User talk:Holly Cheng/Archive5: Difference between revisions

• /Archive1 July 25 - November 18, 2005
• /Archive2 November 29 - December 28, 2005
• /Archive3 December 30, 2005 - January 25, 2005
• /Archive4 January 25, 2005 - March 1, 2005

Thanks for having put that article together. Just wanted you to know it's truly appreciated. Mwelch 20:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your contribution to the 'Kikuyu' page. Would you mind adding a little more info about the image? I am interested about when and where the image was obtained - such as a tourist site, a festival, or other. In present day, one does not often see 'traditional dress.' Thanks --Kimathi 22:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was uploaded by wayfaring stranger. - Cybjorg 14:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was apparently listed twice, under two different days. I should have checked the talk page. Thanks for fixing it. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Wikipedia is being used to publicize an unverifiable attack. In this case, the target is Edward Winter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_G._Winter

Some sample ridiculous statements:

(1)  "For the past more than 30 years, every time a new book by Keene has come out or a new article by Keene has been published, Edward Winter has written articles attacking it."
(2)  "Kingston is from the same part of England that Winter is believed to be from."  ("Wow, I didn't know that ... San Diego, California (where I was born and lived until 1980) [is] part of England." - Taylor Kingston comment)
(3)  "Edward Winter filed an ethics complaint with the FIDE Congress accusing Keene of unethical conduct in writing books almost exclusively about opening theory, whereas Winter said there should be more books about chess history."
(4)  "Keene's opponent was Florencio Campomanes who Winter supported."
(5)  "Chess Notes ... contains brief commentaries usually not more than one or two paragraphs in length attacking usually insignificant errors and spelling mistakes made by this or that chess writer."
(6)  "If a book by Keene contains a spelling mistake, Chess Notes will point it out."

At rec.games.chess.politics, samhsloan@gmail.com has referred to this as "my biography". Sam Sloan is the one who contributed the subsequently deleted supposed USCF blacklist. See discussion at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_Life#Authors_Banned_or_Blacklisted_by_USCF_Sales

He also contributed the subsequently deleted Tom Dorsch "biography". See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch

It should not be necessary for anyone to do a point by point refutation of the Edward Winter "biography". The "verifiable" sources do not exist and the author will not be able to produce them, as even a minimal amount of inquiry would reveal. I apologize once again for not being acquainted with the details of Wikipedia procedure. I have no interest in Wikipedia beyond the hope that those in charge will take measures to prevent its use for the promotion of garbage. I am posting this note here because you have some past experience with Sam Sloan. I imagine that you will know the best way to procede. - Louis Blair (March 3, 2006)

You can follow the links and see that Elsie holds the copyright on those picture. However, I won't object any decision that you may make.--Pjetër Bogdani III 04:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam_Sloan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken Tom Dorsch to WP:DRV. I guess you've looked at Sam Sloan's web page? this is an example. This goes some way to explain why the article was so very bad - Sloan evidently bears considerable personal animosity toward sthe subject. This Google search is also instructive. Expect some crap from Sam Sloan, feel free to ask me (email or Talk) if you need additional backup, but I have a feeling you can handle a POV pusher well enough :-) Just zis Guy you know? 10:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a couple of days to prepare email etc. As you can see, I got permissions to incorporate into Wikipedia all Elsie's articles (including three different sites!), not books. This is not so small amount of articles. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you do not mind too much if I trouble you once again. Sam Sloan has taken to repeatedly asserting, "User:Howcheng ... called Randy Bauer and Louis Blair my 'meatpuppets'." (See, for example, the "Third Opinion" section of Sam Sloan's talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Sloan) I had absolutely no involvement in the Dom Dorsch article discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch), so I assume that you never called me a "meatpuppet". Would you be kind enough to make a statement to that effect on Sam Sloan's talk page? - Louis Blair (4 March 2006) OK. Apparently I was mistaken. But I most drefinitely NOT mistaken about User:Howcheng calling Randy Bauer, who was at that time the Budget Director of the State of Iowa, my "meatpuppet". Sam Sloan 04:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Since you originally prodded it Radio Askew has been de-prodded, re-prodded and de-prodded. So I thought you'd like to know that Radio Askew is now at AfD.--Royal Blue 11:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Howard! I Think AriGold left a message for you on Esperanza's talk page by mistake. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. My bad. I was just commenting that the same issue is popping up with users Lesfer and DrBat at the Typhoid Mary (comics) page. I won't make any more changes to it, just thought you should know though. The new image that Lesfer is trying to use has a source webpage that is not the same image as the one that he uploaded. I have no idea where it came from and am not getting involved anymore. AriGold 16:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howard,

