To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
In regards to your claims of 'hearsay' and other facts of mine that you have erroneously deleted, I have numerous sources to back them up. I shall put these facts back on the page and back them up accordingly.
Greenwood is located in Moosic borough just south of the Minooka section of Scranton. It encompasses the portion of Moosic borough between the Moosic exit off I-81 north to the border with Scranton, from the Lackawanna River to the Moosic (East) mountain (Springbrook Twp). I don't know the organizational history but today's Railroad Av and portions of Cedar AV (near the K-Mart Shopping Center) were formerly Main Street. Greenwood AV is perpendicular to Main ST / Railroad AV and runs about 6 blocks (with a break for a steep hill between Washington and Cotter STs).
Large portions of Greenwood were undeveloped until recently - the most notable recent developments are the Montage Mountain ski area, Lackawanna County Stadium and the Glenmaura residential neighborhood (all of which are in the Greenwood section of Moosic but straddle the line with the City of Scranton). It is very likely that the original settlers were Polish immigrants since St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish is one of the older religious communities and, in the first part of the 20th century, the area around the Church and nearby Main Street were predominantly Polish. It is also likely that the original Greenwood was limited to the neighborhood close to St. Mary Church. JJV 11:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Norton - Just a quick note to thank you for your contribution
to my Dad's biography. I already have copies of the New York Times
articles documenting his contributions to the advancement of the
musical arts in the USA. Thank you for your interest and your
assistance to the development of his biography. pjs012915. 11:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
After a bit of inactivity, Medicine has been selected as the new medicine collaboration of the week. I am taking the unusual step of informing all participants, not just those who voted for it, since I feel that it is important that this highest-level topic for our collaboration be extremely well-written. In addition, it is a core topic for Wikipedia 1.0 and serves as the introduction to our other articles. Yet general articles are the ones that are most difficult for individuals to write, which is why I have invited all participants. I hope it isn't an intrusion; I don't make plan to make a habit of sending out these messages. — Knowledge Seekerদ02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suggestion in Wikipedia policy and programming. If you go to a page that has a template on it and click "what links here", all the links in the Template now appear in the "What links here" query. I want to see links that appear on the template to be excluded for the "What links here" query. Try a search yourself. If there is no template on a page you get useful results. If there is a template with dozens of other links the useful information is obscured. If I go to Raritan Landing, New Jersey and hit "What links here" I now see the dozens of other towns from the template, and I miss the usefull information of what pages actually have an embedded link in the text of "Raritan Landing". If you have a suggestion of a better forum to discuss this change, please tell me who I should talk to.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )19:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be interested in joining a group on wikipedia which counters the heavy handed tactics of the copyright police. We can't fight them on our own. User talk:Ed g2s has began deleting fair use image on every person's user page and on several other pages, inspired by WP:FUC which was written by another paternal copyright policeman with absolutly no legal training and little understanding of copyright law. User:Ta bu shi da yu created the WP:FUC page and was responsible for deleting hundreds of Time magazine covers and refused to stop even after Time magazine sent an e-mail allowing wikipedia to use the images.
Please tell others about this project. The paternal copyright police are well organized and are intoxicated with their own trival power here on wikipedia. Like most authoritarian personalities, these misguided copyright fanatics have finally have overstepped the bounds of good sense and restraint, when they began deleting tens of thousands images from wikiusers' pages. Only a large number of wikipedians will stop this abuse. Travb13:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Flickr
I have no idea what to do for free photo archiving; I pay for a Flickr "pro" account because I like the Flickr community and the Flickr user interface. --rbrwr±21:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the licensing tag that is on Image:New Jersey state seal.png. Observe the section for seals. On this image there is no verification that the copyright has expired. Given that absence of such, it must be presumed that the image is used under a fair use license here on Wikipedia. You may wish to see User_talk:Durin#U.S._state_seal_images_copyright_status where a similar issue was discussed. In that case, Nebraska became a state in 1867, and presumably it's seal was created around the same time. Nevertheless, the state still actively protects it's copyright on the image. Failing presentation of evidence that the seal of the state of New Jersey has been released in the public domain or proof is provided that the copyright has expired and the state of New Jersey recognizes this, the image is used here on Wikipedia under terms of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. I am reverting your re-insertion of the image into Template:New Jersey Prep. Please do not re-insert the image without contacting the state government of New Jersey regarding copyright clearance. Thank you, --Durin22:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I did a bit of investigation and found that the New Jersey state seal was redesigned in 1928. Thus, claims that it is in the public domain because of age may not be valid. --Durin22:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Elmwood Cemetery
Hi. I noticed you moved the page Elmwood Cemetery (New Brunswick, New Jersey) to Elmwood Cemetery, New Brunswick, New Jersey and was curious why you did so. Naming conventions for locations that are not communities is generally Placename ([Location, ]State or Province) for USA and Canada locations. Is there a reason this article doesn't meet that criteria? My initial move was prompted by trying to be consistent with other listings in Elmwood Cemetery, as well as naming conventions. In your move, you didn't provide an edit summary, so I'm not certain why you moved it.
I just wanted to mention that I've started a discussion about setting a guideline for naming cemeteries. Since you've contributed to a number of cemetery articles, you may want to add your thoughts to the discussion. Thanks. Mindmatrix14:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Richard for your help.
Some of my quotes are indented once and others indented twice; that was intentional: I indented once the original quote (generally in spanish), and twice, the english translation. Perhaps that's not the good-style-way to do it, but I cannot find it in the Manual.Thanks again, Rosana. --Rtierno14:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool! Given the brevity of the text, I'd go with the small framed version — and simply comment-out the larger ones until such time, if ever, that as the article gets expanded. But honestly, either way is good. It's nice to collaborate with you! With thanks, --Tenebrae17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Biography July Newsletter
The July 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange08:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The August 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange01:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your welcoming note to me as a Wiki contributor. I 'll just quickly state my thoughts on Wiki.
The pages on Peoples Temple and Jonestown Guyana have been very disturbing to me. Nothing revolts me worse that cheap sensationalism and extremely sloppy historical writing. The entry has a section that lists all the punk bands and comedians who have goofed on the PT members and their dead relatives, but it's preposterously truncated and inaccurate about what happened at JTown. I made remarks on the talk pages. As a researcher who was part of a film project on the tragedy, I would love to write a full article, but would this be "original research?" All I seem to be able to do is rant from the peanut gallery. There are contless ways by which the thing can be improved. It's nothing personal. The film I was involved in will probably be a piece of crap if they ever finish it. Last I knew, they were filming in South Africa. There's no money in straight facts sometimes.
Also, the page on Chuck Munson is rather annoying and belongs in the garbage can. Worse still is that he's a Wiki editor. It means that one of these things is not like the other, as they used to say on Sesame Street. If you believe that CM is a significant anarchist or that he is a Wiki editor with no personal agenda, you are absolutely mistaken.
You'll see me contributing material on anarchist history. I have to go slow because most of my research is entirely original, and there are scores of old anarchists that only I know anything about.
You have a background in pharmaceutical research? I'm Guinea Pig Zero. Happy to meet you.
Also, I live very near the Paul Robeson house on Walnut Steet in Philadelphia. His mural on Chestnut, btw, is lately getting blocked by stray trees that are getting tall in front of it, blocking the view of passing drivers. Maybe I'll walk over there with a saw some time. That mural is peculiar even though very impressive. It has him as a bibliophile and humanitarian (and other things that he was), but there's no mention of socialism or the union movement. Robeson would laugh his head off.
The Philadelphia City Archives, where I found Oscar Neebe's marriage record, is a techno-primitive place. I also have City Directory entries that have Oscar living here with several other Neebes, but I have to find them in my scrapbooks before tossing them into Wiki.
I hope that this note finds you well.
Robert Helms
Henrietta Lacks
Hello Richard. I wanted to apologise for removing the biography template from the Henrietta Lacks article. Somehow, in my haste, i managed to mistake it for a biography of living persons template, which was why i removed it. You can understand, i'm sure, why one might consider Lacks as a living person, but that it is probably not appropriate catagorisation per WP:BLP. Anyway, you are correct to include the template which is appropriate. Again, i'm sorry, and will be more careful in future. Rockpocket18:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have struck your tag on this image and replaced it with {{PD-US}}. Under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., "exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality." Thus, a scan or photocopy from an old (pre-1923 or copyright otherwise expired) newspaper article is itself public domain. BigDT12:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go
Also please remember to sign on my talk page in the future.
O'Connor and Goldberg was a shoe store in Chicago. The economist Milton Friedman worked at the store in 1932. "O'Connor and Goldberg" is also used to describe any mixed Irish Jewish neighborhood.
References
Milton Friedman and Rose D. Friedman; Two Lucky People: Memoirs
Hi, I'm Wslack, your advocate. Just letting you know that I'm beginning my look into the case. I write more here when I have questions. --\/\/slack (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after reading all the way down the AfD, I find that the Nom has been withdrawn. I anticipate a keep especially considering how the article has grown. Is there anything else I can assist you with? Right now, I'm closing the case, but it can be reopened if you still want help. I'm always available. --\/\/slack (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange00:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rescue from obscurity
I need help rescueing Ludwik Silberstein from obscurity. The article posted has only rudimentary information from Who's Who in Science, 1968. Your subscriptions may provide a proper obituary or other article exploring his life.Rgdboer04:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the nice cleanup and headings you provided for this article. I'd been meaning to get around to expanding it for months after watching the film of M.Butterfly. I felt that the real story was ever so much more interesting. I was very susprised to find out that Kang Sheng was the fellow who strong-armed Boursicot into handing over the documents. It makes sense now, of course, given the time during which the affair began. I don't know how to upload photos, sadly. I found one of Shi in a newspaper article that was posted and would like to include it. Can you help?Lisapollison14:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think that all of the work you have been puting in on the Wright Brothers and other aviation pioneers hasn't been noticed. I hereby award you with the wikiwings from WikiProject Aircraft. Thanks! --rogerd02:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I just answered my own question. I see that WFS was in Alabama and WSA was in Ohio. So I presume that these are two separate subjects, right? --rogerd14:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I am doing some clean up on the list of proposed WikiProjects. I noticed that WikiProject Cemeteries of the United States has been listed for more than 60 days. Unless you object, I would like to remove it from the list since it is unlikely to receive further feedback. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I do like the idea, after having visited several very old cemeteries in Boston. Well, old by American standards. :) Let me know if you ever decide to create the project. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
re: 6 mile run
The official sites all refer to it as D&R canal state park; I assume some sites have the name wrong, I haven't seen it cited that way in any official sources. The map links all point to princeton, near D&R park HQ, but that's pretty far south of 6 mile run. I guess the coordinates in the article are wrong, although I'm not sure what the correct ones are. -Steve Sanbeg23:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have spend some time editing and illustrating the Hutschenreuther page - fine information! But I have a question: the marks illustrated read "LHS", but the text offers a differennt reading. Would you help me along? --RPD 20:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen
Some of the stuff I rearranged in the article, makes it flow better. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database...so we don't need to know who his grandkids are, etc. If they're notable, cat them under Frelinghuysen family and if the kids are notable write articles about his kids. Only one or two of them are notable, most aren't. Romeyn, was a minor minister in Northern Jersey in the 1740s...big deal. So what if he preached to my ancestors...extraneous genealogical information doesn't belong here. I listed his kids, that's about all that is important. (Thinking my edits to the Joyce Kilmer article were the model for my cuts on this). I also took the three sections of various periods of his life and consolidated them into one section entitled "biography". Timeline information, if important, should be converted into text, there. The Timeline b.s. is completely amateurish and potentially redundant. —ExplorerCDT03:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why label an header in Wikipedia "biography"? Thats redundant.
