User talk:Jreferee/Archive 2

DYK Nom

Did you know? was updated. On 8 November, 2006, a fact from the article Finlay Macdonald (Moderator), which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 12:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A Bold Stroke for a Wife

Wow, very well done. I bow to a master. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You deserve this no less than I do. (Possibly more, but I'm not giving mine back!) :-)

On 8 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A Bold Stroke for a Wife, which you greatly expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Plastic Bertrand photo

Thanks for finding that. It makes the DYK look a lot better. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's something for you...

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		For your excellent efforts on Millwall brick and many others in your short time here, I think you deserve this exceptional newcomer award. Congratulations, and happy editing! Alex (Talk) 15:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Chippy

Thanks for that link. I've discovered today that his real name appears to be Henry McNish after all, so I've moved the article. (The British Antarctic Survey changed the name of island named in his honour from "McNeish Island" to "McNish Island" after they were presented with his birth certificate, so that's a pretty good pointer). I've discovered a campaign to have him awarded the Polar Medal, so I've added that too. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 14:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Millwall brick - translation

Well, in my user page I wrote about translations from English to Italian... anyway, here you are. I just translated the first chapter, the second one doesn't tell anything interesting about this "tool". Of course it needs some corrections, but I hope it can be useful for you.

I see him passing by on my side as we walk again towards the square. With staring eyes and a newspaper roll in his fist, Vasquez doesn't even notice me. A cry in the ears, and I get his attention.

"Zani, have you seen? Victory!"

I shake my head. "Well, victory..."

"What? There were lots of people, in the end we were about 10.000, they had to take away the fascists by bus, to Granarolo, where milk and soft cheeses are produced, and you don't call it victory?"

"Yes, yes, ok" - I close the discussion with a hand gesture - "you're right - victory."

"But what is wrong with you? Are you depressed again? Zani, collect yourself!"

He touches my head softly with a paper truncheon that he grips in his hands. Softly, yes, but it seems that he has hurt me with an iron club.

"What the fuck is that?"

"This? You don't know this?"

"Should I?"

He beats the palm of his hand looking like a connoisseur. "This is a piece of the British support history! It's called "Millwall brick", because it has been invented by the supporters of Millwall, a very poor London football club, but with really pissed off hooligans. They entered the stadium with a newspaper, ok? The police let they in, easily, then they opened the paper, they rolled it well on the long side, they bent it and.. voilà, something that you can break somebody's head with."

I'm impressed, the result is a light thing which is heavy as stone at the same time. "Congratulation, Vasquez, the best thing that you can do with the press. I was told that if you stack newspapers well, tight tight, you can even manage to derail a train. Now that I've seen such a thing, I could easily believe it."

"You're kidding? Pressed paper is one of the hardest materials!"

"By the way, have you finally found the article about the guy from Romagna in Indochina?"

He beats with the Millwall brick the palm of his hand twice again, this time thoughtful. Then he stops suddenly, stares at it for a while, opens it and unrolls it.

"You see", says he to me without lifting his eyes, pressing the paper between both hands "I felt that we would meet, today..." "You felt it? Here, amid thousands of people?"

"Zani, what do you want that I say? I felt it, if I'm telling you that I felt it... and in fact I brought you the article, then you know, the police, the brawl, I wanted to show to a girl this Millwall brick, I was a while abstracted... anyway, here you are, look, it should be still readable, it didn't get torn, right?" --Wiskandar 17:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

About Giulio Einaudi

Your request of translation of it:Giulio Einaudi has been satisfied. --Nehwyn 18:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Nehwyn has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

--Nehwyn 21:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Eduardo Reck Miranda

Is there a reason you put a picture of a snail in this article about a musician? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't know how to use hidden comments at the time. I included random photos of the sea shell and flowers as markers to permit Mr. Miranda know where to place photos that I believe he plans to upload. If you see other images in any of my articles that don't belong, please feel free to hidden-comment them out.-- Jreferee 21:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

