Please Leave Me a Message on this page

If you would like to leave me a message please visit my active usertalk page. This is an archive and is no longer active.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Wikipedia talk:Schools

After out discussion, I got the idea, we have some agreed points, but I'm not 100% clear on which ones were actually agreed. I did an attempt at summarizing. Feel free to look at, and you're invited to edit (but remove my signiture if you decide to edit it). If what I wrote isn't what you wanted, please provide a summary of your own points. --rob 11:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red screen of death/Blue screen of death

Hello. The merge of articles is disputed. I much appreciate your opnion, thanks. --Mateusc 02:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red screen of death. Could you come and comment at Talk:Blue screen of death#Foo Screen of Death merge? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

School naming convention

You probably watch Wikipedia talk:Schools but in case you missed it you may want to join the discussion of naming conventions, since you requested a move of St. Anne School (Seattle, Washington). I put a note on the talk page of St. Anne School suggesting that the move be delayed until the discussion of the naming convention has run its course. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar definitions

Hello again! Partially as a result of our discussions regarding Serenity, I investigated the various Wp articles and definitions for star system, stellar system, solar system, and planetary system. After my research, it became clear that the Wp articles had various (uncited) inaccuracies. My researched definitions from astronomical compendiums (and discussion) can be found here (which are largely in-line with my original assertions about this and that system; note planetary system however), and the relevant Wp articles/definitions have since been corrected ... but this continues to be a work in progress. Don't get me wrong, though: the Serenity articles read fine. Anyhow, I hope you find them useful; enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony 13:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Graves

I've just discovered that he was an actor who appeared in 32 films! Link to imdb profile will follow in the listing shortly. CalJW 01:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

California county route stub

The template was renamed to {{California-county-route-stub}} based on the discussion on WP:SFD; there are more people there supporting the lowercase version the capital version. The capital version is fine as a redirect; but there's consensus, as shown on WP:SFD, for the lowercase version; please do not rename it from that. The category was renamed to match the capitalization of the template, as none of the comments in support of lowercase were template-specific. --Mairi 23:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 people who want only capitals, there are 2 people who want only lowercase, 2 that want road or lowercase, 1 either capital or lowercase, and one delete or road. Which would be a consensus for lowercase. Also, citing WP:STYLE isn't clear which view supports, as it was cited in that discussion in favor of lowercase. --Mairi 23:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere is consensus defined as an exact number; Wikipedia:Consensus specifically avoids doing so and states that even the numbers given are not binding on the editor closing the debate. --Mairi 00:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, citing precedent is abit tricky, considering there's an unclosed (and quite old) debate on WP:SFD about the naming and capitalization of state highway stubs. But regardless, precedent doesn't override consensus. --Mairi 00:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've read those debates and am well aware that it's a minefield. But editors in this debate (and early ones too) argued that it should be lowercase, and did so in good faith, so there's no reason to discount their opinions. In this case, there was a consensus for lowercase. If deletion decisions involved applying precedents, there'd be far fewer such debates (which'd make some things so much easier); but that isn't how things are. But I'm sure these things can and will come up again... --Mairi 00:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Park (NFL stadium template) The offical name of the park is monster stadium until 08 then you can change it back to candlestick I realize most fans don't like it the name but we should have a universal standard of the offical name of the stadium otherwise people can say that most people call stadium x K park so we should leave it as Monster Park as all other stadiums are called by their offical names I am going to switch if you like leave me a message on my talk page 02:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

your changes to the merge/redirect proposal in WP:SCH talk

I noticed your changes, to limit what's counted, so as to exclude information solely from the school district itself. As a test case, Ecole Secondaire Beaumont Composite High School, in its present form, has what I think is ample info from this sole source, but shouldn't be merged, because the information is unique to specific the school. I don't think this is type of article (in it's present form) that you were targetting for redirect/merge, but taken literally your revised wording could be used to merge/redirect this. I think the original version of the same article would have qualified for a merge/redirect, which is something I could have lived with (not loved, but lived with for the sake of compromise). --Rob 00:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCH

To be upfront:

There is nothing notable about a school. Around 4 billion of the 6 billion people alive attend or have attended one. Unless you have a point that distinguishes one from the crowd I do not believe they belong. That's my basic opinion. I opposed 3 sentences and I'll oppose 3 hundred unless a notability claim is a part of the package.
An X number of sentences criterion is always a poor criterion. I can develop three sentences on just about any topic I choose.

