This is an archive of past discussions with User:Americasroof. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
HEY I DONT GET WHAT U R TELLING ME AND I DONT NO HOW TO RESPOND BACK TO U..????
PLEASE MESSAGE BACK!!!!!!!!!!
-MOAIRGUARD
Thanks for uploading Image:Montauk-airport.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU˜talk00:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The original entry stated the image was "by FAA" However it got tagged as unsourced. This image is by the Federal Aviation Agency, a U.S. government agency. I have included a URL. I hope this addresses the issue. Americasroof01:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't find this image. I searched for "Montauk" which gave 3 PDFs. I skimmed through them and couldn't find it. Could you put some directions on how to find this diagram from the page you linked please? I do believe this to be a FAA drawing, I hope you do understand that I at least needed the URL you provided, as many people put "From XXX government agency" which isn't enough to claim that it's public domain. Thank you for working with me on getting the source problem figured out. --MECU˜talk01:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
With regards to your follow up question. The FAA website is counterintuitive. You can't link directly to an image because it expires. You have to click on the instructions information in blue below the red lettered warning that tells you to link to that page ONLY. That takes you to a map and entry form. I clicked New York and then searched by city for Montauk. The image is a pdf with other data but I jus cropped the diagram. The link: http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_tpp The link to the Montauk diagram (for today only as it will expire) is http://www.naco.faa.gov/pdfs/ne_161_18JAN2007.pdf Hope this addresses the issue. Americasroof01:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks. That's all I needed. I've removed the nosource tag from the image. I made a comment (with a typo in the edit summary) that it's impossible to directly link to the image per the FAA website. That should help in the future if you have problems (not likely). Lastly, to link to an image without displaying it, you just put a : in front of Image:, like this: [[:Image:NAME.JPG]] and it won't display. Thanks again for your cooperation. --MECU˜talk01:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
WUSTL Project
Hello, I noticed you've made edits to WUSTL articles or that you are in some way connected to Washington University in St. Louis. I thought you might want to become a member of Washington University in St. Louis WikiProject . We've recently built the project page and started a drive to improve articles in the WUSTL series. Please take a look to edit an article or add one of your own. Once an article's status has been agreed upon, feel free to stop by and lend a hand in getting it to featured article status. Hope you can participate!
I reverted your last rewrite as it ... well, it created more problems than it solved IMO. Could you have at least followed common practice and put all your concerns on the talk page first, especially given that the article is hardly neglected? The article looks (to me) a lot worse now. I really don't see why, if you complained (correctly) that much of the material was unsourced (although I made a fairly game effort to try to put a bunch in a few months back), you didn't just tag the unsourced assertions and work to find sourcing for them (not easy, I admit, given the limitations of the Record''s online archives and the Poughkeepsie Journal not having much online to search. But there are libraries around here, after all).
In fact, I'm going to revert everything you did so we can start on the talk page and justify every change you want to make (For example, taking the bit about the space shuttle out as "p.r. fluff" is essentially a POV edit. Perhaps it can land at every airport (having seen the main runway in Florida and being told how important it was that it was so long, I'm not sure about that and I'd like to see a source). Daniel Case02:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, another thing ... re the infobox image, see this about what goes in the infobox image argument:
A link to a photograph of the aiport, or an image of the airport logo
I had the airport diagram where it was to illustrate the section describing the airport itself. That other people have put the FAA diagram in that argument shows that they're lazy and don't read guidelines. (Also, "privatization problems" may seem less POV but the facts are that privatization didn't work out (Jim Wright said as much). A public authority buying a lease held by a private company for a public asset is, any way you slice it, an end to the privatization)
Yes, I know it needed work (It's in my backyard more than geographically: I covered the privatization when I was a reporter (There's a lot there that might source to articles I had written myself! But I've been trying to depend on the Record)
If I go back to what was there before, all the changes you made that are good are still in the history and we can take what we need from them. If you make a list of problems (and there are problems), I'll make a to-do list so other people can fix them as need be.
I don't want a revert war either. They happen when people insist on "my version, all or nothing" and refuse to discuss it on the talk page (Yes, there have been articles I've wanted to do major rewrites on. I usually see how active an interest people take in the page first before I decide what to do). Daniel Case02:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I have reverted to your last version so I can start cleaning it up (For one thing, why did you chop the opening grafs into little bits? The two tight grafs were in keeping with WP:LEAD. Articles with that kind of scattered look never get featured status. You can see that complaint all the time on WP:FAC).