You have recently uploaded a picture taken by me to Wikimedia Commons. The picture was licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license, and you listed it under the CC Attribution 2.0 license.

There are substantial differences between various Creative Commons licenses. In particular, Attribution-ShareAlike and Attribution licenses have different terms and conditions.

When copying images to Wikimedia Commons, please make sure that the licensing information you enter is correct.

Regards, Alexander Konovalenko 21:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid question, but could/would you modify the {{no license}} template so this text:

Also, please consider notifying the uploader with {{subst:image copyright|Image:Holly Cheng/Archive5}} ~~~~ and adding {{speedy-image-c}} to the image caption in any articles in which it's being used.

looks like this:

or something equivalent? Sort of like {{no source}}? Those of us challenged by cut and paste mechanics during image tagging would welcome the change.

Regards, Dethomas 03:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article as a copyvio because:

1. It was created all in one piece, and
2. The original revision [1] reads like a book, or a preface to one. Lines that made me suspicious include:

These are examples of successful online knowledge sharing infrastructures. What motivates this incredible contribution and how did these and other online knowledge sharing infrastructures encourage this voluntary contribution? (at the beginning of the article)

Let’s go over each of these motivations and describe how they have used in online communities of the past and today. (in section 1, "Motivations for Contribution")

For example, what is the point of posting to a forum if you do not think anyone will read it? Because of this reason and the fact that organizational culture does not change overnight, you can expect slow progress at first. (in section 3, "Online Community Virtuous Cycle")

1. Lastly, it was created by a new user, User:Snoutholder, who has not challenged the insertion of the copyvio tag on either the article's talk page or my user talk page.

I take back my last point. The user has said on his user talk page [2] that: "Only those passages in quotes are copied directly from the books so 90% of the article was written by myself."

In view of his statement, please advise whether the copyvio nomination should be withdrawn. I hope I didn't bite the newbie in the process. :-(

Please don't come to my userpage to make comments about pictures that I already tagged for speedy deletion (and were deleted by the time I saw your message). The point you're trying to make is dead, so why make it? (Aside from it being a screenshot so I don't see the big deal anyway). Thank you. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 18:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's kind of hard to assume good faith when there were no explanations posted on my talk page until after the image was deleted (so the point you were trying to make was dead). You could have come to my talk page, explained why the image should be deleted when it was tagged. Anyways, whatever...the image is deleted so this is a dead issue. Case closed. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 18:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your message. I have no problems with the deletion of the image, even if I used to sign with it, it's fine with me. Gryffindor 23:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My tagging is being constantly removed. (first tagging was 18 February 2006)

• Image:Armeniangenocide starved.JPG
• Image:Armeniangenocide starvedchildren.JPG
• Image:Armeniangenocide deadpeople.jpg
• Image:Turkish-genocide-killed-more-than-one-and-a-half-million-Armenians.jpg

