * HELLIQ    * HPS    * IQuadrivium * ISI-S   * ISPE    * Mega Society    * Mega International * Mysterium   * OATH    * OLYMPIQ    * PARS    * PGS * Pi Society   * Sigma    * Superdotados Intelectuales * TNS   * TOPS    * Ultranet    * Vinci    * Club Telegenio * Mega Foundation   * WIN    * MILENIJA    * StrictIQ Society * Vertex that makes the Civiq Society deserve its inclusion in the encyclopedia in a whole sepparate article, while all the other societies are (deservedly?) "ignored", except for the small mention in the High IQ society article? As I explained in the talk page of the Civiq Society, the societies with a whole article Prometheus Society, Intertel (group), Triple Nine Society, and International Society for Philosophical Enquiry partially share these two characteristics: they have been quoted by external sources (such as newspapers) and they have more members (perhaps from many more countries). All of them are more than 20 years old. Even the new, (and less notable?), International High IQ Society has supposedly much more members. When reading the article, I noticed that besides the "Background section", the article apparently doesn't add new information beyond what it's already stated in general in High IQ society. This gives the impression that the article could potentially be merely advertising or self-congratulatory material. This is a harsh opinion, I know, but I think that this article should be improved, or it should be reduced, or it should be deleted. If it remains like it is today, the notability tag shouldn't be removed. This is just my opinion, of course, but I wanted to share it with you, who probably knows more about the subject. In any case, I would like to mention that I had felt curiosity about several high IQ societies and high iq tests in the past, and despite the fact that I often looked for information about these subjects in the net, I had never visited their website and I didn't remember the name of their society when I read the article. Perhaps an interesting suggestion could be to write or to expand the list of the high IQ societies in high IQ society with a few more details for every "minor" society, (the kind of details that are mentioned in the Civiq Society article). Respectfully, Another Wikipedian 04:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I agree with you. I belong to all the societies above with the exception of TNS and have worked on all the web pages. I started working on the web pages because of the "perceived" attack against the HiIQ community. I don't think there is anyone available to fix the Civiq page at this moment and personally I have no objection to it's deletion if it does not get improved. I think your last suggestion of improving the gateway page is interesting. Perhaps under the category Hi IQ societies, we could have "stubs"? A small blurb about the so-called "non-notables" this may be appealing to all. On another note, as you may or may not know, I am the one who added "pantomath" to the polymath page, I saw you were involved in some of those discussions.Tstrobaugh 20:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_Secondary_school
Acreditation isn't working on Template:Infobox_Secondary_school check out Lansdale_Catholic_High_School. Thanks for any help.Tstrobaugh 00:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Tstrobaugh. Many thanks for your notice. I indeed made an error on the accreditation parameter when converting the template. There was a pipe missing (argh!), which I fixed. Apologies. I adjusted the call on the Lansdale article accordingly. Cheers! --Ligulem 08:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Carole D'Andrea
/Carole D'Andrea

Invite
--evrik 19:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Philly meetup
Hi! There will be a Wikipedia Meetup in Philadelphia on 4 November. If you're interested in coming, RSVP by editing Meetup/Philadelphia 2 to reflect the likelihood of your being able to attend. If you have any questions, feel free to ask CComMack's. Hopefully, we'll all see you (and each other) on the 4th! --evrik 19:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Pennsylvania's 56th Representative District
Please use the move function, instead of copy-and-paste, when renaming a page. This avoids splitting the page history in several places. -- ReyBrujo 05:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Got it.Tstrobaugh 05:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:International High IQ Society
Hi there. As long as a discussion at Articles for deletion is going on, the AfD tag must not be removed. At present, there is such a discussion going on here. Only when it closes do we remove the AfD tag. Heimstern Läufer 01:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Philadelphia Meetup 3
FYI. We we're planning a Philadelphia area Wikipedia meetup. See Meetup/Philadelphia 3 --ike9898 15:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Nowak - Shipman
Heya, I put my thoughts on the talk page. Gwen Gale 17:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