Actually, you didn't change as much as I thought you had. But some things ... "grassroots rebellion" is, well, we need something a little drier to describe that, like whatever it was that I had (Believe me, I had some section heds and lively writing I really liked at New Coke drained by others in the interest of keeping them encyclopedic. So I've learned the hard way). Daniel Case03:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I've cleaned it up. As I said, you didn't change as much as I thought. But do take in consideration that prose like this, if it came from your rewrite:
many barracks and other buildings were built on the base with many of buildings still standing
is not going to impress me, or FA reviewers, or any readers. Also, in the history section you eliminated that riff about Rockefeller building all his grandiose projects. Fine, but since there are later references to Stewart being hoped for as an SST airport during that time it needed some explaining, so I had to put something back in.
You probably did streamline it some. But I do take pride in my prose, as I think anyone who has made a living on their writing skills does, and it at first looked to me like the article had been "dumbed down" and made more like too much else here.
The above comments reflected several edits. Dan and I have exchanged comments on each other's pages. Some of my edits were restored and some were nuked. I disagree with many of the revisions that Dan made since they removed hard facts, hard dates and references. However I will not engage in a revert war over Stewart International Airport. Americasroof17:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Mercator Cooper
I can recall no records for other landings on the mainland between those of Davis and Cooper, by the way the landing of Davis is documented and I see no reasons to question it; the wiki article cites no sources of possible doubts (so that remark should actually be withdrawn); I would be interested to see such sources if any. There is a web reference to 'S. Peter's rock' in Bonin Islands, mentioned in connection with another wreckage. The islands were used by the Americans and the British as a whaling base in the early 19th century; as they were later annexed by Japan, the early European names for the individual islands became possibly superceded by Japanese names. Pribilof Islands are highly improbable; I don't think they were even visited by Japanese at that time, and indeed they were Russian islands and by no means "northern Japanese islands". Apcbg22:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for going the extra mile! It's a big help! 02:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
North Omaha
Hi. You've contributed to the North Omaha article in the past, and I'm wondering if you can help figure out how to make it more "readable" - its getting long. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance. - Freechild18:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Your St. Louis Arsenal draft and the blacklisted link
I saw your request on Meta. The suite101.com site is blacklisted. Suite101.com editors were financially motivated by the company to link to Wikipedia to build traffic and ad revenues, so we ended up with several hundred links. Some of their stuff is good, some is awful (there's not much editorial oversight).
I took the http out of your link, disabling it. Readers can still see it, but neither Wikipedia's software nor their broswers will recognize it as a hyperlink.
Hello again. Now I need your help. Can you join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Suite 101. We can't figure out how you were able to add a live blacklisted link to your new Liberty Arsenal article without getting blocked. It's possible we have a software bug. Can you clarify for us your recent experience with adding the Suite101.com link and any blocks or non-blocks you got? Thanks, --A. B.(talk)01:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, if you were wondering why Suite101 is blacklisted, here's a part of the saga to skim (but only if you have problems falling asleep):
Pony Express is the only council that has Mic-o-Say only but Geiger is not the only camp. HOA has their camps divided so that Camp Naish is Order of the Arrow and Camp Bartle is Mic-O-Say. Bartle has no OA lodge. Thus the sentence that Geiger is the only camp to offer exclusively Mic-O-Say is incorrect. Jvbishop20:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The above unsigned comment probably would have been corrected with the use of preview by User:Revragnarok which have also gotten the name right of David Rice Atchison. I probably use my sandbox more than most. But I would rather get an article right. The Atchison article as written cited no references and had almost no history of his early career. Major changes usually require multiple edits. Americasroof16:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Nothing like a little good faith there. I put too many ~'s apparently - I don't normally preview with a simple template. I was just trying to be friendly and helpful. Since "Major changes usually require multiple edits," you may want to look into {{inuse}}. — RevRagnarokTalkContrib17:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I did some work on the above article - I am stationed at Offutt AFB, so I was able to get some material from the base library. I expanded it somewhat (I don't think it can be expanded much further, given the materials available), added an infobox and metadata, and made sure it complied with the Manual of Style. Appreciate any feedback or tweaks you might care to give. RJASE1Talk23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice job! Thanks for going the extra mile. It's sometimes really hard to find that level of detail on line. In the for what it's worth department when I did a search via newspaperarchive.com, there was a tale about him being buried in the wrong grave and they had to look for him. There were some other comments that his family being very prominent in Omaha. Thanks again! Americasroof04:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Honey-war.gif. 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. 12:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
photo from Missouri was badly needed, so thank you. I drove miles out of my way 6 months ago to get the shot and then lost the roll of film that I shot. Oh well, I feel a digital future coming on. Carptrash23:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC) PS I couldn't stop myself from making achange on your user:page. I tried, but . . ...........
