User talk:Davidwr/Archives/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Presbyterian Church Logo

Thank you for adding the licensing information to the logo . I'm generally too lazy or too tired or too spiteful of copyright for such diligence .

--Frank.trampe (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. By the way, I was working with outdated information on the vector-graphics - at one time vectors were discouraged for logos. The consensus opinion is murkier now, but it seems to revolve around "how useful would the image be in creating a detailed image larger than what is needed for the article." The PCUSA logos are not all that complex so there isn't much in the way of detail that can be "removed" to make a "low-detail image." Compare this to some national symbols, or royal-family crests, or old-world trademarks, which are loaded with adornments visible only close-up or at high magnification. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk and on the Ann Dunwoody talk

Thanks for the note on my talk page and starting the talk page discussion. — ERcheck (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

RFA Nomination

Can I ask who it is you are thinking of nominating? Pedro :  Chat  21:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page of your user sub-page (if that makes sense :)) Pedro :  Chat  10:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom added to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dravecky. Dravecky needs to sign acceptance and then it can be transcluded. Good work on finding such a capable and able candidate BTW. Pedro :  Chat  20:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:IsThisHeavenIowa.JPG

"Bureau of Tourism & Visitors, Iowa Department of Economic Development, 200 East Grand Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa, 50309. For a free Iowa Visitors Guide, call 1-800-345-IOWA" is the correct text and spelling. Are you saying I should upload a larger version? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got an old computer that doesn't have very many fancy options. How about if I upload another version that's a little larger, and you could check it out. You only missed one thing, which was 345 instead of 346. I'll get back to you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The previous one was reduced to 50 percent from my original scan. This one is only reduced to 75 percent. I copied your comments minus your signature. Add back your signature if you want. Or advise further. Image:IsThisHeavenIowa2.JPG Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is suitable. It would be even better if you could get a perfect 2-color blue-and-white scan and use that to start with. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)

I don't know how to do that. My scanner is from like 1995, and has 2 basic color options: color, and black-and-white. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Email me through Wikipedia then I'll email you back and you can email me the highest-resolution scan you can make and I'll try to clean it up. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The full size version is 1070 x 275. Even at that size, the lettering is a little fuzzy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's ok, drop me an email and when I reply, send what you have. If you still have the bumper sticker, re-scan it at 300 dpi or higher. that should give a file at least 16x as large. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I sent a test e-mail. Answer back and I'll use my normal e-mail to attach the full size file. I didn't see a way to do that on the e-mail that's based from here. I don't have a DPI size as such. It's a mid-1990s scanner. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I just sent the attachment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:fast

lol. I guess the saying 'timing is everything' really is true.... ;) I must have reloaded C:CSD right after you tagged it. Thanks for the work you do with the NP patrol btw. Thingg^⊕⊗ 03:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't Newpage Patrol, that was a redirect left over from an expiring prod that I moved to userspace rather than let die. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mike Duke

His fraternal association may or may not be relevant, depends on one's point of view. It just is an extra point of information that could be considered a point of interest for others. This is very common among other high profile CEOs, Presidents and notable figures, if they belonged to a fraternity, it is often mentioned. As for any impact, I cannot prove if his association had any, but in his interview with the fraternal quarterly magazine, he did mention his reason why he joined a fraternity, where he also met his wife and made great friends. Who knows, that might have had an impact, once again, I cannot prove if it did. Mike Duke will be and is already famous - he will take over as the CEO of Fortune 500's top company starting in February 2009. Hope that helps in explaining my edit. I do agree with you that not everyone's affiliation with national organizations need to be mentioned. His lifelong membership with the fraternity was something I believed could be made publicly known. Gtg007w (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC) gtg007w

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Your case would be a lot strong if an unaffiliated major news source, such as Time Magazine or The Wall Street Journal, mentioned it, even in passing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

re: your comment

Yeah, well, I was able to find some reliable info about the company. Since he is going to work on this in his userspace, I don;t think there will be too much of a problem with that. We'll just have to see what we can find. Thingg^⊕⊗ 19:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Borealis Exploration Ltd

(from Chovesh)

Thank you for your offer of help.

