User talk:M1ss1ontomars2k4

Image copyright problem with Image:HypocotylArch.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:HypocotylArch.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 13:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry S. Truman has a period.

The idea that there's no period after the "S" is an urban legend. Harry S. Truman himself used the period both in his signature and on his letterhead. [1] - Nunh-huh 05:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes i realized that after i read the actual article on ol' harry. i trust you have changed it back already? M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But of course<g>! - Nunh-huh 05:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George W. M. Reynolds

I have added some content to this article on a British novellist and journalist. I would be grateful if you could take a look.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitalistroadster (talk • contribs)

That's more of an article. Do you think you could add more? also, sign your name with four tildes. M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Please use the {{prod}} or {{db}} tag if its not a controversial issue. Thanks in advance, --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hm...i suppose so...i just don't like taking the risk that other will think its is controversial :( but if you say so.M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. If others object to the {{prod}} or {{db}} tag, they can always remove the tag and propose the article on AfD --TBC

^{??? ??? ???} 05:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rothko

Hi, maybe it is because I go slower and fall behind, but I'm noticing that several people are missing some of the vandalism. For instance in Mark Rothko you'll see that the vandal made two edits, but you only reverted one of them. Of course, maybe that was just you picking the wrong link to start your revert. Just being grumpy I guess. You are definitely helping. Shenme 05:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpaghettiO's

I turned that nonsense page into a redirect to the actual brand. I had no idea it was normally spelled without a space. "Uh-oh", indeed... Bobak 05:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opera (web browser)

Hi, thanks for your contribution to the opera article. I admire your dedication to getting the information, but I had to revert it due to Wikipedia's no original research policy. If you can find a reliable source that backs it up, you can include it. Thanks. - Motor (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha...oops i forgot about the WP:NOR stuff. But does that mean if i got a friend to do research and I added it to WP, does that still count as OR?M1ss1ontomars2k4 20:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably... yes it would still be OR. It depends on who the friend is and where he publishes his findings. Here's the relevant bit from the WP:NOR policy:

Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library.

- Motor (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? It's a little outdated, but the same thing happens today. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My username

I was in an academic challenge club in high school too. We also did activities similar to quiz bowl. Your username is also very interesting. It's very longAcademic Challenger 23:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Federer

While I understand your concern, I do not believe the article should be deleted. A google search of his name reveals hits independent of his status as Roger's dad, and his study was published in a notable peer-reviewed, scholarly publication, indicating that it did in fact have some impact on the field in which he works (chemical whitening). We should definitely clean up and expand the article, but not delete it. What do you think? Stanley011 05:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Da Vinci Code

Can you explain your policy of the revert on the Da Vinci Code. Why is it that only one link can be posted for solutions? Signed Comment --> Any other rules I need to know before I can ask a question? User:Rogerbales

Hey thanks for the kind remark. I understand the issue with the websites and that is fine. I just disagree that http://student-rant.blogspot.com remains on the page while my link is removed when the two links represent the same material. If one link has to be removed why not all links. Certianly student-rant has no more relation to the da vinci code then the other two correct?

Hm...it seems that you're right about student-rant.whatever whatever. It isn't entirely devoted to the quest either. Check back in 5 minutes or so. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Wow you are a really cool person. Honestly when this whole thing got started I thought you were just somebody taking student-rant's side. You are so fair and honest. I'm not trying to brown nose here but you trully have been incredible about this situation. I can see why they have given you the responsibities that you have.

My next question is, is it relevant to create a blog just with the solutions on it something like davincicodequest.blogspot.com ? I am only asking because i have received 1200 hits to my blog in the past two days from wikipedia alone for these hints to the solutions, so it seems like people are interested in the content. It is not necessary to be listed on the wiki because a google search will also turn up my site, but I just was curious if you think it is approriate. Rodgerbales 01:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... That might violate Wikipedia's No Original Research policy, especially since to an outsider you seem like you're adding a link to the article to promote your own webpage. At any rate, it should go in the "External Links" section, which I guess would be fine. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't want to cause any problems, especially with how kind you have been to me. I see other solution type sites in the external links but I don't want to spend the time it takes to build the blog if it is going to be a problem and just get removed in a few days. I'll leave it completly up to you, Yes or No? ... or still maybe lol. Rodgerbales 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there isn't actually a section labeled solutions. So, i guess you can create a new section labeled solutions, and stick that other site (it's listed 1st under "other" in parodies) into that section too. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]