Not really. Logical title. Bio, Quotes (belongs in Wikiquote), References, External links. If he was an author (unfortunately not) then I'd add a section named "Works." If I renamed "Biography" to "His Life" it would be amateurish. It makes more sense than having titles like "Birth, marriage and children," "Education and emigration" and "Death and burial" when they screw up the timeline and perhaps segregate three sentences worth of information.—ExplorerCDT03:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, what's sparks your interest in the Frelinghuysens, Peter Ballantine, etc.? Because if you're descended from them, you're related to me and that scares the living fuck out of me. —ExplorerCDT14:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the above article for speedy deletion under db-repost, but I'm not sure now of exactly what should be done with it. To check, I'll notify Cyde, the admin that deleted it originally, and have asked my admin coach for some advice. Cheers, Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 05:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the page was deleted unilaterally by Cyde, rather than through a deletion discussion. If you could leave a note on the article's talk page to explain why it should not be deleted, I will do the same (to explain my confusion over the matter). --Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 05:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for the heads up on the Forbes 400 article. I contacted editorial staff at Forbes and they refered me to their Legal departmnet. I emailed one of their Lawyers and he said that we are not allowed to list the Whole List :-(]
I tried !!
Thanks again Trade2tradewell15:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a secret tribunal. It was an emergency decision based on a matter of intellectual property, and on a nasty surprise. As a consequence of that surprise, Nash is not currently an acceptable reference for WP articles. If the nature of that surprise is not already a matter of public record, then our making it so could be actionable: I was told that a lawyer had already become involved. (That's why I'm going to the library this afternoon, by the way - to check whether the information is already in print). For now, any material whose sole source is Nash must be expunged. DS16:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found it
We've got a page about [our problems with Nash] - consider, for instance, the part about how Nash "repeatedly said that his books are seeded with misinformation, including incorrect facts and nonexistent people, so as to catch those who "steal" from his work".
Nope, I've not been to the Maryland Festival... yet! I grew up near Rhinebeck, though, so it was a frequent attendance for me growing up, and now that I've gotten more seriously into knitting, crochet, and even a bit of spinning, it was a real treat to get back up there.
I noticed that you are the creator of Category:Lawn weeds, and was wondering if you'd be interested in helping to create some material on wikibooks about controlling lawn weeds. If you look at the pages in b:Category:Weed profiles, you can see some examples of where I'm trying to go.
Just a note: I'm an organic horticulturist, so I'm not as familiar with how lawn chemicals (specifically herbicides) are used, but I would like to see their use included on the weed profiles in that book. Does your chemical expertise extend to horticultural chemicals? --SB_Johnny|talk|books12:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Actually, even if you were a chemical maximalist, that'd be good with me... the book just needs someone who understands that side of things better than I do. If there's any chemicals in particular that you can add some practical know-how about, you can just copy-paste the wikipedia article over and work on it, but make sure to request an import so we can have the wp contributors' history. You can request imports on my talk or at b:WB:RFI... import brings all versions of the article over.
I'm not sure how much you know about biochem (i.e., what exactly it is that a chemical does to inhibit and/or kill a weed, pest, or disease-causing organism), but I think having as much good info about that as possible -- in the simplest language possible -- will really be a big help in making the book a good resource for gardeners. If you need any help on the wikibooks side (administrative or otherwise), please consider me to be at your service. --SB_Johnny|talk|books21:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upcoming NYC Meetup
You might want to know when the next meetup was being organized in New York City. Plan for Saturday, 9 December 2006. While you're at it. Come help us decide on a restaurant. See: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Spread the word. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT03:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mason Gross
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Without implying in any fashion a sense of ownership, please stop fucking up article I've worked on by adding things that don't belong (timeline, bad form in creating two-sentence sections, etc.). I've told you before, and in this case the information you segregated as "timeline" is already in the article, and if it isn't figure a way to incorporate it in the text. How many times do I have to tell you to stop such unjustified changes. STOP renaming articles in violation of the guidelines regarding naming (common names, for one), sectioning off short one, two or three sentence sections, adding puerile or redundant "timelines" and other "fluff" that I've brought up to you before. Further reversions or edits in this regard will be reported as vandalism. —ExplorerCDT23:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Answering to your AMA request
Hi! I'm your AMA advocate in your issue with ExplorerCDT. I understand you want a third party to come in to give his opinion on this matter. You could list your dispute in Third opinion; or maybe, you might want to list a Request for Comment, but this is more "serious". Take a look around them and see what would you like better. --Neigel von Teighen17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, first let's get the diffs so we can begin to prepare the first step (almost surely a Request for Comment). If we enter a RfC, the idea is that both parties present their evidence and then other users give their support to whomever they think is right... It's the first step on Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution system (see here). At least for now, I would not recommend you an informal mediation unless he starts it. Anyway, you shouldn't scare because of those warnings; Cristopher is not an administrator, so he can't block anyone. --Neigel von Teighen17:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Wood Johnson III
I added a Corporate Chairman subsection to the Johnson & Johnson page. You can see RWJIII never lead the company. I am not sure how accurate the succession box on his page is because he may have only been a president of a subsidiary. I do not know the company very well. TonyTheTiger20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have alot of stuff of mine deleted. I've been banned twice. I don't understand the copyright tags. I always put down the website I get it from and the tag I think is right, but it turns out to be wrong at times and User:RadioKirk always bans me. I also work for http://www.findagrave.com/ and I have never had an image deleted their I got from another site. I really don't get it. I just want to contribute. -User:The Mystery Man
US Army Signal Corps page
I don't know who you think you are or what the Manual of Style has to do with the etiquette for the mission statement on the site's page. Please do not try to edit or change the format already in place.
Whats the rule for military rank capitalization? Is its always capitalized as a person's title, then uncapitalized when used elsewhere?
Such as: "He worked with Captain John Doe, and several lieutenants" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )00:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are various rules. The modern United States Army, I am told, insists on capitalizing them in all instances. Since I write about the American Civil War, the interests of the current U.S. Army do not apply. Therefore, I use common formal English usage, which is endorsed by WP:MOSCL#Titles and other entities, such as the Chicago Manual of Style. I have those rules described in User:Hlj/CWediting#Military ranks and you are welcome to apply them to your writing as well. Hal Jespersen00:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should promote your guide to an MoS suggestion. Its well thought out, the existing one doesn't have enough in it. Where in the US are you, did you get hit by the big storm this week? Its in NJ now, wind advisory, its 65 degrees as the warm air is pushed ahead of the storm at 60 miles per hour. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )00:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually a discussion underway in WP:ACW to adopt my style guide, but since it is so specific to the Civil War, I would never attempt to enter the maelstrom of the mainstream Wikipedia style arena. I am quite indifferent about the adoption effort because I would rather establish and live by my own rules, rather than trying to convince others to codify them. Since I have written or edited probably over 500 ACW articles, I have established somewhat of a de facto standard without argument. The other really prolific ACW editor, Scott Mingus, also uses my style, so together we have it pretty well covered.
I live in Northern California, where it was in the mid-60s with sunny skies today. I did grow up in New Jersey, however, so I can feel your pain. :-) Do me a favor. If you would like to continue corresponding about this or other issues, e-mail me (there is a link in the yellow box on the top of my user page) because it is easier than this back-and-forth cutting and pasting. Hal Jespersen00:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled onto this exchange and noted my name. I indeed follow most of Hal's style guide, as it provides uniformity. Every now and them I slip into my writing style that my publisher prefers, and have to stop and remember to use Wiki MPS. Scott Mingus12:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Email had worked in the past, not sure when they changed the policy on that. I'd prefer to talk here, but if email is needed, I just authenticated and enabled it. The featured picture of GCT wasn't taken by me, I just put it up for nomination. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the recent wave of AfDs on military event lists was motivated by an anti-list bias. The main arguments used were that the "lists are difficult to maintain and are incomplete". This is ludicrous since lists are easier to maintain than both categories and articles. They're easier than categories because lists are centralized and have built-in tracking while categories are decentralized and have no tracking (i.e., no edit histories). Lists are easier to maintain than articles because updating articles requires more grammar-based editing, while most lists have no grammar. In the case of lists with annotations, the editing is still simpler than for articles because you don't have to deal with paragraph structure - most annotations are a simple phrase or sentence. As for incompleteness, that argument is totally irrelevant as a reason for deletion of any page, as the entire encyclopedia is a work-in-progress, and with the exception of "the stub" being the minimum-sized page start, there is no minimum on how much a user can contribute with each save. The Transhumanist 01:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly thank you for the contribution to the FAI article. Why out of all the available records, did you choose those three? Are they just ones that interest you. It seems that there is an enormous task if we add all the current records and in any case this would not be the appropriate place. Same message left on the article's talk page. JMcC08:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that creating tables is a much better way of presenting data, but please do not do it just for the sake of it. Just lobbing in three random records does not bode well for the article's future structure. I think a better approach for the FAI article would be a list of the various types of aircraft, whose records it administers, eg ballooning, gliding, powered aircraft etc. Thereafter articles called Ballooning records, Gliding records etc could be created for the most interesting ones of each type. In this way people with an interest in just ballooning records would have a link from the Ballooning article. In the end, retyping the whole FAI list of records into Wikipedia is unlikely to be rewarding. It would also quickly get out of date, so there will be a natural limit to the records cited. JMcC10:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Businesspeople
I posted my opinion. Thanks for the notice. I am not sure if you felt I would have an opinion because I am AA or because of the category work I have done on families. The answer would be both, but more so because of the latter. TonyTheTiger21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for inviting me. It served as a good notice that I have to add the Category:American businesspeople or a subcategory to many of my articles. You do good work on minor notable historical businesspeople. I need people like you to help me get some of my articles cleaned up. TonyTheTiger23:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help with the posting. You mentioned archive data. I have done several bios that have incomplete birth and death dates and places. Some of these bios are for living people. What kind of resources are you offering? Do you have an article you would like me to take a look at in return? P.S. I am trying to generate traffic here so if you have a chance place a vote for me at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/COTW so that others will perceive it as more lively. Since you also work on minor historical figures you probably understand how difficult it is to get perfect info of this type. Here is my list. I don't know what you can do with it.
Sure send the Busch stuff to the discussion pages for perusal. I have not done formal work on my family history. My mother and I were born in New Orleans, where my parents met. My father (1957 Athlete of the Year for the Republic of Panama) was from the City of Colon in the Province of Colon in the Republic of Panama. I imagine foreign research is a totally different animal. TonyTheTiger02:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just contribute to the bio since there are all sorts of translation gymnastics to get the info to me. I use FF as my browser.TonyTheTiger05:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the file. Where is it?
