Ok, awesome, I can wait. I will have to start gathering info together to start stubbing out these I think. I also have a bunch of pictures I have to upload also that I took this weekend for a bunch of different places. I will wait to hear from ya then on this project some more. Thanks!--Kranar drogin01:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looked over what you have done so far. Is there any way for the cities to have the City, Illinois|City created rather than just the city name? Its no biggie, also, is there any way to have the table created as I have done it? If not, again, no biggie, this should save me some time. Oh, how about all the year dates, could those be linked also? Again no biggie. I'll prolly work on this tomorrow, prolly on your page there to get it up to what I have for mine, and then move it all at the same time over to my page if you don't mind. It wil just take a bit of integrating work to get the tables set up the same with the || and whatnot. Great work, this should save me time from flipping from screen to screen. Thanks!--Kranar drogin03:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for Gallatin! I prolly wasn't good enough in explaining what I needed, but I need from Gallatin County down to Woodford County. So that is a bunch more counties, haha. Well, the format I have been using is slightly different than what you are putting on your page, but it all formats the same once I plop it on my page. You listed your down while I did mine across. No worries, I am not going to go back and change everything, would be a waste of my time. So Cook County's are listed down along with any more counties you do, while the others I have done so far are across. Not a bit deal though. I do appreciate your help in all this man!--Kranar drogin22:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I saw you fixed it where the city was linked up so I didn't have to add in the Illinois, awesome. I was wondering if there is a way to link the "Founded" also. Right now it seems there is a space just before the date, I don't know if this affects how your program works and if a [[]] isn't added then because of that? I can't keep saying thanks enough, this table program is saving me a lot of time. I don't suppose you would have something that creates automatic stubs for all these red links! lol--Kranar drogin00:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have changed my mind about the mass bulk stubbing. We have the list done, it is now time to check all the links out, write an intro, and then move it to the mainspace. Maybe even get a DYK (just need to expand it by 5 times the original). What do you think of the list? Here is the complete and utter list for the State of Illinois. Its big at 239,860 bytes, but I think it will be acceptable. Feel up to writing any Illinois historic places!? Well, I guess I will have to talk with Ivo some, and get an idea how to do these up, never having done any. We need to have at least 70% of the red links created, so here is to a long FL.--Kranar drogin02:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am going to need you to run your program again. We have decided to remove counties all together, and we are going to seperate Cook County from the overall list to make their own list since there are just so many of them. We will add a See Also down at the bottom of both lists so they can crisscross. Having the county just seems to be very repetative, and will just change it. What do you think?--Kranar drogin07:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still want it ordered by county name, even though the county won't be displayed? Or should it just order by city and then property name? I'm assuming it should be sorted by city name and then property name, and that Cook County should be in a separate list. If this is the way you want it, let me know and I'll create the two separate reports. --Elkman(Elkspeak)03:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lets do it by city, then site name with all Cook County NRHPs having a seperate query for them. All I want for the Cook ones is city then site as usual, but don't enter in the neighborhoods since this is a Chicago thing only, and I am trying to make this list for all people to be able to use and update and 99% of us do not know what neighborhood what is in.--Kranar drogin03:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we are going to add BACK in the counties. We made a mistake, and now we want to split the list up into three regions based on the counties. So, could you run your program one more time like this:
{|class="wikitable sortable" style="width:100%"
! width="*" |'''Site Name'''
! width="*" |'''County'''
! width="*" |'''City'''
! width="*" |'''Built/Founded'''
! width="*" |'''Date <br />designated'''
|--
||[[F. D. Thomas House]] ||[[Adams County, Illinois|Adams County]]||[[Camp Point, Illinois|Camp Point]] ||? ||[[July 28]], [[1983]] ||
|--
}}
