User talk:David Newton/archive4

David Newton/archive4
Location	{{{place}}}
Result	200 meters

HMS Newton
Location	{{{place}}}
Belligerents
Displacement:	60,000 tons

HMS Newton
Date	launched: 1999
Location	{{{place}}}
Strength
	100 aircraft

Northern Ireland law?

Hello, just noticing that you have made quite a few contributions to articles regarding Northern Ireland law. Thought I'd draw your attention to a missing section here Northern Irish Legal System. Just in case :-) Bamkin 16:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style

I'm pretty new to this whole wikipedia thing, and I've noticed sometimes that people make some of the most random edits, twice in which they decapitalize every word in a heading on the page except for the first one. I figured that because these edits were made specifically for that purpose, there must be a reason for it. I went into the capitalization policy for the site, and it seemed to only apply to the actual names of the pages themselves, until I came across the heading section--obviously seeing your name in the discussion page. You made references to the possibility of changing the policy, and I was curious as to (1) whether or not you found out why this policy exists in the first place and (2) whether or not you have tried to do or plan to do anything about it. If you do decide to change the policy to standard format, by which only interior article adjectives and small prepositions are displayed as lowercase, I would gladly give my vote towards that change, as I personally don't understand the policy as it is. But if that has already been tried or if your opinion has changed due to information you have discovered since that time, my personally curiosity motivates me to ask what this seemingly random policy is all about in the first place. Thank you. --Shackleton 4:56 28-07-05

RE:RCAF Flag.gif

From my user page, [[1]] from Graham himself, While I don't mind the images being used in Wikipedia, whose aims I wholeheartedly endorse, I would prefer it that my copyright in the images is acknowledged in some form. I regularly give permission for images from my site to be used on other websites and only ask that they include an acknowledgement such as "Flag image courtesy of The World Flag Database www.flags.net". Would it be possible to add this to the "image tags" of all the images of mine that you are using?A notice is such applied. Astrotrain 19:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I, myself, have launched an email to Graham. Though I do see what Astrotrain has receieved on his archive page, I just think that if he wants the images to be credited, I can go ahead and make a template. If he wants them gone, then I will make them gone, since I have the ability to do so. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many many thanks

Thank you for contributing to the USS Trigger (SS-237) article. My great grandfather, William Zugecich, was aboard that submarine when it disappeared in the pacific. The information you and others have provided are very much appreciated by everyone in my family. This is the most thorough record of the Trigger's voyages that I have yet seen, and is a wonderful dedication to those who died to protect the freedoms of our beloved land. Salva 01:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Hurricanes

I believe that the 17 storms count is based upon named storms; consequently, Tropical Depression 10 is not counted in the total. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 22:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Acts of Parliament

Thanks for the note. I liked the infobox btw. :) Do you have any advice on how to add acts in years which had two sessions i.e. 1914. There were two Finance Acts, I wasn't sure the best way to distinguish between them :) --KURANDO 11:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ammunition ship classes?

I've just been writing stubs for various USN ship classes. I note you made templates for the Suribachi class ammunition ships and Nitro class ammunition ships some months back; can you remember why you did these seperately? I have a book to hand which seems to think they're both the same class, but it's rather vaguely written and it'd be nice to clear this up. Shimgray | talk | 23:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USN jack image(s)

Okaay, I've been working through the articles using Image:Usnjack.png, switching them to Image:USN-Jack.png, |48px. But now I see a notice that the preferred replacement is Image:US Naval Jack.svg.

Is that correct? —wwoods 18:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1707-1799

Should this be renamed to Acts of Parliament of the Parliament of Great Britain or similar? I won't make any changes as I am not sure whether it would break the infobox template! --KURANDO 11:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Major General C. M. Barber

Hi, I am looking for some biographical information on Major General C. M. Barber for an article in the German Wikipedia on the Barber-Lyashenko-agreement which realigned the border between the English and the Soviet zone in Schleswig-Holstein. Can you help? Thank you --Concord 15:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Evan Allen

Err, the Navy is one of Australias Armed Forces. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL question

Thanks for your advice on the GFDL (with respect to the Chicago flag image). I still have some doubts, though, about my rights under the license. Could you take a look at my question and let me know what you think? Thanks. Mindfrieze 15:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Copyright question