You are so modest. You have done such great research on your other bios. I do not think I would do a better job. If you want me to look at it though I will eventually get around to it. TonyTheTiger15:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to view the files when I clicked on them to blow them up. I am on holiday schedule. I drove from Chi to Memphis today. I have a free wifi connection for 2.5 hours at the Memphis library before it closes. I will be travelling all day on Fri and Tuesday. My mother and I (both born in New Orleans) will be visiting displaced relatives in Houston for the holidays. TonyTheTiger00:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying the file is actually loaded as an Image file and called as a Media file? It is nowhere to be found as an image file. Is that correct? TonyTheTiger04:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per your email
I do not have email turned on presently because the only email I have would provide my Real Life Name- not an ideal condition. I notice your interest in beer barons. My high school physics teacher said they used to hawk a brand of beer in baseball parks which sounded like "Greasy-dick" What could that have been? Something like "Griesedieck?" Regards. Edison06:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for becoming obnoxious in defense of any position on Wikipedia, it is all too easy. Just take a chill pill, walk away for 12 hours or so, and let the other person have the last word. It changes nothing. Let the testosterone and adrenaline disperse. It is better than being goaded into a NPA violation. Edison06:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My beer-baron hero is August Schell. When the Sioux attacked New Ulm Minnesota in 1862, he somehow induced them to burn down all his competitors' breweries, but spare his, which makes a fine product to this day. "Mach schnell, kauf' Schell!" Edison06:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See[1]"Sommolier News" where it says the Schell brewery was "untouched" during the attack becaue of the "kindness" of Ms. Schell. Coincidence? I don't THINK so. It is all speculation, because no Schells or Sioux have ever come forward to say the destruction of the others and the sparing of Schell's was a setup. Edison06:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your apology
Thanks very much for your thoughtful apology. In turn, I apologise for the tone of my reply. We agree that these people's ethnic identity is worthy of Wikipedia categorisation, I think it's just the category intersection that is under discussion. --RobertG ♬ talk10:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help with my Whip Jones article. As a new user I was really frustrated with the first attempt and the feedback I received. I do not plan to edit the article, as I still don't get what was so offensive when I started.
If you would like to continue adding/fixing it, I WELCOME your edits!!! Please see Talk:Whip Jones for material and quotes.
I love the idea of inclusionist wikipedians, sign me up.
I suggest the bios of people should be in proportion to their importance. The details of their work or other notability, obviously, but also the details of their personal life, unless that is their notability. I am concerned about such things as listing all directorships. or divorces. Just a suggestion.DGG00:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and you got me started trying to clarify for myself what I have in mind. So it got rather long, and I moved my answer, & your qy, & some other stuff to asubpage of its own at User:DGG/bios
Thank you for your help with the bio on James William McGhee – it looks like its going to be deleted anyway.
I am a visually impaired person and I have attempted to upload as much of the supporting evidence as possible through my scanner reading machine, please tell me if the supporting documentation hasn’t arrived. For Paul Ashley Chase I uploaded an obit from Warner Brothers, For Maria Hart I provided three internet sources, a copy of a Los Angeles Times article and reference to Hollywood Reporter and Varity articles. For James W. McGhee I gave you 5 patent numbers and a reference to the Canadian patent office and reference to a LA Times article dated March 17, 1942. I also uploaded the original copies. For George L. McGhee I provided a copy of an e-mail from the 30,000 member professional organization he founded.
I am in a house with several dozen pin-in drapery hooks. I know there all over the world. Sort of like the light bulb. Don’t you think Wikipedia’s notability standards are a little high?
Mjmcghee
Annette Richardson Dinwoodey
With all the work you've done on the Annette Richardson Dinwoodey article, I'm thinking we should put it in your user space if it's voted down! I hope they're paying you something because you really do a helluva great job researching and writing articles... and I'm pretty sure that's not the first time I've said that to you. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did just now and that's great food for thought! I think I'd weight things a little differently. Off the top of my head, I would definitely give category 1 quite a bit more priority than category 2. But, like your intro there says, it would also depend on how featured the subject was. I've seen people claim notability just because they gave a single quote in a national news story... I tend to go more by gut feeling which is probably not a great approach. I also claim victory in cases like this where the AFD itself results in drastic improvement in the article. I never go to AFD with that intention but, if the result is keep after drastic improvement then everyone wins. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point system
Hey, I stumbled on User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Point system for notabilityand I think it's a great idea. I have actually mulled over a similar system myself but never got around to writing it up. I've been involved quite a bit in deletions and AfDs, and I've always thought that there needs to be a systematic (if not algorithmic) procedure for determining notability. The only thing I'd add to such a system, off the top of my head, is to somehow differentiate between a topic being the main focus of an article as opposed to simply noted in an article. Great stuff, keep it up!! --- Deville (Talk) 03:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RfA
Have you considered another run at RfA? I looked into it a bit and find your contributions excellent, though I am puzzled by the block log. Let me know your thoughts. - crzcrztalk23:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I live in Jersey. Getting your bags sliced in Russia is a rite of passage, congratulations. As to RfA, let me know, and we'll have another go at it. Those are some interesting block reasons... - crzcrztalk09:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to cut in here. Richard, FYI, if a redirect titled R has only one line in its history and that line is to redirect it to an article titled A, then A can be moved to R without sysop privileges. The software won't even prompt you about it. It's called a "move over redirect" and you can read about it at WP:MOVE#Moving over a redirect. You can see it in the move logs for a page, e.g. here. OTOH, if R has more than one line in its history or it redirects somewhere besides A, then R would need to be deleted before A can be moved to R, meaning sysop privileges would be needed first. Apparently in the midst of everyone screaming at you last July, no one bothered to explain that to you, which is unfortunate. I'm also curious about your page moves to include middle names. Was it decided somewhere that we should include middle names? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - Solveig Fiske
Thanks for improving the article on Solveig Fiske. I see that we have several overlapping interests, and thanks to the debacle over poor bishop Fiske, I am signing up with the inclusionists. Also, you look really familiar to me? Do you live in Maplewood? --Leifern14:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your Help Needed
Can you assist User:Kevin Murray with his air force bio on Aubrey Hornsby and the related notability issues. He's left me a message looking for citability.
Hi Richard,
I noticed you added the end-date for Thomas Butler King's second stint in Congress. Just wondering if you found another source other than the Congressional Biographies as I have been looking for another source to verify those dates for Congressmen. King's Congressional Bio states he resigned in 1850, which seems to usually mean stepping down before the end of the term (March 3 in those days as you know) based on some of the other Georgia Congressmen I have worked on recently. Just curious, as I'd really like to have a second source to cross-reference on future articles and edits to existing ones. Thanks --Roswell native05:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hornsby
I live east of San Francisco CA.
I am not related to Hornsby; I found this article in the deletion list and decided that it was worth some effort. I have sent an email to Hornsby's grandson to see whether the family has some more information. I suspect that the article was begun by someone with personal knowledge.
Since you are working on the article, you may want to join the discussion on the deletion.
The explanation you seek can be found at Wikipedia:NavFrame. In short, the {{Navigation}} template used to implement {{G8}} uses a CSS class called "NavFrame". Combined with site-wide JavaScript, this provides the collapsing/expanding elements. I believe if there are 3 or more template on a page using "NavFrame", all of them are automatically collapsed. See Wikipedia:NavFrame for the precise template count that triggers this behavior. Mike Dillon03:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request Assistance
Need help on article... added picture you put on page into infobox for Annette Richardson Dinwoodey but can't get that writing gone that's above and below picture. Thanks for helping out on this article. I don't know much about how to do this yet. Thanks! Jlrich03:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop restoring bad edits to the Joyce Kilmer article. Your div style will be turned back when this article goes to FAC in the next week or two because it's unacceptable. Second, what's your hang up with "the [[World War I|first World War]]". If that's all of what you insist upon changing, you might as well go search for a shrubbery. —ExplorerCDT09:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop also putting in information about the location (seemingly birthplaces) of Kilmer's parents that could potential confuse the flow and content of the article to readers. It's not relevant to Joyce Kilmer himself, and should not be in his article. Feel free to add that information to articles regarding Frederick and Annie Kilmer should you decide to start them. However, it is not relevant and will continue to be reverted from the Joyce Kilmer article.
Your reference, while appreciated, is overly redundant and against the provision in the MoS regarding over-referencing certain points. We already have three references for this statement, we don't need a fourth. Thanks, but no thanks. —ExplorerCDT09:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of films with similar themes and release dates AfD
Hi, you've expressed an opinion in the deletion discussion of this article. I've recently suggested a compromise in hopes of improving the article while keeping both sides happy, and would appreciate if you could revisit the issue. Thanks. --Wafulz18:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fish
Did I say, that it's a vast improvement? Well, just in case: It's a vast improvement. Good work. RichFarmbrough, 09:56 10 January2007 (GMT).
I had always susupected this was like Otis Toole. Yes, I have the gmail account, "farmbrough", which forwards to my main mail account. I also use gmail as my SMTP server, becasue so many things reject an SMTP server on an ADSL conx. RichFarmbrough, 15:31 10 January2007 (GMT).
Just installed it at work, Looks fine, although replicates AIM, GAIM, SKYPE etc... RichFarmbrough, 16:02 10 January2007 (GMT).
I never (rarely) go into the gmail page, as I get everything on Thunderbird at home. RichFarmbrough, 16:08 10 January2007 (GMT).
Well the idea was that everything got duplicated on gmail and the desktop, but it didn't work out, and I didn't need it to. It is a good way of doing things though, and I trust Goooles backup process more than my own. RichFarmbrough, 16:19 10 January2007 (GMT).
I've put an HTML warning at the top of the article. Probably we should also report the standard story in a section of it's own, in these cases. RichFarmbrough, 19:40 11 January2007 (GMT).
Citations
I am afraid not, at least not automatically, but I am in a discussion with another wikipedia developer to rewrite cite.php to include an ibid. system. I'll share this with him. --Dirk BeetstraTC22:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot22:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey!
I read your entry at biomembers. If you would like a co-author to help develop a biography on a low level notoriety person to meet Wikipedia notability requirements, please feel free to post a note on my talk page or email me. -- Jreferee02:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a post at the bottom of the Joyce Kilmer talk page that adds Template:Biography#Marriage_and_children to the discussion. Hope this helps! -- Jreferee 18:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. If you want to make an argument for including the father, Wikiproject Biography supports Template:Biography which identifies Charles Darwin as an approved Wikiproject Biography comparison article when resolving the issue of which relatives to include in the notable person's article. The other comparison articles on the Joyce Kilmer talk page are not Wikiproject Biography approved and thus offer no Wikipedia support one way or another on the issue. -- Jreferee18:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NRoHP
Funny you should ask right now, as I'm going through some of the NJ ones. What I did was put our project banner on any talk page that had [[Category:Registered Historic Places in statename]] on it's mainpage. Then I'm going thru to assess the articles. I just happened to be looking at the Meadows Foundation, and see that it's an organization that administrates NRHP sites (amongst other things). So technically, no, it's not on the NRHP itself. But since it's involved with the sites, it could fall under the umbrella of the project. I was going to leave the banner, but it can be removed; it's not a big deal either way.