Thanks for the comments. We sure do some wacky stuff for wikipedia. I visited the monument on a tour of all the Missouri River bridges in Missouri! As much as I post to Wikipedia, I should probably improve my profile. It is tempting to do the joke! ;-) Americasroof00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I am in a wikipout right now, not doing any serious editing, just having fun, but I still keep an eye on things like the Madonnas. 5 of the pictures there are mine, (actually, 8 pictures, but 5 madonnas) so I do enjoy seeing other ones get added. Bridges, huh? Carptrash00:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I had always heard about the Madonnas via Truman biographies and never quite understood what the fuss was and didn't pay much attention to them (and am not even sure if I even saw one). But I knew what it was the minute I saw it (near the old bridge of course). I was delighted to get such thorough info when I checked on wikipedia. Here's a postcard on ebay of it which is kinda cool
Great card. I'm a world class (through probably not TOP of the class) follower of Pioneer Women statues (there are more than you might suspect) so have been doing the Madonnas for awhile. Well I's LIVE on KLDK now, so . . .. later. Carptrash03:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am familiar with that, in fact, I wrote the Proctor article and that is, I think, my picture. Carptrash14:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC) ---->
That's a great picture. It looks like it's really out on the plains (as opposed to the usual in the middle of a park). Americasroof14:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
When I got there I discovered that there were reeds or weeds or something all around the group so this low angle, backlite shot seemed to be a good idea. i have more somewhere, but I liked this one. I have been wanting to get back to KC and spend more time there because there is so much interesting stuff there, but it has not hallened yet. Meanwhile, are your bridges of the Missouri posted here? Carptrash16:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The bridges articles are at List of crossings of the Missouri River. I actually live in NY but have added an extra day to snoop around Missouri history during visits back. I thought I was almost done adding history but after talking to you I notice that the Santa Fe Trail is crappy. So that will start the next round. ;-) BTW I see that Dixon is near Taos. When I was a kid I was on the staff of Philmont for four summers. So the Land of Enchantment has a big hook on me. Americasroof18:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Philmont is not far from me. I'm in Santa Fe right now at some computer place where my wife is doig something and I'm waiting - on wikipedia. Will check out the bridges shortly. Carptrash21:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for photo of Liberty Jail
I was waiting for it to warm up, flowers to bloom, etc. and then I was going to drive over and take a photo, then the cold snap hit. I guess you must have taken this one at just the right time, it's a great shot. Anyway, thanks for uploading both the exterior and interior shots. 74s18103:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Even though I've known about it my whole life, I visited on a spur of the moment and was glad I did. The whole Joseph Smith/Mormon War material is much more intresting than I ever realized. If you go, the interior is really hard to photograph even in the official pics. You need a wide angle camera to catch the upper and lower levels and the light is not very good. Americasroof04:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Alan N. Strahler, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Arthur N. Strahler and Alan N. Strahler are two different persons
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page 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 its subject's notability under the guidelines.
I just wanted to drop you a note thanking you for searching out sources. So far as I'm concerned, you don't have to feel sole responsibility for doing that. Those contributions are very helpful and make the articles much more useful. I also wanted to say that you can feel free to have both sources listed -- there is no policy that says there can only be a single source. In fact, multiple sources are preferable. Erechtheus02:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your nice note. I have to say I was initially annoyed. In making one small adjustment to one article I saw that Missouri's Congressional articles were not in the format that were used by various Congressional projects and wound up getting more than 100 articles written for a complete set of Missouri Congress biographies (mercifully there's a bot that crawled the biography link and wrote most of the articles and so I just had to throw the name at it). The only feedback in all that was yours. None-the-less your criticism is valid. All of the massive Congressional congress lists in virtually all 50 states (and from which my smaller subsets that you tagged) came from don't list sources. In initial spot checks I think the lists are correct based on the Congress biographies on time served but it's difficult to consistently confirm parties and districts so I too wish they had placed a source. Americasroof11:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