Finally (sorry if this seems harsh):

Yip-yap as much as you like (you in the generic sense, not you ;) and it won't matter. I'll vote delete when I look at a non-notable school. So will half of the other voters. The other half will vote keep. There is no consensus. They are kept for lack of consensus. I absolutely oppose any attempt to use a school argument as policy. There is no policy in this regard and broadly there never will be. Marskell 22:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Nicodemus <----> Marskell), lets put them in a room to fight it out. David D. (Talk) 22:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If merge could happen I would vote merge but merge won't get consensus either and I think you well know that. The keepers want them kept as they stand. And I'll say this much, the deletionists have the consistent argument: I'd vote delete on a county road, a corner store, a local bar, a b-and-b, a neighbourhood grocer, a small town ballpark, a bridge-drunks-piss-off-of-walking-home, a make-out spot, or any other thing you encounter daily that does not have notability in itself. But, apparently, schools are sacrosanct. Middle ground will not be found here--really, it won't. The one in North Carolina is 15-11 right now. I edit wiki a lot and there's a lot of stuff I want to do at any given time--solving the school dispute seems like a waste of energy. If I stumble across one, I vote, (usually, but not always delete).

And, along those lines, what the hell is this implication I've become a prototypical deletionist (Nicodemus <----> Marskell)? I don't have a clue who Nicodemus is. I vote as I see them. I vote delete more than I vote keep but I do vote keep and if you want to see saves/decisive keep comments I've made, let me know. I stopped by McMartin preschool and voted "keep and rename" today because it's notable and should be kept. If it's notable and should be kept I vote keep, goddammit. Your average high school doesn't meet that bar to my mind. Marskell 23:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicodemus is against deleting or merging ANY school and will NOT compromise. You seem to have the opposite opinion and apparently will also not compromise on the schools that are non notable. I agree if you two represent the typical players in this debate then "merge won't get consensus either". At this point at least some people are taking a break from voting delete to survey the possability of a merge compromise. I agree with your sentiments "I'd vote delete on a county road, a corner store, a local bar, a b-and-b, a neighbourhood grocer, a small town ballpark, a bridge-drunks-piss-off-of-walking-home, a make-out spot, or any other thing you encounter daily that does not have notability in itself. But, apparently, schools are sacrosanct.". I do not particularly like the idea of non notable schools getting pages either. But just voting delete all day vs their keep is a complete waste of time. More so than trying to find a compromise in my opinion. David D. (Talk) 23:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am a "holdout," "will not compromise" etc. The truest opinion is that I don't care and don't want to waste time on this. I won't vote on a school again. Marskell 13:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are RFCs against examples of both subsets

Ok, that made me laugh. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization highway style

I wonder if there is a way to have a big debate about the capitalization of "California State Highway" and phrases like that to get all of these smaller ones over with. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At SFD... it's the CA State Hwy stub now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)

Well, if you think that state highway is a proper noun, why not go request that article be moved to its "proper" capitalisation? As it stands, you guys are effectively arguing that "state highway" means one thing, and "State Highway" means another, but I can see no basis whatsoever for this. Of course, if we went for "CamelCase", the point would be moot... And in this case, you're arguing that you know better than California law, to boot. Alai 04:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To the casual observer, "California state route", used generically, would simply seem to be "state highway", qualified by the name of a state. What's the basis for your belief that it's any different, and in particular, that it's a proper noun? It's not even an official term, and no-one has cited a recognised style guide supporting this capitalisation, so it seems a bit of a stretch to imagine that Wikipedia should adopt such a convention. Alai 06:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that what you say implies either that it's a proper noun, or that there's any actual distinction here. In what circumstances is it even possible that X is a common noun, but Y, which is a type of X, is a proper noun? Much less this being true in some general sense? (Not an instance, note, but a type.) I think that clearly, "California state route" means any state route in California, not any route. Any other interpretation seems pretty stretched. And which "state routes" (or indeed, "State routes") in California are not "State Routes" in the sense you intend? Alai 04:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is not a proper noun it's almost always capitalized on the Internet. They've never answered that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)