Mind you, I did just remove the Registered Historic Places in New Jersey category from the Van Liew-Suydam House, as I can't find it on the National Register anywhere. It's not even listed as an "Also known as". If that's not the case, apologies; I'm just going by what the available resources say.
Yep, the refnum field was a relatively recent addition, along with the architecture-related ones. They can be easily added to any article where they may be missing. As far as adding the infobox to Six Miles, I'd say yes. It'd be nice to have every NRHP site have it's own separate article, but that day's quite a ways off. Until then, having it as a sub-section of an existing article is fine. It can always be broken off later when the NRHP place becomes its own article. I'll go ahead and add it. I also changed the link on the NJ Registered Historic Places list to point to it. --Ebyabe22:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to expand articles on early women aviators and simultaneously reformatting them to WikiProject Biography standards. I've noticed you've done sterling work on several of the American aviators in whom I'm interested, and to whose articles I'll be adding information, and I wondered if you'd be offended if I reformatted the articles at the same time? I could leave them but that probably only means someone else will reformat them later. For examples of my previous reformatting you could see Raymonde de Laroche, Marie Marvingt and Hélène Dutrieu. Random Passer-by01:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been editing female aviators in chronological order of notable actions so British, French, Australian, and Belgian women received my attention before the Americans. Psst... American spellings and dates for American biographies and British/Commonwealth spellings and dates for British, European and Commonwealth biographies so "licence" is correct sometimes. This also means you might want to check my spelling on the American articles when I'm done to make sure it conforms to American standards. :-) Random Passer-by02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with honour/honor. I know the difference but I still spell it wrongly. "It's just one of those things, one of those crazy things...." Random Passer-by13:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be too soon for a GA review since it looks like a peer review is pending. In my view, each sentence should have a footnote (expect those in the lead section). Otherwise, how is a reviewing editor supposed to know where the information came from to be able to verify that information? The copyright material in the article footnotes needs to be delted. The footnotes in the article need to be revised to be proper footnotes. I revised footnote 5 to give you an example of what I mean. Also, if you haven't done so, you may want to go through each of these links looking for material to add to the article. This should give you a start. Once you addressed all the peer review statements, then the article may be ready for GA review. -- Jreferee16:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Saffron: "On the other hand, traditional Kashmiri legend states that saffron first arrived sometime during the 11th and 12th centuries AD, when two foreign and itinerant Sufi ascetics, Khwaja Masood Wali and Hazrat Sheikh Shariffudin, wandered into Kashmir. The foreigners, having fallen sick, beseeched a cure for illness from a local tribal chieftain. When the chieftain obliged, the two holy men reputedly gave them a saffron crocus bulb as payment and thanks. To this day, grateful prayers are offered to the two saints during the saffron harvesting season in late autumn. The saints, indeed, have a golden-domed shrine and tomb dedicated to them in the saffron-trading village of Pampore, India. However, the Kashmiri poet and scholar Mohammed Yusuf Teng disputes this. He states that Kashmiris had cultivated saffron for more than two millennia. Indeed, such ancient indigenous cultivation is alluded to in Kashmiri Tantric Hindu epics of that time.[28]" There is only one reference for the whole paragraph.
From Barack Obama: "Fornek, Scott. "If Obama runs, I'll campaign for him, Winfrey says," Chicago Sun-Times, September 28, 2006. There is no parenthesis for periodical listings.
Fair use rationale for Image:Gould-Anna 01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gould-Anna 01.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
In general, you're right about Sr. and Jr. applying during the older person's lifetime. In this case, Jr and II appear to be different people, cousins or something like that. I will try to get more details. --Eastmain13:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello -- you may recall that in mid-December 2006 you and many others voted to undeleted "Category:Jewish-American businesspeople" which had been unjustly and swiftly deleted by a rogue administrator in early December 2006; proper debate/voting was not done and huge amounts of data was lost when this category was deleted, many of the people in that category losing their Jewish identity entirely because of this. This particular unjust category deletion happened in early December 2006, see: [2].
This unjust category deletion was later rectified when you along with others overwhelmingly voted to overturn the deletion and relist the category, see:
[3]. However, at this time neither admins. nor others bothered to begin re-adding the names that had been lost/merged when the category was originally deleted.
However, the category was not immediately recreated -- it wasn't relisted until many-many days after it had been voted back in to existence, and I had to bug User:RobertG in order to get it relisted, see: [4]. Also, since that category's former data had already been entirely merged in to "Category:American businesspeople" it effectively meant that in order to rebuild the unjustly deleted category the people that had built it up over many months had to start from scratch since a list of the former names in the category were never provided so that users could re-add them. The category nor a list of the names that were formerly in it is no longer available, or this info is only accessible by admins.
Finally, even though the category deletion was properly overturned by you and others, it was renominated for deletion AGAIN on the 10 of January 2007 (only days after it had been recreated) -- it was then deleted 17 January 2007, with NONE of the people that had formerly voted to relist the category voting this time around; see: [5].
I am wondering if there is anything that can be done about this? Are you able to obtain a list of the names that were formerly in the category, or are only admins. able to do that? Can you or someone else try to have the category relisted? Is there a way to undelete the category again, given that it was deleted BOTH TIMES under rather dubious circumstances, with those that voted to undelete it the first time not even knowing to vote the second time or even that it had been renominated for deletion?
Hi. You posted a bug report in April of last year at Bug 5691. I developed the same concern as you recently, and discovered Bug 1392 (your bug report was closed as a duplicate of this). Just thought you should know.--Pharos08:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tighter Requirements
Your comments are much appreciated. I invite you to edit and remove anything you consider does not belong on the list. I was thinking about removing the entire section under mainstream medicine. But I want to leave this to more experienced editors. I welcome any suggestions for the list for improvement. I will leave it up to experienced editors from this point moving forward. This list just needs experienced to improve and focus this list. Thanks, --QuackGuru04:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A.K. Miller
Nice to see someone else can contribute to this! And nice job finding the NY Times article. I've had trouble getting references, thought I'd exhausted them all. TheQuandry02:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your name on a recent AfD, you may be interested in this: [6] The page you wanted to keep was removed by a well organized group of wikieditors. Travb (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Julian Information
I only take classes in a building named after him -- I don't know enough to contribute to the article without significant research. If you're interested in editing the article, the DPU website has excellent information, and I believe I linked it in the external links, which you can probably access through my contributions. Archaeo21:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look over the article and review it right now, give me about 15-20 minutes. I'm a stickler for redirects, link repair, and wikilinks so it may need some fixes based on that. Don't fix anything yet until I review it, that way we both don't waste our time. --Nehrams202003:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the redirects, direct the page to the actual article. You don't have to change the wikilink necessarily, but you can do it like this: [[Extremism|religious mania]] or [[Capital punishment|death penalty]]. For the boogeyman link you don't have to change it in the article but again do: [[boogeyman|boogey man]]. Let me know if this doesn't make sense or if you need further clarification. --Nehrams202005:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find an official policy, but it does make the article finer-tuned and better for future page moves. If you have a link that redirects to a page and that page is going to be moved, it would be better to already be linked to that page so the editor that moved the page can successfully fix all of the redirects. If you don't want to fix the redirects, that's fine, it just makes it easier to get from page to page. Also, the editor that delisted the article reminded me of the changes he suggested, so make sure all of those are fixed as well. --Nehrams202019:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not a professional writer (although someone recently offered me a part-time job based on my Wikipedia edits). I just picked it up by osmosis from my love of reading.
Okay, I verified my email. Now, if I only knew how to use it...
Percy Julian
I was about to promote this, but someone just put two cite needed tags on it, see their edit summary. Since I'm not a chemical expert, need you to look at these issues and address properly. Let me know when you're done.Rlevse20:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers game
Mr. Norton,
I've been working on the linage of policy operators in New York City and recently linked the eight year gap between Peter H. Matthews and the Harlem numbers racket under Casper Holstein and Stephanie St. Clair to its eventual takeover by Dutch Schultz and the Genovese crime family (as well as extending the series to Reuben Parsons and John Frink). If any of this information is innacurate, please let me know. MadMax00:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Norton,
I've done some revising of the linage, particularly seperating Coppola and Salerno, however I can't seem to be able to find any information regarding who took over the numbers racket following Salerno's imprisonment in 1986 (someone may have taken over for him however after becoming head of the Genovese family during the 1970s). MadMax09:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Joyce Kilmer note
I fixed the note you tried so it works now (took me a while - I'd never done one before). The sibling info still needs a ref, which can be added to the note itself. Thanks, Ruhrfisch21:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod21:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Latham Powell
Moved from Michael Powell (director) to Michael Latham Powell. Why?
It used to be at Michael Latham Powell but as the discussion page said back in April last year, he was only called that on official documents. He was, and still is, known as just Michael Powell. That's why we moved it to Michael Powell (director), because of the other people with the same name. I doubt anyone will ever search for him by the name Michael Latham Powell. -- SteveCrook15:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko1322:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Norton, the article you created on parasitic cancer has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that it's a neologism unused in the literature. I disagree, but do not have the requisite knowledge. Would you care to step in and defend it? DS03:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, are you related to Walter O'Malley, as I see you have contributed a great deal to his articles and other O'Malley articles. Thank you for your time. --Josh15:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for Image:Lindauer Kershaw 1929 023b.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lindauer Kershaw 1929 023b.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in your comments on the article I nominated for deletion. As a relative newcomer I have a few questions.
1 Where is the burden of notability? I came across the article as part of the copyedit process, culling through lists of articles needing attention. I'm sure I could have found some sources for it (especially as it reads like a copyvio from a 'true crime' website), but it made no claim to notability, no claim that it led to changes in law or public policy, things like Amber Alert (noted in my nom), involved no famous person, etc. Is every murder victim that is sourcable and verifiable (I can think of few that are not reported in newspapers) thus notable and worthy of inclusion in WP? Rape victim? Armed robbery, assault, etc?
You are thinking notability means worthy of inclusion into a traditional encyclopedia that is limited by space, so that only the most widely circulated information is included. The Wikipedia notability is determined by the press picking up a concept, or the story, and publishing it. The rules are at least two reliable, mainstream sources are needed that are independent of the subject.
2 Is every article, no matter how flawed, worthy of inclusion? And if so, where is the burden on sourcing, etc? With the next person who reads it? Does this include copyright violation? I have nominated several articles for WP:Speedy and WP:AFD because they were copied from web pages. Would you say that I should have instead deleted the copyvio and then researched and written the article myself? Is it 'laziness' that I did not?
If you thought it was a copyright violation, it could have been flagged with the proper tag, and someone would have reviewed it. It seems to be worded as if it was copied from a newspaper article.
3 There was a recent AfD for Arabella Kennedy the stillborn daughter of John and Jackie Kennedy. The result was to delete and merge to a Kennedy article, would you have kept it? A close friend of mine also had a stillborn child, it's death was reported (as an obit) in two major metropolitan newspapers. Worthy of an article?
