User talk:LtPowers/Archive004

Worm day

May I ask how it's not necessarily nonsense? I have looked and can find no proof that such a day exists. -WarthogDemon 18:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Decided to put it up for AfD, since it was prodded but then removed. Thanks for the info. May I ask where to look for notability of holidays? Just want to educate myself. :) -WarthogDemon 18:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Arkansas Governors

Hello LtPowers. The article Bob C. Riley would suggest that Tucker & Huckabee were 'Acting Governors of Arkansas' 1992-95 & 1996-99 respectively (like the Massachusetts setup). GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with user

I have been having trouble with User: Matt Yeager and have realized after viewing his talk page that many, many, users have been bothered by him and that he has made many important changes without reaching a consensus. He has also created articles that are not notable about things like schools around where he lives, and has even created a useless template named after him. I seriously think he needs to be blocked. How do I help make this happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuirkyAndSuch (talk • contribs) 06:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Legend of Zelda (film)

"G3: Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation, and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism." Since it was an obvious hoax, that applies. --Golbez (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but in that case I merely accelerated its deletion for being completely non-notable. :P Maybe if it got massive press, but it is only April 2. Not enough time. --Golbez (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Blong

Gonged out. Look at the pretty snow! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TransylvanianKarl is urged to refrain from editing International Churches of Christ and any related pages until he has fully familiarized himself with the English Wikipedia core policies. TransylvanianKarl is also urged to raise issues and suggestions on the talkpage before making potentially controversial edits to articles, including deletion of cited material and citations.

— Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 19:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Perverted-Justice Article

Sorry to bother you, but I think that Vagr4nt is getting a bit out of control with his attacks on me and my motivations [1]. If you see the dates, no one responded to the edit proposals I made for a few days, so I did what I thought was the rule on this site - be bold. I can accept and understand if people think that the edits are a bad idea, but I was a bit insulted at the attacks on my motivations, and plus, Vagrant seemed to think that other invested users should be brought into the proposed changes, [2], so I figured you should know as well. FrederickTG (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while with no further comment on the subject - how do you suggest I procede on this matter? FrederickTG (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Artemis Eternal

Thanks for supporting the article, I was confused why it was tagged in the first place. I'll be adding more information as time goes on. Thanks again. --Alreajk (Talk)

RE ECAC West

I forget where I got those original numbers but I rechecked Neumann and Elmira on USCHO.com and I think I mixed those two schools up Neumann has had hockey since 98 and joined ECAC West in 2001 and Elmira has had hockey since the 1970s... I fixed those dates on the ECAC W wikipedia article, I'm heading out to hockey practice now but later today I will double check all of the other teams' dates as well! Bhockey10 (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for stepping in to help out at Gigi_Mon_Mathew. I wasn't sure if I should have re-added the prod template! :) --vi5in^[talk] 20:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I was wondering about that - it said that once removed, it shouldn't be added. I'll try to look for more info and improve the article. I can't find anything, I'll afd it. --vi5in^[talk] 20:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dustin Camp

Hi, you NPOV'd the Dustin Camp article but didn't verbalize any issues on the talk page. Please explain the NPOV issues so they may be addressed. Greg Comlish (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Yeah, I'm not always good at including edit summaries - sometimes I do so if I feel my edit needs to be explained. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Belin/Bilen

I don't understand why you have put back Bilen into the Belin dab page. It does not seem to belong. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Misspellings, this should be only done if there is a genuine risk of confusion. I am not convinced that this is the case here. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to do anything. I am content to wait until someone else stumbles across this. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Amuri, New Zealand

Hi, Lieutenant - you wrote: The Cook Islands don't seem to be part of any of the NewZealand-geo subcategories.

There's a good reason for that. The Cook Islands haven't been part of New Zealand since 1973 :) They have their own template at {{Cooks-geo-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 02:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Great efforts

		The Stub Sorting Award
		For all of your recent hard work with stub sorting so many articles, I, JamieS93, give you this barnstar. You've done a lot of great work and deserve this award! --JamieS93 21:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Democrat and Chronicle University of Wisconsin-Green Bay University of Arkansas at Monticello Agganis Arena Bossier-Shreveport Mudbugs Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus Bright Hockey Center Lee Stempniak Benedict College Michigan State Fairgrounds Coliseum List of school districts in Louisiana Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! Nick Tosches Val Belmonte Hock (zoology) Northern Illinois University Hockey Canada National Hockey Center All-American Hockey League

Cleanup Curry College Wilmslow Hockey Club Evita (film) Merge University of Nebraska at Omaha Döner kebab World Cup of Hockey Add Sources University of New England, Maine Big Eight Conference Canada Cup (ice hockey) Wikify Bowling Green State University Florida Seals Herb Brooks Expand USA Hockey The Hockey News Bausch & Lomb

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

ATMC

Dear LtPowers,

Don't demolish the house while it's still being built

Icd (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ards Peninsula abbeys

Hi - thanks for the message. How do I know it's freely licensed? Because I'm a sad, bored person with nothing to do but dig through Microsoft's legal stuff. ;-)

Okay - the source URL is from MSN Groups, at http://groups.msn.com/ballyhalbert/thenormaninvasion.msnw . At the bottom, it says, "© 2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved." I was sure that meant the entire thing was copyrighted by Microsoft, but I pressed on to see for myself.