Unfortunately the changes to Borealis Exploration Ltd. turn out to be either incorrect or misleading through oversimplification(?). Chorus Motors isn't "automotive" as it is an electric motor technolgy, and one that isn't even mentioned on Wikipedia - specifically Multi-Phase AC Induction motors (having 12, 18, or more phases, as opposed to the conventional 3 Phase AC Induction motor technology that is commonly known). This motor is a significant advance in electric motor technology, and I notice the recent article from the January 2009 issue of Motor Trend has been removed. This article clearly shows the notability of the technology and the impact it will have in both the aviation industry and in certain types of hybrid vehicles.

Wheeltug is a bit more than 'aircraft power,' as it doesn't 'power' the aircraft but rather allows planes to drive themselves with their engines off, and represents a major shift in the way that airports are run and ground operations are executed. And since Delta Air Lines will begin using this system in 2010, the rest of the industry will be following suit. Am I wrong in thinking that a major change in the airport operations, by the introduction of one new technolgoy, is notable?

Coolchips and Powerchips are not just 'Automotive Power,' they are significantly more, and although that entry should have been updated and corrected, until that technology is more mature (like Wheeltug, the Multi-Phase Chorus Motor, and the Chorus Meschon Drive) there was no reason for me to make a change to that older entry and provide more information on it. Actually, coolchips and powerchips will have much farther reaching effects on industry and society than the Chorus Motor and Wheeltug, but since more development work is required and there is not yet a timetable for that to be entering both the market and society at large, they are not yet notable enough to go into detail on Wikipedia and therefore I simply left them as links so that those interested can go look at their web pages. Correctly, powerchips is 'power generation' while coolchips is 'refrigeration' (perhaps 'solid state' should prefix both).

At present, the significant accomplishments of note of Borealis Exploration Ltd. were listed in the entry that you changed 1. The major subsidiaries 2. Boeing Phantom Works and Air Canada testing the Wheeltug System 3. The Agreement with Delta Air Lines for Implementing the sytem (and making major changes in airport operations) 4. The implementation of the Chorus Motors unique features for hybrid vehicles. 5. (The thermotunnelling entry could and should be updated as it applies to more than just cars. The Avto metals technology reduces the work function of a material and allows for the creation of coolchips and powerchips, which can generate electricity or engage in refrigeration, at up to an astonishing 70% carnot efficiency. However, again, I do not feel it notable enough for more detail until the technology is further along.)

I would appreciate your help in putting up a better entry for Borealis. Although it is a company that few have yet heard of, the fact is that they have several significant improvements in certain mature technologies that will have a huge and quite notable impact. The Motor Trend article [1] is but one example of the slow recognition that this company is significant and will have a significant impact in the near futre. I have tried to keep a neutral point of view, but having understood the impact that a small change in a mature technology, I'm sure you understand my desire to provide, at the minimum, the key elements.

I decided againt putting in the full and detailed history of the company (it was a mining company based in Canada prior to much of the patent work - see the extensive patent portfolio). I also did not mention its relationship to a major iron ore mining development project as I don't think it is 'notable' enough (even when the market for Iron Ore was very hot a few months ago).

I look forward to your comments and help. Feel free to privately message me.

Chovesh (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Put your suggested changes in a subpage of your user page and together we can see what we can come up with that will work. "Although it is a company that few have yet heard of..." is going to be a major problem - if the company has only minor notability, then its page should be small as to not violate the spirit of giving undue weight. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I found this, but there's not much there: Polyphase_system#Higher_phase_order davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Serenity HS

Actually, I was just about to leave you a message asking about some stuff. I think the article is well-referenced, especially for a high school article. Could you add some more information, though, on specifics of what the program is like and how it differs from a "normal" high school? (Like, do they have therapy and alcohol discussion groups, etc.?) That is the sort of thing that I think readers will be curious about when they come to the article from the front page. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I could find no reliable sources that gave that kind of information. Google and Google News were all I used. I did not listen to the radio interview that's in the external links, if I find anything there I'll source the interview and add the information. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. Also, if the school's own website has info on it, you can probably use that; I think this is one of the instances in which a self-published source can be acceptable. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: web site: Been there, tried that, very sparse web site. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Father Damien

Hey, Davidwr/Archives. You have new messages at Shep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing or tnulling the template.