You are confusing an obituary with a funeral notice, a funeral notice is a paid advertisement, and is not reviewed by the editors of a newspaper, and so is not a published source, any more than an ad is. Also a delete and a merge are different. In a merge the information is kept and the article name is redirected to the larger article where the information is merged. When that is done it isn't about notability, its about keeping information in a single article, nothing is deleted.
Please don't think I am being argumentative, I see inclusionist/deletionist arguments every day and on a spectrum, I would consider myself on the inclusionist side, but surely there has to be some limit. As an analogy, I would include every instance of man bites dog, but not every instance of dog bites man. Thanks for your thoughts on this! --killing sparrows04:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the points I raised.
I think, in relation to #1, that my point was more in regard to notabilty, than verifiability. Is there a point where we become an archive of minutiae rather than a compendium of information. I know, this begs the question, what is information?, but still perhaps you see what I'm getting at. Are not the sources (newspapers, etc.), increasingly stored digitally, sufficient for much of the commonplace people, events and such? Are you concerned that the trend in journalism as infotainment, and the slant towards the tittilating and lurid (sex sells and if it bleeds, it leads) as opposed to the thoughtful and substantial concern you? I know of many people doing notable, important work in a variety of fields that will never be worthy of a WP entry based on published sources, yet a murderer or the victim of one (surely hundreds of people a day in the US alone!), a porn 'star,' a Pokemon character, bands or elementary schools all are easily sourced, but are they notable. My examples are of course influenced by my own interests, and more so by my disinterests, but again I think you will understand my underlying question.
Regarding #2, this is really just about process, and my reference to copyvio issues is general, not about this specific article. If an article is found that is clearly a copyvio, my impulse is to delete, using of course accepted WP policies and procedures. I have had people imply that having found such a violation I should have rewritten the article myself! In essence that anyone finding a seriously flawed article (I am speaking here to copyvio and totally unsourced material with no claim to notability, not articles that are just poorly written) should either fix it or mind their own business. I have indeed done that on occasion, in several different ways, but isn't the burden more appropriately on the creator than the reader?
On #3 I agree and see the distinction.
My interests in WP are as much about it's substance as it's form, I hope to see it become something significant to our world. Disk space is probably unlimited, but the human commodity of time, necessary to copyedit, source, verify and maintain a quality resource, is not.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. I'm sure you have a real life, as do I, but if you have any comments on the preceeding, I would enjoy reading them when you have the time. --killing sparrows04:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Handbra has been proposed for deletion again and needs your two-fisted support. Handbra thanks you. H Bruthzoo
AfD votes
Before you continue voting "Speedy Keep," you might want to review the criteria for speedy keep, and then consider revising your vote. As none of the AfDs you voted on fall under any of the criteria for speedy keep, the closing admin will not count your opinion as it stands. Thanks, Rockstar (T/C) 03:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categories vs Lists
Hi there,
I noticed your comment on the AfD for List of 3-D films and was wondering if you could give me your thoughts on the cat vs list concept. I read WP:Lists and WP:Cat and frankly can't see the advantage of one over the other. This list does seem useful to me, it seems to very easily meet the criteria for a good list. If I were looking for info about 3-D movies it would be a great place to start. But a category seems to have the same advantages. I'm going to ask the same question of the person stating the cat option is better. Thanks!--killing sparrows05:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot19:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated August H. Auer Jr., 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August H. Auer Jr. 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. Jayden54Bot18:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you see a copyright problems tag on an article, DO NOT REMOVE IT. If you do, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Whilst you may have no regard for copyright, Wikipedia does, and we don't let people edit here who abuse it. Yes, as you said in you edit summary [7], you can't copyright facts. But the wording of the text describing the facts is copyrightable, and in this case IS copyright - and your reversion violated it.
Now, it so happens that since you did that, I have managed to confirm that the copyright holder has allowed the text to be used under a compatible licence - but the tagging of the article should have remained in place pending that confirmation. Don't remove these things again without checking with the user or administration who placed them.--Docg22:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Swedish Geneology
I am flattered that you turned to me with your question, but although i am well informed about Swedish history, i am in no way an expert in the area of geneology, except when it has importence to historicall events. If you have any historicall question about this, feel free to put it on my talk-page, and i will answer it there or here. --Aciram12:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you'll need to take matters into your own hands with this article. There's two points of contention here, and I don't think you can get a grip on both of them. First, arriving at definition probably comes down to a pissing match with some vindictive censors. Secondly, most images like the Rolling Stone covers may not be fair use in this instance. I've got my hands full. All bad puns intended. Thanks for your help. For a couple days, this was a decent article. H Bruthzoo18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop recreating deleted templates. An image source and an image license are two entirely different things. Jkelly19:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read the TfD discussion, and think that this template is useful, and should be re-created, but it needs to be re-worded. The template that was deleted merely cited the source of the material, but what I think is needed is a citation to New York's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) that provides for access to, and free republication of, New York state public records. This is a state law issue that is orthogonal to any (Federal) copyright law issues. I'll find the proper citation and give it a try. --MCB06:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you reverting image cleanup tags on this image? It's not being used in an article, you are linking to the image description page as some kind of reference. Wikimedia servers aren't for hosting documents that aren't freely licensed, and convenient referencing is not a Wikipedia:Non-free content exception. Jkelly20:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What article? The image description page is linked to from Eddie August Schneider, apparantly as some kind of reference, but it is not actually being rendered anywhere, and it is hard to imagine why it should be. Are you clear that we don't want to be republishing media that is not freely licensed, or media that we are unsure about the copyright status of? You're an experienced editor, so I'm unsure why you're publishing questionable media on Wikimedia servers, and why you're reverting to keep it out of the deletion queue. Jkelly23:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am reverting because you said it was orphaned, and it is not orphaned, its in the article as a media link as the reference to his death date and cause of death. I am simply correcting your error. You deleted the original license also. You don't like "fair use" and you don't like "public domain" which seems to imply that you know more than I do about death certificates. If you don't know of any legal decisions involving death certificates, why don't you just leave "fair use". It meets all the Wikipedia criteria. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )01:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anders Örbom
I'm sorry, but military history is not within my field. However, if you are able to understand Swedish, wich i think you are judging by your question, it would not at all be hard for you to find more information about Anders Örbom if you search within Swedish librarys; you might not find many biographys about him exclusively, but he is no duobt included in the large work made about the Great Nortern war, the campaigns of Charles XII and his military personel. The literature about this subject are enormous. You seem to be well informed about his geneology alredy, and i understand your interest in him. Swedish geneology is not hard to trace from the 17th century and forward because of the carefull registration of births and deaths made by the Curch from this point. No doubt you are alredy familiar with Rootsweb and other ancestor-sites on the net. I wish you luck and wish i could have been of more assistance! --Aciram10:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
password hacking
I've put it on the main discussion page but since you've been making recent updates, I wanted to make sure you heard that my password over at Daily Kos got hacked earlier today. It's fixed now but you may want to consider changes yours as well. I think I've picked something better but I'm wondering if you know anyone who could offer better advice? Abby Kelleyite20:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:NewarkSchneider14 copy.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Eddie August Schneider. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk02:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:RobertBuck 1930.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Eddie August Schneider. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk07:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Schneider 02.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Eddie August Schneider. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk08:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Schneider-EddieAugust 1911-1940 c1930.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Eddie August Schneider. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk08:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Schneider-Eddie undated.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Eddie August Schneider. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk08:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Tanzer 030.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Carl Tanzler. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk22:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Tanzer 031.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Carl Tanzler. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk22:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Tanzler 049.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Carl Tanzler. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk22:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Tanzler 056.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Carl Tanzler. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk22:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Tanzler 075.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Carl Tanzler. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk22:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Tanzler 083.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Carl Tanzler. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk22:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Tanzler 084.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Carl Tanzler. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk22:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Rebekka Gudleifsdóttir, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
I see you added the image again. Did you read what I wrote on the talk page? I can't see how it's necessary to use a copyrighted image of a "handbra" when one could easily photograph one first hand. It's not an article about that individual handbra, so any handbra will do. That alone should be enough to disqualify its candidacy for fair use. Can you explain your rationale? You say that a reason was supplied, but I'm not sure what you mean. LeeboT/C02:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Wolfram 01.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Donald Justin Wolfram. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk07:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, I did create the Baker entry and added the initial short paragraph. I don't know that much about the man and being a cocktail geek I was very surprised to see he didn't have an entry in Wiki. I have zero experience working with wikipedia, and it isn't really clear to me how he wouldn't qualify for inclusion, but seems there is already mounting pressure to delete the entry. What are your thoughts?
Baker article
I agree... the collaboration is terrific. I knew there were better researchers out there who would know how to dig up the obscure details of a minimally documented life. Thanks for your help!
Percy Lavon Julian
Hello, we haven't crossed paths in a while. I have taken over as Director of WP:WPChi. Our assessment department is just getting going. As part of our formation I am reevaluating all articles falling under WP:GA or WP:FA quality class. I have put one FA up for WP:FAR and will be putting at least 2 GAs up for WP:GA/R. I am going alphabetically so that is why I say at least 2. Percy Lavon Julian is well above most standards so I will not nominate it for GA/R. However, its intro is sort of confusing because it refers to things as if they have been mentioned before. In particular both Glidden and Syntex seem to be used in a way that suggest one might be familiar with them. Forgive me if it is just because I am unfamiliar with the topic, but since you seem to be the primary editor and I am familiar with your diligence, I thought I would point this out to you. I understand it may seem odd to me because this is not my field, but I think you should take a look. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I see you created this article and I was wondering if you could provide citations for the awards? Ta muchly. Mmoneypenny21:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Georgefg.jpeg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Many thanx -- thoughtful. From your NYT obit, I made some quick basic changes and will probably do more later. Also found the names for all nine of his children. Handicapper12:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Renfrew Museum (FYI)
Hello. For lack of a better quick solution, I've redirected Renfrew Museum to Renfrew, Ontario. It seems that a group of vandals (or sockpuppets) have been working on this junk for a couple of weeks now but I'd appreciate it if you could put the redirect on your watchlist so that someone notices if they ever try at it again. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson05:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how you feel keeping both articles is beneficial to Wikipedia when: 1) the info was clipped from the main articles for both stations, so the information really belongs there; and 2) creating a separate page is most certainly constitutes as fancruft? Rollosmokes21:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On February 13th, you added a picture to my grandfather's wikipedia page, Eddie Feigner. The picture that was uploaded was a picture of a former player of his named Jack Knight. Can you please remove that picture and replace it with an accurate one? Thank you.
A tag has been placed on Herman A. Flurscheim, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
You copied the Daniel_Brandt bio into a /Brandt subdirectory on your user space on June 14. That article no longer exists, but your copy is now indexed in Google. I consider this a WP:BLP violation. Please delete it. Daniel Brandt03:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. You removed my input on the Ethiopia talk page. Why?
2. Someone else reverted my edits (sourced material and all) on the Ethiopia page to your version. Why would your version have more precedence than anyone elses? Doesn't that defeat the idea of wikipedia? The freedom to edit? It was not a vandalization
either, it had SOURCES and yet it was deleted. Why?
