User talk:Notyourbroom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

2007

You recently placed a merge tag on List of rooms of the Hidden Temple. I started a discussion of your proposal here, and you are welcome to comment. Remember to put ~~~~ at the end of your comments, so that we know who's speaking. I hope you participate in the discussion. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

The image of the Great Wall you added is an image of a little kid on the Great Wall. I don't see it as a relevant image for an article about a historical site. It seems extremely odd that you would want an image of a close-up of a person on the article, when the image did not show much of the actual Great Wall at all.--Balthazarduju (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bailey Hall photo

Photo from reshoot

Hey - nice pics of Bailey Hall. Would it be possible to get the same photo without the people in it? Thanks dm (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I did a re-shoot today. What do you think of the image on the right? For comparison, here is your original photo from the article. --Notyourbroom (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful dm (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Associating categories between Wikimedia projects

Is it possible to formally associate categories between Wikimedia projects? For example, there is a "Cornell University buildings" category on both Wikipedia and on Commons. It would be great to be able to associate the two so that each one would link to the other.

Thanks for any assistance! --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can do that. Use Template:commonscat to link a category with it's equivalent commons category, and use Template:Sisterwikipedia to link a commons category to a wikipedia category. 19:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thanks! I was very busy for a while doing international finance (shoooooot me), working on the Obama campaign, and then applying to grad school. Now, my schedule has cleared up, I'm into grad school, and I need to something to keep my mind off of the 7 outstanding application decisions I'm still waiting to hear back on. So, from time to time, I continue to edit Wikipedia in addition to other pursuits. Check out User:Xtreambar/Nobel, which I started throwing together this morning, and Cornell University Department of History which I put together last year. In an ideal Wiki-world, I'd love most to see the List of Cornell University people cleaned-up, but my various ideas for it kept getting shot down.

Also, excellent work on the Morrill Hall article!--Xtreambar (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks-- I just found out about the Daily Sun archive today, and it makes this sort of research a lot easier. --Notyourbroom (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cornell Nobelists

Ah yes. The lead is somewhat wonky at the moment because I took the article from List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University and did a "replace all" for 'Princeton' with 'Cornell'. --Xtreambar (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply- ZooFari

Reply from ZooFari: Thanks. ZooFari 04:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Faulty Commons image transfer + deletion

Hello,

I recently tried to migrate seven images to Commons, but the CommonsHelper transfer did not work correctly. I believe there were two images which had multiple versions in their history, but in all cases, only the most recent version was actually migrated.

I was in the process of seeking support when you deleted one of the images in question: File:1971 Hangovers in Bermuda.jpg

As I understand it, part of the deletion process is that the deleter is obligated to manually confirm that all data (including past versions of the image) have been transferred properly, so I was not expecting this to be an issue, or else I would have reverted the changes the script made to the Wikipedia version of the image page.

Can the Wikipedia version of the image page be restored?

Best, Notyourbroom (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Mmm, it is my understanding though that moving the latest version to Commons is sufficient (I see people doing that most of the time, keeping only the list of contributors). This is why I only check that both files are identical. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick action! Please review this page, particularly items 8 and 9. Transferring the full image history is usually legally required by the most-used image licenses, and it's my understanding that transferring the full image history is considered "best practice" even when not a legal obligation. Thanks again! --Notyourbroom (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"woops", as they say. From what I've seen, 90-95% of the moves to commons don't respect this. I agree this is a good practice, but we have enough people uploading thumbnails instead of full images that enforcing this would be a disaster though :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Captain-tucker might have some insights to offer about uploading all versions to Commons (see here for example). — Athaenara ✉ 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

BirdNote on Cornell page

Oops, sorry! I should have entered an Edit Summary. (I have done so now, but can explain further.) I confess I'm at novice at Wiki; thanks for your gentle reminder about Edit Summaries. BirdNote's Adam Sedgley works with Gerrit Vyn, to procure sounds for the show. I have deleted the link to BirdNote from Cornell. I will add it back in if you will allow me to. Thanks for your patience. Ellen B Ellenb127 (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I did not have any issues with the content you added, and I have just re-added it. I just thought you seemed like a conscientious, responsible editor who could use a little reminder about edit summaries, since I track the revisions to 120 pages (mostly Cornell-related) to see how people are changing them day by day, and it's a big help when I can see a summary of what they've added or changed. :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

BirdNote on National Public Radio programs, etc. ... don't think so...

Hello, NotYourBroom!

Thanks for your patience and for adding us to Cornell.

Alas, I don't think we belong on at least two of the other categories into which you added us. We are not produced nor distributed by National Public Radio or American Public Media. We are more like "Earth and Sky" or "StarDate." We are independently produced and funded by a nonprofit in Seattle. Carriage on public radio stations happens by us schlepping the show to program directors. Does this make sense? I will do a little more study about whether we would fit on the other two categories. But I believe (again, alas) that you should take us back out of those two categories.

Thanks for the thought, though! Maybe we'll get there one of these days. Ellenb127 (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"American public radio programs" is a general category for any program broadcast via any public radio station. It is not particular to any one organization, so I think that that category probably stands. The "National Public Radio programs" category is vague because there is no specification in the category description as to whether that means "any program broadcast on an NPR affiliate" or whether it means "any program directly produced and funded by NPR." As I understand it, you are in the former group but not the latter group. Just to be safe, I will remove that category from the article. Thank you for your clarification on this issue! Let me know if you have any other thoughts. --Notyourbroom (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

BirdNote and categories

'Broom, Thanks for taking care of the categories thing. I agree with your logic. Upper-case National Public Radio is clearly that. But American public radio programs is probably ANY American public radio program. Works for me. Thanks again! Ellenb127 (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Twitter / Cornell University

No, I don't think it's at all inappropriate to note that Zuckerberg is from Harvard, not least because Facebook was originally created for students of that institution. The same cannot be said for Twitter, as far as I understand it. Nonetheless, I find it silly to make note of this in the leading sentence of the article. The leading line is supposed to outline the most important parts of the article's content, and I think that the institution the founder of it attended isn't so. Should we also include his birth town? Or his high school? How about the degree he studied for?