DYK

For your outstanding service to DYK

On November 14, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New York Sports Express, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Well doneBlnguyen (bananabucket) 06:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh, ok, I forgot to switch the tags in the article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Harriet Powers

Thanks for fleshing out the article. I'd never heard of her, and had only that one encyclopedia article to go on, but she sounded interesting enough that I was intrigued. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

List of all newspapers in the United States

(Question posted to talk page of RFC1394(
Help! In deriving an overall list scheme into which all United States newspapers may be categorized, I attempted to duplicate your work and create transclusion links for the Inhabited insular areas on the List of all newspapers in the United States. I can't figure out what I am doing wrong. Would you mind taking a crack at it and seeing if you can get the transclusion for the Inhabited insular areas on the List of all newspapers in the United States to work? Thanks. (And please let me know which transclusion link steps I didn't implement)-- Jreferee 19:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's what was incorrect: When there was a link such as [[List of newspapers in Bajo Nuevo Bank|Bajo Nuevo Bank]] which appears as Bajo Nuevo Bank, then using that as a link, it must be exactly identical when transcluded, so that the link used would have to be like this: {{:List of newspapers in Bajo Nuevo Bank}}. When you had it transcluded, you had it as {{:List of newspapers in the Bajo Nuevo Bank}} There was an extra the present in the transclusion link. When all four of the entries had this changed, the transclusion works. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Richard harvey press hires.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Richard harvey press hires.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 02:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Cbrown1023 04:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

2:47 18 November 2006: That is 2 hours before the above post. You look from that edit earlier and none of your edits have summaries. That is why I posted that on your page. Also, when creating a new thread on a talk page, the title of the thread is put in the edit summary (that is why my edit summary was that). Cbrown1023 15:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It also does not matter which one I am referring to because they all should have one and you cannot add an edit summary after the fact. Cbrown1023 15:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

lol... no I mean the + at the top of all discussion pages. When you start a new thread through that, the subject/headline is the edit summary. Plus, edit summaries are preferred for all edits. It's not a "Major edit summary" it's an "edit summary", for all edits, even minor ones. Quoting you "Summaries are to help fellow contributors in understanding what you changed", if all you put is minor, how am I to know and understand what you change? (Note that none of these comments necessarily apply to talk pages.) Futhermore, if Mathbot's edit summary tool also counts the use for minor edits, they are obviously needed. (Mathbot's tool is frequently used in WP:RfAs) Your edit summary usage was 73% for major edits and 9% for minor edits that is very low and I suggest trying (we all forget sometimes) to summarize every single edit. Thanks, Cbrown1023 21:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

List of California agencies

Hi Jreferee. I see that you found my abortive attempt to create a List of California state agencies. Feel free to salvage whatever you can from that page for the new article you created. Mike Dillon 16:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Translation request

Hi Jreferee, I've translated Gustav von Schönberg from de:wiki per your request. I hope it's helpful - I'd be grateful if you'd look over the article and let me know if I've made any mistakes. Best wishes, --YFB ¿ 02:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't help with the naming issue - all I know about Gustav/Friedrich is what's in the article! My understanding of Gerichtsassessor from a quick bit of googling is that it's a sort of probational legal position like a 'trainee judge'. There's an article about it on de:wiki but I can't quite seem to turn that into a concise English definition. I'll see if I can get that article translated ASAP to fix the redlink. Best, --YFB ¿ 04:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for putting the revision in after my response. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Gustav von Schönberg translation (From a note to YFB)

Hello Yummi,

I hope the following observation is going to be of some use. "Gericht", of course, means "law" (or "justice") and "Assessor", well, means the same thing in English. So the literal translation would be "law assessor" or "assessor of law(s)", in other words someone who would assess what civil(?) law(s) would apply to any given case as it comes to court. I don't know if "law clerk" would do, probably not. The problem here may be that there probably is no equivalent functionary in the courts of the English speaking world. The foregoing is an educated guess.