3. I have noticed I am not the only one with objections towards the biased and not-so-careful "NPOV" work on the Ethiopia page. Given that you are responsible for the page being reverted back to, why have you ignored these voices and chosen to present a wikipedia article on Ethiopia that endorses wholeheartedly the official Ethiopian nationalist dogma?
Raoul Wallenberg
Attila lajos has made major changes to the article. I have already edited the intro, which included a reference to his own doctoral thesis. Now I'm trying to decide whether to just revert the entire Holocaust section. I don't have enough background to judge how accurate the new additions are, but they look and sound decidedly biased, and are unsourced. Your opinion would be appreciated. Clarityfiend06:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't change spellings
In a recent edit to the page Margita Bangová, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, just ask anyone on Wikipedia and they will help you. Thank you. —Psychonaut21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You left this message on my page, I haven't a clue what you are writing about. If you want to discuss a change I made leave a link to that specific change so it can be discussed rationally. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the edit in question. Unfortunately, the standard warning templates generally do not provide for linking to a diff; perhaps this ought to be changed. At any rate, I consider this matter closed. You did nothing particularly egregious; I just wanted to bring your attention to a policy of which you evidently were not hitherto aware. —Psychonaut21:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't. Most Canadian style guides and dictionaries I'm aware of double terminal consonants when inflecting words such as "travel". —Psychonaut21:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tested that a few days ago after you first mentioned it. If you put [[Category:George W. Bush]] into [[Category:Living people]], only changes to the actual page [[Category:George W. Bush]] are reported by related changes, and not any changes to the articles within the category. So if we added the Bush category to Living people, and removed all Living people cats from all the Bush articles, NONE of the Bush articles would be monitored. That's probably the reason that is says "do not add subcategories" on the Living people cat page. - Crockspot05:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fallasha of Ethiopia
There is no article on Wikipedia on the Fallasha of Ethiopia. There is no mention of them in the Ethiopia article. I would like to collaborate to possibly write one. Though my knowledge is so very limited it would be a tiny mention or stub at best.
LoveMonkey18:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used to be an inclusionist. Now, I'm something of a mergist, but certainly not an outright deletionist. What reasons do you have for your inclusionism? I'm interested. To what extent to notability guidelines on Wikipedia bother you? You can leave a message on my talk page, or respond here.--h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h14:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with the rule, if its been sourced by "multiple, non trivial sources" its notable. Merged or its own article, I never had a preference, unless the merge is "non-obvious".
The restriction in WP:RS is quite clear: Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.
The company's web site would fall under the category of a self-published source per WP:V#SELF. Further, it is a primary source, which we are not supposed to use.
A simple fix is to find some reliable, third-party citations about the company and what it does. However, if you insist on only citing the web site itself, the article will likely get deleted again for failing to show notability and provide verifiability. -- Kesh05:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
primary source "Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )05:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V#SELF "Self-published sources (online and paper): Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Sorry, I see no mention of corporate websites. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )05:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... and? Did you have a point to make by quoting that at me? By the way, that is not an exhaustive list. Note the word examples. -- Kesh05:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of mammals are dogs and cats. That doesn't mean that a fish is a mammal. Your using logical fallacies to try and win your argument. If you think that corporate websites are unreliable, perhaps you should lobby to have them added to primary source and WP:V#SELF..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 05:38, July 4, 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you have that backwards. You are attempting to argue: "Examples of mammals are dogs and cats. Therefore, raccoons are not mammals." The examples are not comprehensive, nor exclusive. You're wikilawyering here. -- Kesh05:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Wikilawyering is a personal essay and not Wikipedia policy. Also a corporate website is a secondary source not a primary source. If the website says they were incorporated in 1992, thats secondary. The primary source would be the actual incorporation papers, or the listing of the company in that states online database of incorporations.
I'm sorry, but you're flatly wrong. If you continue editing in this manner, you'll learn that as you go to new articles and find no one agrees with you. As it stands, the article has been deleted as a recreation of previously deleted material, so the point is moot for the moment. -- Kesh15:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion log says this was deleted as an A7 notability not asserted. Try recreating with an assertion and it should then go to AFD if there are still issues. SpartazHumbug!17:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORP is the guideline to be followed with companies and notability:
A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.
So whatever a company's website is (primary, secondary, etc.), it is not independent. Therefor it can be used to add content, but other sources are first needed to demonstrate notability. Aboutmovies22:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making this page. I was about to make it, but I realized that it was already made. I am trying to improve Delta Sigma Theta and was going to make a page for her, b/c I thought she wasn't on the project. She was the first National President of the organization. Also, I tweaked the image of her in the cap and gown, and is now located on Commons. The image is Public Domain b/c it was taken before 1923. Cheers! Miranda16:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with them? The personality listings are long enough as it is, so the use of columns with bullet points shouldn't be a bad thing. From a structural point of view, everything is kept tidy and there is less clutter. Please consider this before you remove the columns again. Rollosmokes02:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before I even got a chance to try out your method, I saw a bunch of stuff I deleted from the articles in question back. Another editor did a complete revert on both WABC-TV and WNYW, and it wasn't you; it was someone called Biohazard2000 (contribs). I didn't want you to think I didn't take your suggestions into consideration. I just got in from work and would have done it sooner. Rollosmokes04:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we're using different browsers, because all I see is still one long column of names using your preferred method. And, why did you eliminate the alumni section from WNYW and add a link to the separate WNYW News Team article (which I think should have been merged back with the main article a long time ago)? Rollosmokes08:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Ahh, perhaps they aren't rendering in IE, let me experiment and test the hypothesis. If they aren't I will move them back to your method. I am getting rid of the duplicate list, because there was no consensus to delete the lists as separate articles, and now I am correcting errors in two copies. Many of the blue links lead to spurious articles because of errors in disambiguation."
Okay, that explains it, because I use Internet Explorer as my browser. I had tried to get those separate articles on news staffs deleted back when they were created (there were articles created for chs. 2, 4, 5, and 7), and they consensus was to keep them. It should be easier to merge the articles than it was to form a consensus for deletion. Rollosmokes09:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the meaning of this number? Why is it a redirect? Also, have you considered archiving your talk page? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I did read the article, but I missed the number in the infobox. Are there other redirects for other historic places? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Anderson image mislabeled as Edith M. Kingdon
This [image] uploaded and labeled as one of Kingdon's is actually that of Mary Anderson, the stage actress. (so glad I did preview; I almost placed a huge image on your talk page) --健次(derumi)talk18:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was an anonymous contributor that pointed out the mistake (diff here); I did spend some time perusing available photos of both actresses before concluding that indeed was the case. There already is one photograph of Mary Anderson in her article, but I don't see why there couldn't be two. Thank you for the tip regarding images. I usually don't do much with them. --健次(derumi)talk22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Thayden-Louise 02.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot19:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Richard!
Hi, regarding "references" on C. Cardini, big "Ta". I try to do my best on Caesar Salad, by now, but I'm too tired to realize what exactly I have to do to produce a correct reflist. So, if you could spare a few more minutes on that, it would be nice - I for me will not edit there within next c. 18 hrs. any IP. 08:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Same to me ;)) -- any IP. 08:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC) -- 8))) -- any IP.09:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Do you have "at hand" a wikilink on "how-to" produce such reflists? The procedure I used up to now works in deWP, I think... If you can give such link e.a.s.i.l.y, please do so; is not, I'll take time tomorrow to (hopefully) find out.
NEVER-EVER-EVER trust a liar -- I am, by now, _r.e.a.l.l.y_tired, but recently added one more edit to my actual "favourite", "C". Do not care about that now, please, I think I can fix a lot of that stuff by myself, tomorrow morning; we have in Vienna (AUT) some peak temperature for considerable time (about 37°C, but somtimes more; peak for several decades), so PLEASE do not take TOO serious any changes I made until I approve them at about 08:00-10:00 Zulu, 20070721. Best, w. -- any IP.18:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your last night's edits in Caesar Cardini. However, I notify you that I did not note "Alex" with "Alessandro" when mentionning him first, because his Italian baptizing name would never have been "Alex". It's the same as with "Cesare" vs. "Caesar". Besides: The place where I'd formerly put it, was not an optimal one, either: Spanish "Alejandro" ("J" like in "Tijuana") would hardly ever have been replaced by "Alex" when staying in Mexico City. But let's not care too much about those details.
I do not think I would make relevant edits (besides possibly adding one more "Fair use"-pic to the "C. Cardini" page) within c. 36 hrs on either of the two "Caesar ..." pages. Looking forward to your feedback within c. 36 hrs, and best, Wolfgang -- any IP.14:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what any IP. meant, but I agree with you: weird things happen sometimes when you get edit conflicts. BTW, you should try using more edit summaries, that's an interesting science;-) Greswik18:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you can see- I had a go. It does feel like the poor article is being ganged up on rather! I wonder who had deleted bits of it? If it gets deleted I think we should appeal/get it reviewed (if we find out how.) Because as it stands I think it's ok.:)Merkinsmum08:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richard. We seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot regarding the 11:11 material. I exacerbated the situation by taking a heavy handed approach to my edits. I've appreciated your comments on the talk page for the article and the article's nomination page. I still cannot agree that the article should include a list of songs that happen to have 11:11 in the title, at least for the songs listed their is no evidence that the title resulted from the musician's belief in special properties attributed to that time of day, or the fact that they simply liked the title. That's just my opinion. I have always had two main concerns for this article. The first is that what basically amounts to a belief is not presented as reality. If you look back through the history of the article and its various incarnations you would see that some contributors have tried to present their beliefs as actual fact. This concern is actually secondary to my concern as to whether or no the beliefs discussed in the article pass some minimal threshold for notability. I wanted to solicit your input and knowledge. Are you aware of any guidelines that establish notability for topics of this nature (e.g. pseudoscience, religious beliefs, superstitions, etc)? If not, out of curiosity, what do you think constitutes notability for such topics? Just to let you know where I'm coming from I think notability guidelines for these types of articles should include evidence that a significant number of people are familiar with the assertions. The guidelines might include references to articles in reputable sociological/anthropological journals that study the history of said topics. They might also include sufficient references in popular culture. For example, with this article, I think that references to Uri Geller and a few websites are not sufficient to guarantee notability. That's just my thought, and I wanted to solicit your opinion. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. No I don't take it personally. For me part of the beauty of Wikipedia is that we can debate topics within a framework established by the community at large. I was rethinking my position and I realized a flaw in my thinking. In my own mind, I was separating what I thought of as the primary sources in the article from the secondary sources, and in terms of notability I was considering only the secondary sources should count (I consider the Geller material and the books and forums to be primary). I made another mistake in that I wasn't thinking of them as "independent". Perhaps I was confusing independence and bias. Primary sources are probably biased, but still independent of each other (and bias is not a factor when establishing notability) It occurred to me that in terms of notability and establishing that an article exceeds a threshold for notability, that primary sources should count. In my opinion your point system is a very good model for notability. I would assign primary sources a lower number than secondary, but given that we have at least 4 primary sources, I believe that we have established notability.TheRingess (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To forestall any further editwarring, let me explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloguing whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of tempalates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloguing or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appers once in the text as a quote or note and if more thna one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibilographical MLA record is provided in "References". The references area is kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is preseumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instance when an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In the Alexander Graham Bell article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often prefarble not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability. FWIW Bzuk16:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
You are in Wikipedia and should be using the Wikipedia style to match other articles, and to match the reference style already in use in the article. Two divergent styles in the same article is not correct. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )16:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the point I am making- Wikipedia accepts the MLA guide and since it was established first, that is what I reverted to and continued. Your introduction of the APA style guide in templates is the divergent action. In the MLA format, a citation and bibliographic record would look like this:
Author (last name, first name). Title (of book). Place of publication: Publisher, Date. (Page number and ISBN/ISSN is optional.)
