User talk:Wisl/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Dfrg.msc 07:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Cheap
Original question copied from JimHxn's talk page: "This is detail stuff, but here I go anyway: I noticed you wrote the Dog House Music article. I myself was working on the chronology of the albums in the Seasick Steve article. I noticed you decided on '2005' for the Cheap album. In the 2006 interview (see external links at Seasick Steve) they say '2004'. Do you have a source that says 2005? Key to the city 23:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)"

Sorry, it must've been a mistake/typo or something, i concur that it is indeed a 2004 release

JimHxn 10:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I thought I had reverted the addition of "Ice cream" to the Naples page. Instead, I had reverted the revert. Thanks for reverting back! :P Sicilianmandolin 20:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My response copied from Sicilianmandolin's talk page:"No problem. Key to the city 21:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)"

My project?
Original question copied from Danny's talk page:"Hi, can you please take a look at WikiProject Resource Exchange, I need your opinion on a big merge concerning your project. Key to the city 12:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)"

Thanks for your note. I am not sure I understood it. Can you please elaborate? Danny 16:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My response copied from Danny's talk page:"So, the project I mean by 'your project' is Library. I thought this was your project because you had the first edit of that page, and a lot of edits following after that first one. Maybe I'm wrong. On the discussion page of the WikiProject Resource Exchange, I started a discussion about the merging of Library with 3 other projects with a similar goal. Anyways, you can ignore all this if you weren't one of the founders of the Library project. Key to the city 19:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)"

Merging pages into Wikipedia:Resource Exchange
It is generally considered polite to leave notes on the talk pages of the relevant projects about why you want to merge them, and perhaps notify the main people involved in those projects, before merging WikiProjects together... I'm not that the resource exchange and the newspaper request project were quite the same thing. I note you left a merge tag on the newspapers project, but I didn't see any other notice... sorry, this just caught me by surprise, and I would have liked a note about it :) thanks, -- phoebe/ (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read the merge tag, it says: "Discuss" and it is linked to the discussion about the upcoming merge. There, I had written out my arguments and proposal. You can still read it at the Resource Exchange talk page. And I did notify everyone that had the first edit of the involved projects. After I left my merge template and notifications I waited for over a week, and I only got two reactions.


 * My main arguments: the projects had the same goal: helping people find documentation for their edits, and if you spread that goal over a number of projects the editor has to look all over wikipedia to find his resource help. If we bundle our efforts we can function a lot better. Plus two of those projects were pretty dead, so by merging we can save the information provided by those dead projects. Key to the city 08:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Phoebe's response copied from Phoebe's talk page: "Over a week is not so long for two projects that are 'pretty dead' -- it's worth assuming that the editors interested in them aren't logging in that often. Not everything has to happen quickly.. -- phoebe/ (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)"


 * True, it is relatively fast. But it's not irreversible, so what's the harm in trying a different approach? Isn't this how Wikipedia works? All I did was follow the 'be bold' guideline and I even used the discussion page, merge proposal templates, etc.. I didn't want to anger anyone.
 * I do get the feeling that you are annoyed with me, though.
 * For the record, I still didn't get any reaction from the main people involved in the old projects. But if you feel that the new approach isn't the right one, you should propose a split or a big revert. Key to the city (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Bibliotheca Alexandrina
Original question copied from TheEgyptian's talk page: "Concerning your last edit to the Bibliotheca Alexandrina article: I don't get how the article falls in the non-governmental organisations category? Do you have a specific reason for adding that category? Key to the city 17:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)"

Hi Key to the city. I got the words personally from a person who works for the library. You may find that noted here. If not, you may wish to contact Moushira. Thank you.--TheEgyptian 10:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Still don't see how that makes it non-governmental. I'll contact Moushira. Key to the city 13:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Key to the city. Sorry for delayed reply. Kindly check the following link. The library as an entity belongs to the presidency, however with no overruling of governmental polices; those are approved by the council of patrons and BOT. BA had to have a legal entity as being founded on Egyptian lands, that's why it belongs to the presidency. However it remains free and independent from governmental rules. Otherwise it would have belonged to a ministry, or has become a ministry by itself, which is not the case. Kindly notify me if you need more clarification. Thank you.--Moshirah 15:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC

welcome colleague
Glad to see you on the librarian page.-- just what program are you in & what's you're specialty? Lots of things here that need your help. My mail is enabled if you want to chat. DGG (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a whole bunch of courses, no specialty yet:
 * filosophy/theory of information science
 * history of book and library
 * statistics in the information sector
 * technology for automated document information systems
 * structure in document information systems
 * retrieval in document information systems
 * social aspects of information
 * law and information
 * management strategy in the information sector
 * data processing in information
 * present issues in publishing and booktrade
 * And I'm probably doing an internship transforming 18th/19th century etches into electronic form. For now, I'm pretty new to all of it. Key to the city 09:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Still need to look around and try things out to see in what way I'll be helping the Librarians project though. Also depends on the area of information science that will get my preference in the future. Key to the city 13:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you so much for the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar! I really appreciate it!Postmortemjapan 14:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Paul Kirk
Original question copied from Mgm's talk page:"I was wondering if this request has been fulfilled, or do you still want me to look? I got the idea that Phoebe send you a copy? Key to the city 12:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)"