Because we have style guides for capitalisation, and no guideline or policy to use whatever caps "the internet" uses. And in any case, I see no evidence this is the case: looking at the first page of google hits for "California state routes", I can find capitalisation to State Routes only in a) wikipedia mirrors (curiously enough), and b) in section headers, where it's common to use a different caps convention (though WP doesn't). Alai 02:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I point to Talk:List of California State Routes/Archive2 where the Google test is mentioned. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your 9/80 would appear not to tally with my experience (unless the first page was wildly unrepresentative). I'd continue the exercise, if either a) it was material to the WP naming conventions, or b) I thought it'd stand any chance of changing anyone's mind on this, if "it's not a proper noun and therefore shouldn't be capitalised" doesn't do the trick. Alai 04:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google search I searched for "california state routes" here and all the first page results were capitalized. Searching for the plural removes references to stuff like "California State Route 154" or something like that. Also note that Caltrans, which makes California State Routes, uses the capitalization on its website. Sorry Gateman about the mess... this should all be going on the SFD page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)

Yes, that's exactly the search I performed, and for exactly that reason. Unless we're simply getting different results from google.com -- and stranger things have happened, a google employee I spoke to at a conference told me that no single person at google understands the whole of the page rank algorithm -- that's simply not true. Most of those hits are WP mirrors (which are hardly independent verification that the current WP is correct), or use lower case in running text: "California state routes were first signed in 1934." [1] (Top non-WP hit that uses it in running text.)

There's not much point in putting this on SFD at this stage (though I'm happy to move it to your talk page, or mine). Alai 05:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... because I got cahighways.org, the caltrans page, gbc.net, AARoads.com (one of the leading highways sites online), industrystock.com... blah blah blah. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cahighways.org is the site I just directly quoted lower-cased usage from. It's the very first body text sentence on the page. I'm not seeing how you construe this as support for UC usage. gbcnet says "California state highways have an even longer history than the US highways." AARoads isn't on the first page of results (for me), but uses a mixture of cases for state highway/state route (including one "State route"). Incidentally, I'm a bit suspicious that this only gets 300-odd hits... Seemingly not that common a form of reference (in either/any case.) Alai 07:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AARoads uses the term "California State Route" if you go to the California section (which got moved to [2]) Also we are talking about "California State Route" not "State route." There is a distinction. Just as in Capitol and capitol, God and god, The Merge and the merge. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But other than repeatedly asserting this, you've cited no basis for this being the case. You've failed to argue that it's a proper noun (and your examples don't bode well for hopes of convincing you about the distinction), cite no independent style guide for this usage, have wrongly presented the results of the "google test", and are ignoring what Californian law calls them. We're going round in circles on this, it seems to me, and I can't see what'll convince you if none of the above does.

BTW, that page has no occurrences of either "state routes" or "state highways", so I don't see what it demonstrates. And can you at least acknowledge your error on the other google hits? It's not as if I claimed that no page ever capitalises them. Alai 00:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the debate off my talk page and to User talk:Rschen7754/Highway Capitalization. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate Highways

Thanks for fixing the caps on Interstate Highways in California... there is a move underfoot to change the caps on ALL the cats named that way at wikipedia_talk:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)

List of Caucasian Americans

There is an old saying that one must always keep an open mind -- but not so open that one's brains fall out.