Referencing Magazines or Journals works much the same way as books or other reference sources. Here is the style guide:
Author (last name, first name). "Title (of article in quotation marks). Title of magazine or journal (Volume, Issue number, date). Place of publication: Publisher, Date. (Page number and ISSN is optional.) Here is an example in MLA style:
Malizia, Nicola. "L'armamento dei velivoli della Regia Aereonautica." Storia militare Settembre, 1997.FWIW Bzuk16:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hello
Maytag - yes, I have no particular knowledge, I just stumbled in there and decided to do some tidying. Not sure if this was the result of page moves, or what.
Birth certificate ? I have no idea how the records are that far back. In any event, I suspect you would need to go yourself to request a copy. -- Beardo05:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though thousands have done, without problems. Otherwise, I guess you'll have to wait until the rules change again. -- Beardo05:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peer Review
I have left some (hopefully useful!) comments at the peer review for Alexander Graham Bell. If you find them helpful, why not show your everlasting gratitude by commenting on Brabham BT19. If you found them offensive and off the point, why not get revenge by commenting on Brabham BT19. :) Seriously, if you have the time, it's always useful to have another set of eyes look over an article, but if you are up to your ears in other things, or just find the topic unutterably boring, I shan't be offended. Cheers. 4u1e18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm an idiot. Somehow, I managed to glaze over the tag at the bottom of the page when I was reading the article, and comparing it to the page the bot turned up, it seemed identical. Seeing the big copyright logo at the bottom of the linked page led me to believe that it was a copyvio. Further inspection of the copyright info on the website led me to believe otherwise. Sorry for the confusion. In case you couldn't tell, I'm just starting to do copyright violations (to help with the backlog), thus explaining my newbie-ship in this regard. I'll be more careful in the future. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka01:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your citations do not give a proper source, you give an accessdate to what? (no URL given in a number of instances that's why a citation tag was placed).
I don't get what you are providing in this mass of detail about the deaths of Bell's relatives.
What a mess. Now I have no idea what you are doing. This massive amount of text will be incorporated into the article not into the citation. FWIW Bzuk06:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Richard, the date format is not European nor American in origin, rather it is the accepted format for historical research. The reason for using it is that it is unambiguous and has become the accepted standard for a number of biographical and aviation groups. Foreign users have different conventions for dates so that it was soon obvious that 02-11-07 could mean 11 February 2007 or 2 November 2007 depending on the country. The "familiar" style was attempted at first, February 11, 2007 but after deliberations, the more generally accepted date convention became the "historical" format. I have no reservations about using either format and since I am an author, I have followed the "house style guide" of my publishers and written in either format. Establishing a date format does not have anything to do with my preferences, but it also is recognized that the vast majority of users do not have a browser preference set for dates. The reason I questioned your use of templates is that the templates that are presently in use do not accommodate all date formats and certainly do not accommodate the format that is presently being adopted for historical research. FWIW Bzuk22:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the great work on subject article. I re-linked Edward Ball. Do you have an interest in North Florida history, or the DuPonts? 165.2.186.1015:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I have added information to this article and tried to clerify it more now, but it could perhaps be rephrased to make it easier to read for an English-speaking person, i have no idea. I have added another section to it, but it is in quotetext; it should not be, and i don't know how to fix that, so perhaps you could? Just to let you know, as i see you are interested in the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.235.247 (talk) 09:44, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Edison Medal
In response your question, when I deleted the article, I was making my way through a large list of articles about the IEEE and its publications, etc., that asserted no notability whatsoever. When I reviewed this article, I did not see any assertion that this particular award was notable. My thinking was that anybody could create an award and then confer it upon notable people, but that would not make the award in question notable. However, looking at it again, the statement that "it is the oldest medal in this field of engineering" is clearly an assertion of notability. As a result, I will be restoring the article as soon as I finish leaving this message. Please accept my apologies, and thanks for bringing this to my attention. --But|seriously|folks03:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image needs a different tag. There may be a copy in the US Gov possession, but it is unlikely that it was produced by the US Gov, which is required for that public domain tag. It looks like a portrait studio shot. Do you know if it was ever published and, if so, when? If not, it may be difficult to demonstrate that the photographer died more than 70 years ago, so this may be problematic. Also, watermarked images aren't allowed here. If you need help removing the watermark, I'd be happy to assist. Just let me know. Thanks! --But|seriously|folks16:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same would apply to this image, which is more problematic. This one obviously wasn't published early enough, and there's no reason to believe it was the work of the US Gov. Unless there's more information about this image, I don't think it can be used here. --But|seriously|folks16:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander Graham Bell nomination for Good article status
Richard, Can you please withdraw this nomination for at least two weeks. I am presently adding to the article, a paragraph at a time and it will take some time to get the entire article reviewed. I am just about to look at his early education and am drawing together from three different sources. Thanking you in advance for your consideration. FWIW Bzuk 23:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC).
Thanks Richard, I invite you to look over the edits and help in the "crafting" of a more authoritative and researched work. And thanks for your assistance in the past. Bzuk23:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Edison medal
Is there a link to the deletion you spoke of? It would not qualify as a speedy for lack of notability, since it had a noted committee deciding who got it, it went to distinguished persons such as Tesla, and it was well publicized. Odd that it was not merged or redirected at least and that it did not go through AFD. Bears looking into and perhaps DRV. Edison12:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found and added a reference where an author said it was "the most coveted" award for north American electrical engineers. I think it sounds silly to place such a verbatim referenced claim of notability in each and every article as insurance against an admin speedily deleting it. It should be obvious that an award from a major professional organization is notable, and the CSD guidelines should be written to avoid the need for such an explicit claim, when a reasonable admin would see the references even if they are external links rather than inline refs. I suggested to the deleting admin that it is a good idea to do a Google Scholar and Google Book search before deleting, and the guidelines for AFD even suggest checking for possible notability before nominating for deletion. Then I would always suggest a test AFD for something that seems like it might be non-notable, before deleting a slew of related articles. I am considering adding an email link, but I wish to keep secret my real-life identity to avoid harassment for things said or done in good faith on Wikipedia, especially if I ever become an administrator, and I expect that it might be easier for someone to ferret out real-life identity from an email account than from a Wikipedia user id. Edison17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Bayview Cemetery, Jersey City, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Fram14:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. 189.175.208.3822:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aspirin has been selected as this week's Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week! Please help us bring this article up to featured standards during the week. The goal is to nominate this at WP:FAC on September 10, 2007.
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology main page has been updated and overhauled, to make it easier to find things, as well as to highlight other goals and announcements for the project.
Fvasconcellos notes that discussion is ongoing regarding the current wording of MEDMOS on including dosage information in drug articles. All input is welcome.
I came across both the article and the PROD notice. I must say that I agree re: deletion as the article now stands -- perhaps you can find more to boost Ms. DiNardo's notability per WP:BIO? --A. B.(talk)22:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource articles
Dear Richard,
I nominated your article User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Eddie August Schneider on your Wikisource user page for deletion as a possible copyright violation a while back. I didn't know how to get in touch with you. I actually nominated two others, but one of them seems too short for copyright law to apply, and the other one doesn't seem to be a problem since it's by a family member of yours, and it's just on your user page. But the first one has things from publishers that haven't been assigned GDFL releases. I brought it up on the WS:COPYVIO page at the User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) heading.
Thanks for your input on the List of fatal cougar attacks in North America by decade/article for deletion
Thanks for your input on that page and by adding to the article itself. I am working on addressing the concerns you expressed by adding specific news stories which relate to each victim (Notes) to supplement the general reference section (References). Thanks for making the first addition to the Notes section.--Hokeman00:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also in regard to the senior yearbook photo from 1976 on your user page - You just made me cry out, "Good God Man!" (I used to look just like that too.)--Hokeman01:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just saw your question to me on this AfD re using Google Scholar. I don't mean to exclude all other sources; I just use it (and Google News) as a shortcut to bypass all the junk that gets pulled up on regular Google (fandom pages etc). There are some reliable results on regular Google, but it can take a while to sift through and find them; whereas almost 100% of results on Scholar and News are reliable, so when time is short I find it easier to start there. (When I've got lots of time, I check News, Scholar, and several of my library databases, and then sift through several pages of regular Google results, and only then give up.)
I did mean to follow those references up but got caught up doing research for another page, and am now out of town for a conference. When I get back hopefully I'll have a chance to have another look at Planet_killer. --Zeborah23:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so very much for finding the remaining Edison Pioneers! Do you think we have the correct list of 28 people? -BMcCJ - BMcCJ05:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you are referring to my talk page note on the Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916. I've seen the Matavan spelling here and there. It may be a more correct rendering of the old name for the local native American Indians, I'm not sure.
I noticed your association with inclusionists. I'm glad to see there is some definition of that concept, because I feel I'm one as well. I started listing local schools for a 'List of' page, and someone associated with the Schools WP PD came along and removed my text and left a hidden note on the page saying that such additions were against WP rules. I was flabbergasted but accepted the edit with more than a grumble. The editor obviously had never done genealogical or other biographical research that required identification of a local school forty or fifty years ago. I like the stated beliefs of the inclusionists, that WP should be a collection of all knowledge. I don't always understand the idea of lists, but I don't see the harm. Just today I came across a sub-category for religious organizations founded in 1853, or something to that effect. I clicked on the link and there were dozens, so it wasn't so far fetched. Less is less, to my mind. So I appreciate knowing of the group and I might borrow your tag if you don't mind.
I see you're into science. I'm on sabbatical in Erie, Pennsylvania and have been busy with the WikiProject Erie. I've recently gotten into documenting the area's watersheds -- Lake Erie Watershed (Pennsylvania), Lake Erie Basin, and Great Lakes Basin. I'd be curious if you or a science friend have any comments on watershed articles in Wiki. I've just noticed that most of the details about watersheds are 'immersed' in the articles about the bodies of water they are named after. I thought that separate pages discussing the lands that feed the streams that feed the lakes, etc, etc, would be a useful addition to Wiki. They provide a chance to document pollution and efforts to stop it, urbanization, water use, drinking water issues, reservoirs, even old streams that have been lost to urbanization. The pages I added cover enormous territory, but so far no one has edited them. I even announced them on the WikiProject Geography home page as new articles. Any thoughts on the idea or how to get more folks to contribute to it? Maybe, since you are a NJ WP guru par excellance, you might promote the idea of documenting the watersheds in NJ?