High Schools
Did you see this? Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Philadelphia --evrik (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Category:High schools in Pennsylvania, so there should be no problem there. Yes, Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Philadelphia isn't completely correct. I was thinking of making a name change nomination to Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. --evrik (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Vandalism, edit warring and potential 3 RR warning I am going to put everything back the way it was beforee you started making changes this morning. After that, if you haven't already done so, I will post a discussion at WPP:PA. --evrik (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Philadelphia is a subset
 * Not being coy. It was perfectly appropriate to create the sub-category as there were enough schools to fill it, and they were not included in Category:High schools in Philadelphia. There is no need to undo anything. I don't seem to understand what the difficulty you're having is. Please refr to Classification and Categorization. --evrik (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Before you start an edit war, why don't you list this at: WikiProject Pennsylvania? --evrik (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit warring and take this discusion up before making wholsale chnages. --evrik (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I made a posting here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pennsylvania. --evrik (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Block
Hi Tstrobaugh, you have been reported for 3RR violation on West Philadelphia Catholic High School, and I have blocked you for 24 hours. Please take the time off to review our WP:3RR policy. You seem to be a good editor, so I am sure you can make some adjustments and continue to edit productively and collaboratively within the system. Please email me or any other admin if you have any questions or comments. Thanks for your undestanding, Crum375 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wallace W. Rhodes
Actually, I thought the reasons for the creation of the article were ancillary to the subject's lack of notability. I apologize if my prod reason was unclear on that. Since you removed the prod, I will take the article to a formal AFD later today. Cheers, Skinwalker 15:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't think you had an agenda. The Rhodes article was created by banned User:Paul Hartal, presumably in order to bolster his list of "notable" alumni from Columbia Pacific University.  He made many more articles of this type, most of which have been deleted as non-notable.  The deletion prod is used to mark abandoned and/or uncontroversially nonnotable articles for deletion, hence, I assumed that it was appropriate for the Rhodes article based on this user's past performance.  Articles whose notability is contested are taken to WP:AFD for a full debate over their merits.  I added the bit about moving to AFD since this is the usual step after the prod is removed.  I'll let the Rhodes article sit for a few days - please try and come up with some notable references.  Cheers, Skinwalker 16:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pennsylvania State Chess Federation
An editor has nominated Pennsylvania State Chess Federation, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Plexiglass
Your change to acrylic glass on (the soon to be deleted) Overclockersclub is fine, but plexiglass is absolutely acceptable as a word, regardless of being derived from a genericized trademark. Deiz talk 15:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The American Heritage Dictionary lists Plexiglas and cites the variant plexiglass as having been used in The LA Times, while Princeton University's WordNet is also happy with it. I would find it hard to believe you've never seen or heard plexiglass used generically on TV or in other media. Trademarks do not have to be "lost" to become genericized, simply used commonly by people to refer to a given type of product or service which has usually gained a dominant share within its market. You can read more at Genericized trademark. Nice one, Deiz talk 02:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is plexiglass used as a generic term to describe acrylic glass and similar materials? Yes. Beyond that, I think I'm done here. Deiz talk 14:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagging votes to be disregarded
Do NOT put tags on votes trying to claim that they should be disregarded and then citing just somebody's essay. The votes were valid, and if you (and the person who wrote that non-guideline personal rant web page) disagree, tough. DreamGuy 21:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting talk page comments
While deleting talk page comments to hide something is frowned upon, any user may delete comments from his or her talk page without repercussion. The edits are still in the history so they can be still used for reference if they are out line. &mdash; O cat ecir  Talk  19:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
You both are in violation of the 3RR rule. I am going to give you a chance to avoid being blocked by asking you not to make any edits to that page for 24 hours and to discuss any further edits on the talk page before making them If you can't come to a conclusion start an RFC to get some outside opinions, do NOT engage in edit wars. — Ocat <font color="#333333">ecir T 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Plexiglas
The use of a trade name as a generic or familiar term is quite common, see Kleenex, Scotch tape, etc. I work in the aviation industry and I can assure you that plexiglas, plexiglass and any variation thereof has long since passed into the common aviation lexicon. FWIW, lighten up on your tone, this is supposed to be a fun thing, IMHO. Bzuk 17:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