Hi! The Template:PD-BritishGov states that photographs taken prior to 1955 are in the public domain. Does this include unpublished images? I seem to recall that CC images created prior to '57 are also PD. If so, would that then mean such images at http://www.iwmcollections.org.uk/ are in the Public Domain? For example, would this image [2] be considered PD? Sorry about bothering you with this, but I'm interestered in using that particular image in an article. SoLando (Talk) 00:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for giving your time to give such a comprehensive reply, which certainly answered my query. I can't say I'm anxiously awaiting 2039, but it is interesting to know (assuming Wikipedia still exists then ;-)). By the way, I hope you didn't think I was questioning the reliability of your template (or at least the references it was based on) - I personally think you are one of the most reliable contributors, hence why I brought my query to you :-) Take care. SoLando (Talk) 23:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gun-type plutonium weapon

Please see Talk:Fat_Man#Gun_type about an old contribution of you [3].--Patrick 09:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Improved infobox syntax

David Newton/archive4

Location	{{{place}}}

David, have you been following the developments in infoboxes such as Template:Warbox and Template:Infobox_Film? I don't understand the syntax, but it seems to be very flexible and tolerant of optional line items. E.g.:

Wwoods 01:10, 4 December 2005

Nimitz class infoboxs

I don't know if you relise this, but all of the Nimitz class carrier infoboxs are not displaying things like displacement and radars and such, the boxes that should contain that info say "Nimitz class carrier I" or something similar to it. TomStar81 02:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, that a load off. I noticed the infobar switch when I tweaked the USS Abraham Lincoln page a little. At first I thought it was something I had done, so I was in a panic. Thanks for the heads up, and Good Luck! TomStar81 10:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, there's a lot of space added around the jack images. It looks kind of odd, since "Career" is at the top of its cell.
—wwoods 19:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on with the flag images is that they are set to be vertically aligned with the middle of the cell (the default setting for HTML tables) and there are two lines of text on the left which means there is the space above and below the flag images. David Newton 19:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two lines of text? I only see two words. Is there some way to cut it to one line?

I've added some general comments at User talk:David Newton/New Format Ship Tables/IF Operator Table

—wwoods 22:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it insists on putting the text on two lines. It is very odd indeed since at least so far as I can see from the code it should not do so. David Newton 22:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Ontario, et al.

Hello! Thanks for your note. I created the prior PNG and current SVG for this provincial flag, and others. (I find some of the free Sodipodi renditions are 'off'.) I also release the images I created to the public domain but am also cognizant that the flags/symbols themselves (in prior and current SVGs) may have limited use (depending on the jurisdiction). I apologise if I didn't get the tags right, but this is my intention; please edit them as needed. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 15:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right on! :)

And despite your prior note to me eons ago, I remain somewhat unclear about the correct use of some tags and such, particularly when dealing with Crown copyrights. I'll overcome this eventually, methinks; in any event, please forgive me and thank you for your attention to this. E Pluribus Anthony 16:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

For *outstanding* contributions to naval topics in Wikipedia over the last two years Dan100 (Talk) 09:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of USN ships

What do you think about slightly changing the formatting for List of United States Navy ships, A, et al.? I'm thinking of adding live links from the designations of ships with unique names. I.e. instead of

USS Malo (IX-42) , making it
USS Malo (IX-42) .

When I filled out and split the list last spring, I just took the format as I found it, but it makes sense to me to have the plain links, since every ship name should have either an index page or a redirect. If the designations were also links, we could see the cases where the redirect was needed.
And, we wouldn't have to keep reverting people who are helpfully 'fixing' the links.

—wwoods 10:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's reasonable thing to do. We certainly still have a massive amount of work to do with ships of the USN to say the least. That's before even beginning to think about foreign navies that don't have such a nice resource as DANFS available. David Newton 20:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:British-Civil-Jack.png has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:British-Civil-Jack.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--Sherool (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:British-Blue-Ensign.png has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:British-Blue-Ensign.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--Sherool (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:British-Merchant-Navy-Ensign.png has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:British-Merchant-Navy-Ensign.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--Sherool (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, Please help

I would like to request your help with serious NPOV and verifiability problems on the Arabic numerals page. I have mentioned it, yet again, here Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_17. Please help me recruit as many neutral and well-intending editors to the page to counter the strong and manifest bias. Regards, and thanks. csssclll (14:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Kkkensign.png

Hi David, I've added the information you requested. As for the abbreviation, thanks for noticing that. I thought up that "KKK" to mean "K. u. K. Kriegsmarine" without knowing anything about the other possible usages. Well, such approach apparently wasn't very wise. -- Sandius 12:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Air Ensign

This is just to let you know that I used your Civil Air Ensign in Image:NZCAE.svg.