And could you have it sorted by the county, not the city. This will save us a lot of time. Also can you check to make sure it is the most recent NRHP list for Illinois? Again, sorry for all the work, but we do appreciate it A LOT.--Kranar drogin23:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is going to be perfect! Thanks for your hard work in this. Would you be able to stub out a few of the articles, or maybe just go for a DYK on some articles? I know you are busy with Minn, but any assistance would be great. Wow, I think this is going to be perfecto, and no more requests! Be a bit before I update the page.--Kranar drogin01:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For you work on Illinois related articles, especially on the Illinois NRHP list, I hearby award you WikiProject Illinois Barnstar. Keep up the good work!--Kranar drogin02:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Darwin D. Martin House article, the prior version was very clear that the building was added to NRHP one year, designated NHL another later date, but your NRHP infobox generator gives the later date. I can verify the NHL designation date several ways; am not sure how to verify the NRHP date, I have been relying upon your infobox generator. Can you clarify what date it outputs, perhaps when NRHP add date is not available but NHL date is? It would help for it to generate both dates, actually, consistent with new infobox formatting that includes NHL designation date. Thanks for all your help... doncram02:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your clarification. Glad to see there is no problem with this; i agree the error was in the prior writeup for the DDM House. Now I further see a direct way to confirm NRIS date, by searching at http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrloc1.htm , which I guess is just a report out of the database your generator uses. By the way the "NRHP Nomination" form for Darwin D. Martin is unusual among those i have been adding to NYS NHL articles in that it is not dated by the preparer. But for those that are dated, the date can easily be after both NRHP date and NHL date, as the form is used for "inventory" after the fact as well as for nomination purposes. You probably know that. Thanks again. doncram07:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have blanked out that projeck page you made there Elkman, so if you want, could you put the other counties in there starting from Gallatin whenver you get a chance please? This seemed to save me a lot of time. I have now merged in Cook County with my list. Thanks!--Kranar drogin03:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elkman, seeing that you are an admin with a lot of image uploading experience I'm wondering if you can take a look at this for me. Appraiser recently added an image to 2007 Midwest flooding. It came form an NOAA web page, but the author is not a government employee and instead contributed the photo to the NWS. I'd always assumed that images like this were not allowable in wikipedia, until Appriser found this disclaimer: Use of data and products. This looked legit to me, so before I go hog wild in uploading images like this, I'd like to get an admin's blessing. Can you do this, or there somewhere else that would be more appropriate? The image I upload is here, and the original that Appraiser uploaded is here. thanks! Gopher backer18:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general, works of the United States Government are in the public domain, unless claimed otherwise. I checked the original source pages for those images and they didn't say anything about the contributor having a commercial copyright claim. (I haven't seen too many counterexamples where a government source will use a commercial image. Typically, it might be from a magazine like Time or something of that ilk.) So, in general, I'd assume it's OK to use NOAA images unless a copyright is specified elsewhere. If you still have questions, you can ask at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Lar also has image copyright experience, so he'd be a good one to ask. Note that works of the Minnesota state government (or any other state government) are not in the public domain unless the state says they are. --Elkman(Elkspeak)19:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, two questions though. 1) So in this case it's considered a work of the government, even if it wasn't created by one of their employees? 2) In the disclaier it says that you can use the material so long as, 2. use it in a manner that implies an endorsement or affiliation with NOAA/NWS. Does the NOAA licensing tag that you put on there do that? Gopher backer19:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is yes to both of those questions (although the license says you may not use it in a manner that implies an endorsement or affiliation with NOAA/NWS). The {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} tag I put on both of those images is sufficient to identify that those images are originally from NOAA/NWS. --Elkman(Elkspeak)20:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating the info boxes. I also just tried the info box generator and it works good, that is cool.
Just an FYI after trying to generate a couple of other info boxes the coordinates on some bridges are not as accurate as my GPS coordinates. Just FYI.....