§hep • ¡Talk to me! --Carlaude ^(talk) 00:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a message from me at §hep's talk page. Go there to read it. --Carlaude ^(talk) 00:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dravecky

An excellent result that will only further Wikipedia. May I also add that I have every confidence you will soon be granted the +sysop bit yourself. Pedro :  Chat  23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There are some minor issues that would affect any RFA:

1. There are certain admin areas I've either never gotten familiar with or which have changed. I need to either get familiar with them or face the fact some people will oppose merely because I don't understand their favorite area of policy, even though I will try not to make judgments based on policies that I know I don't know. There is always the risk I'll make a wrong judgment in area that I think I no policy but don't, but that's true of any human. Likewise, there are some namespaces I've done very little work in, such as the portal namespace.
2. I was privately blocked by arbcom for 6 weeks in mid-2007. Some people will oppose me because of that, others will oppose me because I refuse to discuss it other than to say "I've been reinstated and edited responsibly since." There's nothing I can do about that except let time pass. For many editors, 1 year is enough, others want to see 2 or more years, and others never forgive.
3. My editing history is erratic, some months I edit a lot, some a little. Some editors don't like this. I don't see this changing.
4. I already have a Golden Wiki and a couple of barnstars, but I'd like to get at least one good- or better article under my belt and at least one other major recognition before running. I have a DYK/Serenity High School pending, watch for it this week. Some people want proof of editorial contributions.
5. Most importantly, I'm not sure I need the tools at this point. I don't believe in handing out security credentials to people who don't need them, and I'd be a hypocrite if I asked without justifying a need to myself. Sure, it would help occasionally but 95-99% of what I do or wish I could do doesn't involve deletions or blocks/unblocks. Every now and then there's an IP-spammer I'd like to block for 24 hours, and having delete would be good when I patrol expiring prods or new pages, which I do from time to time. I'll probably start asking around after Christmas, maybe later if things get busy or decide I don't need the mop after all. In the meantime, look through my history and point out anything else I'm doing that would derail an RFA or for that matter anything that is hurting the project, so I can correct it. I'll probably globalize this request by asking for an editor review later this month.

You may want to read User:Davidwr/RFAs for more of my thoughts.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs) 23:54, 1 December 2008

orphaned talk page sd

Hi, Davidwr. Brief courtesy note about a page you created, just to let you know: I've tagged the orphaned Talk:Experimental_geography as CSD, since the article no longer exists. Best, Whitehorse1 20:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC).

DYK for Serenity High School

On 4 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Serenity High School, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My very first DYN article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Hurricane Holly (1969)

On 5 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hurricane Holly (1969), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to self: I only tweaked this article, I did not create or substantially expand it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Yupiit School District

On 7 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yupiit School District, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to self: That's #2. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Different Beat articles

Hey, I'm following up on two articles you nominated for AfD, and also on something you said at User talk:Spainton:

However, if the article winds up at AFD it consumes time and energy by several editors, time and energy that could have been used to add new content rather than remove content that doesn't belong or doesn't belong yet.

I passed on the initial speedy deletion of Different Beat because Nimbley6 had not been banned, so criterion G5 did not apply. However, two things happened between that declining the speedy last night and my deletion of the article this morning:

1. Users had done web searches and turned up no sourcing of the album (including a follow-up search by me this morning).
2. Another admin blocked Spainton because of other edits he made which suggested Spainton was a sock of Nimbley.

As a result, what good faith I had about the articles was gone, so I deleted them under criterion G3, as one part of the definition of vandalism is "Creating new pages with the sole intent of malicious behavior," which I now felt the article was.