Phoebe might have sent me a copy, but if they did, I didn't receive it. I would really appreciate it if you could help out. - Mgm|(talk) 18:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll see what I can do. Key to the city 19:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Email on its way. - Mgm|(talk) 09:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Graffiti
Thanks for reverting the tags on the Graffiti article. I hadn't spotted that when I reverted the spam link. I do wonder what some people have for breakfast: Vandalism a racial slur? Give me a break. B1atv 12:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I don't get it either, at first I thought it was a lad with a 'graffiti is not a crime' agenda, but the ethnic slur thing is way out there. Key to the city 12:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

request for a Guardian article
Original question copied from Mgm's talk page: "Hi, I forgot if it was you I already informed by e-mail or someone else, but I've found the article you requested at the Newspaper and magazine request service (now Resource Exchange). If you could send me your e-mail address, then I'll mail you a scan of the article. I now this is a late reaction, but I'm trying to revive the project. Hope the article is still of use to you. Key to the city 16:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)"

I just emailed you, and good luck reviving the project. If there's anything I can do to help, let me know. Steve block Talk 10:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Death Note "Forum"
As I said on Silver Edge's talk page:


 * Hi. I undid your edit to the talk page and posted a short response instead which politely discouraged turning the talk page into a discussion forum. I think we should be careful not to bite the newbies. I'm not sure this is what you had in mind, but I think this better handles the situation. Drumpler 08:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I think a higher law is in order. Should we really try to alienate a potential Wikipedia editor because they didn't know it wasn't a discussion forum? I had left a comment directly on the talk page itself, where I suspect the editor would have looked, telling them why it wasn't a discussion forum and where to look if they want to discuss the intricacies of Death Note. I think just removing it may be construed as biting the newbies.

Hope this clarifies. ^^ Drumpler 18:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, that's fine if you think that's the best way and you feel that strongly about it. Personally, I'd put the message on the editor's talk page (even if it's an ip editor), and I don't consider my action as biting. For one: newcomers are not made of sugar, two: being that careful with them would render the 'talk page is not a forum' guideline useless because every 'forum' message posted would stay under the 'do not bite the newbies' guideline and you'd still get a useless mess on the talk pages. Key to the city 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

George Gould Strong
Original question copied from Nunh-huh's talk page: "Your request for this person's obituary has been answered at The Resource Exchange. Please do react on the reply at the request page or let me know if you already dealed with all this so I can put your request with the fulfilled requests. Key to the city 13:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)"

Yes, George Gould Strong was the guy depicted in the musical Grey Gardens. Basically, I know this: he was born 21 January 1910 in East Hampton, New York, the son of John Young Strong and Fannie (Baker) Strong, growing up in a house on Amagansett Road. He lived for a time in Paris, and in New York City at 725 Lexington Avenue, probably after he lived at Grey Gardens. He was, as depicted in the musical, the personal accompanist of Edith Beale; he was also an accompanist in Paris and New York, and is said to have had a radio show in New York. Though the musical depicts him as gay, it's not that clear that's actually true, and it's certainly not true that he committed suicide (except metaphorically); he died, apparently about 1964 in Southampton Hospital in Southampton, Long Island, the cause of death apparently being gastrointestinal hemorrhage from drinking, complicated by the fact that he had become a Christian Scientist (which may be something he picked up from Mrs. Beale). I wanted especially to firm up his date of death (the 1964 is an estimate based on someone's recollection that he died when she was 12), which is probably only possible if his obituary can be located in the Southampton Bee or Easthampton Star or one of the other local papers. - Nunh-huh 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Article name
''Original statements copied from WhisperToMe's talk page: You asked to look at an online article from the NYT at the Newspaper & magazine request service (now merged with WikiProject Resource Exchange). I believe the article doesn't require a subscription anymore. But I looked at it for you anyway and here is the name you were looking for: Third to escape Norris 204: Caroline Merrey. Cheers. Key to the city 11:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC) ''