Nothing about WP:FAITH requires me to swallow the obviously ludicrous, and I stand behind what I wrote. Don't like it? Deal with it. --Calton | Talk 21:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for being WP:CIVIL too. *please note my dripping sarcasm* As long as you have that dictionary handy, look up "disingenuous" and see if that definition seems familiar. Also, since you're into content-free citations of Wikipedia policy pages, let's throw in WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information while we're at it. --Calton | Talk 23:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

when you consider we keep lists of African Americans, Native Americans, etc... Keeping a list of white Americans is only fair Uh huh. I look forward to your sequels, List of songs with lyrics, List of right-handed baseball players, List of women of average height, and List of Americans with hair. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See there's where you're wrong. I would never make such lists as they ARE lists of indiscriminate information. Then you're not paying attention. Oh, and for someone who spouts off about civility, you've got some nerve with your slimy little passive-aggressive racism charge. --Calton | Talk 08:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About Preschool articles...

After sleeping on the matter, I am now thinking that the best thing may be to create a very good preschool article on a preschool worth having an article on. There probably aren't very many, but the Long Beach Day Nursery was founded in 1912 [3] and I think qualifies. ^Blank ^Verse 08:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating on my RfA

File:Major John Sheppard.jpg

one cool guy

thumb|140px|right|another cool guy

Thanks for participating in my RfA. The final vote was 57/4/3. I hope I don't disappoint those who voted support, and that those who didn't won't wish they'd campaigned more strongly in opposition. Tom e r ^talk 03:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Busch Stadiums

Is it true that the old Busch is totally down already? In just two months time? Yikes! Wahkeenah 00:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems. I just wondered if you had seen it? Or are you at the GOLDEN Gate instead of the GATE-Way Arch? Wahkeenah 01:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

United States dollar coin

Thank for ocrrecting the mistake I made to the dollar coin page. I obviously focused too much on the spelling mistakes and not enough on the actual meaning of the sentences. I appreciate the fix. Markkawika 00:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of White Americans

I know we've never seen eye to eye, but they're trying to delete this article. Deleting it and keeping NA and Black American lists is just racist IMHO.Gateman1997 00:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I more or less agree with you. But, what can I do? I'm not an admin and there is a speedy, posted by an anom (which is lame) on the article. Even if it went through AfD, the list would probably or almost definitely get deleted, based on the previous vote. -- JJay 00:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could delete the speedy. I'd do it myself but it's against policy since I started the article.Gateman1997 01:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah...I'll leave that for the admins to decide. The list may qualify as a speedy. You also should know that I am more interested in process and policy than content (as demonstrated by my recent voting on the Indian List- my original vote had been delete). There is a way that you could get around this in the future I think. Do a sourced list of self-proclaimed caucasians. -- JJay 01:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I may have not been exactly sensible in what I posted, but there's never a need for name-calling here. It doesn't seem to me that a Wikipedia whose articles are written in English (a language of England, whose location is Europe, making them a predominately Anglo-Saxon country, who sent white people to America, who colonized the land, and built for themselves a country, filled with mostly white people) needs a list of all the influential Caucasian Americans, because most Americans are, in fact, Caucasian. Cernen 14:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting AfDs

You wrote:

I know you want to generate more discussion on AFDs hence you're relisting them, but is that such a good idea. You're cluttering up the new AFD list with no less then 25 old ones daily and now the AFD list is going well over 200 AFDs a day. It's getting hard to navigate them all with the relists of old ones in addition to the new ones.

You have a point. I'm open to suggestion, since all of the ones I've relisted have almost no votes or any clear consensus on what to do with them. howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 21:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:JJay

Not really. I've been "combing" the uncategorized articles and sometimes I stumble on articles which are at least dubious, which I usually submit to the AFD list. What I've noticed is that he always votes against my submittions and never voted for them. In the beginning I thought that is was natural because some of my submittions are very debatable (I submited them in hopes they could be discussed). As the days passed and the submittions piled up I noticed a pattern forming. That pattern consisted of 100% of the votes being agains the deletion and sometimes those votes were/are accompanied with inflamatory comments. He seems very active in the AFD list but yet, he is always against the AFD, which looks like a troll-ish behaviour. That's why I asked that question. Is he a real troll? --Mecanismo | Talk 20:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's been a recurring pattern. It seems his actions are starting to leave a distinct impression or at least he is starting to piss more and more people. Let's see what the future holds on this subject --Mecanismo | Talk 20:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Interstate-80.png has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Interstate-80.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.