The next word is 'Legal', which is a hyperlink to http://help.live.com/help.aspx?project=tou&mkt=en-us, Microsoft's service agreement. The first paragraph of the agreement states that this license is applicable to "...any Windows Live, Live Search, MSN, Microsoft Office Online, Microsoft Office Live or other Microsoft software or services, including updates, that display or link to this contract and that you use while this contract is in force."

Scroll down to section 9, titled 'Your Materials', where you will find this text (emphasis and a comma added)

... Except for material that we (Microsoft) license to you, we do not claim ownership of the materials you post or provide on the service. However, with respect to content you post or provide, you grant (to the public) free, unlimited, worldwide, nonexclusive and perpetual permission to use, modify, copy, distribute and display the content in connection with the service, publish your name in connection with the content; and grant these rights to others.

A little farther down, there's this:

You represent and warrant that you have all the rights necessary for you to grant the rights in this section 9 and that the use and publication of the content does not breach any law.

The first time I read it I thought it said Microsoft acknowledged his ownership of the text but took the licensing right for themselves, but that's not true. The copyright symbol is for the MSN Groups software and web design, not for the author's content. Anything the author publishes on the site is available for use, copying, modification, distribution, and display. We don't have to attribute it, but we can. It's not the text of the GFDL, but it's a free license.

I was surprised, to say the least, but there it is in black and white. It's a good thing it's not an image because then I'd have to dig through the thousands of image tags to find one that fits. ;-) Let me know if you have questions or need help. Thanks - KrakatoaKatie 03:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who created it. The creator licensed it freely when he created it, so for our purposes it's all good. :-D - KrakatoaKatie 22:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't read it as mandatory attribution, but we're going to reference the URL anyway, so I think that's all we really have to do. KrakatoaKatie 02:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Klettur

Note my comment here. Klettur is legit, I've talked to him on the telephone. He's not the artist but he's his son. I asked them about the licenses and they clearly understand how free licenses work and are comfortable with releasing selected works under them. Some of these images are quite valuable, including the only image we have of Halldór Laxness. I've written Klettur a note asking him to get in contact with OTRS. If I don't get any response on that (he may not watch the talk page) I may give him a call. Haukur (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by standard threading

Whatever it is, can you find any examples of it on WT:MOS or any of its archives? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I-390 issue

I noticed that you may have deleted some info on accident as you edited I-390 page. Note To Ltpowers: Please don't save the page if you have accidentally deleted info, please use cut and paste method if needed. Thanks. If need to reply please put a new section with the headline:

Re: I-390 issue

On your talk page and post a document or post on my talk noting about I-390 page. --Check77 (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deleted articles in userspace

The policy is located at Wikipedia:User_page#Copies_of_other_pages.

While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion.

As such I deleted the content that was a copy of the previous AFD'd NY 21A article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

My username

I hate my user name and would love to change it. My only concern is I want to keep my edit history and watchlist. Is it possible to change the name but keep all the history? -Philatio (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject RIT

Thought you might be interested. :) --Dan Leveille^TALK 09:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Melting pot

What is a melting pot? Why apply that term to a nation? What is implied by that metaphor? To what extent is it accurate?Thefactis (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to the article on the United States. I took out the phrase and you restored it. Thefactis (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

EP32 stub

Hello! I see you marked the EP32 page as stub. I quite often use the EP32 emulator and it's me who wrote the Hungarian guide about the EP32, linked there. But I don't really know what else I could write so that the page wouldn't be stub any more. Can you help me, please? greetings --Szipucsu (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! I read your advice, thank you. But they didn't really help me what to do. I am an EP computer owner and I also quite often use the emulator and keep in touch with people who also do. I also visited other articles in category Emulation software but most of them are also stub and which aren't, they don't really contain any important information in this aspect. In my opinion there's no use to write either a more detailed development history or a feature list. I used the earlier versions, too but it doesn't really worth mention. As for a feature list - I think it's just some article in the Wiki and not a user manual. How widespread is the emulator? It doesn't really worth mentioning. We don't really know. Some (ex-) Enterprise 128 owners (mostly Hungarians) use it but it's hardly impossible to find out how widespread it is. What makes the emulator notable is that it was the only EP emulator for years - the only thing that might be mentioned. I am thinking about removing the stub-mark. Maybe if you knew more about the Enterprise 128 and EP32 you would understand me. Anyway thanks for your advice again, I'll still try my best to expand the article. Greetings and best wishes: --Szipucsu (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your answer again. Well, I expanded the article with "Features" though I don't know if it is necessary to write about these technical details.