 * "Ok, I just saw that the redirect already exists so you probably found the name yourself. Sorry for the late response at your request. The project was dead, but I'm trying to revive it now. Key to the city 11:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)"

Thank you for the article name :) WhisperToMe 13:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

efficient delivery of articles
Possibly, it might be a good idea to explain to people that they can place their own interlibrary loan requests, and then offer to follow up if they have difficulties.
 * Also, for standard scientific journals, if anyone is in a hurry, several of us can supply them directly and immediately. I don't unfortunately have time to routinely work at the resource exchange, but anything not purely in clinical medicine available as an ejournal, I can probably get the same day, if people email me from my user page. I don't over-publicize it, for the usual librarian's reason that I couldn't handle all the requests. But keep it in mind if needed.DGG (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip and your help. I'm cleaning up Resource Exchange step by step, and I'll try to mention the ILL and maybe a link to some sort of manual how to place an ILL request when I get to the Request Service section. Key to the city (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a reference to ILL. Key to the city (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Keel-Billed Toucan
Hey friend, you must have misread the changelog, because I was actually trying to repair the vandalism that someone else had done to that article. I might have made a few errant clicks with the mouse, but I removed quite a bit of inappropriate & vulgar language from the page. So, if you've got the time to lecture me then you could also take the time to apologize and give thanks.

And, in case you're still curious or furious, here is the vandal you seek: 24.151.77.41 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.35.119 (talk) 1 December 2007


 * A mistake. That happens. Key to the city 00:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Rudolf Rocker
Hi, I've created the articles Nationalism and Culture and Pioneers of American Freedom using the journal articles you sent me. Much of the information will also be incorporated into the article about Rudolf Rocker. I just wanted to thank you for your help once again.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff! You're welcome. Oh yeah, for the record, can I move your request at the Resource Exchange to filled status now? Or would you still like to wait and see if someone responds for the remaining articles? Key to the city (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking for an article
Hello, I am looking for a Wikipedian who could access and send me this academic article. I was suprised to learn that my university doesn't have access to it, and I could very much use it in the series of articles I am currently working on at Wikipedia (Suwalki Agreement, Zeligowski's Mutiny and others). I noticed you are part of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange], and I would like to ask if you have access to this article? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey. I didn't have electronic access, and my library carries the serial, but from 1983 onwards. What I did do is place an interlibrary loan request. The thing is, the library here goes into christmas vacation starting saturday. There is a chance that I'll get the article before saturday (most of the time, they send a scan by e-mail), but it's a close call. I'll let you know. Otherwise it'll arrive in Januari, if you can wait that long... Key to the city (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! My @ is piokon at post dot pl. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The article has been e-mailed. Good luck. Key to the city (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Reminder for myself
Read this article: Wikipedia Rules. Key to the city (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Check. Key to the city (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Read these Wiki-theories: Raul's and other's dynamics.

resource exchange contact
''Original statements copied from Phoebe's talk page: "Hey. New year, new start? Well, I recently added a navigation box to the Resource Exchange. One of the features is a help desk, where I'd like to put a couple names of people willing to answer questions about searching for resources. Since you already described yourself as someone willing to help in the 'Direct contact' section, I thought you might be interested. What do you think? Key (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)"

Sure, I'm definitely still willing to help -- go ahead & list me as a contact. My WP email is probably the best way. Thanks for setting this up! Happy new year. -- phoebe/ (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ''My response copied from Phoebe's talk page:"Happy newyear for you too. Key (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)"