Plexiglass (sic)
Copyedit form my talk page" Sorry you don't like my tone. You reverted without discussing the issue on the talk page . On my page you said:"I work in the aviation industry and I can assure you that plexiglas, plexiglass and any variation thereof has long since passed into the common aviation lexicon". I read this as you assuring me that the "aviation industry" is incorrectly using the trademark Plexiglas® and on what authority I'm not sure. My edit summary said "plexiglass" is not a word. Even without WP:COPYVIO and Manual_of_Style_%28trademarks%29 there is simply Guide_to_writing_better_articles. If you can find a dictionary that includes "plexiglass" then I will get into why it is trademark violation, but for now it is simply a spelling error.Tstrobaugh 17:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually if you're interested in these planes there is a history to how Rohm and Haas initiated the acrylic cockpits. See:, I'm not opposed to using Plexiglas® where appropriate.Tstrobaugh 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. To explain my first edit, since I was the primary author of the piece, I reverted with an explanation in the edit commentary mainly because I did not believe that the one word edit required a longer or more thorough explanation in the discussion page. However, I can see that you have a real interest in the subject/issue and I appreciate your efforts to maintain the correct use of a type of material/process. As for the use of the word "plexiglass" (sic) in various aviation and other sources, a quick check by Google will pull up a variety of dictionary definitions or dictionaries that include the word in that and other variations. I presently work as the Executive Director of the Manitoba Aviation Council, an umbrella organization of aviation interests including fabricators and repair facilities. Without doing a scientific study or intensive survey of my members, I can safely reiterate that the word, term, process and official/technical designation, trade name and such are now all irretrievably intertwined. After reading your explanation, I have endeavoured to maintain the original meaning of the word in the article but since I am an aviation writer by trade, it was inevitable that colloquial and commonplace nomenclature has seeped into my vocabulary over the years.


 * This is not capricious, but now you have tweaked my interest, just how did "plexiglass (sic)" creep into modern usage? I will also follow up on the development of acrylic glass in aircraft canopies. My background is mainly in aviation (flying, piloting, related history) but I am interested in background on aerospace fabrication and construction. FWIW Bzuk 18:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC).
 * I assume you are an engineer, or at least an "engineer type", do you read Dilbert? That's how, stupidity. Did you ever play the game Chinese_whispers? Ever see what's on Snopes? As relating to trademarks, ever order a Rum and Coke (or do you say Pepsi, or the generic "cola")? There is a Saturday Night Live bit about "no Coke, Pepsi". People are lazy, they don't care about accuracy, why should they really? However as an engineer I'm sure you pride yourself on accuracy. Again Plexiglas® is currently a trademark, See and . Trademarks are lost due to court cases, see aspirin for the famous aspirin case.Tstrobaugh 18:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember, I am not disagreeing with you, merely pointing out that the word has somewhat morphed into a colloquial form. Granted all of the following dictionary definitions are derived from the "non-standard" variety, online references and the like, however, here goes:

Dictionary definitions: www.thefreedictionary.com/plexiglass, dict.die.net/plexiglass/, www.answers.com/topic/plexiglas-plexiglass, www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/p/p0374200.html ,www.rplastics.com/plexintro.html, dict.die.net/molly-guard/ , medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/plexiform, FWIW Bzuk 18:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC).
 * I suppose I should have said "legitimate" dictionary, with the internet now you can find anything, whether true or not. I was thinking more like Merriam-Webster or OED, I know you won't find it any paper dictionary. Although I do see they are starting to list it as a trademark (improperly spelled) in Bartleby (here they are quoting the LA Times misuse of the term as a source?) similar to die. So now I might have to qualify my claim with an explanation of what a Reliable Source is.Tstrobaugh 18:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I enjoyed that, BTW, I am a professional librarian, and entered the aviation world through a very unusual route. I have spent a lifetime, "faking" it with sundry aviation technical and professional types. FWIW Bzuk 19:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

Wikimedia Pennsylvania
Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:
 * Contact us on IRC at <tt>#wikimedia-pa</tt>
 * Join our mailing list
 * Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

Thanks and I hope you join up!  Cbrown1023   talk   04:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Intertel.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Intertel.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 13:07, 10 July 2007 (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 19:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oldest Cathedral?