Cherio, Peter Horn 16:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Cherio again, Peter Horn 16:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lostpedia

I've already said everything that I have to say about Lostpedia on the LostNav page. Rather than engage in a heated debate for the next several months, which degenerates into emotional and personal attacks, I'd prefer to just let my comments stand as they are. Tulane97 17:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that this issue of adding lostpedia to the template needs to go to mediation. -Blue Tie 19:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Further more, why did you change Lostpedia to being a "engaging web advertisment" for the Lost Experience??? Its a fan website and nothing to do with ABC/Channel 4/Seven Network's Lost Experience. --217.65.158.118 09:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• My actions were supported by footnotes (now deleted by other users). My reasoning for whatever actions I took are on that articles talk page and in the edit summary to my posts for that page. In particular to your comment, I don't believe I took the action you mention above-- Jreferee 16:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Impossible vault

Hi Jreferee. I saw the listing you made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and your proposal, while uncontroversial, may not be possible. Article histories aren't stored by section, but just one version after another. When you look at the history page, each of those versions is something that could move, or not. There's not really a set of versions from here that contain the history of the architectural information and not lots of other stuff that it can't be separated from. I hope I'm making sense...

If you can see a reasonable way to split off part of the history while keeping the history of what remains in the right place, I'll happily do it, but I don't see it. Perhaps it would be better to leave a note at Talk:List of architectural vaults indicating that the material for your initial version came from Vault (disambiguation), where people can find the GFDL history if they need it. The whole point of preserving histories is so that content can be traced to a particular contributor, so as long as we leave a paper trail, we're generally pretty happy.

Please let me know if I can help in any way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

Edit Summaries

I've noticed a huge improvement in your use of edit summaries. Good job and keep up the good work! Cbrown1023 19:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Diffs

Hiya, on your post[1] at User_talk:Rebecca, could I please recommend that you include some diffs? For example, it would be helpful to add this diff [2] next to the "psychopath" comment. This assists other editors in verifying the specific incidents, and can make your comments and concerns more effective. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 23:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich

Hello,

You are invited to join WikiProject Munich!

There are a lot of things to do in this project. From creating new articles to finetuning articles into featured article status.

How can you help?

• You can join a Task Force.
• You can help comform Munich-related articles to Wikipedia Policy.
• You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License.
• You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
• You can do translations from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia on Munich-related articles.
• You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
• You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
• You can help reference articles.
• Since original research is against Wikipedia policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
• You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.

A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.

If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.

If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.

Leisha Harvey

Oh, spare me the rhetoric.

I have no problem with the persondata, but the infobox was completely useless (not to mention factually incorrect in a couple of places), and virtually all of the content you added was indeed worthless - either padding that served no purpose and added nothing to the article, or original research conclusions, such as the vague claims of "her name being used as a political and legal football".

Secondly, I'm almost impressed that you bothered to go through all my archives and message everyone I've ever had a dispute with in an attempt to somehow get credence for your edits, rather than trying to write something which actually added to the article.

Finally, trying to make something out of my response to a stalker who was threatening me offline is just below the belt, and shows that you're really grasping at straws here. Rebecca 03:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's unsurprising to see that you overlooked all of the above before responding. The infobox served no useful purpose, and was factually wrong in numerous places, so it was removed. And yes, all four of these facts were indeed "worthless padding". The statements about Harvey's pension would have definitely been notable if they had been acted upon; the fact that someone put out a press release is not notable for Wikipedia purposes. Similarly, the fact that someone put out a press release associating a politician with a former colleague who was a convicted criminal is hardly notable - it's almost to be expected in the circumstances. It might have been notable if it had some substantial effect on the election (as with, say, the "Guilty Party" ads attacking the Victorian ALP in the 1990s), but on these facts, there is no evidence that it did. It's just including material for the sake of including it. This isn't personal - you made edits that weren't great, and they were reverted accordingly, just as I'd expect people to do if I'd made edits of this kind. You can try to make this personal as much as you like with your rather vicious comments of recent days, and attempts to drag in anyone I've ever clashed with, but I'm only interested in the quality of this article, and I'm not going to play these games. Rebecca 01:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Solicitation and other things