Your idea to merge the article with the other EP emulator seems good. But putting all the information to the Enterprise 64#Enterprise emulators for PC is not good because I think it necessary that Enterprise emulators are mentioned on the List of computer system emulators. (Actually there are 3 Enterprise emulators mentioned. Here EP32 and EP128Emu could be merged but as I saw, there are here no articles of merged content.)

Is the article now acceptable, expanded with the "Features"?

Sorry for the grammatical mistakes I made here. And of course, you can correct my mistakes in the EP32 article, too, as I am not a native English speaker. --Szipucsu (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris Hansen

There is a vandal chatter site I'm following, and this article was mentioned as a pagemove target. Is there any reason you think the article should be moved? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:wikify

Hi LtPowers, would you like to weigh in on the formal RfC on template talk:wikify? Since the current proposal reflects your previous input I think your feedback on the specific components would be valuable. The arrival of other feedback seems to have stopped, so I'd like to submit the RfC for final review in the next few days. Thanks, Thirdbeach (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cityflag.jpg

Hi Stifle. Could I trouble you to undelete Image:Cityflag.jpg? I believe a solid fair use case can be made for its use in the Rochester, New York article, as flags are commonly used for identification of government entities -- in fact, the same purpose served by the seal that's still there (the two together provide even more complete identification). Thanks in advance. Powers ^T 15:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it, you will need to add the required fair use details to that page. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspended

Hi, do you happen to be an administrator? If so I've found the culprits that are putting stupid things all over this. This IP is shared for 3 Station Casinos and I caught two idiot kids in the act (actually they are in their mid-20's but act like they're 3) ready to post the same crap under different names. I sent them home early and changed all the passwords so maybe they will stop!

I'm leaving this one open in case you want to write me back and if I need to write to someone else, but I figured since you've caught many of these stupid edits (they were going to vandalize Emilio Delgado again when I stopped them) that you'd be the one to stop it.

I myself haven't edited anything here in ages because I'm afraid it might get vandalized again, I hope that this hasn't put a permanent block to this IP address but if it has, I will take full responsibility since I run the computers for the employees of the casino here. Maybe if this is all settled I'll be able to come back and do some work here without being harassed by these idiots that work here.

Hope to hear from you.

 Those Kids (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)(Jeff)

RE: Merge/Split

To be honest, I wasn't willing to restore the main characters' articles until the images got deleted, they all deserve a main image. The porpose of restoring the articles is first of all, to illustrate each characters. One of the reasons that the characters were merged in a list was because there where way too much imformations. The content in my articles where the same as in the list exept that there is a table and a Trivia section. This makes a very good deal, there wouldn't be too much imformations, each main character would have their own images, the list of characters wouldn't have too many images and this would allow a few other characters to have an images too, though, we don't need to upload any more images. And I would add that the tables would be useful for reader who just want to make a quick check on basic informations such as a characters' gender and species. Images like the one on the main one in the list are perfect for recurring characters, not for main characters. Compare my version of a main character article and the one of wikia, as an example check Cuddles, which one is bigger mine, or Wikia's. Tell me your opinion about that. Is it a deal ?

--Mr Alex (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What's a "third-party source" exactly ?

--Mr Alex (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Is a third-party source like, "Disco Bear got a submarine as seen in "Sea What I Found" " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex 8194 (talk • contribs)

Ok then, but is a first-party source considered reliable ? But anyway, I'll check WP:RS and WP:NOR, but I ask you to tell me if it's reliable. Can I also restore the character articles if the reliable sources are not in the list neither anyway ?

--Mr Alex (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll restore the articles I already made, and I'll solve the problem of reliable sources later.

--Mr Alex (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got good news, I don't want to get the HTF characters' main article back. Everything's perfect in the list.

--Mr Alex (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Awww

Now I'm going to have to revert all my edits that repointed the various sequel redirects to TR2N.

But, seriously, is this imdb entry good enough to prove that this movie does have a release date? hbdragon88 (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

11 September comma

There are six proposals to re-word the lead sentence. It is in the talk page higher than your comma comment. I understand your comma comments and agree with what I saw. Presumptive (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

re:Star Trek Online

I misread in some article. Glad it was removed. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Registered Historic Places in Monroe County, New York

Hi LtPowers -- Very glad to see your additions of photos to List of Registered Historic Places in Monroe County, New York. I like your St. Mary's pic!

I don't know whether you are aware or not of the Elkman NRHP infobox generator; its use speeds article creation considerably. It provides a cut-and-paste ready infobox filled out with National Register Information System (NRIS) data, ready to be further revised with other info you may have. It's located at http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php.