I'm afraid I just cannot see the logic in making the university that the creator of the website attended so prominent in the article and I can only see it as being a shallow way to advertise the institution. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 09:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Exams!

I got distracted from my work on the insect's article and saw you go to Cornell! Well the exams are over! Bugboy52.4 (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Cornell University

I don't know if I'll ever get around to finishing List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Cornell University. Maybe you'd like to expand upon it. In the meantime, I'd like to take a crack at overhauling Andrew Dickson White. For being one of the foremost educators of the 19th century, his page is woefully incomplete. --Xtreambar (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I added three more to the list, albeit without pictures. I also added a checklist of sorts to the article talk page. Man, those autosorting tables are pretty fun... I'd never worked on one before. —Notyourbroom (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Pitt Wikiproject

Hey, thanks for joining the wikiproject and your edits. I've seen that you have taken quite a few great photos of Cornell. We can always use additional and upgraded photos of Pitt. Many of us unfortunately don't live around the campus. We have a list of requested photos at Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Pittsburgh/Pictures if you are interest. Thanks again for your contributions! CrazyPaco (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! I just spent a couple of hours trying to weed through the media categories for Pitt on Commons—I'm working on slowly emptying out the categories for University of Pittsburgh and University of Pittsburgh buildings in favor of using specific subcategories. (See my work on Cornell University, especially pertaining to the campus and buildings.) There's pretty rampant under- and over-categorization, and I'm not very familiar with the material I'm working with yet, so it's more than can be tackled in a day... I made a fair dent, though. I think there were about 110 files in the Buildings category, for example, and now it's down to 58. —Notyourbroom (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Evgeni Malkin

Hey there, I noticed you were a little confused as to your edits in Malkin's playoff totals being reverted. Correct policy is to not update stat totals until the current season or, in this case, playoff season has ended. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my edit summary was unclear, I think. I was reverting someone else's edit—they overwrote some figures, presumably meaning to add current-season numbers. Because they put the numbers in the wrong place to begin with, I was trying to express in my edit summary that I didn't understand where their numbers had come from, or why they had replaced the existing numbers. Sorry for the confusion :) I'm not going to re-revert your edit, but I suggest you look into what really happened and make sure the correct numbers go in the correct place. —Notyourbroom (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I just feel silly because I feel like there's something I have not yet caught onto lol. Regardless, I've gone back and double checked the stat totals and they are currently accurate. So as long as this is the case, I assume we're good. :) Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see what happened: non-NHL stats were included in the "NHL Totals" row for some reason, an anonymous editor fixed the issue so that only NHL stats were being counted, and then I did not understand what the new numbers were and reverted it. My mistake was not realizing that some of the numbers were not NHL statistics, which was a mistake the anonymous editor had fixed and which I (by reverting the correction) had re-created. I hope that clears things up. There were at least three major misunderstandings, but weirdly enough, it all worked out fine. :) —Notyourbroom (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ginny

Do Detroit fans NOT call him "Ginny"? Is that NOT fact? There are many other cases around the wikipedia world where it is said that someone is called a certain name by other people. I guess I can understand being upset that I called Sydney Crosby "Cindy Crybaby" as that was just a joke, but this is simply FACT. People all over call him "Ginny", maybe you don't like it, but it is a 100% fact. If I edit Sergei Fedorov's page and say that Detroit fans call him a traitor for leaving Detroit, that is simply FACT. They do, as do people call Gino "Ginny". Don't be mad at me if people are called a certain name because of their style of play. It seems to me that you only want to report YOUR point of view on Malkin. Please, understand that Wikipedia is for FACT.....as I have learned.

I feel I have done nothing wrong in this case.Kenagelus (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Kenagelus 6/9/09 11:15 am.

Wikipedia is concerned primarily about verifiability and neutral point of view. Your additions have met the criteria of neither pillar, as you have never cited any source (let alone any reputable one) for you claims, and the thrust of your edits has been to advance a particular point of view. Even if you were to argue for your content being verifiable and neutral, another very strong consideration is also to be tactful with biographies of living people. To quote from the guidelines: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy…the possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." In that context, harm means any sort of harm, whether it be physical, emotional, or material. Adding a derisive nickname to an article serves no purpose. Even in the case of Adolph Hitler, despite the fact that derisive and belittling nicknames were used for him by the Allies during the war, no such material is in the wikipedia article. The bottom line, though, is that an independent Wikipedia administrator—someone not Pittsburgh-related—has come down firmly on my side of the argument. If you continue making bad-faith edits, your editing privileges will be revoked. —Notyourbroom (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I've never been to Pittsburgh and I don't follow hockey. I do care that Malkin is a living person, and you will not libel him. The standard here is not truth or fact. It's verifiability, and if you had learned about us you would know that. If you make another edit like that to any page, you will be blocked from editing. - KrakatoaKatie 21:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Alleged defamatory edits to Cornell 100+ MPG Team

Dear Notyourbroom, I do not understand your recent allegation that my edit to Cornell 100+ MPG team was "defamatory." A defamation, by definition, is untrue. My recent addition is in no way untrue. I hope it is not Wikipedia's intention to hide the truth about the Cornell 100+ MPG team's laughable engineering, which has wasted tens of thousands of dollars as well as the time and space of other, more legitimate research programs at the university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.28.123 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I understand that you may wish to express some concerns regarding the Cornell 100+ MPG Team project (with which I am in no way affiliated), but Wikipedia is not the place to do this. Please see our policy on, e.g., no original research. That means no one—not me, not you, not even Jimmy Wales—can inject personal experiences or opinion into Wikipedia articles. All text added to an article must be verifiable by cited secondary sources. One proper way to add a dissenting view to an article would be to summarize a verifiable concern produced by an expert in the field (or an established journalist) and published in a reputable source, and to cite that source properly. Related to this topic, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is never to be considered a "primary source"—all information on Wikipedia must be taken from a secondary source, which makes Wikipedia a tertiary source at best.