Good job catching the suspect articles, and thank you for doing the legwork of an online search. With multiple searches returning 0 results, it made it much easier to delete the article—and to see that Spainton wasn't creating content in good faith. —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 IWF Action

Hi Davidwr, thanks for reverting - that was an inadvertant remove. I've been doing a lot of editing on this page and I guess things just got confused. Thanks for looking out. Pretzels^Talk! 21:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Qui facit per alium facit per se

This is a legal term meaning "He who acts by or through another, acts for himself", see [2]. There is little doubt that the Internet Watch Foundation block is producing fake HTTP 404 messages because of this at the moment. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've moved one of your comments

I moved your retention of the edit history to Virgin Killer controversy into a sub-page of the talk page. There is a link to the sub-page from the archive box. I suspect this isn't controversial but please feel free to undo it if you aren't happy in any way. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I had to move it again because the parent page moved. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Your move of FANET

You moved an author's content from a page he created (inappropriately so) to his Talk page. The user talk page is for discussion with the user. If you're going to do that, you should put it on a user subpage, referenced as [[User name/Subpage name]]. See WP:Subpage. Regards, —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I usually do when moving stuff from article space to user space. Had it not been a totally new user, or had his talk page not been empty, I would have done just that. However, user subpages tend to confuse new users, and the benefit of less confusion outweighted the benefit of doing things the conventional way. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, though it's also pretty confusing to see content interspersed with discussion. In addition, please don't use the Move feature for this, just paste the material in the new location. The original page should be deleted, not redirected to a user page or user talk page. In fact, being a redirect to a page outside of the main space is a basis for speedy deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you tagged it before I got a chance to do so. In fact, I was about to thank you for that when I saw your first message above. *Thanks*. Moving has the advantage over copy-and-paste of preserving the history. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Davidwr/Administration is not for new users

I've added this to the WP:NOTNOW page as further reading. Pedro :  Chat  16:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: 82.31.95.212

I have replied at my talk page. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done I commented on Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Anonymous-IP_address_warning_deletions. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Davidwr. You have new messages at Pedro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IFD for Time_Cover_William_L_Clayton.jpg

I have no issues with what you did. If no one else does, then the action will stand. -Regards Nv8200p talk 02:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Album covers

I strongly disagree about the importance of images in album covers. here is the front of my favourite album cover. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech

Note: This is a continuation of A child cannot consent to sexual exhibitionism as much as a man cannot consent to being murdered on User talk:DenisHume. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: The editor DenisHume (talk · contribs) is blocked indefinately, and he is not allowed to edit his user talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not freedom of speech, which I uphold proudly, but child abuse. I have made it very clear that defending child abuse is not defending freedom of speech - to say it is is verging on nihilistic. It really seems that most editors here have a very naieve view on what constitutes freedom of speech. DenisHume (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a spectrum between clear-cut child abuse, inappropriate behavior, exploitive but not inappropriate behavior, and clearly in the realm of appropriate behavior. Each society and each generation defines anew where a given behavior falls on that spectrum. Some people and even some entire modern societies would say allowing children at a nudist beach is child abuse. Other individuals and entire countries would say it is clearly in the realm of acceptable behavior.