DiamondVertex (Talk) 05:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also just in, I used your RAF ensign in this. DiamondVertex (Talk) 05:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afd q

Is the List of LSTs being used by you or a group to "fill-in" missing articles, or for any other purpose? I ask because the list is on Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LSTs. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOTW stuff

Ole Anderson from FOTW contacted me about Template:User FOTWer and maybe we could use this to talk about FOTW on the Wiki. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 09:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ship table vs. infobox

What's the current situation of template:Ship table vis a vis template:Infobox Ship? Which should be used? —wwoods 07:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bach image

Hi

The building was demolished in 1902, so the image was taken before then; does that place it out of copyright? Is fair use possible?

Tony

Template Deletions

I have nominated {{PD-old-50}} and {{PD-art-life-50}} for deletion at WP:TFD#Template:PD-old-50 because I do not believe they are legally valid. Superm401 | Talk 07:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ship table - Color

I implemented "gray" for NavyColor on Template:Ship table on the Laurent Millaudon article. PAR 04:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David - well it looks like a tie one for color (me) one against (you). There doesn't seem to be any more input from the project. I feel strongly that the color option should be used for the confederate ships and I will include it in the table unless you have a strong objection. PAR 16:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox ship

Infobox ship should probably be TFD'd as a fork of Ship table; would it be hard to move articles using Infobox ship over to using Ship table? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your help on India public domain images... Thank you for clearing my doubt. --Aravind Parvatikar 06:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RN Ensign

Thanks for the heads-up. My original reason for uploading the new version was for code optimisation. I'll create a new-non-transparent version and I'll alert you as soon as I upload it. I hope that my proportions were correct (arms of St George's cross 120/900ths of the width thick ?)

Greentubing 20:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a non-transparent flag and have uploaded it to Commons. The size imporved, 12366 bytes to 2110 bytes. Greentubing 20:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me part 3! I reverted it, noticing your comments on the Flag of the United Kingdom. I too know Bartram runs the website and is employed by the MoD... I was just using the exist Wikipedia image for consistency across the UK-derived flags (except for Australia of course). Greentubing 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, and the Union Flag construction sheet. Do you have any particular flags in mind? My only problem is that I like to work to a clear picture, and my copy of Barraclough is all I have. Greentubing 08:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuadorian Naval Jack

It seems as if I had removed that image in error. What probably occurred is that I did a check usage on Image:Ecuadorian Naval Jack.png, which showed this page. I was doing routine cleanup at Commons, and the image Image:Ecuadorian Naval Jack.png had been slated for deletion due to copyvio.

ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 23:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here's why I deleted that image on 2/4, because user put {{deletebecause|Accidental upload of copyrighted material}}. User uploaded image on 2/2. This is why I didn't check what I was looking for: I didn't expect a wrong image to be incorrectly listed on a page so soon after it was uploaded. Very sorry! ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 00:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then that user probably did a speedy delete after seeing your notice. So ultimately it's your fault that I deleted it in the first place! Heh. Please don't take me seriously. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 00:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T1

What's T1 that I saw you mentioning on User Talk:Drini's page ? -- Ch'marr 06:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply on my user page. Can you give me a wiki link to the discussion? -- Ch'marr 10:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might have just figured it out. T1 refers to Point one of Templates at Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, right?