Anything which does not meet the standards of rigor presented above may be considered to be unsubstantiated defamation and be potentially libelous, regardless of what the real facts may be. —Notyourbroom (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Talk:Joseon Dynasty

Your "recollections" on Talk:Joseon Dynasty regarding my actions seem quite inaccurate. Please review the article history and consider editing your comments. Jpatokal (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Your latest version of the article restored it to Historiographer's version. I would suggest reverting to the previously protected version [1] instead. Jpatokal (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the intention of Kuebie (talk · contribs) here was to go back to a pre-controversy state, essentially to reset the clock and let modifications from that point reflect community consensus. I don't mean specifically to endorse one state over another, but the actions of 蘇州宇文宙武 (talk · contribs) in purging Kuebie (talk · contribs)'s version seemed a bit aggressive in re-asserting and expanding one viewpoint without first going to the discussion page to talk about it. As I understand it, the idea is to keep that part of the article more or less frozen in place until consensus is achieved, so it seems like a pre-edit-warring point is a good a place as any to start. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a fairly charitable assessment of what I'd call simple edit warring, especially as Kuebie hasn't contributed to the Talk page at all. Jpatokal (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Your username

I'm curious, is your username based off a particular song by They Might Be Giants? Mikaey, Devil's advocate 04:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on Gregory Brothers!

That is all. Cheers, Melchoir (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you—I just wish it were easier to find people talking about their EP instead of just Auto-Tune the News :) —Notyourbroom (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying to end the dispute at Joseon Dynasty

Notyourbroom,

I've tried to post a constructive suggestion at Talk:Joseon Dynasty#Time to nip this in the bud, in attempt to end the edit warring at this article once and for all. I understand that you've expressed a desire to withdraw from this article and I don't mean to drag you back in, but if you are interested (I will do my best to make sure the discussion remains on the topic of writing a new compromise, rather than arguing back and forth about history) your input would be welcome. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Notyourbroom!

Hello, I just wanted to thank you for your recent edits and all that you do for WIkiProject Pittsburgh. We couldn't do it without you!

		The Pittsburgh Star
		Thanks for the help! DB9 (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Darktower 12345's talk page

Thanks for stopping that user from starting an edit war on my talk page, lol. He and a few of his friends (most of which have been banned a few times each) had all been bugging me since I almost had to report a user twice (though I ended up not doing it) for breaching 3RR and then for personally attacking me :-\ Anyway, thanks! Darktower 12345 (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not taking sides either way in whatever your conflict was. But I do recognize the right to blank the pages of one's own userspace, a right which many editors seem to despise for some reason... Reverting someone's edits of their own userspace (except in severe and obvious cases of wrongdoing) is a big transgression in my eyes. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Cornell's poor ranking

Don't hide the truth... Nothing seems to be wrong with these rankings. Notice how the four best schools in the Ivy League are ranked right where they should be (2, 5, 9, and 13) while the four lesser "Ivies" (including Cornell) are also ranked right where they should be (72, 83, 98, and 207). People have the right to know that Cornell received a bad ranking; let them interpret it as they choose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.207.43 (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to discuss this with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.207.43 (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Smallpox blankets and Pittsburgh

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

PCAndrew (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Hello, greetings from Germany, please excuse my English mistakes. I do not understand why you deleted my edit.

• The article already makes it clear Pittsburgh is a British word so why would the British pronounce it in any but a British way ? Places in Britain ending in gh are always pronounced with a silent g ie

Peterborough, Rayleigh, Eastleigh, Farnborough, Southborough, Leigh, Burscough, Market Harborough, Loughborough, Gainsborough, Billingborough, Borough, Attleborough, Wellingborough, Armagh, Omagh, Doagh, Attenborough, Edinburgh, Musselburgh, Jedburgh, Hadleigh, Chiselborough, Crowborough, Pulborough, Denbigh, Middlesbrough, Scarborough, Mexborough.

• German is a much more literal language and 'g's are always hard (I can reference if you wish)
• The article states there was German emigration to Pittsburgh and they now constitute the largest ethnic group
• The pronunciation of Pittsburgh is now in the German way.

Following Occam's_razor the conclusion is simple and inescapable. Perhaps all these points could be made in the article but would that not be making it unnecessaryly verbose ? I have no vested interest in taking German ownership of the word, I just find it very interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.184.235.27 (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue is one of maintaining verifiability and avoiding original research. Although very few articles fully meet these requirements, the philosophy behind Wikipedia is that every claim made in a Wikipedia article must be taken from a reputable secondary source (such as a book or newspaper) and that all of these sources must be cited properly in the text. I do understand what you mean about the probable influence of German pronunciation habits vs. traditional British ones; however, that claim cannot be made in the article without finding a reputable secondary source which expresses the same theory that you just gave. Put differently, Wikipedia is not meant to document what is most likely true, per se—rather, it is meant to document only things which are verifiable. I'm sure you could pick out a dozen or more violations of this rule in the Pittsburgh article as it stands right now, and those are all things which need to be fixed over time. My goal right now is just to prevent more uncited claims from entering the article. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, perhaps then you might consider adding the facts that I have stated and let the readers draw their own conclusions ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.184.235.27 (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For being a wise editor and an incredible asset to the community. Cheers! —Eustress talk 19:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: copyright infringement

It was my understanding, perhaps erroneously, that posting a snippet from an article and not the article in its entirety does not constitute copyright infringement, especially if the snippet is referenced.