Note also that the NRHP nomination documents and photos are available to be linked from articles, as I have just done for St. Mary's, to provide an example for you. There is some info on getting and adding the NYS documents at wp:NRHP's section on state-specific sources, and there's a note about formatting NYS references in draft wp:NRHPMOS. Let me know if i can be of any help. Keep up the good work! Cheers, doncram (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Got your message back. Also, you would be very welcome to announce your creation of new NRHP articles or your additions of new photos in the announcements sections on the wp:NRHP page. If you do, that tends to attract some helpful attention by wp:NRHP regulars, who might add categories or copyedit and so on. You can do that whether or not you join wp:NRHP yourself, which you would also be very welcome to do. doncram (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek Insignia

Why did you remove my image? If you look at every other image on that article you can tell that they are all cut from the same cloth! --Flans44 22:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

HTF copyrighted images

This discussion concerns you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex 8194 (talk • contribs)

Thanks, looey

... for your work on ChiPitts. --Orange Mike|Talk 02:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:StarWarsRPG Revised.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:StarWarsRPG Revised.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Bob Lonsberry article

I've restored the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fall Out Boy

I see your point, and I recognize that most of those adding it are acting in good faith. However, here's my thinking: Say you're looking for a parking place in a big, full parking lot. You see a spot that says "No Parking Anytime--Violators Will Be Towed". You park there anyway. Now, on the one hand, you've really not done anything WRONG--nobody's hurt, right? All you wanted was a parking spot. (This is why I'm not a cop. I would totally be swayed by this argument in real life.) BUT--the fact remains: the sign was there, telling you explicitly NOT to do something, and you went ahead and did it anyway. That, more than anything implicitly "wrong" about where you parked, is the issue.
Now, I know you're thinking: she's SERIOUS? She's seriously gonna make this into an "authority" thing? I wouldn't, IF I was the only person who'd come to that conclusion. (If it were just me, I'd write it off as yet another manifestation of my stuck-in-1995-ism.) If you go back through the history of that article, you'll see two things: one, I'm not the only one who's set or replaced that "don't add it" notice; and two, the mention of that album has been removed approximately eleventy-nine times now. Not sure how long you've been here, but I'm willing to bet you've run into something like this once or twice at least: Editor adds some new gossip. You remove it. Another editor re-adds it. You remove it again. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.Repeat.Repeat.Repeat.Repeat.Repeat.Repeat.Repeat.Repeat......You see where I'm coming from. Ultimately, adding info that's explicitly been removed _n_ number of times, for whatever reason, is disruptive editing. Would it be better, do you think, if I changed "vandalism" (I just mistyped that as "fandalism", which should be a whole new category of irritant and which in this case would be SO much more-pertinent!) to "disruptive editing"? Anyway, thanks for the reasonable question...looking into my talk page's recent history, you'll see that there are those inclined to be MUCH less-reasonable about that article, to say nothing of the possibility that admins can make mistakes. GJC 16:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, please take a peek back at the page, particularly the edits made immediately after the warning was reworded; we have an editor actually ADMITTING HIMSELF, within the context of his actual article-space edit, that the addition is irrelevant to the article!!!! :::headdesk::: I think I'm just gonna take this article off my watchlist and let the emo-kids take over for a few months--once the album's been out for a while, I'll come back and clean it up. GJC 17:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...I think you're right. I delisted that article...my head still hurts from the headdesking, though. :) GJC 21:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Zoot

a) Thanks.
b) "Oh, my. Are we actually edit warring over the format of links on a disambiguation page?" - I agree. In the clear light of day I wonder what came over me.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FazzMunkle&redirect=no

I barely even edit Wikipedia and each time I have I've done so according to the rules. The only thing I have done that may even be close to violating the rules is to correct my own misspellings (which I did on a couple. Hey I had a bad couple of days of fat finger syndrome lol So sue me). Otherwise I've only offered suggestions in discussion pages and made comments in discussion pages (I even complained that some people were commenting in the main article itself (whichever one that was)). I've been pretty damned low profile and low on the radar anyway. Most of my edits have been to correct misspellings or to get rid of vandalism. Otherwise I butt out exactly for the reasons you evidence by your own behavior on my profile page. I don't need that sort of grief. If you continue harassing me I will report you to the powers that be. Thank you and bugger off. :)--FazzMunkle (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I get it, some random idiot trying to vandalize my own profile page. Still funny. I don't even know how it started. Sorry about the "bugger off" remark. --FazzMunkle (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

swords

I commented on the closer's talk p. There are two choices--an article, not a list, with expanded content, or DelRev. I'd suggest the first. I assume you have a copy of the original and final state? DGG (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC) OK, it goes on my list of things to be resurrected eventually if I ever have time to write, which will be when the consensus on some things changes sufficiently so I don't have to concentrate on defending. DGG (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