Flags.net images

The images in this category will be deleted soon, so some of our copyright issues will be over. It also helps that we have free PNG graphics from a Russian website called Vector-Images.com. If you need anything else, let me know. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 05:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family History

I am proposing a Family History Wiki. I hope you are interested enough to add your name in support at Wikimedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HMCS Fennel (K194).jpg

Image:HMCS Fennel (K194).jpg currently has a tag that says it may be deleted. As a ww2 image, if it were taken by the RN, wouldn't it have fallen under the crown copyright? Wouldn't it now be in the public domain? -- 207.112.73.75 17:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know the source of the image. The guy at Navyphotos said that he found a lot of photos dumped and rescued a lot of them. The trouble is that without copyright information we can't know if the photograph was Crown copyright or private copyright. If it was taken by a sailor in the course of his official duties then it was Crown copyright and is now public domain. If it was taken by a sailor in his capacity as a private person then it is certainly still in copyright as no photograph from the WWII is over 70 years old and no person who died in WWII died over 70 years ago. In the US no published copyrighted photograph taken during WWII will come out of copyright until the end of 2034 at the earliest. No unpublished copyrighted photograph taken during WWII will come out of copyright until the same time as a private copyright photograph in the UK. David Newton 23:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followup on Infobox Ship

I've nominated {{Infobox Ship}} for deletion at WP:TFD. I also moved USS Monitor to your template without much issue; hopefully the other pages will be similarly painless. =) As a side note, there's currently a straw poll being conducted at WT:AUM to decide if that proposed policy should be rejected. Feel free to comment on the TFD or AUM as you see fit. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statutory Instruments

Hi,

I noticed you do a lot of work in the Statutory Instruments section and that you have recently been adding content without links. Is there any particular reason for this?

The purpose of my question is that I am planning to add some missing Statutory Instruments, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes by including links when I'm not supposed to. Thanks. Road Wizard 23:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Road Wizard 17:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply back. I have another question. Is there a reason some people add external links to the SIs and some don't? Road Wizard 21:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I think you're taking the wrong tack with this kind of behavior: [4] [5]. If you have an issue with Danny's actions, please email him and ask him to explain them. And please be polite. He could well be acting on Jimbo's authority in an important case--that is the level at which he normally acts. As with any issue, you must remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. --Tony Sidaway 20:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I presumed David Newton outranked Danny. David Newton is right, by the way. The actions by Danny were terribly wrong. However, the language used by David Newton was wrong. This is all turning in to a whopper of a drama. Bound to appear in Slashdot or some newspaper or something like that. Big old woops. And this, just after Eloquence had successfully harassed a notable critic in to submission so that he refused to ever again comment on Wikipedia. Darn it, now the critics will come en masse. Maybe even Eloquence himself might become a critic. 203.122.195.111 20:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edit on User talk:Danny

I've taken the liberty of removing a section of Danny's talk page where you and two other editors seemed to be telling Danny how he is to do his job. This seemed inappropriate to me, given Danny's responsibilities, line of command, and the fact that he's in direct communication with Jimbo and (in the case of an action that needs to be taken) the complaining party. I hope you'll realise I'm not denying your right to express disquiet at something that worries you, but in this case the tone adopted seemed to be somewhat dictatorial and overbearing, and after a long day in the office talking on the phone to attorneys and whatnot to keep Wikipedia from being sued into the ground, this is not the kind of treatment that Danny deserves. --Tony Sidaway 20:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted. They aren't vandalism and you shouldn't interfere with someone else's mail. He has likely already read them anyway. Let him delete them if he so chooses. 203.122.195.111 20:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another perspective on WP:OFFICE

I agree with you that the block on Eloquence was inappropriate, but in the course of dealing with this you appear to have opened up a new problem. If the WP:OFFICE tag is to have any stronger force than any other tag its use must be limited to a designated few such as Danny. If any other person uses it it would be no more important than any other tag, and it should be treated as removable by any other admin. If Danny wants to keep it there it should appear as posted under his own name, otherwise it would be better removed once he has had a reasonable time to act. Eclecticology 23:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using the template should be the prerogative of Danny under almost any circumstances. The reason I added those pages to the category was that they were clearly under WP:OFFICE protection after what happened to Eloquence yet had been left out of the category for a couple of days. There have been a couple of times in the past when I've protected pages and forgotten to add them to the appropriate list and others have been kind enough to fix my mistake. However when dealing with WP:OFFICE more care must be taken and not adding them to the correct category was symptomatic of the same sort of carelessness which lead to Eloquence unprotecting things in the first place. I will refrain from using that category again until and unless it is under similar unusual circumstances. Given the eruption that this has caused I don't think those circumstances will occur again. David Newton 08:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Pearl Harbor