The difficulty comes when the members of a society do not agree among themselves where to draw these lines, or when the members of one society attempt to dictate their views - either for more or fewer restrictions - on another society by fiat. At this point, it becomes a political issue, that is, an issue of "who can muster the most power," pretty much by definition. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That is nonsense. Whatever ones views on children in nudist beaches, the portrayel of a naked pre-pubescent child, with her vagina barely blocked out, is not art, it is not 'a different take on morality', it is child abuse. Issues like this are black and white, since the child is being subject to massive worldwide audience, irrelevant to one countries moralistic regression. This nihilism which you honour lacks any intellectual basis. It basically lies on the assumption that since 'moral habits' change over time and vary from place to place, we can have no moral base, and thus, anything goes. I am not some prudish conservative as you might assume - I am Irish and am what an American might describe as a 'political liberal'. This issue concerns child abuse and this communities excessive nihilistic permissiveness in this regard. It is a black and white/right and wrong issue. DenisHume (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Denis you are accepting as a premise a statement that many disagree with; the notion that this image constitutes child abuse. There's no physical damage. There has been no sexual assault or anything similar. Simply taking a picture is not by itself necessarily child abuse. Moreover, the individual in the image stated as an adult that she had no problem with it. Incidentally, note that the claim that rational people can disagree about moral issues is not the same at all as saying that there is no objective or morality. And neither has anything to do with nihilism. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We are still waiting for any evidence that the person feels fine about the image. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave the relevant link on JW's talk page. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Denis: Suppose for the sake of argument that I know, from my religious teachings, my gut, my personal instinct, and even the fiber of my very being that consuming alcohol for other than medicinal purposes is wrong, morally reprehensible, and evil. Does that give me the right to tell other people they can't drink? Outside of the political process, it does not. Now, within the political process, within jurisdictions that I belong to, it might. But it does not give me the right to tell people in another country that they cannot produce, consume, buy, or sell alcohol within their borders or to other countries where it is legal. As part of the political process, my country's government may choose to cut off all relations with countries that don't share it's ideals, but doing so is a very severe step with severe political consequences for all involved.

If the United Kingdom were to decide that it wanted to block all instances of this image from entering this country, it could make a concerted effort to do so, but it would pay the price not only politically but financially, as private individuals, companies, and governments who saw the situation differently reacted by pulling investments or taking other actions. On the other hand, it might see an increase in investments from individuals, companies, and countries that approved of that action. China, Turkey, and some other countries are already blocking images and texts that violate their legal or moral codes, and facing various degrees of retaliation because of it.

Based on the reactions in the latest incident, I do not think there is a consensus within Britain that this particular image constitutes child pornography, and there certainly is not one in the United States. There may, however, be one in The Vatican or in some major US cities that have a mostly-homogeneous moral point of view such as Salt Lake City, Utah.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User:DenisHume

Please see the talk page. I have been blocked indefinately. 86.45.222.9 (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:Editing comments and user talk pages

The emphasis of my correction of spelling and grammar is pretty high. Occasionally, I don't do it anymore often; you undid it because "Actually, missing "was" was deliberate. It's deliberately improper English." according to the page's page's edit history. Next time I will look deliberately and ask someone before changing. HTH, MHLU^talk 16:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know your edit was in good faith. I also know there are editors who won't make that assumption and I wanted to save you some grief over it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:DenisHume

I agree. It's going to be a close call, I think. The claim regarding WP:SOAP is a fair one if he continues to stick to the one issue, particularly in a volatile fashion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I see it is resolved now, he can now at least post on his talk again. From looking at his past edits I don't have high hopes on him ever editing constructively, but then again, one never knows. Garion96 (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Response!!!

Note

This is a response to User_talk:Gillian_Reed#Tyranta. 01:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, David, this is Gillian Reed. I just read your message at Largoplazo's and I think that its great you're interested in putting Tyranta on Wikipedia. I have some info for you. Unfortunately, many of the things you are asking for are at Ann's website, which is undergoing renovations now that the author decided to do a prequel to the series, Scraps of Life, so you won't be able to get anything there. I'll let you know if when it gets unblocked. Please wait!

There are some bits that I can provide for you. First, you asked the publication dates of all the books. If you want to know all of them, you'd better ask Linda Mancia, who unfortunately stopped going to Wikipedia since her third message to Largoplazo. With the website blocked their isn't a way I can contact her (we have a blog on our site), so you're going to have to wait until it's renovated. But:

First book (The Rising Empire) was published 1993

Eighth book (The Armageddon) was published 2008

That's about the best I can do with that. I don't have the Tyranta books nor ever checked them out; they were loaned to me by Ann at one of our college reunions, as we went to the same college. I'm not sure Ann will respond to you either after her chats with Largoplazo.