 * I'm not sure I understand "The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, also called the Baltimore Basilica, was the first Roman Catholic cathedral built in the United States," (1806-1821) The St. Louis Cathedral Archdiocese_of_New_Orleans was built in 1718. Any help appreciated. Thanks.Tstrobaugh 21:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, Louisiana was not admitted to the union until 1812. A similar example would be the Cathedral-Basilica of St. Augustine, built 1793-97.  So, while the Baltimore Basillica is not the oldest cathedral in the United States, it was "the first Roman Catholic cathedral built in the United States." --Jdurbach 15:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Robert E. Eberly
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Robert E. Eberly, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 15:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Leta Stetter Hollingworth
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Leta Stetter Hollingworth, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 20:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Intelligent Design Creationism"
Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, by Robert T. Pennock (Editor). So it is not "a new term invented for this article". <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 17:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Amazon.com Sales Rank: #485,881 in Books" This does not indicate that term Intelligent Design is known popularly by the POV term "Intelligent Design Creationism". It is clearly POV. What is the Author's intent? Is it your contention that most people say "Intelligent Design Creationism" or do just people with a POV say it? If it is your contention that it is known by the general population as "Intelligent Design Creationism" then I will withhold my edits. So far I only see that it is your contention that this author and yourself hold this view. Tstrobaugh 21:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Philly meetup #5
Please look at Meetup/Philadelphia 5 and give your input about the next meet-up. Thank you. This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the WikiProject Philadelphia/Philadelphia meet-up invite list. BrownBot 22:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Filll's previous transgressions



 * That's not a transgression. Since Wikipedia allows me to do pretty much what I want on the talk page (there are some rules), and I didn't get annoyed by Fill, why should you?  That is, it's not your business.  Thank you for your consideration.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Talking about what is or is not your business, I didn't say anything about what you could or could not do on your talk page, could you give me the same consideration? Thanks.Tstrobaugh 10:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Material that is meant to smear or defame other editors is probably not what is covered by any such understanding or interpretation of existing wikirules. --Filll 12:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If ever such material arises here please let me know about it immediately. If you are referring to the word "transgression" perhaps you could tell me how you take it's meaning or how you are being defamed. It seems to be against policy to do the above infraction as stated here Talk_page_guidelines "As a rule, don't edit others' comments, including signatures." If you give me a minute I'll be putting up some other "transgressions" and then we can talk about all of them.Tstrobaugh 14:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, this is certainly a bit out of control. Filll (or anyone) can format something on any page, and besides, it really doesn't concern you.  It's beginning to look like Wikistalking if you're going around checking/critiquing/finding fault with his innocuous edits -- it's one thing to want to figure out where a person's coming from, another thing to start posting alleged violations on your user page just to make a point.
 * Look, the Phillies got to the post-season, the Flyers are hot, and the Iggles have pulled out of bigger holes than the one they're in. Besides, it's a nice, balmy 76 degrees today, so it's time to chill. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  18:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "I'm glad to see you think:"Well, this is certainly a bit out of control. Filll (or anyone) can format something on any page". I'm sure you will now support my right to edit my talk page as I see fit. That was your point wasn't it?Tstrobaugh 18:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)" -- copied from my page.
 * So much for being Mr. Nice Guy (lesson to self: this is why you don't do nice). Editing your talk page as you see fit is fine -- so long as you aren't going out of your way to smear someone, which certainly appears to be your intent here.  Besides, being a tablehead, I'm sorry, member of Mensa, I should think you'd have the requisite intelligence to discern the difference between adding formatting and taking a cheap swipe at someone, or engaging in vandalism, or being tendentious, or taking a cheap swipe at someone (oh, I'm sorry, did I mention that already?), etc.  I'm not sure what your real problem is, but in looking over your "contributions" to the IC talk page it certainly seems that you're quite keen on creating a disturbance, which, as I'm sure you can puzzle out is bad form on Wikipedia.  Not sure if your behaviour of late has been an instance of an ideopathic cerebral cryopathy, or if noetic necropathy is setting in, but you really might want to reconsider your stance.  Just some helpful advice -- ohm, there I go being nice again, won't I ever learn? <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, at least I got a rise out of you -- that's good actually, it means that you're willing to talk. Your first post on my page seemed rather sarcastic, but as we both know, sarcasm and plain speaking don't always translate well in writing (unless one is intentionally sarcastic like I was above).  However, I really don't understand what you're trying to accomplish either on the IC page or here: I'm not sure how the IC page dispute helped anything, and showing Filll editing the talk page of a user who doesn't care doesn't make sense.  So, what are you trying to accomplish?
 * As for Mensa, you do realise that you have a Mensa template on your user page, yes? In any case, I declined to be part of Mensa because it was insufficiently elitist. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  19:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (ri)I'll have a look at the Prometheus Society, certainly a little closer to what I tested (173) than is Mensa. But then again, having a high IQ doesn't mean one doesn't have their "stupid moments" -- hey, that's be a cool club, "Folks with high IQs who nevertheless can be really stupid on occasion".  I'd join.  :)
 * OK, item one: IC page. I saw what you left on TSP's page; what precisely is it that "they" are not understanding? <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  20:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Stanford-Binet, probably, but I was 12 at the time and never thought to ask that question. As I said, I can still be incredibly stupid at times.  My mom might know what the test was, I'll have to ask her.  I don't know when you grew up in Philly, but at the time I went to school, the MG program was still a "test program" and I wasn't tested until I'd skipped a grade, consistently scored 99th percentile on my Iowa's and CATs, finished 6 years of math in 4 years, and was in "accelerated" classes.  But, I was always two grades ahead of where the MG program was being offered, so I missed out on it.  Boo-hoo-sob.  ;)
 * Anyway, yes, I think censorship sucks, although I'm wary of libel and slander laws, so I'm a bit careful with what I write or say. On the other hand, I don't like some of what goes on on Wikipedia where items are removed from a user page because they're potenially "polemical" (see my user page history).
 * OK, so is the entire argument covered by the stuff that was moved to your user page? I'll look through it. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  21:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please keep this conversation to one page? I can't following this fucked-up conversation bouncing from user talk to user talk.  I'm wearing out my mouse.  My IQ proves that the US Navy recruits the smartest officers.  Maybe I have cognitive dissidence. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Or dissonance. ;)  In any case, to the actual issue: The one ref could be moved to the creationism side of the sentence, or it could refer more specifically to the judge's comments re the scientific community, or both (i.e., a double ref to Kitzmiller). Nonetheless, the judge's comments are germane in that they explain his reasoning in finding ID (and it's component parts) to be creationism. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149;  19:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Disengagement
Your proposal to disengage from discussions at Talk:Irreducible complexity is welcome, and I've carried out an overdue archiving of that talk page. Please be aware that repetitive argument against consensus can be seen as disruptive editing, as can a refusal to accept that under NPOV: Making necessary assumptions arguments should be dealt with on the main article which provides detailed analysis of the topic, and not repeated on related articles. .. dave souza, talk 18:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. This comment is unacceptable. Try to keep things in perspective and be civil; those who are not generally don't last long around here. FeloniousMonk 02:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Meetup/Philadelphia 5
<div width="300px" style="float: left; clear: right; margin: 3px; padding: 3px; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; background: #55ffff;"> You're invited to the

Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup

November 11, 2007

Time: 5:00 pm

Location: Buca Di Beppo, 258 South 15th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 'RSVP (view/edit this template'')  You have received this message because you are on the invite list, you may change your invite options via that link. BrownBot 23:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
I have mentioned your username in evidence presented at Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Your contributions were mentioned as one of many participants in an edit war. GRBerry 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Pennsylvania's State Representative Districts
I saw that you created the Template:Pennsylvania's State Representative Districts, and I wanted to let you know that I updated it.

I changed the format for the PA House District pages to this: "Pennsylvania House of Representatives, District XXX." I moved the existing pages under the old naming system, so nothing is lost. This allows the use of a succession box template for state representatives (Template:PAHouseSuccession_box)      Thanks! --RedShiftPA (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:User templates
Hello, your userpage was placed in this category along with a few others that are only for templates so I removed them. Please remember to use for all your userboxes so that this doesn't happen again. 67.163.33.214 (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why thank you for that link, "Other users may edit pages in your user space," and that I did. Your page is miscategorized and needs to be fixed. -Babelious 03:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also as with the person you agreed with you should take a look at Userboxes. -Babelious 03:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I will have to press you to fix your userpage, otherwise by convention of the community I will have to override your preferences and edit your userpage. -Babelious 03:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, you're starting a discussion. Now tell me exactly what you think the problem is and what I should do to fix it. Thanks.Tstrobaugh (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why can't it just read:

<div style="float:; border:px solid ; margin:1px;">


 * All userboxes should be transcluded if they can be. For instance in your version of the page right now there are a series of noinclude tags around, a lot of things that don't belong. This is a much neater approah. -Babelious 19:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh and when you said "don't edit my userpage, edit the template in question" the problem isn't them template the problem is what happened when you subst: the template onto your userpage. -Babelious 23:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. The template isn't the problem? It's only a problem when I "subst:" on my user page? Isn't that where templates are supposed to go? If the template is not the problem then what is? This hasn't risen to a level where I've actually looked at the code you wrote. Tstrobaugh (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct. When you transclude a userbox ( – ) it puts the userbox on the userpage and applies the includeonly tags, but not the noinclude tags, but when you subst: a userbox then it puts both and  tags on your userpage (which is just plain ridiculous, the noinclude tags shouldn't transclude at all the and includeonly tags should just put whatever is in them on the userpage). All userboxes should be transcluded in my opinion, it is too much of a hassle currently to subst: them and you get the benefits of the updates when the template is changed. I tried to make my code look as much like yours as I could, putting in the background and the border color, I wish I could find the origins of those non-transcluded userboxes, and maybe you can help me with those. -Babelious 21:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed the format a little, do you like it as it is now? -Babelious 23:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all could you cite where you could put me up for a block for that? Second, a person with such a high IQ such as yourself should have realized that there is a parameter to change the content of the userbox. Third, I could have you blocked for the same reasons depicted here and for using a userbox that goes against content resriction and T1. Fourth, I am not vandalizing your userpage, I edit it so that I can show you what it looks like, and then you give me feedback, because if I displayed the uesrboxes here some one them wouldn't work. So now my next edit is a test edit and one which is not vandalism, but rather one to help you. -Babelious 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no reason to edit your userpage anymore, and as such will not. -Babelious 18:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I told you right here, "Taking page out of Category:User templates and Category:Intelligence user templates"
 * "In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your userpage, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons," which it wasn't your page needed to be taken out of those categories. It doesn't matter now, your page isn't in those categories and as such I could care less how badly formatted your userpage is. -Babelious 19:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh my gosh I am a native speaker of English thank you very much, if not on the en-5 level as I study grammar a lot.
 * Do you know why I wanted to end it? Because it is over. It is done with. We reached a consensus, there is no reason to go on. You have already crossed three rules that I cited above, now you are about to cross WP:CIVIL with your Mensa elitism.
 * I suggest you stop right now and reassess the situation, before you embarrass yourself any further. -Babelious 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to indicate that this user is in fact incorrect, it is not subst: that causes the problem, but apparently some of your user boxes were copied and pasted from source code. of course, this is what he should have done in the first place. —Random832 18:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This incident is archived here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive351 Tstrobaugh (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LCHS logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:LCHS logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LCHS newlogo.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:LCHS newlogo.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Albert Frank
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Albert Frank, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Meetup/Philadelphia 6
<div width="300px" style="float: left; clear: right; margin: 3px; padding: 3px; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; background: #ffffff;"> You're invited to the

Sixth Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup

January 2008

Time: January 26th, 5:00 PM

Location: The Marathon Grill, 10th and Walnut RSVP (view/edit this template) You have received this message because you are on the invite list, you may change your invite options via that link. BrownBot (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Open Chess Championship
Thanks for your fix to the winners of the 1991 U.S. Open Chess Championship. Quale (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of category from your userpage
Hi. In enacting consensus from User categories for discussion, I have removed the category Category:Wikipedians interested in books from your userpage. It was determined in that deletion debate that this category should be depopulated of individuals, but kept as a parent category. If you wish to display a category reflecting your interest in books, please consider one of the specific sub-categories under its umbrella. Thanks, and please excuse the necessary editing of your user page! Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

edit to your sandbox page
Hi, Tstrobaugh. fyi, I dropped colons into the the front of the category listings in the templates on your sandbox page to keep it from showing up in the category itself. Gwguffey (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You're invited!
<div width="300px" style="float: left; clear: right; margin: 3px; padding: 3px; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; background: #ffffff;"> You're invited to the