100k templates

We could have a discussion at WP:CITY. Also, we could add state capitals in a below section for each template. This would take care of Albany.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I just went by the list that is linked at the top of each template. It goes down to 100k. I did not want to do any WP:OR for the templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

How is {{NY cities and mayors of 100,000 population}} now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Western New York FC Pride

Thank you for creating Western New York FC Pride. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 17:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting my edit on Rochester, New York‎. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

AfC news

Dear AfC participant,

1. Msgj and Tnxman307 are organising the AfC challenge! It's a little competition to help improve some of the articles created through AfC and we are hoping that everyone will get involved. For level 1, you just need to bring a stub up to Start-class. Level 2 is improving a Start-class article to C-class. And so on. To get involved or for more information please see the competition page.
2. Those of you who haven't reviewed an article recently might not have noticed the new process that was implemented this year. Reviewing articles is now more enjoyable than ever :) You might like to give it a try. All articles waiting for review are in Category:Pending Afc requests. (Please read the updated instructions.)
3. Please consider adding {{AFC status}} to your userpage to keep track of the number of articles waiting for review. At the time of writing we are officially backlogged, so help is needed!
4. There is currently a proposal to bring the Images for upload process under the umbrella of WikiProject Articles for creation. The rationale is that both processes are designed to allow unregistered users to take part more fully in Wikipedia, and partipants in each process can probably help each other.

If you no longer wish to receive messages from WikiProject Articles for creation, please remove your name from this list. Thank you.

Obama

He was not sworn in at exactly noon. It was 12:05 or 12:06. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Read the first paragraph of United States presidential inauguration. The United States Constitution mandates that he take the oath before he can "enter on the Execution." - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD

You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Looking for Group.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have replied again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bugger

Check latest changes by User:Warrington. Headings "noun", "verb", "interjection" changed to "usage 1", "usage 2", "usage 3" and Wiktionary entries moved to the back. Doesn't seem very constructive. I am getting resigned to the view that this article may be kept, but would like strong cross-reference to the Wiktionary entry. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Plus I think on this one there is a strong element of "Aren't we naughty?" Dumb stuff. Not going to lose sleep over it. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra logo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

About "Requests for WikiProject features" section in Signpost

If you take a look at that section, none of the projects placed there have been featured and the trend has been like this for over a year. Originally, it was to simplify the life for the WikiProject "beats" writer. Things have changed a lot since then, there is no longer a regular beats writer starting August 2008 and nowadays the people who are filling in only do it for one or two issues, and pick the projects out of their own interest or when someone contact them directly. Even the regular beats writer don't use this section for ideas, and of course those filling in won't do so either. I believe that the section doesn't have its purpose anymore and fizzled a long time ago. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

eh

Do you still feel the same way? Just wondering =) –xeno (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

ah, cheers. thanks again for the welcome so many moons ago. –xeno (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Art

In the Wikipedia Art Deletion Review, you wrote:

allowing this to speedied improperly sets a bad precedent, and DanielRigal's inappropriate call for quick closure in the AfD -- both actions have the appearance (even though not the reality) of "quick, let's sweep this under the rug before the 'keep' voters can make their case".

I appreciate the candor and neutrality of this observation. As one of the active editors in favor of keeping, there is no question in my mind that what you describe was, in fact, the reality and not just the appearance. Since none of the users in favor of keeping have permission to participate in the review, I ask you to please rectify this by building consensus to re-instate the page on the basis of improper use of admin tools. Also, I found Werdna's comments and actions to be out of line with Admin Conduct, and have addressed this with him directly here

---

To answer your question Re: access to Deletion Review, I attempted to contribute and was denied permission because I did not have access privileges. This is why I made the request above.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please withdraw your nomination

Please withdraw your nomination for deletion of: Mr. President (title), I just added extensive sources and rewrote the article. Ikip (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC Comment

Your comment at Template talk:Infobox NFLactive is quite correct. How do we go about changing the RfC wording now without someone alleging that it makes the results in dispute? Just be bold and do it?--2008Olympian^chitchat 04:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and just fixed it. Do you mind weighing in in the debate?--2008Olympian^chitchat 05:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Johnny Bravo

While true, original research was the primary argument for deletion, and thus deserved the most attention in my closing statement. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I read the entire page (as I do with all AfDs I close), and after examining said comments and arguments, I found there to be consensus. Views such as "non-notable" were proven invalid by other users. Although I still feel my closure was appropriate, feel free to open a discussion at DRV. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah, no worries; this way we can determine a definite consensus. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Buffalo

I've now deleted the unattributed history. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Schneider