There's a question about some material you added to the Attack on Pearl Harbor at Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor. It concerns the reasons that Nagumo decided against a third strike. Any input you have would be appreciated. Cheers, -Will Beback 19:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

There is a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox Aicraft consensus discussion on adopting a non-specifications summary infobox for aircraft articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statutory Instruments 1996

You undone my split in one of Wikipedia's biggest articles by making a big article again. Please try to take care of the article whatever way can be done. Georgia guy 22:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice that you have previously voted or commented on the proposal to delete the List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996 page. The debate about the delete proposal ended with no consensus. This is just to let you know that I have started a discussion on how to go forward from here. I am currently trying to define what the problems with the page are so that we can try to find a fix for them that stops short of outright deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion, the new debate can be found here. Thank you. Road Wizard 23:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I am just bumping this up your watch list in case you haven't spotted it yet. The discussion has already started about what to do with the List of Statutory Instruments pages, but as those who voted for deletion are the only ones to respond so far, it is a little one sided. As you are one of the principal editors involved in SIs, I would really appreciate your input in trying to find a solution. Given that the 1996 page barely scraped through last time with votes stipulating that change was necessary, I don't think it will survive another nomination for deletion. I hope to hear from you soon. Thanks. Road Wizard 00:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right on, David! --Adam7davies 22:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Choice

Thanks for trying to sort out the problem on Croydon Council election 2006. I have corrected it now - we need a catalogue of templates to help pick the right one, somehow. Thanks again, Mtiedemann 18:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting templates

If you'll excuse me, I'd like to discuss this and hopefully come to a resolution. I take criticism seriously, have been wrong before, and will be wrong again in the future. Unfortunately, right now is exams time for me (I have a 4-hour exam in 30 min., actually) and I have a lot of other real-life stress besides. I'm leaving this note because I didn't want you to think that I'm ignoring you, but hope you'll give me a few days to get back to your message Thanks. :-) Dmcdevit·t 00:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(More than 4 hours later,) Scratch that, I'm not getting any more studying done tonight. :-)

First let me say that saying that deleting templates under the CSD is divisive and inflammatory, while a nice turn of phrase, is not actually an argument against my deletions, but against the policy. And if I believed that my deletions were harmful, I wouldn't have done them. The templates are certainly inflammatory, you say that much. However seems even more evident to me that they are divisive. They take explicit opposing political positions. This cannot help but divde the community into camps and "create discord". I don't think it's particularly useful to have those out in the open, either. We're all writing for NPOV here. Perhaps you can say it's not harmful, but I have a hard time believing it's actually good. (Why do I never see talk page messages of "Say, what is your gun control POV?") I'm not really very hot on the "you deleted this template but that means X is divisive too." 1) that's a slippery slope straw man, 2) You don't really suggest I delete far more templates than I did, do you? I would never delete more than a few in several days. I recognise they are not always clear cut, and often result in questions. That's okay with me. I don't want to delete all the divisive templates still out there tomorrow and reignite tensions more than they already are. 3) the simple fact is that I did justify my deletions. The existence of other templates does not change my reasoning. The existence of articles on non-notable subjects does not make me want to through out my notability criterion, either. Dmcdevit·t 07:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I saw you had recently edited List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom 1996 and thought I should draw your attention to its proposal for deletion. Tyrenius 04:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dyslexic Wikipedians

Category:Dyslexic Wikipedians which you have included on your user page has been proposed for deletion you can comment at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. --Salix alba (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative text for images

I want to add an "alt text" parameter for infobox images, but I'm not sure of the syntax. Is

{{{image|[[Image:IIH.png|300px|<!--
-->{{#if: {{{alt text|}}}
        | {{{alt text}}}
        | {{#if: {{{caption|}}}
               | {{{caption}}}
               | {{PAGENAME}}
          }}
   }}]]}}}

going to do it? I want it to use the "alt text" if specified, failing that the "caption", failing that the article name. (In most cases, there is no reason for the image to have a caption.)
—wwoods 18:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But in an infobox like template:Infobox Film, where the "image" parameter is the bare name of the image, without the surrounding [[Image:...|###px]], where would one put the alt text? e.g.