Sixth Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup

April 5, 2008

Time: 5:00 PM

Location: The Marathon Grill, 10th and Walnut RSVP (view/edit this template) This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Planning for the 7th Wikipedia Meetup
The planning for the summer Philadelphia meetup has begun. We would appreciate your input. You're getting this invitation because you're on Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia/Philadelphia meet-up invite list. BrownBot (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Boris Baczynskyj nominated for deletion
I am writing to let you know that I have nominated for deletion the Boris Baczynskyj article that you created. Please participate in the discussion if you wish. Krakatoa (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You're invited!
<div width="300px" style="float: left; clear: right; margin: 3px; padding: 3px; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; background: #ffffff;"> You're invited to the

Seventh Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup

March 15, 2009

Time: 3:00 PM

RSVP (view/edit this template) This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Warwick High School (Lititz, PA)
Please do not remove content without citing a reason. You are removing relevant information and replacing it with unsourced info. In addition, people are not notable only for one event or for being related to someone. Please discuss any further changes on the article talk page before making any more removals. Thank you. KV5 •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  19:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.  KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  19:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to remove the information that you deleted. It was sourced and verifiable. The information that you replaced it with contains 1 redlink who is not notable. As stated above, people are notable neither for a single event nor for being related to someone. Your reversions could be considered vandalism. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  19:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

James Hoffer is not notable and does not belong in the Warwick High School article. The reference you provided does not establish his notability as outlined in the relevant guideline. Continuing to re-insert this information could lead to a block. Please refrain. Thank you. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 16:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please ensure that you understand the policy on notability and the content guidelines that govern what should and should not be included within articles vs. what is suitable for a stand-alone article before deleting content. Thanks. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 16:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You're invited!
<div width="300px" style="float: left; clear: right; margin: 3px; padding: 3px; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; background: #57A22B;"> You're invited to the

Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup

March 15, 2009

Time: 3pm

Location: Drexel University 'RSVP (view/edit this template'') In the afternoon, we will hold a session at Drexel dedicated to discussing Wikimedia Pennsylvania activity and cooperation with the regional Wikimedia New York City chapter.

Are events like a Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia in our future?

In the evening, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local Italian restaurant. This has been an automatic delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse
Hello, Tstrobaugh. I do not see how this edit by you is helpful to the article. For one, penetration of non-sexual organs does not lead to pregnancy unless it is by anal sex where semen has leaked into the vagina. This, however, is still an unlikely way to get pregnant by. People do not get pregnant directly through anal sex, and certainly not by oral sex. Thus, I feel that this addition to the lead is confusing and unneeded. Flyer22 (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, by stating non-sexual organs, we are simply talking about sexual organs directly responsible for reproduction (which I will now link to within the lead). There is no need to put "typically non-sexual organs" there. Flyer22 (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just coming back to say that I cannot find any documented cases where a person (a woman, of course) has gotten pregnant during anal sex by semen having leaked into her vagina, but I know that it is not impossible (I came across one post from a man who says that it happened to his girlfriend during their act of anal sex). If I find anything valid on it, I will definitely add it to the Sexual intercourse article, not to the lead but somewhere within the article. It would definitely serve to make people think twice before using anal sex as some kind of alternative birth control, no matter how unlikely pregnancy is to result from the act. There are online articles, though not the most impressive per WP:Reliable sources, and discussions about this topic regarding the likelihood of it. Thank you at least for making me feel it would be an interesting little passage to note within the article, such as a section on the likelihood of getting pregnant by biologically non-reproductive ways due to accidents during those sex acts. Flyer22 (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talk page, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

De re publica
Hi. Just to let you know, I have provided the reasons for removing your additions in the edit summaries. We have a sister project, Wikiquote, for collections of quotations; we don't need them in the Wikipedia articles (see WP:QUOTE).  RJC  TalkContribs 05:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia
<div width="300px" style="float: left; clear: right; margin: 3px; padding: 3px; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; background: #57A22B;"> You're invited to the

Wiki Takes Philadelphia

October 4, 2009

Time: 12 pm

Location: Drexel Quad (33rd and Market) University City, Philadelphia 'RSVP (view/edit this template'')

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia is a photo scavenger hunt and free content photography contest to be held all around Philadelphia aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles.