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 03:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you finished up the images to be deleted in Category:Images_with_unknown_source_as_of_27_February_2006. Good work. Thanks for doing that. JesseW, the juggling janitor 13:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. Well, you're right - I don't know that it's a copyvio. But if you go to Wikipedia:Spotting possible copyright violations, this article meets 4 of the 5 warning criteria. It was basically put up at once (more or less), is unwikified, has kind of "catchy" section headings that are not standard wikipedia format, and the tone of the whole piece is more like a tribute than an encyclopedia. Also, if they'd done any basic research on him, rather than copy-and-paste, they'd know he's dead and would include his date of death. I'm sorry I haven't had more time to devote to it, but I will. I just did a quick google search and turned up this page [3] which is pretty darn close. Actually, this page [4] is even closer. The rest of the source article seems to be password protected. But I think if you take a look at these two, you'll agree they've been copied with minimal changes. Bruxism 00:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think those two sites offer enough proof of copyvio? Anyway, I should rewrite the whole thing. He was my cousin, actually (though I never met him). Bruxism 17:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have experimented with creating a new article, one which I believe would be beneficial to many researchers, but to no avail. I cannot figure out how to get the article to stay on for longer than a few hours. How can I get my article to remain on the site?

Hi, I changed the licensing of the four images you cited to {{HistoricPhoto}}, a fair use claim which I believe is the most appropriate. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is we cannot annonymously claim fair use. I am fine with a fair use claim if given which archive or book these images are orriginaly from. If they have been coppied illegaly (take a look at Talk:Armenian_Genocide/Archive_7#Photographs to see what I mean) from archives or websites they must be deleted.

For example: www.armenian-genocide.org copyright notice suggests:

"COPYING-AND-PASTING" OF ANY MATERIALS POSTED ON ANI'S WEB SITE TO YOUR WEB SITE, INCLUDING THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE MAPS, TEXTS, IMAGES, PHOTOS, DESIGNS, OR ANY PORTION OF ANY MAP, TEXTS, IMAGES, PHOTOS, DESIGNS, OR ANY OTHER INFORMATION CONSTITUTING ANY PART OF ANI'S WEB SITE, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED (See Publishing below for further information). ^[5]