However, based on your opinion, the reference in question has been rewritten in my own words and referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.211.92 (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket

For your information, four University of Miami editors have started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket. - Racepacket (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Block logs

You seem to not know which page logs the blocks placed on an account. This is Racepacket's block log, showing he has been blocked for 3 extended periods of time (the 1 second blocks are clarificaitons that would not impact Racepacket's ability to edit Wikipedia). This blank page that you linked to would list the blocks that Racepacket has performed, which is 0 because he has never been an administrator. Compare this with the pages associated with my account. This page shows the blocks I performed as an administrator, while this page shows the blocks placed on my account before I became an administrator, during the time I was an administrator (the result of a hacker getting a hold of an account), and after I became an administrator (mistakes I have made in edit warring with other users).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I see—you are correct that I misunderstood the meaning of that page. Thank you for the clarification. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The first box denotes the user that performed actions (blocks, deletions, moves, etc.), while the second box denotes the subject of the actions (the title being the full title of the user page).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Cardinalsfan4ever

While I'm quite willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a user who shows any kind of intention to contribute positively, this wasn't one of them. We are under no obligation to waste our time with determined vandals who ignore clear warnings and who show no sign of understanding the purpose of the encyclopedia. I've worked with a number of problematic users who've moved past vandalism to be, if not valued contributors, at least unproblematic editors. This one may well come back in a couple of years with a new account when they have the necessary maturity to edit productively, but for now they need to stay away. An administrator whose opinion I respect (and who is a middle school teacher) occasionally gives one-year blocks to such accounts when she believes the editor just needs to grow up a little, and explains to them why she set the term as she did. I'm not aware of any who have actually come back after the year is up, but it's an interesting idea. Acroterion _(talk) 12:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Again. Theleftorium 16:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I found all of this by accident. Please see here. So we didn't have good communications from the start. Racepacket (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

WSH takeover

You were correct in reverting the WSH edits to the History of Cornell article. The reference proposed for addition was not a reliable source. I have gone back and added serveral key Cornell Daily Sun articles. As originally phrased, the article implied that it was a black student vs administration dynamic. But in fact, the administration had approved funding of the Africana Studies Center months before the takeover. A key issue was the reprimands of the three black students, and only the faculty had jurisdiction over that decision. I've included the first faculty vote to uphold the reprimands and a mention of the Barton Hall Community. It is widely viewed that the 10,000 in Barton Hall was more influential than the takeover itself, which had ended the prior weekend. Feel free to review the revisions, and I hope you do not find them POV. Racepacket (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Reversion of Pittsburgh skyline image

A higher resolution version of the image has been uploaded. I also rotated it to fix the tilt as well as adjusted the color balance to reduce the reddening. Dr. Cash (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pitts-Burro

I thought we were having a lively and entertaining debate on this topic. However, when I found that my last response supported your position I deleted it, clearly conceding the argument: To undelete it was very clearly in bad faith and a cheap shot and something I have never seen anyone do on Wikipedia. Great, you win.I am the Botendaddy 04:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of a talk page is to collaborate with the intention of improving the relevant article. The purpose of talk page debates is to resolve issues around topics such as structure, encyclopedic tone, verifiability, and point of view—not to determine "who is right," but to reach consensus upon the best course of action. From that perspective, deleting on-topic posts during an active discussion is considered to be poor practice. I understand you had mis-read the source you were citing to make your point, but the source held relevance to the discussion, so there was no need to bury it. I hope that that adequately explains why I felt it best to restore your post—I mean no offense. —Notyourbroom (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I had every right to withdraw my own comment in good faith since there had not yet been a reply. Reinstating the comment to prove your point was abusive, unprofessional and in bad faith and was an attempt to humiliate. I intend to request review. Further, archiving your revival of my comment which I withdrew shows you acted in bad faith and I intend to seek revew. Your actions sshowed that this was a competiton in your eyes and not an open discussion. I am the Botendaddy 17:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to request comment from a third party, I agree that it may help to aid in closure. I maintain that I do not believe I have done anything wrong or unprofessional. My goal is to ensure that the information present in an article is verifiable; at no point was any evidence presented in contradiction of the prose in the article, and the evidence you attempted to bring up in fact aided us in establishing cause for maintaining the article prose, so in the pursuit of reaching the best solution to the content dispute, all relevant information ought to be left on the table. If you had made and withdrawn an irrelevant comment or an unsupported assertion, there would be no reason to reinstate it, but you introduced specific and relevant evidence into the record during the course of the talk page discussion. I apologize that I have offended you by my actions—that was certainly not my intention—but I do not apologize for the actions themselves or the spirit in which they were made. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The spirit in which they were made were to prove your point at all costs. I did make a mistake in the cite, I realized within minutes and I withdrew it. If you wanted to use that cite you had every right to. But to revive my deleted comment to which there had not yet been a reply and then to archive it is abusive. It should be resolved by a neutral third party. I am the Botendaddy 23:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive82#Dispute_with_notyourbroom_about_incivility. Gerardw (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Fixed link to direct to the proper archive page. —Notyourbroom (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Gregory Brothers images

Hi, If you ever need them, I have some great pictures of The Gregory Brothers (performing with LeVar Burton and David Pogue) from the 2010 Macworld Expo. I was shooting for MacDirectory, but I own the rights to all my images and would be happy to contribute some. -Ric Rgetter (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if you contributed them! The best place to do so would be on Wikimedia Commons. Then you could write me a note here to tell me the filenames they're uploaded to, or else you could tell me on Commons specifically. I could clean up any info-page issues (with categorization, etc) and then get at least two photos integrated directly into the article. —Notyourbroom (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Winflash Educator

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Winflash Educator, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.bionity.com/lexikon/e/Winflash. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

False alarm. The website linked to says: "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Winflash". A list of authors is available in Wikipedia." —Notyourbroom (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you help please?