Histrylover3421:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you read the source page there's a bit more to it than that, but by and of itself it's true and does sound sort of funny. Perhaps I should submit it to DYK ... there are town elections coming up in these parts, and to be fair I am on the Democratic Committee of another nearby town ... but it's irrestibly DYK stuff all the same (I had also been thinking of the bit about how it was rolled in on logs). Daniel Case04:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elkman, thank you for your support during my RfA. If the concerns that were brought up by other editors gave you second thoughts, rest assured that I'll keep all of the comments in mind in the coming months, and will try again later. In the mean time, if you see me doing something stupid, please let me know. See you around.--barneca (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 83 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutrals. No matter if you voted (I mean, "!voted") support or oppose, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm new, remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them, and if I do anything wrong, feel free to add to the permanent chorus of disapproval on my talk page. Special thanks to WaltonOne and DihydrogenMonoxide for nominating me.
Thanks for the clarification of the speedy deletion policy in terms of notability. I will take more time to determine an article's eligibility to be speedily deleted. --TheBressman07:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi... I think you closed this keep but it seems like the AFD notice is still on the article. Did you mean to leave it for some reason? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching this. I forgot to remove the AFD notice from the article and forgot to post {{oldafdfull}} on its talk page. The AFD was started on July 29 and I didn't close it until September 10, so there must be something about the article that makes it slip through the cracks. --Elkman(Elkspeak)17:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Coming here meant that I noticed my name mentioned, above... is that NOAA image thing all sorted then? ++Lar: t/c18:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. I applied {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} to the images and I think that should solve it. I just gave your name out as an additional resource in case they had further questions. I checked the original source page(s) and didn't see anything indicating that the pictures were copyrighted or that they were contributed by someone other than a NOAA employee, so I'm assuming they're good. --Elkman(Elkspeak)18:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to explain rationale on this. If an IP address ignores several final warnings, I would think that in itself merits a temporary block, regardless of imminence of threat. JNW02:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any better pictures along the Midtown Greenway? Your garden picture is of a pretty dismal looking garden, I know we have a lot better ones. Thanks, at least you start the leg work for the rest of us :) 75.72.162.17508:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the right mind to tell you off. As for my last 100 edits, mind your own business. >=[ Just remember.....there's nowhere to run to when death becomes you.† Tyler † (talk/contribs) 17:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah homie, it's 50 cent, yo. "When Death Becomes You". Lmmfao. Get with the times homie, and seriously, get off mah back. I'm off to have a smoke and chill now. >=[ † Tyler † (talk/contribs) 18:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for supporting my RfA; it ended earlier today rather successfully. I wanted to take the time to express appreciation for the cogent analysis you provided with your support. Hitherto the nomination, I never interacted with you; however, the case you made in supporting my candidacy was the kind that shows a genuine interest in my goal. I was concerned that the UAA incident would derail the nomination, but I believe that the insight you provided went a long way to keep that from happening.
For me, the promotion was about being trusted to be responsible with the tools. I assure you that I intend to uphold that trust with my service to the community.
Thanks for uploading Image:Heinrich Christian Schumacher.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI21:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the update. -- !!?? 21:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Sorry for posting it on ANI but I compared the urgency versus some ANI posts. For example, CSN is moving to ANI even though CSN discussions take days (not "it must be decided on immediately, this second!"). That was a reason for doing it. Thanks again. Archtransit22:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Vincent Thomas Bridge.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI03:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I help out where I can, adding noms to next update, screening noms, and doing talk page credits, but that's as far as I can go. I was also aware of the admin work involved, which is a good explanation as to why it sits past update time sometimes, oh well. :) Thanks for the work you do Elkman! IvoShandor04:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of sending [1] this to UAA, as they have created a offensive Jewish article, but the username isn't that offensive depending on how you construe it. Phgao03:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, oh and I like "elkspeak"!! On another note, I would appreciate your comment here as I think I may have dug myself a hole, but I still can't find other references. Phgao03:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi elkman. It's just been the third time you notified me of stuff I worked on being put on DYK. Makes me feel appreciated. Thanks. athinaios17:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have protect the Zaido article. I have copied whole article to notepad so that if there's vandalism again, I'll replace it again...