List of streets in Paris, France in alphabetical order

Hi, I think our edits on this clashed. To answer your question how is a giant list of streets useful I agree it's not very. What I do think is useful is the structure of a master list and sublists and I feel it would be a pity to remove that. If any editor wants to go into these lists and remove all the red links that's fine - people can then create the blue ones from scratch for any streets that are notable enough. Alternatively, we can leave the red links as an encouragement for people to turn the important ones blue - I have a mild preference for that but it doesn't really matter. There seem to be only about 20 live street links which is too few for a major city like Paris - I imagine there could usefully be articles on up to 100 or so and we should try to encourage their creation. Dlyons493 Talk 02:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Houston MLS

Yes, I probably jumped the gun, but it looks like the name was leaked: http://www.goal.com/NewsDetail.aspx?idNews=110879&progr=5 . Of course, it's best to wait for it to be official. DR31 _(talk) 17:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

image usage

Stop re-adding the image. Even though Mozilla allows the image to be used for promotional things Wikipedia cannot use it as it is not released under a license that we can freely use and so all usages of it have to be in line with Fair Use which only allows us to use it in certain articles and even then only if they directly pertain to Firefox. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That box DOES directly pretain to Firefox.Gateman1997 19:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The rules only allow for use in ARTICLES, userboxes aren't covered so we can't use them there. I've protected your page temporarily since you obviously are willingly violating Wikipedia policy on this and doing so relieves the need to revert it back every time you re-add the image. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nothing. You're being reported.Gateman1997 19:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#repeat_willful_violations_of_image_rules Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say, as an aside, that you shouldn't get too uppity over people editing your user page. It's best to think of all pages as belonging to wikipedia - including user pages. Many users, Jimbo included allow and even encourage people to edit their user pages. I heartily recommend it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Macintosh

Thanks for joining! Our current focus is Apple Computer. Our former focus and current FAC is Apple Macintosh; you can vote here. Don't forget to put {{Project Macintosh}} and {{user WikiProject Macintosh}} on your userpage! We’re all honored that you want to join our WikiProject. --HereToHelp (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Do you think it's safe to go back to the good but fair use image for our template? The Apple icon rather than the Finder emulation we have now?--HereToHelp (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Day

Just saw your last edit summary on this article. My bad too, I should probably have done a manual revert rather than an admin one. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Web-screenshot tag

I've noticed you've uploaded some images tagged with {{web-screenshot}}. This tag is not meant to be used for images that came from Web pages; it's meant to be used for images of Web pages (such as Image:Wikipedia.PNG, for example). I've retagged the images below as having no license information. Please edit the image description pages to include information about the licenses these images are under. —Bkell 05:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BuckShaw.PNG

Here's another one: Image:NewOaklandPark.jpg. —Bkell 06:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Poor

It doesn't look like Ed has responded to the Rfa after 2 days is the basis of my decision, and given that he was desysoped less than 2 weks ago is a factor, SqueakBox 21:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't given his permission for the Rfa, which can be a very humiliating process. You may think you are helping him but you are in fact setting him up to be humiliated, SqueakBox 21:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gateman1997, your decision to start an RfA for Ed Poor without asking him first, and without posting it on the main RfA page, was not a good idea I believe. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have understood my point. If all the edits had been positive endorsements I would not have said anything but as they weren't I felt it important to flag the situation. A number of editors have left wikipedia due to negative feedback in their Rfa's so we must remember that an Rfa is a sensitive thing, SqueakBox 02:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed emailed me and asked me tell everyone "If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve." SqueakBox 22:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the gesture, but I simply can't do it right now. Maybe in a few months when I'm less busy. Cheers! Uncle Ed 00:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

Hi Gateman1997! To thank you for defending the freedom of expression in the debate on the proposed policy on userboxes, I´d like to award you the 'Outspoken Barnstars'! Larix 22:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC) PS You don't want your user page edited, so I'm putting them on your talk page. You can move them to your user page yourself[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Masonic organizations