{{helpme}} Template added to thread because I lack expertise in this area of conflict resolution. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for the welcome a while ago. I'd like to ask you a question regarding a situation on a Wikipedia page that is at an impasse. The article on Aesthetic Realism was unstable and in dispute, then more than a month ago a Wikipedia officer suggested that the article needed better sourcing. A mediator also stepped in and suggested redoing the article. He/she helped with the rewriting. In the meantime the article was locked down with a single sentence intro. The rewriting was proceeding and to date there are three sections that have been rewritten using the new sources that have been accumulated. However, the mediator has disappeared and no-one can contact him/her. He/she only left an IP address. Now a person who didn't work on rewriting the paragraphs has started saying that the process is taking too long. He has put in his own version of the intro which is POV. He has done it nine times and each time it has been reverted to the one-sentence intro until the article can be rewritten based on the new sources. LoreMariano who has been a lead in the rewriting, has asked for a lock-down of the article. She also asked a third party, Ludwigs2 to be a mediator but Ludwigs2 was rejected by the same person who's been putting in his own intro. LoreMariano has also put in a Mediation Cabal. Can you tell me what is the procedure with this Mediator Cabal? Also, can you give me any advice about how to proceed? I would like to lodge a complaint about the person to the administration but I don't know the procedure. I would like the article on Aesthetic Realism to be accurate, not told from some personal point of view. Thank you for your thought about this. Nathan43 (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have thankfully experienced only one serious content dispute, and a Wikipedia administrator was directly involved in that case for nearly the entire time, so I have never needed to take a dispute to any of the specialized committees. Thus, I would not be well-versed myself in how best to have you proceed. I'll tag this thread with a helpme template to see what suggestions folks have. Best, —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of options before requirint formal mediation, such as seeking a third opinion, the informal Mediation Cabal and Requests for comment; I recommend considering these first - suggestions on which are in WP:DISPUTE. I hope that helps. Mediation is a last-gasp effort; please try other avenues first. Ask if you need more help; best of luck with it all.  Chzz  ►  18:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you both for the comments. Nathan43 (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Pittsburgh/Edinburgh.

"three completely irrelevant sources..."

I cited several independent sources for the pronunciation of 'Edinburgh' in order to prevent a dispute over the matter. They were perhaps unnecessary or incorrectly placed, but not at all irrelevant.

"...this is an article about Pittsburgh, not Edinburgh!"

Indeed. However, on the understanding that Pittsburgh was founded by a Scotsman, it seems only sensible to provide the correct pronunciation of Edinburgh as spoken by a Scotsman.

"If you want to source Edinburgh's pronunciation, do so in its own article."

I don't believe this is necessary since the correct pronunciation is well-established and known to the majority of the English speaking world. It is also provided in the Wikipedia entry for Edinburgh.

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasco (talk • contribs) 23:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the misunderstanding: there was no dispute over the pronunciation. None whatsoever. Your issue was with the Romanization of the pronunciation: the use of an o to represent a schwa instead of an a. However, I was just following the conventions used in the multiple sources I had cited, as I explained to you. You disagreed with that convention, so you changed the Romanization to your preferred spelling, despite the fact that that was wholly beside the point of illustrating the pronunciation and unsupported by the cited documents. I reverted it back, citing WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. Then, you deleted several relevant sources which were there to support the Forbes/Scotland linguistic link (which was the crucial thing to verify, as it has been under dispute before) and nonsensically replaced them with sources that just talk about how the word "Edinburgh" is pronounced, independent of any relevance to the city of Pittsburgh or its historical pronunciation. —Notyourbroom (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Carnegie

You recently edited a fact that I added to the Andrew Carnegie article. The fact I added is this: Carnegie is buried in Sleepy Hollow Cemetery in Tarrytown, New York. He is buried only a few yards away from labor organizer Samuel Gompers.

Your reason for editing it was that it "needed a citation."

There is no citation for it. It's just a fact. Like the fact that John F. Kennedy is buried a few yards from his brother, Robert F. Kennedy, in Arlington National Cemetery.

There is no publication I can cite that confirms that Andrew Carnegie is buried only a few yards from Samuel Gompers. But I visited the cemetery last week. And the fact is, if you go to Sleepy Hollow Cemetery in Tarrytown, New York, and visit the grave of Andrew Carnegie, you only need to walk about 20 feet to the left to find the grave of Samuel Gompers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.179.46.213 (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is what you could have cited: [2] —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added the information here. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Quill and Dagger

I would argue that information is entirely promotional, unsourcable (e.g. "Its members often hold more than half of the positions on the "25 Most Influential Undergraduates" is not going to be sourcable, "A large number of alumni in administrative positions at Cornell University have held membership" is unsourced, "Since its founding, Quill and Dagger has been well-connected with the presidents of Cornell University." is subjective and unsourcable, "Society influence appears to be strongest in the U.S. government and large corporations." is extremely promotional and unsourcable. The article does not read neutrally, and that needs to be corrected. Prodego ^talk 18:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I did some cleanup to make sources and connections between prose more explicit. Honestly, though, most of your concerns can by chalked up to stylistic issues. Most of the unsourced sentences you mentioned are followed immediately by supporting cited prose. You're disputing statements that act essentially as section headings. I did remove the sentence "Society influence appears to be strongest..." for being superfluous and feeling a bit like an WP:OR conclusion, however. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Cornell Big Red cats / Ivy League cats