Hi Jreferee. Although you may honestly disagree with Rebecca's edits, the way in which you have attempted to dispute them is disruptive. Spamming (vide contribs) 18 different users (and at one stage an article talk page – which I've deleted) is utterly inappropriate and aggressive. Moreover, in assuming bad faith and labelling Rebecca's edit as vandalism (please see that page for a description of what that actually is), which you did in at least three places (diff, diff, diff), you have failed Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please be more aware of these policies when involved in future content disputes. Also, an apology to Rebecca for misrepresenting (diff, diff) an edit summary which related to an obviously distressing (and completely different) issue, wouldn't go astray. Thanks, --cj | talk 01:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Cj - Your conclusion above that my 22:11, 22 November 2006 post to Rebecca violated Wikipedia's Spam guideline, assume good faith policy, and no personal attacks policy, as well as misrepresented administrator and former arbitrator Rebecca's "Actually, fuck this, I won't be intimidated by a psychopath" edit summary.
  Appropriateness of Your Post. Your post on my talk page gives the impression that it is from an unbiased, neutral administrator. However, you and Rebecca appear to have a close friendship and shared political beliefs about Australian politics, something you did not disclose in your post on my talk page. Rebecca is the third user listed on your user page [3], you and Rebecca were the fifth and sixth editors [4] to be added to WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia. Within 24 hours of Rebecca's post to Newhoggy, you also posted to Newhoggy's talk page [5]. You are familiar with administrator (sysop) Rebecca enough to refer to her as Bec. You joined the WikiProject Australian history 24 hours after Rebecca joined.[6] You and Rebecca sided on numerous resolutions together regarding WikiProject Australian politics. Both you and Rebecca apparently share the same Australian political views [7] [8] and corroborated together on the same Australian political articles. [9] Your post on my talk page originated with Rebecca's conduct [10] in an article about Australian politician Leisha Harvey. In addition to not disclosing your close friendship to and shared political beliefs with Rebecca as part of your post on my talk page, you made a permanent record of your administrative Wikipedia violation conclusions without first soliciting my input.
  Validity of Your Conclusions.
  (i) Wikipedia's Spam guideline. To reach your conclusion that I violated Wikipedia's Spam guideline, you apparently needed to mischaracterized my 22:11, 22 November 2006 post (vide contribs) as a content dispute. After editors Seraphimblade and Elonka, I was the third editor within a day and a half both to become concerned about Rebecca's conduct on Wikipedia and make such as post on her talk page under an existing thread called Concerns. I was the twenty-first editor within a few months to both become concerned about Rebecca's conduct on Wikipedia and make such as post on her talk page. Rebecca's conduct had previously affected the 18 editors who took time away from their writing to post their concerns on Rebecca's talk page. [11][12] Prior to my 22:11, 22 November 2006 post, Seraphimblade and Elonka had made the posted concerns of these 18 editors the subject of the Concerns thread and made many of their Rebecca talk page posts the subject of the Concerns thread. My alerting these 18 editors about the Concerns thread did not violated Wikipedia's Spam guideline.
  (ii) Vandalism, Assume good faith policy, No personal attacks Rebecca indiscriminately deleted my numerous changes to the Australian politician Leisha Harvey's article. The reasons for the removal of each content item was not readily apparent by examination of the content itself. Further, her sole justification for her intentional removal of legitimate content was a frivolous explanation in her edit summary.[13] Rebecca indiscriminately deleted my numerous changes to the politician Leisha Harvey's article and left an impression that my edits were low, despicable by labeling my edits as worthless. My statements (diff, diff, diff) addressed the actions of Rebecca. Rebecca's actions constituted Vandalism. I did not violate Wikipedia assume good faith policy. My vandalism comments (diff, diff, diff) were not a personal attack. A review of comments on Rebecca's Wikipedia conduct prior to my 22:11, 22 November 2006 post, including [14] and [15], bolsters these conclusions.
  (iii) Misrepresentation The representation in my posts regarding administrator-and-former-arbitrator Rebecca's July 19, 2006 edit summary -- Actually, fuck this, I won't be intimidated by a psychopath (diff, diff) -- was based on the text of that post July 19, 2006 edit summary. Your expectation that I should have represented her July 19, 2006 edit summary in the context that she identified on 23 November 2006 - five hours [16] after I posted my 22 November 2006 post - is not reasonable.