And about that draft rule: yes, I am interested! This series definitely has historical significance related to Christ and the Comings.

The last time I checked our blog, I remember Margaret Thompson said something about there being a major reference to the Essines in the series. She was watching a program on the History Channel about Jesus Christ when they came up to the Essines and their Dead Sea Scrolls. She said that the Essines predicted the coming of two Messiahs to bring peace to the world: one to reform the corruption of the world and one to lead the war against evil, helped by several disciples. Margaret jumped when they said this. To put it in the terms of Tyranta: Allerium is the world. It is overrun with propagandists for evil, no one is trying to stick up for the right, with the exception of the "Messiahs", Ryla Sable, the anti-corruptor, and Veraline Andersen, the fighter general, and their "disciples": Carla Dynas, Miranda Sable, Phoebe Justice, Adrina Sengarri, Orin and Korem Acorde, Tylin Sable, Cecilia Mentosis, and Lin Aster, to name the main ones.

In addition, there is a prediction that there will be a second Coming, a battle that will come at the end of the world (aka, the end of this age of evil) between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness, called the Armageddon. The Armageddon is the name of the last book in the series. At the end of the book that final battle occurred. Allerium's evil was destroyed and everyone living lived a good life. Of course, many of these people weren't sons, they were daughters, but gender has no great effect on its significance.

Furthermore, the events that happened prior to the series beginning can be noted as the first Coming, with Liberalus Orfik as a sort of Jesus. (He did, however, marry what can be called the Antichrist (Juliana Marshall), and had a kid with her (Lin Aster), but that is a historical/cultural reference to the yin/yang symbol.) He was murdered by the Veenans, in reference to the murder of Jesus by the Romans.

These, and many other historical/cultural references are made in the Tyranta series.

Thank you for listening! I'll let you know when the website is available. There are news clipping and reviews on there, and a lot of other important stuff.

Sincerely, Gillian Reed (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Without more information I can't be of much help. I re-read the proposed fiction notability guideline, one of the criteria is that the work itself must already be notable. For example, since A Wrinkle In Time is notable, its major characters might be eligible under this guideline, even if they were not notable under existing guidelines. Given that finding information on these books is proving very difficult, the proposed fiction guideline probably won't be much use. By the way, I'm not "interested in putting Tyranta on Wikipedia" as much as I am interested in giving it a fair shake. Without the information I seek, it's impossible and any article on the subject is doomed to a fast and humiliating failure at Articles for Deletion. Even with the information, it may still not meet the notability criteria, I won't know until I have the information I need to research it further. By the way, small- and even medium-print-run books that are not by famous people are almost never notable enough for Wikipedia. There are obvious exceptions, many scholarly books and college textbooks have small print runs but if they are used at many schools they may meet notability requirements. If these books were small print runs and the author is not famous and they did not receive significant independent press, and there is not some special circumstance like being used as a college textbook in several colleges, it may be best to resign yourself to the fact that no article about them or their elements will last long at AFD, at least not until the books become notable or their author becomes famous.

Remember, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. This means the subject of any article has to be notable before any article can be created. Those who jump the gun and create articles about subjects which do not yet meet the notability criteria find their articles dying a swift death in Articles for Deletion or through the proposed deletion process. Unlike the AFD process, the PROD process deletes an article "without prejudice" - anyone can stop the process in its tracks within 5 days of its start, and anyone can ask that the article be restored at any time. So-called "Contested PRODs" frequently wind up at Articles For Deletion, where they frequently die if the original person proposing the deletion had a good reason. If I recall, the Tyranta articles died through the PROD process, so they could be ressurrected at any time on request of any editor, but I would strongly recommend against taking advantage of this at this time as they will go immediately to AFD and will be deleted after a few days of discussion. Once an article is deleted in AFD for non-notability, it makes it that much harder to create a new article about that subject. It's far better to get copies of the books in front of you and copies of independent reference material in front of you, then either re-write the articles from scratch or ask that the existing articles be moved to a temporary space under "your" username so you can improve them then move them back to where they belong. This temporary space is designed for short-term use, so don't ask for it now, wait until you've got all the materials in front of you that you need to write a good article that is well-referenced and clearly establishes the notability of the subject. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind though, wikipedia guidelines are selectively enforced. With only 2000 editors creating most of the content, (and, unfortunately, most of those 2000 policing the content) it probably is quite possible to create this page. If it looks official enough, with book templates, categories, external links, and references, it will probably be passed by, maybe forever.