Hey. We don't know each other and we aren't really working on any of the same articles, however I noticed a recent change of yours and checked out your user page. You seem like you've led an interesting life, and i've seen the contributions you've made to the site. And I thought "you know what, i'm going to tell this complete stranger that I think he's doing a great job". So I am; you're a pretty good editor. Weird how paths cross sometimes, isn't it? MezzoMezzo00:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:8016154 1066958713.jpg
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:8016154 1066958713.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Wittpenn obit.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot02:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Humphreys_03.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia: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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast19:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use Image:Hwang_011.jpg
Replaceable fair use
Thanks for uploading Image:Hwang_011.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast19:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use disputed for Image:Hc-hagedorn-150.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hc-hagedorn-150.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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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.
Thanks for uploading Image:Brigade190.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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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.
Thanks for uploading Image:Glargine 02a.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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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.
Thanks for uploading Image:Drexel-Katherine1.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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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.
Good show! Only one Green-Wood redlink left. Good cite, too, I keep forgetting about the "quote" parameter, maybe I should go rework some citations from last week. --CliffC01:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a brief update in some of the recent developments of WikiProject Pharmacology!
Aspirin has just completed its two week run as the first Collaboration of the Week! Many thanks to those editors that contributed; the article got a lot of good work accomplished, and in particular, much work was done in fixing up the history section. It's still not quite "done" yet (is a wikipedia article really ever done?), but after two weeks I think it's more important to push onwards with the development of the new collaboration of the week program. I will be fixing up Aspirin in the next few days and possibly nominating it for either GA or FA status.
Muscle relaxant has been selected as the new Collaboration of the week until October 2, 2007! This article is currently rated as a "stub", so it's got quite a bit of work cut out for collaborators! Admittedly, featured status could be a long way off,... but still attainable! At the least, maybe we could at least get it up to meeting the Good article criteria? Please stop by the article and help improve it.
Resveratrol, having recently achieved GA status on August 16, 2007, is now making a run for featured status. This is quite a fascinating compound. If you can, please stop by its discussion page and leave comments in support of it.
Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing or dispensing medical advice amongst users. Specifically, talk pages of articles should only be used to discuss improving the actual article in question. To help alleviate this situation, the template {{talkheader}} may be added to the top of talk pages, reminding users of the purpose of such pages. Additionally, unsigned comments and comments by anonymous users that are inappropriate may be removed from talk pages without being considered vandalism.
Richard, I know I asked for two weeks to get the article up to GA standards, but the last two weeks have been tied up with fighting off vandals daily rather than doing the "heavy lifting." I have made some progress but I have had to ask an admin to establish a {{sprotect}} arrangement which he is presently doing. I have a magazine to put to bed in the next two weeks, so the GA nomination is again going to have to be postponed. I am removing the GA tag again but I will certainly keep you informed as to when things are ready. FWIW Bzuk00:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
In the SRA discussion page, you stated that I was using "slander and libel" against Dr Ralph Underwager and Paul and Shirley Eberle, and failing to cite my sources. I've provided sources on these matters in the past on the SRA page, but I've reposted them for your interest.
One of the difficulties with the SRA debate is untangling all of the vested interests. There are many parents out there with legitimate greivances against the child protection system and psychotherapy. There are also others, like Dr Ralph Underwager or the Eberles, who have sort to exploit those greivances in order to advance their own social agenda around sex with children.
The notion of SRA is ludicrous because it was designed to be so. SRA is essentially a parody of children's disclosures of sadistic abuse, and the term was defined by Underwager and others to undermine public faith in allegations of child sexual abuse. Early in the debate, clinicians also used the term SRA to describe ritualistic child abuse, but they quickly moved to more evidence-based terms as the knowledge base grew, and as the media increasingly derided SRA as a farcical compendium of "human sacrifice" and "satanic cults".
In my recent changes to the article, I hope that I've demonstrated for you and others that there have been successful prosecutions for sexual abuse in which ritualistic activity and organised "Satanic" activity was a feature. I don't know why some sexual offenders behave in this way, but it is a sad fact that they do. Doing justice to the subject of SRA means acknowledging both the moral panic around SRA and the evidence base for organised and ritualistic child sexual abuse.
I hope we can continue to work to improve the article to the benefit of the reader.
Thanks for your message R.A.N. Actually, I am applying this [10] section of the policy page and I can't find any real argument against it on the talk page (though I may have missed it). Also, I am not the only editor removing them. One other thing (and this is just a suggestion please don't feel that you have to do this) you might want to archive some of the discussions here on your talk page. It is a little unwieldy working through talk pages when they get as big as your is. The process is fairly straightforward and the instructions can be found here Help:Archiving a talk page. Now you may like it the way that it is and that is okay, but, if you do want to do this and have any questions please feel free to ask. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk20:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfD for All White Jury
Hi there. You raised a good point which got me thinking about the article. I can clearly see how the term has importance (since there have been a number of cases where convictions have been overturned for racial bias). However I'd be worried about how to neutrally deal with current allegations of racial bias in ongoing events. (Ie, if we include them in the article based on reliable sourcing of allegations, aren't we in effect endorsing that view? Since the article says "...who either find a minority guilty despite an apparent lack of evidence...", we'd be implying that was the case in the ongoing scenarios. Which it might very well be, but I don't think that's the tone Wikipedia should take.) Thoughts? --Bfigura(talk)04:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. This should have been tagged with a few cleanup tags rather than an AfD. I think I spent too much time new-page patrolling and got trigger happy. Bleh. --Bfigura(talk)05:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a ball, I thought it was a lot of fun. It was a long time ago, I had a VHS tape of the show, but it got lost somewhere in a move. I didn't win, though, came in second, won a trip to Puerto Vallarta out of it. Corvus cornix01:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images of census records
Greetings. You've uploaded a bunch of census documents (e.g. Image:1910 census Morrow.gif) as images. Most of these aren't presently used in articles, and the ones that are are only linked to as references (not visible in articles). It's obvious you've done a ton of research and that's great, but we don't usually use the image namespace to hold source documents. For this reason, I've nominated these images for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 September 28#Various census documents. It's nothing personal -- I do appreciate the work you've put in in researching these people. But in my opinion, it would be better to state the census record information in "references", not include a scan of an entire page. You're welcome to comment at the deletion nomination to agree or disagree. – Quadell(talk) (random)16:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Schneider-Eddie NYT 1930ff.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Schneider-Eddie NYT 1930ff.gif. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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.
Alas! I don't have online access to the Washington Post that far back either. It may not exist (they're all on microform instead). -- phoebe/(talk) 17:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
#c-Durin-2006-06-06T22:19:00.000Z-Re:_Image:New_Jersey_state_seal.png){kind=link}
#c-BigDT-2006-08-17T12:04:00.000Z-Image:Lattin_Susannah_1868_September04_NewYorkTimes.jpg){kind=link}
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 22:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
#c-OrphanBot-2007-01-28T20:06:00.000Z-Fair_use_rationale_for_Image:Gould-Anna_01.jpg){kind=link}
, see Talk:Albert Fish for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Soldan 17:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-07T01:35:00.000Z-Image:613457687899.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-07T01:40:00.000Z-Image:677579879656434.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Jkelly-2007-05-08T20:30:00.000Z-Image:8638926_109279137449.gif){kind=link}
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-16T01:47:00.000Z-Image:Eddie_Schneider_1930.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-16T01:47:00.000Z-Image:Eddie_Schneider_1937.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-16T01:47:00.000Z-Image:EddieSchneiderObituary.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-16T07:00:00.000Z-Image:Hall-Mills_033.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-16T07:00:00.000Z-Image:HallMills_1926.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-17T02:08:00.000Z-Image:NewarkSchneider14_copy.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-17T07:29:00.000Z-Image:RobertBuck_1930.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-17T08:32:00.000Z-Image:Schneider_02.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-17T08:32:00.000Z-Image:Schneider-EddieAugust_1911-1940_c1930.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-17T08:32:00.000Z-Image:Schneider-Eddie_undated.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-17T22:01:00.000Z-Image:Tanzer_030.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-17T22:01:00.000Z-Image:Tanzer_031.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-17T22:02:00.000Z-Image:Tanzler_049.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-17T22:02:00.000Z-Image:Tanzler_056.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-17T22:02:00.000Z-Image:Tanzler_075.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-17T22:02:00.000Z-Image:Tanzler_083.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-17T22:02:00.000Z-Image:Tanzler_084.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Gnome_(Bot)-2007-05-19T07:44:00.000Z-Image:Wolfram_01.jpg){kind=link}
In a recent edit to the page Margita Bangová, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
#c-ShakespeareFan00-2007-07-08T14:35:00.000Z-Image:56474732346678b.jpg){kind=link}
#c-ShakespeareFan00-2007-07-09T12:18:00.000Z-Image:Moriarty_01.jpg){kind=link}
#c-MER-C-2007-07-13T09:39:00.000Z-Apidra_chem.gif){kind=link}
#c-MER-C-2007-07-14T10:41:00.000Z-Aspart_01.jpg){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading Image:Thayden-Louise 02.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
#c-BetacommandBot-2007-07-18T19:47:00.000Z-Orphaned_non-free_image_(Image:Thayden-Louise_02.jpg)){kind=link}
#c-Rettetast-2007-07-21T12:17:00.000Z-Glargine_01.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Rettetast-2007-07-21T12:18:00.000Z-Glargine_02.jpg){kind=link}
#c-MER-C-2007-07-23T09:31:00.000Z-Bernard_Kerik_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Butseriouslyfolks-2007-08-26T16:51:00.000Z-Image:14310009.jpg){kind=link}
#c-STBotI-2007-09-12T01:36:00.000Z-Image_copyright_problem_with_Image:8016154_1066958713.jpg){kind=link}
#c-BetacommandBot-2007-09-14T02:02:00.000Z-Orphaned_non-free_media_(Image:Wittpenn_obit.gif)){kind=link}
#c-Rettetast-2007-09-14T19:10:00.000Z-Fair_use_rationale_for_Image:Humphreys_03.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Rettetast-2007-09-14T19:23:00.000Z-Replaceable_fair_use_Image:Hwang_011.jpg){kind=link}
#c-BetacommandBot-2007-09-16T04:45:00.000Z-Fair_use_disputed_for_Image:Hc-hagedorn-150.jpg){kind=link}
#c-BetacommandBot-2007-09-16T05:25:00.000Z-Fair_use_disputed_for_Image:Brigade190.jpg){kind=link}
#c-BetacommandBot-2007-09-16T05:33:00.000Z-Fair_use_disputed_for_Image:Glargine_02a.jpg){kind=link}
#c-Angr-2007-09-16T16:44:00.000Z-Fair_use_disputed_for_Image:Drexel-Katherine1.jpg){kind=link}
#c-BetacommandBot-2007-09-29T10:33:00.000Z-Disputed_fair_use_rationale_for_Image:Schneider-Eddie_NYT_1930ff.gif){kind=link}