The standard in the Ivy League cat appears to be to include the sports team article but not the sports team cat, I'm assuming as a nod that it is technically a sports league. Cornell was backwards, the Cornell Big Red cat was under Ivy League but the Cornell Big Red article wasn't so I reversed it. Perhaps I was just shuffling what was overcategorized since they both do fall under the college cat which itself is under the league cat. Take a look a Ivy League cat and see what you think. Perhaps all the sports teams should be removed. But if they stay they should be consistent. Any thoughts are always welcomeRevelationDirect (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you removed the sports team from the cat and I'm OK with that. Removing the actual college articles from the Ivy League cat may be more controversial though. Most cats I've seen include the main articles even if they fall under a sub-cat but I'll let other editors weigh in.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You may be right pertaining to an exception for eponymous categories. Accordingly, I've restored the category to all main university articles for now. —Notyourbroom (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps one issue is the fact that "Ivy League" is polysemous. It can either refer very specifically to sports teams (its original intended use) or to the entire universities which comprise it (the currently more common use, especially as evidenced by constructions like "Ivy League-quality education"). Perhaps a compromise would be to create a category "Ivy League teams" and categorize the teams under that category as well as under the universities' own categories. —Notyourbroom (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for meeting me half way. I think this makes navigation easier from the bottom-up perspective of someone reading a college article. I'm OK with creating the sub-cat you suggested but right now I'm going to bed!RevelationDirect (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Reversing overcategorization

This is a preemptive reply to anyone who may have mistaken my removing of the Ivy League category from several articles this evening as a malicious act. I did so to avoid overcategorization- namely, an article belonging to a certain category as well as that category's parent category. (Wikimedia Commons has an excellent explanation here.) A concrete example would be Cornell Big Red belonging both to Category:Cornell University and Category:Ivy League. It's a redundancy and causes clutter in the category. Please feel free to discuss if you disagree, of course. Best, —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think a change is controversial enough to post a pre-emptive defense, it may be worth discussing on the talk pages first. I thought we were trying to work out a consensus above but we don't have one yet. Just friendly feedback.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm an active participant on Wikimedia Commons (I have more edits over there than on here, actually) and categorization is a massive headache over there. Few new contributors understand the purpose or mechanisms behind categories (for example, the fact that they are hierarchical, unlike tags) and so misunderstandings are rampant. Most folks catch on eventually, though. On English Wikipedia, on the other hand, categories are much less commonly shuffled around. I've created literally hundreds of new mainspace pages on Commons that all needed to be categorized, but I've only created perhaps four or five mainspace pages on Wikipedia, so I've barely had to do any categorization here. I imagine the same is true for most contributors. (Or maybe my experience is not typical.) In light of that, I'm anticipating knee-jerk reactions that my removal of "Ivy League" from several articles was some bizarre act of vandalism, rather than being a mundane act of maintenance. Also, just to establish the time line, if you see my edit history, you'll see that I made my edits after posting on your talk page, but before I received any response.—Notyourbroom (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Notyourbroom. You have new messages at Tommy2010's talk page.
Message added 07:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tommy²⁰¹⁰ 07:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Irving Literary Society

I think Brb72 was trying to contribute, and deleted by accident. I sent him a note on how to do a "KEEP" comment. For the novice, navigating the directions under a seven day deadline is not easy. Cmagha (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Cmagha

I am associated with the Irving literary society, I am the current dean of the irving literary society. I will write to you what I did to cornell 1890. I'm having trouble understanding where you are coming from. Cmaga is an alumni of the organization. I am its current dean, not a "sock puppet." Whether in favor of it or against it, the Irving Literary Society is a historic organization. While it now does not have the same presence as it once did does not mean it is not in existence. No one is trying to self-promote and "newly formed" group. If Phi Kappa Psi is what you are trying to talk about, Phi Kappa Psi is a very old Fraternity at Cornell tracing back to the 1800's, and the Irving Literary Society operates under it. This is in no way being hidden by the article. Whether the society has a large presence on campus now is irrelevant to the descriptive historical subject of the page. It is footnoted, so if you want to contest it, you should first find the cited works and read them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brb72 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 30 April 2010

Thank you I appreciate the help on the wikipedia editing, it is new for me and I am learning. Can I ask you why you are opposed to the wikipedia page about the Irving literary Society. Do you want me to send you recent publications of the article? Do you want me to further site documents mentioning the existence of the Society? I am just a little confused what this random opposition has arrived from. --Hadem (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Please keep discussion on this topic on the page created for that purpose. Thank you. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Gregory Brothers

Awesome! I was thinking that would be a good idea, I was just strapped for time. Looks great!--ragesoss (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Rhode Island edits

Notyourbroom - I was surprised that my references came up as squares and not the actual themselves because I originally formatted them correctly. Thanks for the feedback and I'll make the proper corrections.M Fallon 17:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)MAC Fallon —Preceding unsigned comment added by MAC Fallon (talk • contribs)

Cultural identity of Pittsburgh

Thanks for the compliment when you added the excerpt from The Paris of Appalachia. People tend to forget that Pittsburgh is part of Appalachia, as is most of Western PA in general. Without question is Pittsburgh's cultural ambiguity, and I'm surprised it has gotten no mention on it at all on Wikipedia.

Sure, it can be mentioned that Ohio is a true geographic crossroads (Appalachian Ohio, Connecticut Western Reserve, Cincinnati being more like the South, etc...), but Pittsburgh is even more ambiguous. And that's what makes Pittsburgh what it is: Pittsburgh. Jgera5 (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

thank you

Thanks for the barnstar! I don't think Pitt Rep is in danger of speedy delete anymore. I hope Rex can contribute some modern stuff because I've about reached my limits of resources for the article here. Keep up the great Pittsburgh work yourself! CrazyPaco (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You can apply those changes. Sounds fine to me. It should go Pres, MusDir, AssistMusDir, BusinessMgr, Secretary, Publicity, Cd/alum, Webmaster

Thanks for all of your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle7390 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Page Change

Hi, I was wondering why the external links were removed from the Chordials page? Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle7390 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, the justifications came primarily from WP:ELNO and WP:ELOFFICIAL. The overriding imperative is to absolutely minimize the number of external links which articles contain. Any website with pertinent information ought to have that information be incorporated into article prose, with the source website being given as an in-line citation. It is appropriate to link to the main website of an organization, but "Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. Complete directories lead to clutter and to placing undue emphasis on what the subject says." It is especially inappropriate to link to commerce websites or (in most cases) to social networking sites. All of this follows logically from the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web directory, search engine, or fansite. I hope this helps. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 22:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Chordials Page

I just noticed you changed that for me. Thanks. Now how can we make it so it isnt hidden? Is there a way it can just be visible at all times? Maybe we can widen the box or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle7390 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Pittsburgh

Thank you for cleaning up and adding the links for the casino section of the Pittsburgh page. I think we need to update the actual Rivers Casino Page sometime, too. It is in need of some serious overhauling.