Think this scneraio: Images were coppied from http://www.armenian-genocide.org to http://www.armeniapedia.org and to us. This would put wikipedia at a problematic situation. A fair use claim cannot apply.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you have removed Image:Sakharov timemag 1101770221 400.jpg and Image:Sakharov timemag 1101900514 400.jpg. I thought that my reply [6] to an IFD attempt took care of the issues, since no further comments were made. Why were they removed? Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the deletion was justified, especially given my response and the lack of comments. If we are talking about legalese (IANAL) I don't see difference between a caption and a text. Is a citation necessary? Is this for TIME mag only or for all fairuse images? Where can I find the requirements? Sorry, too many questions. I am planning to restore the images and comply with the rules but I feel this is unproductive waste of time, both yours and mine. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng, I have no need to start this article again as the subject is well covered in Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles (oops) --Peter Horn 03:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC). Cheers,--Peter Horn 03:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your support on the MetroStars vs RBNY issue. It's been a tough week for us Metro supporters, and many of us are having a difficult time with the transition, which for many will never occur. Every bit of support, for whatever reason, helps. DR31 _(talk) 15:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng, Could you tell me is there a must requirement to notify uploader of the images which are untagged and orphaned. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 11:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You recently undeleted my image Template:Grob Tutor 5AEF.jpg . I've been away from Wikipedia for a few months and so didn't notice the message saying it would be deleted until too late. I took the photo myself so will tag it as GFDL-self once undelted. This image is linked to from at least one article I'm aware of. Thanks, Steve Sc147 18:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sc147 19:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You removed "no source" tag from Image:Arashiyama 013.jpg but you haven't provided the copyright notice which is required for GFDL images. Could you please provide at least the name of the author? See WP:IDP and GFDL for more information. Thank you. --163.139.215.193 16:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added more detail to the page. Although I wasn't able to find the exact image on the OpenHistory web site, User:TakuyaMurata is a trusted user. howcheng {chat} 16:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For an image like Image:MS FENNICA MS NORDICA.jpg, we really need more than a URL to demonstrate sourcing. Otherwise every gallery of copyvios on the net can be claimed to be a "source". The website needs to make some kind of affirmative statement that "this is our picture, not somebody else's that we are borrowing/got permission for/copyvio'ing because we can". Stan 19:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering companies don't usually have helicopters with which to take pictures once the ship gets out to sea - it's more likely that the customer took the picture, and the company is using it with their permission, unstated on the website because it's their business, not ours. With legal issues like this, not a good idea to make too many "logical assumptions". Stan 19:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng, you have considered the image fair use. But before tagging no source Stan, it had two links that was removed by OrphanBot. You replaced the image on MS Fennica, but not on Icebreaker. Do you think it is not fair use for second one? Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 19:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man thanks for replacing that picture on James Douglas (governor) without even a discussion, now I dont even know what the original looked like. Perhaps if you werent in such a gigantic rush you would perhaps take a look at the pages you are changing indiscriminately and see that the picture you added is EXACTLY the same as the picture further down the page, just with terrible quality. Next time discuss and give me time to find the source. However it didn't stop there - then you delete the picture so I can't edit it back. Seems you've taken this whole site on for yourself. Seems to me this is a community and you should give the people who created these articles the chance to make things right themselves. Holy sh*t sometimes the users on this site really piss me off. Idea: begin consulting with people on the discussion page (ever heard of it?) before messing with an article in the way that you did. Kilter 19:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! That image comes from the B.C. Archives. I have an email from them which gives blanket permission to use their online images for Wikipedia. A little discussion could have yielded a solution to this without your precipitous edit. Could you please put the image back? Or do you want me to forward you the email I have? Fishhead64 19:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you weigh in at the bottom of the Talk Page for Katelyn Faber regarding the inclusion of an image of her? User:Tufflaw, who unsuccessfully tried to have the entire article deleted back in December 2005 insists on censoring/deleting it for extremely specious reasons, and I've been asked to gather a consensus. Please read the bottom two sections of that page. Thanks. Nightscream 19:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I didn't know. Thanks- Bavaria 19:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloan has opened two new RFAR's (one against me, the other against Rook_wave). If you're feeling extremely masochistic you might visit WP:RFAR and comment, but I can more than understand if you don't. Phr 09:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not worried about the arbcom getting fooled, and I see they deal with worse loons than Sloan every day of the week. In fact I guess this case is small potatoes by comparison, and it will be understandably rejected. I just cringe at the amount of hassle Sloan is going to continue causing between now and whenever. Phr 01:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you placed a featured picture in the picture of the day scheduling archive. Thanks for the help. Though you were probably unaware, that the pics are placed according to a formulized schedule, as determined by previous discussions in the featured pictures project. Up until April 19th, the formula is "in the order the pics were promoted to featured picture status as presented on Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 02 for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and as presented on Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 05 for Saturday, Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday. On April 19th, it goes to thumbs 05 exclusively, starting with "Remembrance Poppy". The thumbs are read starting from the bottom right and reading to the left. If you have further questions, please contact the pic of the day's admin, User:Solipsist. We could sure use your help keeping the pic of the day stocked 30 days in advance, and hope you continue chipping in (but according to the official schedule). Thank you. --Go for it! 01:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:NewBidwellBarBridge.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 18:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiend! Vandal!! You're trying to DESORTY WIKPEIA!11!!
This is an automated notice by HysteriaBot (Now with more exclamation points!) 22:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Howcheng. Could you please modify this page so that it does not show up in Category:Articles that need to be wikified. Thanks, Kjkolb 08:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this issue in my own monobook.js as well as on the project page. Just copy the new source (Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Quick wikify) and replace the old one. :-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 12:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I just made some significant changes to the script and you might want to grab the latest version. It now inserts the date the tag was added and will no longer appear when editing User pages. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 14:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. There are actually many memorials, usually small ones, but some rather prominent, that lack articles. The Peace Monument and the James A. Garfield Monument on the grounds of the United States Capitol are just a couple. — Eoghanacht ^talk 13:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howard, could you provide some discussion on the source for your new photo's caption in the Fallingwater article? (Nice pic, by the way.) Why would orthogonal rooflines be more harmonious than gabled? Much Arts and Crafts architecture, including Wright's early work, used gently sloping, even up-turned roof lines, which I don't think many see as a disjunction. Greene and Greene were heavily influenced by Japanese architecture.