It's usually courteous to give some form of explanation when removing a prod template. You are welcome to contribute your ideas to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Schneider now. Bigbluefish (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Medaille College logo.gif)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Medaille College logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

PROD

Where the fuck is the article's entry for the PROD? Ya know, one of these: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunder 1000000 Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Kodak Tower

Go to The Rochester Wiki http://rocwiki.org/, it says all images are Creative Commons unless otherwise noted. Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait a minute, I guess that one does have some writting under it...Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, when you said the limitations of it's acceptable uses, the word or was used, and two of the words were educational and research. It doesn't have to be all of them, then. Even if that's what they meant (that it has to meet all the criteria), we got them by a technicality. Come on, lets go with.

non-commercial, personal, educational, or research use only Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Permission

Brad Mandell, the biggest Rochester Wiki contributor said that all images on RocWiki are good for Wikipedia. http://rocwiki.org/Users/DanielChristensen/Talk Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Some idiot

Some idiot nominated a subpage for deletion. see User:Daniel Christensen/Dynamat/ Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk to me

I just got word while trying to update Trans-siberian Orchestra info that a few co-workers are causing trouble here again. I am the one who helps run the comptuers for the employees to use on their breaks (Palace Station, Sunset Station and Boulder Station are all linked to this IP address). When I was unable to edit on the TSO page, I realized that these so-called adults are at it again and for some reason they like to harass you. Will you please leave me a message on my talk page and let me know what is probably going to happen to this IP address. I would really like to talk to you personally about this crap that I hope to put an end to. Thank you Those Kids (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC) (name is Jeff, you can also email me at choowowowo@yahoo.com if that'll be better)

Update: Caught my little friends on their breaks yesterday, explained to them that I would be forced to get rid of the computer use for all employees if they didn't stop their B.S. Although they never swear, they are consistent at what they do. These "kids" are in their mid-20's and should know better. I embarrassed these guys (there's 2 in this) pretty good, also got all the passwords from all the accounts and want to change all of them to stop this! Thanks for your help, i'm still awaiting a word from you or a admin. Oh.... when I caught them they were just opening a NEW account, I'll quickly show you what it is, you might get a sick out of it. Those Kids (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Re your note

Thanks for the message. I don't think there's much we can do other than block accounts as they show up, but I'll take a look. EyeSerene^talk 09:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why did you reinderted this map in the article Central Europe though the map is an original research? If you believe it's not, answer here, please. --Olahus (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Talk:Central Europe#Maps about the issue, though I think this is the best map of the core countries of Central Europe. Squash Racket (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Re.: deleted article

An article listed under the name of a regional writer ("E.J.W.") has been deleted. That's OK by me. Judging from what is left of the discussion concerning it, I take it the assumption was that it was autobiography. It was not. The author was someone I know who misguidedly thought to be paying a compliment. The person named in the title of that article happens to be a very private person these days and wholly disapproves of public exposure related to article, title, or, now, author of deleted article. (I also completely reject his editing "contributions" to the article on Rochester NY.) I am also posting to ccwaters, and will post it to MBisanz (when he returns from vacation), as they also seem to have been involved in this process. Thank you. Ewnnrj (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Pipelinks

Fixing links is never the WRONG thing (if you need to point out a redirect, you can always just do something like [[this]]. Anyways, I wasn't fixing just one link, it was part of a complete fix of the article that not only included link fixes but also disambiguation fixes and other m fixes. I try to avoid editing a page only to fix one or two links, I try to only fix them when I am making other general fixes too. TJ Spyke 03:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the arguments I see people use against fixing redirects is that it changes what they were trying to say (for example: someone talking about the Famicom, the Japanese name for the NES, might write [[Famicom]] even though they can write [[Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom]] which is the correct link and says the same thing). I don't get why you reverted at all, my edits improved the quality of the article. How does, for example, chaning the incorrect "Sentry Safe" to the correct "SentrySafe" or "Bausch and Lomb" to "Bausch & Lomb" hurt the article? I could understand editing the article to fix just 1 link, but I was cleaning up the entire article, not just 1 or 2 links. Besides, it's just discouraged and not strictly forbidden. TJ Spyke 19:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