Thanks and MABUHAY.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbr999 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your message- Sorry, but I don't know Tyler very well, so I wouldn't happen to know very much about what he does. I try to stay out of arguments that don't really have anything to do with me. I hope that you guys can work this out somehow. Ciao! --PolarWolf ( grrr... ) 21:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm i don't know why he said that i guess he was just upset with bushcarrot for falsely accusing me. anyway sorry for that when i took my sig of bushcarrots thing is because i thought he was upset with me. sorry i can't be of better help --Summerluvin02:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning on semi-blanking this users talk page, as the warnings which mention the articles name probably violate BLP. Hope that's not a problem. Best, --Bfigura(talk)03:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elkman, a long time ago in the FAC for Larrys Creek, you asked if I could write an article on the covered bridge over the creek as it is on the National Register of Historic Places. Larrys Creek will be WP:TFA Friday October 19 and I finally wrote Cogan House Covered Bridge. It is up for DYK and I think I will submit it for GA. Thanks again for the original request, and sorry to be so slow. Ruhrfisch><>°°17:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliments - you are too kind. I have some more bridges over creeks I am interested in and an island on the NRHP too, so they are on my to do list. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch><>°°18:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this image is not Non-free content, as it's a company's logo. Logos are commercial images/designes which are free content. If you did not know this, logos are free content, because anyone who uses them [physically, technologically, etc.] giver a certain ammount of publicity to the product, company or group. For these reasons, the link you sent me: [2] is not applicable. With all due respect, do not try to argue with these points, because I know what I am talking about. Have a nice day, Lex94TalkContributionsSignatures21:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 21 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Summit Avenue, 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.
Well, you apparently didn't revert my talk page after you moved it back, but that was easy enough to fix. Thanks for your watchful eyes.
(PS: I wouldn't mind at all if that account were indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account. :) ) shoy19:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the Foneshop entry yesterday with the reason that it was advertising, even though the article was factual and gave the history of the company with just an explanation of it's purpose. The content was similar to that of other telecommunications companies, such as couldnine communications and Netopia. I would be grateful if you could possibly give me a more specific reason for the deletion, so i know where i went wrong?
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly)18:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Help! Once it's 8 hours late, we would have missed a full update!! I've moved hooks to the next update page. Need admin help to move to the main page. Thanks. Archtransit15:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just decompress from the meeting. WP will survive (barely) without you and WP needs you in a refreshed state of mind. If there were the title of "assistant deputy administrator" with DYK powers, I'd do it but there's just big man (admin) and little man (editor), nothing in between. Archtransit16:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for some feedback from you after your initial response on Wikipedia Administrators Noticeboard. The thread is now in archive. I am going to make a formal request for arbitration soon. However, I see that you are very busy and any comments would be appreciated.Useruser1x16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Elkman, I am writing regarding your recent declining to handle the vandalism of the St Matthews University article. You indicated that this is a content dispute. I would like to appeal to you and demonstrate that this is plain vandalism. First, Jfdietrich is a suspected sockpuppet for Drjcoby. Indeed, Drjcoby made the same section blanks last night, never made any comments in the talk page why (despite pleas to do so) was warned 4 times and finally blocked by admin C.Fred here. Today, the same section blanks are being made by Jfdietrich and Traveler1019. Both are Single Purpose Accounts, both have refused to discuss their reasons to blank this section on either their own or the article's talk page. Lastly, there seems to be a COI with these accounts and their editing of the page as exhibited here[4]. It seems they are connected somehow with the school and thus their edits are COI. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Bstone21:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Elkman, so much for your prompt attention to this. I believe that User:Traveler1019 is also a sock of Drjcoby as this user participated in the same section blanking. And might it be appropriate to make the ban on User:Drjcoby permanent based on the block evasion? Thank you. Bstone21:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a reply to your message (please delete upon reading)
Thanks for the star. Some of them go together pretty quickly. I'm working on ones that have pictures readily available; that saves a lot of time.--Appraiser20:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, thanks for the furnther information that you provided for me a while back regarding the deletion of the Foneshop article. I have found an article that discusses Foneshop.com: it is in a technology supplement of the Guardian newspaper - the web address for the online version is http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2004/oct/14/internet.onlinesupplement.