The sickening thing I have found is in creating new articles, it is not the notability that matters, it is how much the page conforms to a certain template.

If the book survives the one week mark, it will probably stay on wikipedia for a good long time.

If you are shocked by this blatant honesty, step back and realize what we are talking about here, we are not talking about posting a libelous living persons violation, or publishing someones social security number we are talking about creating a page about a book, that has, in fact, been published, but unfortunately hasn't gotten enough attention from the media to meet current draconian notability guidelines. Inclusionist (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

While I don't doubt your words are true, they shouldn't be. I routinely patrol the tail end of new-page-patrol and see dreck that lasts 30 days. I routinely PROD it, improve it, or SPEEDY-tag it, depending on the situation and how much time I have to fix it. Good point about the template, if an article about a book doesn't have a "notability" tag on it and it's got at least two references that look like reputable newspapers or similarly reliable sources, I'm likely to be fooled if it's non-notable and the references are fake. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrals

Neutrals typically don't count towards percentages on RFA. Bureaucrats may look at neutrals in a tight case to see which way they lean. Jehochman ^Talk 22:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah. In some sports, a tie is half a win, half a loss. A team with a 3-1-1 record has a 0.700 record, lower than a 3-1 team's 0.750 record. 22:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:Image

I saw that little bit, but that's not an image. The uploader is responsible for putting the correct license on the image. There are a few different version of self licenses. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the uploader is responsible for license-tagging it but there are softer and more effective ways to get the tag applied than to tag the image with a "if no action is taken, the image will be deleted in xx days" tag, especially with an active Wikipedian. Talking to the person on his talk page or by email for starters. There's a saying about attracting more flies with honey than vinegar, I think it applies. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I guess I'm used to the old fasioned way lol. I remember getting numerous warnings about those in the past. Undead Warrior (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Gillian Reed

Gillian here again. Just wanted to say thanks for putting that article on my userpage. That's so interesting that you're a TV administrator! I've talked with Ann and she said that the site should be running within the next few days. Until then, please wait. I appreciate the patience. So I looked at book reviews on other sites and I think there was a short one on The Crossing of the Desert, which is probably the most famous book of the series. It has a lot of King Solomon's Mines references. I'm not positive but I think that might have been published 1996, if it helps. I also am trying to track down some of the Tyranta books, which Ann says she doesn't have. I don't know. Just wondering, was Mr. Inclusionist continuing your response or was that a new topic?

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding about your intentions toward the cause. Thank you for attempting to give Tyranta a fair chance of getting published on Wikipedia.

-Gillian Reed (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't me who put the page in your user space. You can view the page's history to see who it was and give proper thanks. I'm also not a TV administrator. I think Mr. Inclusionist's remarks were a reply to my reply to you, but check with him to be sure. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Table

if you want to, go ahead. I'm not sure how to format that and the couple of things I tried didn't do what I wanted.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Yes I know an article can not go on the main page while it is at WP:AFD. This DYK could close favorably prior to putting it on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Header

Yes the header overwrites a lot of things while the Wikipedia donation banner is present (about five or six weeks per year).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:Q9

I literally answered it when you messaged me lol. I answered it to the best of my knowledge. I don't think that ignore all rules applies to that question. Undead Warrior (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:AHLU

This user gave me permission, as described on AHLU's talk page. Meanwhile, please be cautious before giving another warning, as I am the archiver on AHLU's talk page. Don't worry - you might have not read all the banners on his talk page. Do not pass this on with other people. Thanks, MHLU^talk 22:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)