2007 NLL season

Why did you rename the 2007 NLL season article? There are almost twenty other seasons that would need to be renamed for consistency with that change, and I don't see the point. More importantly, the NHL, NBA, and NFL season articles all follow the same naming pattern that the NLL ones use (eg. 2007–08 NHL season, 2007–08 NBA season, 2007 NFL season). Are you going to rename all of those too? --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 17:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, but given that this change is inconsistent with all the other NLL, MILL, NFL, NBA, and NHL season articles, would you like to change it back, or shall I? --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 18:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Um... because this change is inconsistent with all the other NLL, MILL, NFL, NBA, and NHL season articles? There are 21 MILL/NLL season pages, 90 NFL season pages, about 100 NHL and NHA season pages, 64 NBA season pages, and 14 MLS season pages, and those are just the ones I actively looked for. Every single one of them is named similarly (<year> <league abbreviation> "Season"). Do you really think it's a good idea to have one page out of all of those that's named differently? Unless you plan on changing all of those other ones as well, I will revert this change later today. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 18:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point entirely. Now that you've done all the MILL seasons, I can only assume you're going to do all the rest of the NLL seasons too, and then follow up by renaming all of the NHL, NBA, NFL, etc. seasons as well? You've turned one page rename into a project involving hundreds of pages. Don't you think you should have discussed this project with those of us who regularly update these pages before doing it? You may think it makes more sense to have it this way, but I don't. Seeing as the naming was consistent with other leagues and now isn't, this change doesn't makes sense to me. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 01:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the point. The NLL season pages have existed for well over two years and were all consistent with the other sports. Is there a compelling reason that the NLL pages should be different from the other leagues? Why is it important that the NLL pages be renamed, but not, say, the NHL pages? Whatever reasoning made you decide to rename the NLL pages should logically apply to the NHL pages as well, but you're not willing to change those. Why not?

Note that the Eagle Pro pages didn't use a short form because to my knowledge, the Eagle Pro league was never referred to with an abbreviation (EPBLL or whatever).

I probably wasn't clear enough -- when I said "if you change one, you should change them all", what I meant and should have said was "if you change one, you should change them all, and changing them all is obviously an unnecessary waste of time, so just revert the one change you've made and we're done." Instead, you've gone ahead and made more changes. So now, either all of those changes need to be reverted, or the NLL / MILL pages will forever be inconsistent with the other sports, and for no good reason. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 02:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) LTPowers, after reading Wikipedia:Naming conventions you may have a point regarding these moves, specifically regarding the Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations section. However, Mr.Boo makes a strong point about the actual practice (and consistency) on wikipedia of naming sport league seasons. Following the "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle ", I believe once he raised a concern about the first move of the 2007 NLL season you should have stopped moving the other seasons and allowed the conversation to progress. I think the subsequent moves were a poor decision. What is your plan now? I see that some pages are moved and others not. I am considering opening an item at Wikipedia:Requested moves (to move the 2007 season back) in order to get some attention to the matter. What do you think? -Mitico (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have merged the various conversations and formally requested a move. Hopefully this will help. Mitico (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for "View from..."

Hi, thanks for your "View from <road>" note at commons:COM:VP. I checked your image gallery and like it. Just a quick note: two of the listed images seem to have gone AWOL,

• "RIT art - The Sentinel.jpg"
• "RIT art - The Sentinel closeup.jpg"

Cheers! --Iotatau (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I wouldn't have created the torrey farms article if it didn't have so many news results and if so many other not-very notable farms hadn't have had articles. Also I found quite a bit of info on it. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Combining Talk Discussions Re Disney Film Lists

Dear SpikeJones, Kasper2006, Elikrotupos, SWatsi, Blitz Lutte, NealP, LtPowers, SofaKing381222, Collectionian, Cartoon Boy, Casey14, Chris1219, NuclearWarfare, SkinnyPrude, and Parker 1297:

Recently, it appears that you all have been interested in the various Disney discussions regarding the proper categorization of Disney animated films. There has been recent activity regarding the proper structure of the various Disney feature length film lists. Unfortunately the discussions regarding the lists / pages are taken place on a number of talk pages. Before we get further into a long discussion regarding the various structural issues with regards to List of Disney theatrical animated features, Template:Disney theatrical animated features, Walt Disney Animated Classics, Category:Disney animated features canon, List of Disney feature films‎ and what ever other lists are out there, I would suggest that we somehow combine the discussions (both past and present) into one place. This will allow easy review on single page for users interested in this matter. It will also allow future users an easy access to whatever rational is used to support the structure of the various lists (including keeping or merging certain lists.). I believe that in placing this discussion in one central location, it alleviates repetitive discussion, allows issues are not constantly revisited in different locations and hopefully sets the future standard in updating the various lists with the verifiable sources. I honestly do not know if there is Wikipedia policy on this, nor do I know what the proper way of creating such a place. But I do believe it would useful.