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJGeneral1 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ocean City, MD

Thank you for the tip. Wikisteve1111 (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Gregory Bros. delete

Can you tell me why someone keeps taking down my edits of the new Gregory Brothers song? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzachi0 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not an episode of Auto-Tune the News. This isn't a debatable point- it's simply not an episode in the series, so it does not belong in the series episode listing. It's an unrelated video, like the "Auto-Tune the Ads" video. —Notyourbroom (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for a debate. I was just trying to have fun and help out. Luckily, you are really involved. Thank the internet you are looking out for it.

• Be polite
• Assume good faith
• Avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzachi0 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in any of the reversions you're talking about, but when I looked into it, it seems self-evident that what you were adding to the table didn't belong there. It was a sub-section about Auto-Tune the News, and you were trying to add material from outside of the Auto-Tune the News series. That would be like adding Futurama episodes to a list of Simpsons episodes just because Matt Groening is the creator of both—of course people would be inclined to revert it. In any case, if you don't understand someone's actions, it's better to ask them directly. Best practice would probably be to make a note on the article's own talk page regarding the dispute and then to point relevant editors' attention to it. Jumping immediately to enlist a 3rd-party intervention (as you did) is an odd thing to do. I apologize for making you feel attacked—I was trying to be firm that your proposed addition was indeed misguided. —Notyourbroom (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Also: I do appreciate the fact that you refactored your comment to follow the policies you looked up. —Notyourbroom (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

		The University Barnstar
		For consistent effort to improve university articles. I rarely award two barnstars to the same editor, but you deserve it! —Eustress talk 01:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote of confidence! I still consider myself a fairly inexperienced editor (a big chunk of my ~2500 edits come from using Twinkle to rvv on my watchlist and warn disruptive editors, which is basically zero-effort) but I do my best to chip in new stuff from time to time as well. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Notyourbroom, thank you the barnstar! I appreciate it and am glad you liked the portal so far. CrazyPaco (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill, thank you for the help with the vandalism on the RSCNJ article. - Darrenn (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities Signpost Interview

Hello Notyourbroom! My name is Mono and I represent the WikiProject Desk at the Signpost. Madcoverboy tells me that you are an outstanding editor for the project, so I wanted to invite you to participate in the Signpost's upcoming report on WikiProject Universities. This is an wonderful opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. If you'd like to join in, I've posted interview questions here. Thank you!  ℳono 

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 18:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC).

Cornell Ezra Cornell's letter found in cornerstone of Sage

I want to thank you...very much... for properly setting up Ezra Cornell's letter unearthed in 1997.. I had remembered it being in Hunter Rawlings commencement address of 2000(Cornell Chronicle) but didn't go any further with it..I first posted it on "History of Cornell" but when it was removed by "Racepacket" I moved it to the main Cornell University article.. I see that it is now properly on both! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.124.125 (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem- just be sure to avoid copyright violations and close paraphrases in the future. I was the one who initiated the deletion of the material from Sage Hall, actually. —Bill Price (nyb) 00:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Conk 9

After reading your message to Conk 9, I realized that I wasn't the first person who had tried to clear up that mess, so I have requested reinforcements from WP:ANI. I would appreciate your thoughts there.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• You might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Conk 9.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you help please?

Hello NotYourBroom, Someone from an anonymous IP address has been changing content on the Beauty entry and making it nonsensical. He/She has also done the same on the talk page. Is there anything I can do about this other than simply reverting the edit each time? Thanks a lot. Hope you got to Assateague Island this summer! Nathan43 (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:115.167.7.147. That's what's known as a "level 1" warning. If they keep vandalizing and get up to a level 4 warning, then they get blocked from editing. Also: I haven't been to Maryland yet this summer, but I'm planning to visit over Labor Day weekend, so I'll most likely get to Assateague after all :) Cheers! —Bill Price (nyb) 02:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Bill and thanks for explaining the procedure. Glad to know you're likely going back to Assateague. Enjoy the ponies, herons, piping plovers and all-around general beauty of the place! Cheers, Nathan43 (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC) (Nathan)

Deletion at Commons

You might be interested in this: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Conk 9.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for interviewing!

Hello, Notyourbroom. I'd like to thank you for participating in The Signpost's interview of WikiProject Universities. Your time helped make it a success. Althought the report will be published soon, feel free to take a look here. Once again, thanks for stopping by. I look forward to publishing the report.