The orthogonal lines of the house are distinctive features of this work and, I think, contrast with the landscape precisely becuase they are not found elsewhere on the site. The mix of natural stone and plain concrete in the structure itself seems to be the point of connection between the house and the site. Ciao, MARussellPESE 17:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just noticed your edit to Burney Falls, and I think you may have made a mistake when you were changing the image, as it led to this. I've reverted it, but I havn't changed anything else since I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to do. Were you trying to enlarge the image? If so, that can be done by specifying the pixel amount after "thumb" in the code, rather than changing the image from thumb to frame. If you were trying to change from thumb to frame though, you did everything right, but for reasons I've never been able to figure out, sometimes you have to specify the pixel amount when trying to do that, otherwise the image blows up. Hope that helps. Gershwinrb 01:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding some good images to various Keweenaw articles (such as Quincy Mine and Calumet, Michigan). The articles definitely needed the images. Keep up the good work! -- dcclark (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your knowledge of the the fair use policy wrt the Eurovision WikiProject userbox, I was wondering about the "promotional" status of pictures from certain sites. eg, http://www.eurovision.tv - a lot of images have been downloaded, but there is nothing to indicate whether the material is copyright or not. It would seem that the website is trying to generate publicity for the Eurovision Song Contest 2006, but does this mean that pictures on the site are "promotional"? Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 04:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply on the Copyright talk page. I think they might scrape as promotional. They are under the history section, no copyright notices, but the logos of each contest are also listed under this with "note copyright information". This may imply that the rest are OK to use for non-commercial purposes? Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 01:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Could you comment on the use of this image in that article? Lily Afshar's image has a fair use tag, so I don't think it can be used in that article. Aucaman^Talk 22:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on your Talk page there, just to let you know. -- hike395 20:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Sorry that I missed that: it wasn't very clear. Thanks for clarifying it! -- hike395 06:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your recent additons to FPC, keep it up! Its a pain in the butt to find good pics. I also work on Minnesota articles alot and have noticed your edits there as well, it's appreciated. How did you like the JET program? I haev a friend who is currently over there and he is having a blast. -Ravedave 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:TamarackMiners CopperCountryMI sepia.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

~MDD4696 22:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to have a pair of 'compare and contrast' photos of spring time high water and summer levels of no water when you replace the photo of the Cohoes falls at flood stage with a photo "where it's easier to see the subject" that shows only a small amount of water going over the falls. 69.204.130.8 02:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Kristi Myst personally. Her real name is NOT Tina Harlow, contrary to popular belief. I'm not going to publicize what it is, but it's not Tina Harlow.

Sure, no prob...just thought I'd let you know. -- JB 17:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC) JB196 4/21[reply]

1 other thing- not sure if it matters but Kristi was on myspace up until a fewmonths ago and at onepoint she made a public announcement that her real name wasn't Kristi Myst nor Tina Harlow and that instead her first name began with a J, so don't know if that constitues a verifiable sourcebut its worth mentionigm

Can I ask you for your input please? I have discovered that the policy change you proposed here—and which was subsequently approved and implemented—has subsequently (by accident or design) become much more limited in its description and application.

I've tried to discuss how to fix this situation here, and have attempted to amend the current wording to: "An article about a real person or group of people—for example, a band, club, family or organization—that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." (by adding the words in bold), which I believe more closely reflects the description that was voted on and approved: "This would apply to bands, clubs, organizations, couples, families, and any other collections of individuals that do not assert their importance or significance."

However, I've run into a certain amount of flak. There have been claims that I have been attempting to "expand" A7 (which is not my intent at all). And the the change that I made (above) was reverted with the comment "You're unilateral edit to a7 was undone by me. I see no consensus here for a new wording. So, please wait till that happens before editing it again please." But I don't believe this is a new wording. It's an old wording that has itself been changed to its current state without consensus.