I have posted this suggestion on the all the User’s talk pages above and apologize if I have missed any person who may be interested in this matter. If you know of a user interested in this matter, please invite any that person to discuss these issues. .If I have included you and you have no interest in this matter, I sincerely apologize and please delete this message.

cc:
Flair Girls, creator of Template:Disney theatrical animated features
FuriousFreddy, creator of Category:Disney animated features canon
Plainsong, creator of List of Disney feature films‎

Sincerely yours, Jvsett (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Page began, just because. See WP:WikiProject Disney/Animated Film Article Cleanup. SpikeJones (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Order of the Stick

I would urge you to withdraw your recent GA nomination of this article, if that's ok with you. First of all, as far as I can tell you're not a major contributor to that article; I don't know if there are specific rules against that, but I do believe it is pretty standard (just like FAC) for only the active contributors to nominate an article, especially since they will be required to make further edits as the review goes on. Secondly, the article is pretty far from GA status; specifically, the Characters and Plot sections are both a mess. You may want to consult User:Ig8887, who has done the most work on this article, for more information. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Note

Your use of "declined" in this message makes it sound as if you had asked me to restore the article and I had refused, which is not the case; as you can see [3], you didn't ask me to do anything, you just mentioned a problem with the closure and I said feel free to ask someone for another opinion, which is what you did. Anyway, it probably wasn't your intention to insinuate anything, and it's too late to change anything now anyway, but in the future please be careful to avoid making negative insinuations about other editors. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Light vs Lighthouse

The consensus of WP for Lighthouses is that the name of the page for lighthouses in the US is Light, not Lighthouse. Talk:Lighthouses_in_the_United_States#Light_or_lighthouse.3F Could you rename the Charlotte-Genesee Lighthouse pages back please? Ahwiv (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Cobblestone architecture

On 22 June, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cobblestone architecture, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Was It Worth It?

WP:FUTURE allows inclusion of a future event "if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Additionally, your reverts, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_M._Mulcahy&diff=298117806&oldid=297983388 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ursula_Burns&diff=298117741&oldid=297983451, lasted all of a week. Are you satisfied? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Daniel. There's a big difference between saying that a change will occur, and indicating that it already has occurred. WP:FUTURE in no way supports the latter. Powers ^T 12:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No one, except for you, interprets dates set firmly in the future as "indicating that it already has occurred." -- DanielPenfield (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel aggrieved. I assure you it was nothing personal, and this could have been discussed civilly at the time I made the changes, instead of with venom now. Powers ^T 12:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the self-righteous comments ("To claim Burns is the incumbent CEO is highly inaccurate"!, "Mulcahy is still CEO"!). You seem convinced of your own infallibility despite evidence to the contrary (e.g., your addition of an "importance" rating for a wikiproject that has no importance scale). -- DanielPenfield (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

re: essay links on policy pages

When you have a moment, would you please comment at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#links to essays in policy pages? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Kodachrome

Hello, thank you for reverting the recent vandalism to the Kodachrome article by an anonymous IP. You asked for a ref check in the edit summary. I can confirm that I added that information and reference from Langford's book whilst working on the page a few months ago. Thanks for your vigilance. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

NRHP Niagara County

I'm very impressed with your work getting Niagara County's NRHP list filled out with pictures and articles! Did you take most of those new pictures yourself? Powers ^T 11:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup ... recently spent time at home in Tonawanda and toured Niagara County. A Wikivacation! The pics at National Register of Historic Places listings in Niagara County, New York are pretty much all mine. Thanks for the kind comments.--Pubdog (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 14:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Your recent edit to Trioculus has been undone. The result being was no consensus. Not to redirect it or deleted. If you commit it again, you be blocked. Hope it doesn't come to that. All best. --VitasV (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient history

Hi. A long time ago you contributed to Talk:Cow (disambiguation); the topic of that discussion has come up again. --Una Smith (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

About EQ2 undo

Hello, Hiker Hauk. Why did you revert my removal of your poorly sourced and POV paragraph? Powers ^T 02:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Hello. It is a fact in China and if you think my source in English is poor you can add a comment to it saying that it need further proof. My links are only for one sentence and the removal of my whole paragraph is kind of too much. More links are not provided because they're in Chinese. It will do good if the voices of Chinese authors can be heard, even if you do not agree with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiker Hauk (talk • contribs) 05:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarinet

Hi LtPowers. Thanks very much or your response at talk:clarinet/GA1. Possibly my question was poorly phrased so I've restated it, it was really an 8-key/12-key question; but it may not have "read" that way.Pyrotec (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After-School Special(The Goode Family!)

Hello! Please note that I have found some reviews and am beginning revising accordingly. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Dont edit my articles

Please don't edit my articles or photos because I take a lot of time to type, in fact it took about 3 hours to type this, so I may be in the middle of fixing an article when you fuck, err, screw it up. K THX. DB9 (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Excessive comments

Please see my reply on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tommycw1#Excessive_comments
Tommycw1 (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Whitespace problem

Hi Lt,

I reinstated the comments that are in place to fix a problem that is currently being discussed on the Buffalo, New York talk page, I also edited the comments to fix the claimed white space problem. If you need help fixing white space problem in the future, please don't heasitate to ask. Tommycw1 (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Square One

Because [[Category:Square One Television| ]] is not the proper format. There's no need to include the vertical bar or extra space within the brackets.

Ah, my mistake. Sorry! Sottolacqua (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)