Request For Rollback
I have fulfillied your request for rollback. Best Wishes. Pedro : Chat  13:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! Key (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tall bike - Lance Armstrong link
Regarding your reversion of my edit: and your comment, "removed sentence: not notable + not an acceptable source (see Wikipedia:Verification#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29": I disagree on both counts.  First of all, how is the world's most famous cyclist riding one of these bikes not notable?  What else could be more notable than an establishment figure giving an air of legitimacy to a rising counterculture phenomenon?  As for citing a self-published-source (blog), this wasn't an attempt to cite an "expert" (although I could argue that, in the field of tall bikes, it would be hard to find a more authoritative figure than the blog's author).  Rather, it was merely a citation of a fact, one which I do not see being disputed.  Would you prefer this link instead (perhaps as not self-published)? Sure, maybe this story didn't receive a lot of mainstream media attention, but it still happened. Lance still rode the bike. The photograph is verifiable objective evidence, even if it wasn't published in the New York Times. I think that, in the case of a counter-culture phenomenon (such as freak bikes), Wikipedia is best served by including whatever references are available, even self-published ones, instead of only relying on mainstream media, which ignores a lot of things that go on in the world. Notability does not mean that the mainstream media and academia get to be the sole arbiters of what's written down in history. I would argue that "Be bold" applies here, even if the sources are blogs and other websites. At least I attempted to provide some citation; half of that Tall bike page is completely uncited. Why not get all admin on the unsourced stuff instead of being picky about what citations are actually there? Dan Korn (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey. Maybe I shouldn't have said 'not notable', I used that in a wrong context, but you wrote: "The profile of tall bikes was raised when famous bicycle racer Lance Armstrong rode a tall bike in January 2008". I'm not doubting that Armstrong did in fact do that, that's fact, but that 'the profile was raised' is not fact. The fact that it was only published as a blog post or two, even points out that it did not have much of an impact at all. I mean an impact that should be mentioned in an encyclopedia, meant for the general public. Maybe Armstrong once rode a monocycle too. Maybe Armstrong read the DaVinci Code and liked it. But should we write that in an encyclopedia? Think about it. For your other source: that's a blog too. Blogs are by definition self-published, and it's just Wikipedia policy not to include those kind of information sources. I'm not the one to direct your complaints to about that. But that guideline exists for a reason: a encyclopedia is a summary, you can't include every little detail. With all that said, if you're still convinced that it should be included, please do it with a more modest tone. It kind of sounded like it changed the whole concept of a tall bike. Please don't take this personal either. Cheers. Key (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, everything Lance Armstrong does isn't notable. That's why I didn't add the information to the Lance Armstrong page.  The question is, is this notable within the context of the history of tall bikes?  I think it is.  Yeah, if Lance read the DaVinci Code, that wouldn't be notable, but if the pope was seen smiling while reading it, that would arguably be notable.  In the same way, a cultural icon like Lance Armstrong, who's seen as the face of cycling by many people, making use of a counter-culture device such as a tall bike is a big deal, within the admittedly intimate world of tall-biking.  If it's only mentioned on a couple of blogs, then you could question the notability of tall bikes in general, but this is about as notable as anything regarding tall-biking gets.  As for the Wikipedia policy, I don't see where it says that using blogs as a source is completely verboten.  The intent of that policy is not to prevent the inclusion of details, it's to avoid unverifiable information from questionable sources, with the ultimate goal of avoiding false information.  But that's not an issue here.  Unless you think that the picture itself is a fake, it's a completely legitimate source of facts.  How would that same picture being published in a mainstream newspaper make it any more worthy as a source?  Now, if your problem is with the tone of my statement that 'the profile was raised,' I'm happy to consider alternate wording.  However, one could argue that since tall bikes are not a generally well-known phenomenon (which is different than saying that they're not notable), then it wouldn't take much, even a few blog postings within the cycling community, to raise their profile.  I think that the standards for documenting underground, counterculture phenomena and movements have to be a bit different than for mainstream things.  I mean, there's a lot of stuff on Wikipedia, like scientific information, that's very obscure, which probably only even a few people can even understand, much less care about.  Sure, an encyclopedia is for the general public, but the whole idea is to document things as accurately as possible.  Is a page like WKB_approximation geared toward the general public?  Not really, but it's still information.  Likewise, if a cultural movement's only sources of information are online or in blogs, then that's what has to be referenced.  This isn't original research, just a reference to a notable moment in the history of tall-biking.  Just because it's only documented in a blog and not in some corporate magazine doesn't make it any less true or worthy of inclusion as a valid point of data.  Anyway, regarding changing the wording, maybe we can leave off the part about raising the profile and just say: 'Famous bicycle racer Lance Armstrong rode a tall bike in January 2008'  What do you think about that?  Perhaps there could even be a section about particularly notable tall bikes and their riders, or milestones in tall-biking history.  I'm open to suggestions here.  And I'm not taking this personally, but I still think it's inappropriate to remove something factual and non-trivial just because you don't agree with the validity of the source while at the same time ignoring all the rest of the unsourced information in the article.  Should this dicussion be moved to the Talk:Tall_bike page?  Dan Korn (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, took me a while to think things over, but you're right. I see what you mean with how this is an event in the history of the tall bike. And my reasoning about the relation between the size of the impact and the type of source is indeed flawed. Those blogs seem like they are the only sources, so I guess you're right about using it as a reference too. I'm fine with stating that Armstrong rode a tall bike and something like that it was 'a striking meeting of different ends of the bicycle culture'. But maybe in better English :)
 * Saying it 'raises the profile of tall biking' would be original research sort of, because that's our own conclusion. But I think we're on the same frequency now... So go ahead. Key (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and about the other unsourced content. I was just watching the changes of the article, I haven't found time to look for sources and work on the article yet. Key (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I thought about it some more, and I'm still not convinced about including the fact that Lance Armstrong rode a tall bike in the article. Take your example of the pope who smiled when he read the DaVinci Code. Ok, that's a fun/interesting fact, but does it belong in an encyclopedia article about the book? If people are looking up DaVinci Code in a encyclopedia, then that kind of detail is not what they should be looking after. An encyclopedia is to get to know the subject you're interested in, but is fairly new to you. Actually, including this fact in an encyclopedia would give it more weight than it deserves, and it would be blown out of proportion.
 * Same with Armstrong: I'm not saying it's not an interesting fact, but isn't it more something that the incrowd hears about, they go "oh, cool" and that's pretty much it? Is it going to change anything about tall biking? Is it really going to be a significantly bigger phenomenon now? Putting the fact in an encyclopedia would sure look like it did have a lot of impact on the phenomenon. Do you honestly think it does, or notice change since it happened?
 * I'm not going to stop you from including the fact, but I'm hoping you think about it again, or that you can give an explanation about why and how exactly this is going to be important for tall biking. Key (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation


Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies. If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when fact is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tag:
 * Timefact displays {chronology source needed} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click  here for more information

At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.  Dao  ken  11:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Rops
You're wrong, I'm afraid. I presume you don't work on visual arts articles much? Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion copied from Johnbod's talk page: Hey. To make things clear: I know one image isn't enough for an artist, but there's a commons link to a whole gallery of his works... I don't see why they need to be duplicated. The Wikipedia article loses its layout and overview by adding images. Key (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)



You're wrong, I'm afraid. I presume you don't work on visual arts articles much? Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you explain why I'm wrong? I did the edit after I read what the guidelines have to say about this. Maybe this will help this discussion, from Layout:

If an article has many images, so many, in fact, that they lengthen the page beyond the length of the text itself (...), you can try to use a gallery, but the ideal solution might be to create a page or category combining all of them at Wikimedia Commons and use a relevant template (...) and link to it instead, so that further images are readily found and available when the article is expanded.
 * I'll be glad to agree with you, if you can tell me how I'm misusing this guideline.
 * (PS: you can keep the discussion on this talk page if you'd like, that way it's less confusing for me.) Key (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles on art are a special case - the pictures are often more important than the text, not just an illustration as usual. A gallery probably would be the ideal solution, but to cut to one, somewhat untypical, picture is not. See also WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style, though it does not addresss this specific situation. You should also remember that images can appear very differently depending on the users settings and equipment. Hope this helps. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for refering to the visual arts manual of style, I didn't know about its existance. But even there, they actually give the same guideline: WikiProject_Visual_arts/Art_Manual_of_Style. Or are you saying that when you view it with your settings, the images don't go past the length of the text? Because my Wikipedia image settings are standard. Also, for the record, if the other picture is more typical, I'm fine with keeping that one. Key (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I have big settings, as I expect you do, but most users don't. The two pictures together give a resonable enough impression of the range of his art, which neither alone would do. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My settings are default. I think most people will have those too. The whole commons gallery gives a reasonable enough impression of the range of his art. It's not like the images are lost to the readers. I'm going to stop arguing about this, though: probably for the best, since we're not really convincing each other. Please, think about it again, and about the guidelines. I'm pretty sure you have to read them with default settings in mind. Key (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Karl Meersman

 * Wow, thanks! I thought I had to send in a request myself for 'did you know'. Key (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Initial message copied from quota's talk page:"Thanks for your edits to Karl Meersman. I wanted to leave a message because you said: 'most of this sounds self-promotional'. I used sources for everything, though, and of course these sources are rather positive about Meersman. But I'll be sure to include negative reports when I find them. Key (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)"

Thanks for your comment on my talk page ... yes the way the article sounds at the moment one might conclude that the subject himself wrote the article – which is not good for the person. So do cast a critical eye over it :-) quota (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

coordinator election
The Wikiproject History is going to elect 3 coordinators. As a member you are invited to participate. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiMania 2008
Hi Key. Thanks for the heads-up. I submitted a presentation. If they like it, that's cool. If not, that's cool too. :) Cheers. Romanpoet (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Image
Hi there,

we talked some time ago about an image i uploaded. I found the source of the pic and can you take a look if it's okay copyright wise? image is here:

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flying muse (talk • contribs) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So, your picture is based on the 'source picture' but is completely different. It's fine copyright-wise, I would think. You modified it so much, it became your image. I'm no expert either though. Key (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks

Flying Muse —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flying muse (talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 13:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Instructables hand logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Instructables hand logo.png. 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Courcelles 03:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)