I really don't want to get into any kind of edit war. Do you think this problem is worth addressing? If so, what approach would you suggest? GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:MtHood TrilliumLake.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

Congratulations on a unanimous propmotion! ~ Veledan • Talk 18:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Can you please help me? I am currently in a edit war with an anonymous user, 196.15.168.40, at first, their contribution was helpful; however, now they've made the article too long and very opinionated. This person leans towards the fact that Westerfield may be innocent. If you read her/his version of the article you will clearly see that. They put in WAY too many details, instead of making the article a summary of the case. I constantly revert and then they reinstate their version. Can you, please, do something about this? Thanks. TripleH1976 02:00pm., 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Actinoform cloud, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Fort Massachusetts, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 07:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with this category. Now we come to the issue that has vexed us more than once on the basketball front: what to do with the women players who fit the same category. We recently split all women and men's categories for college basketball. So is it right to make this category "McDonald's High-School All-Americans (boys)" despite the fact that most aren't boys any more, or to put the women into this category with the men, or something else entirely? Thoughts?--Mike Selinker 23:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'll put the ones I can find. Only Candace Parker comes to mind immediately.--Mike Selinker 00:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turned out to be just three: Parker, Ann Strother, and Seimone Augustus. Maybe in a few years there'll be a lot more, but for now, just putting with the boys seems great, so I did that.--Mike Selinker 01:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Yuba Goldfields, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 13:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Ship tracks, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Great article! I decommonsed the image for a while but will delete it so the commons version prevails, once the article is off DYK. ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Crops Kansas AST 20010624.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

~ Veledan • Talk 19:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please move the Sandhills (Nebraska) article back to its previous location; the naming of the article was discussed and voted upon back in January. – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 19:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discrepancy in usage between the previous article title and the article text is my fault; I failed to change the spelling variant after the page was moved back in January. (Personally, I also prefer the "Sand Hills" variant to "Sandhills", but I was yelled about using it on my talk page a while back, and the "Sandhills" variant was the variant selected in the discussion/vote.) Anyway, as a person who grew up just east of the Sand Hills, I know that the "Sandhills" spelling variant is much more common among the people who live there; as you noted, "Sand Hills" tends to be used more frequently in official usage, as well as by "outsiders".

If nothing else, I'd like the spelling variants of both the Nebraska and Carolina regions to be consistent. – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 19:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it seems to be that you're my article-naming soulmate; I had voted for the non-parentheses name. In the end, feel free to move those articles around as you see fit; I'll make sure to redirect any ire I receive in your direction.  :-P – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 19:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Heart Mountain, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

wow, what a slide! Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 01:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and another one:

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article erg, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

well done! Very nice article. ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I am glad you found my link useful. I am that "new external link added" type of guy :-) Smithbrenon 20:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the huge number of articles you are creating in the Wikipedia workspace with POTD in the title. DJ Clayworth 23:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to assume this is fine and something to do with Picture of the Day. I got worried when I saw such a large number of edits for articles whose titles had dates in the future. DJ Clayworth 23:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What problem do you have with the Norfolk Scope image I posted? I had cited the source. (Odulumni99)

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article perspective correction, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your efforts! ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently put a deletion tag on an uploaded image of mine. I actually would like it deleted, as I was uploading it for onetime use, and it has no further value to wikipedia. Thanks, Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 22:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I thought that notifying the uploader is sort of "would be nice but not required." Besides, I am pretty much sure they won't respond. Anyways, thanks for the notice and I will be more careful next time! Renata 11:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I notice that you started the Merv Griffin article about 6 months ago. It still has a lot of material that yous first post and I feel it looks pretty good and should be nominated for feature article. Unfortunately, however, the facts are not cited. I would be happy to post a nomination if you are able to take a look and perhaps add come references. Verne Equinox 23:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the edits. Call me a chicken, but I asked for a peer review - a step short of feature article, I know, but his is my first. Verne Equinox 04:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor's Barnstar For removing 6000+ unencyclopedically unworthy pages from Wikipedia and helping to keep the encyclopedia in a healthy state - As a new admin, I can certainly attest to the unappetizing nature of this hard work (clearing CSD). Regards, Blnguyen

You know why dont you do every one a favor, and not comment on things that you want to delet, you back stabiing prick .--Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]