Please review the discussion, my vote above yours explains why this article needs to be redirected. It is policy to redirect to the merged material to retain attribution. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not irrelevant. We need to attribute specific edits and addition of material despite the fact we're working with a free license. That's why we've got a history tab in the first place. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not mentioned in Wikipedia:Merge and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion for nothing. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball on Wikicities

Hello Gateman1997, Googie Man here and I want to ask you something as a fellow baseball fan on Wikipedian. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done great work on Wikipedia and I was hoping you could help get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please let me know what you think either at my talk page, or you can email me at terry@wikia.com. Thanks! Googie Man^(Talk), 20:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Gateman1997, thanks for your reply and offering to help! Googie Man, 5 January 2006 18:33, (UTC).

U.S. Routes

Actually "U.S. Route X" is the official name, used by AASHTO and Federal laws. See the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Highways. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interstates are called both "Interstate X" and "Interstate Route X" by AASHTO, so no problem there. As for U.S. Routes, usage of Route vs. Highway depends on the state, which is why we should go by what AASHTO uses. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The northeast typically uses Route - often omitting the U.S. even. As for redirects, there's nothing wrong with linking to them. I'm fixing all the double redirects. The only place links should be fixed is navboxes like {{U.S. Routes}}, so they show up bold on the pages that template is used on. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouses

NP, that was an effort to standardize the naming of the articles per WP naming conventions, there is discrepancy between USCG and other naming conventions. Thanks for letting me know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using the link to leave you a message

In "DO NOT edit this page without first consuting me on my talk page" , "consuting" should be "consulting". FreplySpang (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

Your comments in creating {{User against jews}} clearly indicated you did it to make a point. Deliberately violating WP:POINT is trolling—don't do it. -- SCZenz 08:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have speedied the Scientology template myself, and I have so voted, but I think it's fair at this point to let the TfD run its course. I advise you take a deep breath in the meantime, since further disruptions of Wikipedia won't do anything but cause trouble for you. -- SCZenz 11:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestar Galactica

You are right, my mistake, i confused the start of the second half of season two with the beginning of the thrid season... sorry... I had thought I had backtracked my error completely.

Vandalism

I found some vandalism on your page while tracking a user. I have reverted it for you. Hope this is OK. Mikeroberts 14:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Box

Regarding your second recreation of Template:User Boxpurge with the comment (fixing broken box. Something happened to the text on this one.). Please don't get clever, it was, as you are well aware speedy deleted as a recreation of a fork of Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate which is currently on TfD. Please leave the debate with TfD - if it allows 'purge' userbox then fine - if not then please don't recreate it elsewhere. --Doc ^ask? 20:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I liked the Jan 4th box (never saw the New Year Day box). After the Lord High Executioners of Userbox Templates had their way, I recreated it in non-template version on my page under "Pseudo-Babel." — Eoghanacht ^talk 16:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your vote on my arbcom nomination

I just wanted to let you know that since you and many other editors felt that I should clarify my positions better I have expanded my answers to people's questions and have clarified my statements. I would appreciate it if you could take another look when you get the chance. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacBook image

I believe this would be a better image: [4], since there's more visible than just the screen. I'll leave it up to you to change this if you agree. --Dantheox 19:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use rules aren't changing, but they are already tougher than most people think. Don't worry though, fairusereplace means that the image will stay for as long as nobody comes up with a decent replacement, which isn't possible until it's actually in the stores - I've tagged the Power Mac G4 images (which are eminently replaceable) a few months ago and they're still around. I know that it's not really applicable for the MacBook at the moment, but I've put it in so I don't forget it over the next three weeks. Also, it's not a rare picture, should someone nuke it without a replacement it can be easily reuploaded (I'll even do it myself in that case) -- grm_wnr Esc 19:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note about my Rfa

I appreciate your input and feedback on my recent Rfa. I have been made an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) and if there is ever anything I can do to assist you in that capacity, please let me know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your jockstrap

As long as it exists, it is worthy of inclusion. Kurt Weber 15:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]