--Jreferee 01:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for my very belated reply.

I'm afraid your comment to me demonstrates, at best, a propensity to assume the worst in other people. Among your myriad accusations against me, the most perplexing was: "you made a permanent record of your administrative Wikipedia violation conclusions (sic) without first soliciting my input." I haven’t a clue what this is supposed to mean.

You appear to assume that my message to you was done with my administrator hat on; it was not. One doesn't need be an administrator to caution another user against behaving contrary to policy. Indeed, my status as a sysop is completely irrelevant here.

Furthermore, my editing relationship with Rebecca is entirely beside the point. Your diversion to this is an example of circumstantial ad hominem, and I won’t respond to it other than to say that it’s both baseless and offensive.

With that in mind, I’ll get to the actual issue. You claim that your posting to Rebecca was not a content dispute, and that it was mischaracterisation to say otherwise. I disagree. Your grievance concerned an edit war at Leisha Harvey; that you chose to break with wikiquette and make comment on the contributor, instead of just the content, does not change this. In any event, the nature of the dispute does not change the fact that you failed to follow Wikipedia:Spam by soliciting 18 editors you knew to hold gripes against Rebecca. This was blatant canvassing, and rather like rousing a lynch mob; in other words, it was disruptive, and not the correct way to resolve a dispute. To quote the guideline: "Wikipedia editors are therefore not to engage in aggressive cross-posting in order to influence discussions".

Now, to the dispute itself. From Wikipedia:Vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Rebecca’s reversion of your changes was clearly not this, so you had no reason ascribe malice and thus make a personal attack when you labelled her edit "vandalism" in the summary of your subsequent reversion. Instead, you should have challenged her revert and explained your changes on the article’s discussion page.

To the final qualm. My point was you should never have misused the quote in the first place; it was inappropriate for you to attempt to use an unrelated happenstance to further your complaint, especially when you were not even privy to it. Regardless, my call for an apology was not based on the circumstances of the misrepresentation, but for the misrepresentation itself. Whether you care to do so or not is not something I intend to push. Thanks, --cj | talk 19:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Nice article

Thank you for the comment left on the talk page of the David M. Gonzales article.

One of the interesting things that I found while writing this article is the fact that according to the news release, Congressman Breman took all of the credit for correcting the mistakes of the subjects photos and decorations, while it was his aide Flores the one who really did all the work. Cheers! Tony the Marine 16:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• You're right about the image. I've taken care of it. Tony the Marine 17:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:50Chaudhary.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:50Chaudhary.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 06:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you know

On 25 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Isaac Newton Van Nuys, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 07:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: David M. Gonzales (Images)

Looks good to me. Cheers Tony the Marine 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• What I did is eliminated one photo (too many of the same) and used one in an infobox that I created to compare it with the mistaken photo that the Pentagon used. It's been good interacting with you. Cheers! Tony the Marine 16:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

Much apprecaited. Just be careful about overdoing it with the images, I'm trying to bring these to featured status, and if there's too many fair use images with shaky rationales (like with the DVD cover), they're going to complain. Also, the did you know entries don't allow fair use images, so don't add those. Keep up the good work! --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mansfield Cut Underwater Archeological District

I wanted to thank you for your assistance on this article. This is the first article that I've created that I thought was interesting enough for DYK. I had trouble sleeping last night because I thought it was too stubby and it was wonderful to find someone else working on it this morning, especially with the addition of that great map and additional reference documents. ~ BigrTex 18:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)