{{Infobox_Film |
 name     = Master and Commander:<br>The Far Side of the World |
 image    = Masterandcommanderposter.jpg|
 caption  = Master and Commander film poster |
 imdb_id  = 0311113 |
 :

—wwoods 09:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny

Could you please point me to where I would find more information about this? Al 15:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, David Newton! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 21:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploaded on Commons

Hi, I'm Luca Martinelli and I'm a it.wiki user. I'm currently translating some of the en.wiki voices on 11/09/01 in Italian.

Anyway, I've "stolen" an image (this one) from here and uploaded it on Commons (with its proper license, of course), to use it for the italian voice.

Just to give you an advice. I don't know which are your procedures for that. >:-)

See ya. -- Sannita

Belton House Images

I notice that you've uploaded all of the images that you took of Belton House as GIFs. GIF is not a suitable format for the image types you have uploaded. It is limited to 256 colours and is suited to diagramatic files and simple shapes. Photographs are far better uploaded as JPEGs. David Newton 21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the difference, I just upload from the camera to the computer, and then computer to wikipedia - some hidden robot somewhere does all the GIF and JPEG stuff, nothing to do with me! Giano | talk 22:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flags and copyright

Re Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_20#Template:FOTWpic: in an attempt to clarify and preserve as a reference for future similar cases, I have written Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems. Maybe you'd like to help improve and/or correct it? In particular, you made a comment about the British union flag saying it wasn't clear whether or not it was copyrighted. If you could add something about this, that'd be great. Lupo 08:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-1 Tracer

Hi. I think it was your photo [6] ? - Somebody uploaded it to commons and deleted it in En-wiki, so could you add description? Pibwl ←« 21:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statutory Instument Lists

Hi. I have been considering the possibility of adding information to the SI list pages, such as the current status of the instrument. I have made a rough table in my sandbox as an example. Can you please let me know whether you think this is a good idea, or will it just complicate the existing lists? Thanks. Road Wizard 20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attack Cargo Ships

I'm just about finished adding about 100 articles to this category under List of United States Navy amphibious assault ships. You seem to have been the major contributor to the list, and I want to thank you for making it up. My job would have been a LOT harder without the pre-existing list. (And, of course, without DANFS, it would have been impossible.) Lou Sander 16:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FN Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier

Please help me with a WIKI article related conflict in the India-Pakistan section of FN CHarles de Gaulle. There is a user (UberCryxic) who keep on reverting unilaterally to sections that involve unverified claims (in my opinion). What are the WIKI rules? If you can help and/or express your opinions on the points made in the discussion page please do. It will help us mediate and arbitrate. I do not know how to call for an arbitration. Thanks.

List of airfields of the Army Air Corps

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article List of airfields of the Army Air Corps, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:List of airfields of the Army Air Corps. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Kathy A. 19:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Commandant or Fourth Commandant

You had reverted text in the Ellsworth P. Bertholf article from fourth commandant to first commandant. Please read the discussion on that article's talk page and also please read the "Rank and title" section of the Commandant of the Coast Guard. --- Safemariner 15:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Army Group Royal Artillery

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Army Group Royal Artillery, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Navou ^talk 02:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Tommorrow I'll look again for references to add to this article if I can find them. I did a small cursory search before the prodding, but I'll put a little more time into it probably tommorrow. Regards Navou ^talk 06:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I save myself????????????

Okay, I found your page by randomly clicking on an administrator from the list. Anyway, I have uploaded several images that I got from places that did not list a copyright. Because of this, I said they were licensed under the GNFL or whatever it is. Then I read the dire warning about "if you upload a file and lie about the copyright it could result in your account being blocked". How can I prevent this from happening??????? J.delanoy 17:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three-Fingered Jack

Please see hike395's comments on the talk page. I do not believe the move required any attribution. Perhaps it could have been discussed on the talk page but I doubt that is the same thing as attribution. I was just being bold and correcting a mistake. If you believe the correct name of the volcano includes a hyphen and have reliable evidence then I will be more than glad to discuss it with you. If you wish to take the issue to attribution I will be glad to participate. --DRoll 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Newsletter delivery

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation 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. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Japanese.aircraft.carrier.soryu.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Japanese.aircraft.carrier.soryu.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Selket ^Talk 00:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Copyright Violation Belknap Crater