Given that the guardian is a well respected and reliable source, and that advertising can not be purchased within this specific section I believe that this may constitute notability. If possible could you please tell me if i'm right?
What he said. Also, Scogman, do you have any interest in making contributions to Wikipedia other than Foneshop? We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, and there's a lot of work to be done that's more important than Foneshop. Please read Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. --Elkman(Elkspeak)15:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Do you happen to know if this photo from NOAA(sp) is legal use? I saw a note from someone somewhere, maybe on the talk page of another WikiProject Minnesota member--probably Appraiser or maybe Gopher backer--that there was some discussion of NAOO(sp) images but I really don't want to take an anonymous user's word for this one because I used it on part of a Web site belonging to me and my business. No reply necessary but I wondered. Thanks either way. -Susanlesch21:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind taking a look at this article? I've listed it at AfD, since on close examination, it didn't seem to be an attack page, and had some forms of sourcing and asserted notability, but it looks like a BLP minefield. Acroterion(talk)02:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this is a school IP but I strongly disagree that 1 month is an adequate block. There haven't been any positive contributions from this IP. Look at their previous 10 blocks - vandalism occurs immediately upon expiry. Last 2 blocks were for 3 and 6 months respectively and the disruptions came a day or 2 after expiry of the block. I politely ask that you reconsider extending the block to at least 6 months. Even though it is a school. -- SWik78 (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just noticed that they don't have any stellar contributions. I was going to unblock and then reblock for 6 months, but it won't let me unblock. I'm not sure why. At least they're out of our hair for a month, and maybe the school will be close to their winter vacation time. --Elkman(Elkspeak)21:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well. As long as you agree that they deserve it, I don't mind reminding you again in 1 month when they go on another spree. In the meantime they'll have to find something else interesting to do like throw rocks at cars or whatever keeps them entertained. Peace! SWik78 (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I see you declined a speedy on this article - correctly as it had been speedied A1 and that clearly didn't apply. However it is a G12 being a cut and paste copyvio of http://www.sahra.arizona.edu/programs/isotopes/glossary/. As speedy has been declined I can't nominate again but as it is a copyvio I am concerned that a PROD will leave it hanging around to long. I'm going to PROD it anyway but wanted to let you know incase you felt you could over-ride and delete immediately as a copyvio. Thanks in advance, Kind regards, nancy 09:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nancy and Elkman. Sorry I am not an admin. Could you possibly translate your note into English so that I might understand whether or not I'd like to be an admin someday? Thank you in advance. -Susanlesch (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy: I don't even think it should be PRODded, because the gist of the article is the equation that defines the relationship between the oxygen and hydrogen isotopes. That really can't be reworded because it's impossible to paraphrase or rewrite an equation. I'd suggest talking with the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics (since they work on the Deuterium article) to see if the article really qualifies as a copyvio. They could also answer any questions about the importance of the article.
Thank you. I had thought I'd done my time already as a sysop on AOL, along with a host of other volunteers, but it helps to know what requirements Wikimedia (or Wikipedia) might have. Sorry for the interruption. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, I don't think that you'll have much success getting Lynne Cheney here unless you have a lot of money to contribute to a campaign. I'm not sure who the Cheneys will be supporting in the 2008 presidential campaign, but if they're supporting a candidate pretty heavily, it's a safe bet that they'll be making campaign appearances at $500-per-plate fundraising dinners. Since I'm on the moderate-to-left side of the political spectrum, that's about $500 more than I'm willing to spend. You can extend the invitation, but I'm guessing it will be a long shot. --Elkman(Elkspeak)17:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How come you want to close your account? You've been contributing a lot of high quality content, and I thought you were very interested in writing Wikipedia articles. Has something changed? I'd be willing to help with advice or anything like that. If you're burned out, consider taking a WikiBreak for a while. We'll be around when you return. --Elkman(Elkspeak)18:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up on the John Hancock IP spammer. I left a note on User:Damslerset's talk page trying to explain why this looks like spamming, but I see s/he has left a note on their user page saying they've quit (perhaps reborn as an IP??). Anyways, I appreciate the notice, and reverted those spam links too. Ruhrfisch><>°°13:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. No indication of importance/significance. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. If controversial, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.