Scheduled for Sunday, October 4, 2009, the check-in location will be at the Drexel University quad (between Chestnut and Market, 33rd and 32nd) at noon, and the ending party and photo uploading (location to be announced) will be at 6 PM. To reach the Drexel quad, walk south from Market Street at 32nd Street into the campus.

'''[http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?hl=en&formkey=dC1OUlVTRUJwempjREg3VkRHUEF1Z3c6MA.. Register your team here]'''

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi!
I hope you're well. Xavierjouve (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:2009Sep18 Rajiv Shah.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:2009Sep18 Rajiv Shah.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:USDA ARS ERRC.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:USDA ARS ERRC.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Image sources
You need to add a link to where the images came from so the copyright status is verifiable. "Federal government" itself doesn't say much, especially since those websites can also host copyrighted material. Regards Hekerui (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Image use policy: "Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer." You're welcome. Hekerui (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Hi- I don't think we've met, but we work in the same building! I'm glad to know there's another Wikipedian here. I usually keep my real name off Wikipedia, so I'll introduce myself in person when I get the chance. We should talk encyclopedias sometime, offline. ike9898 (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You're invited to Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway
Hi, I think it's best to discuss the issue of bi-polarism and the reasons for being careful with those edits to Ernest Hemingway on the talkpage, rather than reverting without an edit summary. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Georg Wilhelm Pabst
Great work on the Pabst articles. On his navigation box, redirects should be avoided. I've fixed a couple - please get back to me if you have any questions.  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me! Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

re: Ballerina (film)
Thanks for linking me to that policy - I've never seen it before. I don't see how it serves any purpose, though. If anything, it's detrimental to the English WP as it hides redlinks. Lets say that actress doesn't have an article on here, but she is linked 20 times in other articles. How would anyone know about the redlinks if they were all pointing off the English WP to another language project? The film article for Ballerina should be enough for someone to follow the interwiki of that page to see missing actors/actresses in English having blue links in German. Maybe one for that policies talkpage!  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already explained, in my reply above.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the policy is quite franly bollocks, and I stand by a better policy.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oligo
It looks like you've added 'page look like advertisement' on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLIGO_Primer_Analysis_Software

Please check if it still does. I've wrote 4 letters to Wiki contributors about that (second to you) and I see no replies. I know you're a very busy man, but please respond somehow. Wojciech Rychlik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olitek (talk • contribs) 19:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

1/23/11 Please take a look at this page again. Recently it has been edited so that any 'advertisement-like' phrases should not exist. Please comment if you still see the problem or remove the banner. Thanks! Wojciech Rychlik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olitek (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

UGENE
Hi Tstrobaugh,

I'm the author of the wikipedia UGENE article. Could you please propose changes needed to remove the 'advertisement' notice from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGENE ?

I don't really see reasons for marking it is an ad, since there are tons of software projects with similar pages: some project info + feature list + couple of screenshots.

Thank you.

March 2011
Sorry about that, got my tabs mixed up this morning. Thanks for fixing my error. ScottSteiner (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Homebrewing
Thank you for your contribution on the Homebrewing page. However, you added text to a section of the article that was already in need of citation. When you add information, please provide your source by using an appropriate citation template. Directions for their use can be found at WP:cite Thanks. Cliff (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> In this issue...

- Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia &bull; It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom &bull; To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

File:Errc bldg logo.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Errc bldg logo.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Translation of Voltaire
I shall reply to you on the article talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I have declined your request for a third opinion as there are more than two editors involved in the discussion at this point. Please feel free to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Signature
While wondering whether to add anything to the discussions at RSN and Talk:Teleological argument, I noticed that your signature does not have a timestamp. Is that intentional? A signature should be made by typing four tildes (not three), and should show the current time/date. Johnuniq (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks.Tstrobaugh (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion
I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion. You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Join us this Saturday (July 30) at the Philadelphia Wiknic
Join us this Saturday (July 30) at the Philadelphia Wiknic, the "picnic anyone can edit". This is an opportunity to meet other local Wikipedians, have fun, and discuss potential projects.

The event is this Saturday, between 1pm-5pm at the Picnic Grove in Penn Park.

(To unsubscribe from future messages, remove your name from WikiProject Philadelphia/Philadelphia meet-up invite list.)

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)