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Belknap Crater, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from Word for word copy from p182 of (Wood 1990) "Volcanoes of North America", and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Belknap Crater and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Belknap Crater with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Belknap Crater.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Belknap Crater/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Belknap Crater saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Burntnickel 02:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Leamington Community School and Arts College

Please note that this school has now contacted the Wikimedia Foundation three times regarding persistent vandalism and defamatory statements being added to the article, which you have now restored in the history. If you think that an article on this topic is warranted on Wikipedia, it needs to be well-sourced in reliable sources, and it needs to be diligently protected against any vandalism, and I do not see the countervailing value of having an article on this topic. —Centrx→talk • 21:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I restored that school and also the Myton article was that, so far as I could see, proper policy had not been followed when they were deleted. There was no nomination of them for speedy deletion that I could see and no nomination for ordinary deletion either. In fact, outside of Kings High and Warwick School, North Leamington is actually one of the more notable in the area since Frank Whittle was an alumnus. Since it is a somewhat notable school that leaves vandalism which is not enough, alone, to warrant deletion, especially without going through proper channels.

Semi-protection is quite the legitimate thing to do to such a situation, so what you have done now causes me no problems. I have now semi-protected the Myton article to stop anons vandalising it. David Newton 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There does not need to be a nomination for an article to be speedy deleted, even in WP:CSD, and instead of looking at rules and regulations it makes more sense to say what is good for an encyclopedia. This was a poorly sourced article and, while it might be notable than the other schools, it is still not notable and there need to be some published third-party sources to attest to its notability. Ultimately, the question is whether it makes sense to spend effort maintaining and guarding a troubled article that is not encyclopedic, and that causes real people in the real world actual pain. —Centrx→talk • 22:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources controlled by the subject of the article are better than no sources at all. For the Myton article I specifically made sure that the school's website was linked to for just that reason. One very easy citation would be for the exam results of the school. I'll add that after writing this. David Newton 22:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to vandalism and libel, the issue is more that unsourced statements are more easily deleted if each statement has a specific citation, rather than there being a general reference that covers with a wavy hand all of the statements in the article. With regard to notability, sources controlled by the subject do not attest to any notability or that a proper neutral, verifiable encyclopedia article can be created. —Centrx→talk • 23:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Rfa-goldrover-a271.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rfa-goldrover-a271.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Hms-glamorgan-d19.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hms-glamorgan-d19.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. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Hms-intrepid-l11.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hms-intrepid-l11.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. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Saunders

Thank you for your opinion on this. Can you explain what is going on?Castlemate 11:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, please see User talk:ExtraDry#Nicholas Saunders where I left another comment. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David this has suddenly been sorted out and nobody seems to have a problem with the notability of Nicholas Saunders or the refernces used. ExtraDry continues to blank out my questions on this matter so unfortunately there isn't a record of his appalling behaviour in this debate. Thank you anyway for bringing some sense to it all. Castlemate 14:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record i still don't think he is notable but i will give it time to see if it improves before i put it towards AFD. ExtraDry 14:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rfa-orangeleaf-a110.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rfa-orangeleaf-a110.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rfa-blackrover-a273.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rfa-blackrover-a273.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rfa-diligence-a132.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rfa-diligence-a132.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saunders deletion

Please help at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Saunders (Vice-Chancellor)Castlemate 08:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navy Photos

With regards to the photos there, do you know who owns the copyright to the photos there? Why are there a specific copyright template for navyphotos giving permission, if as the webmaster says he found most of them in plastic sacks? Just wondering because photos like this could come under crown copyright, which would put them in the public domain - as well as some of the earlier ones on the site from the 1800 onwards. RHB - Talk 11:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Hms-bristol-d23.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[7][8]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. J Milburn 20:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Hms-fearless-l10.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[9][10]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. J Milburn 20:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Rfa-fortgeorge-a388.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[11][12]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. J Milburn 11:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rfa-fortaustin-a386.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rfa-fortaustin-a386.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Rfa-olwen-a122.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[13][14]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. J Milburn 18:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Rfa-resource-a480.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[15][16]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. J Milburn 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Rfa-fortrosalie-a385.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rfa-fortrosalie-a385.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.

Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:RAF

Template:RAF has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Greenshed 20:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C-46 Commando

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to C-46 Commando, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Jeepday (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response at User_talk:Jeepday#Sources Jeepday (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]