Reason provided was "db-bio", to which I explained the misunderstanding of the system? Why every single person of wiki administration ignored that reason and giving pretended reasons? --Ebbee (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WHy do you think that I should not defend my article? I am not complaining about but discussing about. Please keep your guesses to yourself, the same thing can be said about yourself (e.g., you are not serving wikipedia community but only showing off, I guess).
Why didn't you answer my question? Are you afraid of admitting your guilt that you could not interpret system generated response? --Ebbee (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it isn't your article, it's the encyclopedia's article. Please see WP:OWN. Second, my guess about your interest in promoting the article (and the product it represents) is based on the fact that I've seen a lot of other people devoting similar time and effort into promoting articles about their business or their product. Let's put it another way: Would you expect Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta to carry an article about your product?
As far as whether I've served the Wikipedia community or not: I've contributed to three featured articles, including Glacier National Park (U.S.), Minnesota, and History of Minnesota. I've also improved History of Minneapolis, Minnesota to Good Article status, and I've written about a number of other topics. All of these articles should be useful to people researching topics like this. A kid working on research for a school project, or a traveler bound for Glacier National Park, would get value out of these articles.
To answer your question about the "system-generated message" and my "guilt": I know quite well about how the {{db-bio}} message works, and quite well about how Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion works. I've been a Wikipedia editor for more than two years and an admin since early September. I'm aware that the {{db-bio}} message doesn't quite fit your article exactly, but the net result is still the same: you've written an article about a non-notable subject. Frankly, I resent your assertion that I'm guilty of anything and that I'm here to just show off.
As far as not answering your question goes, I'm very busy these days with work obligations and other stuff. I'm trying to get ready for a trip that will last tomorrow through next Wednesday. I don't have a lot of time to argue with people as to whether their articles (and their browsers) are notable or not. Please read Wikipedia:Notability. --Elkman(Elkspeak)18:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To chime in: I deleted the first version of the article as advertising. Non-notability applies equally well, as several other editors have explained: db-bio is simply a shorthand for "non-notable". It seems clear that there is a consensus that this particular item does not meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion: that is the only issue. Neither guilt, fear, nor a conspiracy are indicated. Acroterion(talk)19:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I wasn't aware that Minnesota won't allow county, city, and other local government agencies to copyright their works. Actually, though, in reading Minnesota Statutes 13.03, it doesn't say that the data is not copyrightable; it just says that the data is public unless otherwise classified. Then again, this opinion from the Minnesota Department of Administration essentially states that Minnesota state and local government data isn't generally subject to copyright because doing so would impede public access to it. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't provide a legal opinion as far as how this affects Wikipedia's use of the logo.
Regardless, the wording "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain." (Emphasis added.) Since the individual who uploaded this image can't hold a copyright in something that isn't copyrightable, the license tag isn't really valid. If the logo images are indeed public data and not subject to copyright, then the license tag should be corrected. The other images (such as Image:Narc.jpg and Image:HCSOemployees.JPG) don't specifically say whether they're the work of the department or the work of an individual employee who has the right to contribute such photos. Also, the bottom of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office page says, "(c) copyright 2007 Hennepin County Sheriff's Office. All rights reserved." Maybe they're making a claim that isn't valid; I'm not sure. I'd be curious to find out whether the uploader works for the Sheriff's Office and whether the office has an opinion about using those images on Wikipedia.
Thanks for researching this. My take is that it is public domain, but not because it was released by the uploader. Perhaps we should replace the tags with PD-MNGov one. Also, the same argument should allow us to upload good copies of the St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Duluth city flags, which are currently absent from the List of cities in Minnesota article.--Appraiser (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bushcarrot Talk Please Sign! Let's go Lightning! 01:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