 Ⓢock 

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 23:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoine Dodson (2nd nomination)

Regarding your comment,here: To be clear, I was not insisting that the Autotune guys themselves were one-hit wonders, nor that their subjects were. Rather, that one-hit wonders in general were sufficiently notable so as to warrant articles of their own. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Pages with Portal Barnstar

Category:Pages with Portal Barnstar, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 19:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

You could also edit the article yourself, you know, rather than just adding templates. (In regards to the West Penn article.) Wm.C (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of article-space template messages is to warn readers of flaws and to flag issues which require the attention of other editors. They exist because no editor has the amount of time and energy necessary to exhaustively repair every problem they notice. I saw that the list in question was incomplete and marked it as such to ensure the reader would not mistakenly assume it to be exhaustive. The only reason I knew it was incomplete was because I noticed Chatham was missing from the list. I do not have an encyclopedic knowledge of institutions of higher learning in Western PA, though, and I did not feel like taking the time to compile an exhaustive list personally, so I tagged that section for other editors' attention and moved on. —Bill Price (nyb) 06:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Private" in Cornell lead

Thank you for your edit. My concern was that the article repeatedly discusses the status of Cornell, using words like "private", "hybrid", "mostly private" etc. It is a very complicated subject, that probably does not belong in the lead sentence. Most people worry about tuition levels and stability of state funding when selecting between private and public universities. Although technically 'private,' that one word in the lead may confuse readers or mislead them into drawing conclusions on the matters that concern them. Further thoughts? Racepacket (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your concerns, and it warrants discussion on the talk page. My (overly-zealous?) instinct is that choosing "ivy-league" over "private" as the first description of the school feels like boosterism, constituting a separate problem. —Bill Price (nyb) 13:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am dropping the point, and appreciate your efforts, particularly re: Spitzer Opinion. The fact is that people grab onto the "public" or the "private" element when it suits their interests. I wonder if Cornell got a $17 million per year gift for operating costs as well as billions for facilities from the Gates Foundation, would they try to play down the gift. Yet, the current spin is almost as if Cornell were ashamed of the NYS funding. My goal now is to clean up the last few nits and get a GA for the article. Racepacket (talk)

• We now have our GA review. Please join me in addressing his concerns. Thanks, 66.173.140.100 (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think we are ok with the footnote in the lead. The past editors of this article have been so defensive about the publc/private issue that it has put off the readers (particularly the prospective students.) Whatever help you can give in addressing the GA review items would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks, will do! I'm now MilkyWay12345 - I hope that's general enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.185.158.248 (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo

Thanks for pointing that out. I forgot I had uploaded that, which was before I was aware of the intricacies of copyright. Its not in use, so I tagged it up for speedy deletion. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sage Hall letter

After complimenting you on such a good job with Ezra Cornell's letter unearthed from the cornerstone of Sage Hall, I find that reference to one of the most important events in the history of the Cornell university disappeared from the main Wikipedia Cornell article..What's going on here..Are you a Cornell alum? I am convinced it should be a cornerstone of the main article on Cornell University! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.97.189 (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't change it, but the consensus was that the History section gave undue weight to the founding and early years of the university and basically ignored the first half of the 20th century in particular. Because History of Cornell University already has a lot of material, the decision made was to cut down on all history-related info in the main Cornell University article, rather than duplicating efforts in multiple locations. I had no part in those discussions or decisions, and I don't have strong feelings either way. —Bill Price (nyb) 03:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Chip Wonderling

Chip Wonderling is indeed the mayor of Brookville, Pennsylvania. I know the name seems odd, but Wonderling is a last name that I had heard of and knew it was a name from that part of Pennsylvania. See the borough's website here. Dincher (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you- I didn't flag the IP editor's edit as vandalism because the name looked to be within the realm of possibility, but I was hoping to see a cited source, which you stepped in and duly provided. :) —Bill Price (nyb) 18:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:Auto-Tune the News 12c screenshot.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Auto-Tune the News 12c screenshot.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKsVSBhSwJg#t=1m56s. As a copyright violation, File:Auto-Tune the News 12c screenshot.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Auto-Tune the News 12c screenshot.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Auto-Tune the News 12c screenshot.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Auto-Tune the News 12c screenshot.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Auto-Tune the News 12c screenshot.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Lionel (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm no stranger to copyright policies; I've made over a hundred contributions to Commons as well as several fair-use contributions to Wikipedia. The file has all the correct fair use templates and copyright status templates applied to it—or if there are mistakes, I would appreciate your telling me what they are rather than baldly asserting that I'm violating copyright policies. Frankly, I'm very confused by this message. —Bill Price (nyb) 23:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a concern that Auto-Tune used NBC's material without permission. If that is the case, your claim of fair use would be void. This can be a problem with youtube. Did Auto-Tune obtain persmission from NBC? Lionel (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Auto-Tune the News series acts as a parody (i.e., a form of criticism or commentary) on its source material. I am not a lawyer, but criticism and commentary are the first two cases listed in the relevant legislation as being prototypical of fair use. Here's some empirical evidence that there's no copyright violation going on—Despite the fact that the Gregory Brothers have created derivative works from the footage of several different copyright holders, their assertion of fair use has never been challenged by any of those holders. This lack of challenges certainly isn't due to lack of exposure—their channel is one of the most successful on YouTube, and they have been releasing these videos for a year and a half. In other words, my assertion of fair use is unimpeachable per Wikipedia's policies, and the Gregory Brothers' assertion of fair use is both obviously defensible as well as unchallenged. I am not a lawyer, so I can't say whether the Gregory Brothers' use of copyrighted source material has always been 100% justifiable under US law, but I feel that the overwhelming weight of evidence supports the conclusion that there's been no violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy here, which is the only matter we're qualified to discuss in this context. —Bill Price (nyb) 00:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm satisfied. Lionel (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Literary societies

I have moved "The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)" to "Cornell literary societies". Perhaps you can help beef up the article. Racepacket (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of The Irving Literary Society for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article The Irving Literary Society, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Racepacket (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

(Clarifying the template: I did not create and have not contributed to the article in question, but I participated in an earlier AFD of it.) —Bill Price (nyb) 18:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Cornell University

Just a note that one of your edits to Cornell University seems to have caused massive duplication of content, some of which went undetected for several days. We're working on fixing it, but please be careful in the future. —Bill Price (nyb) 23:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

While I was doing my edit (whcih consisted of one line), I got a messasge saying there was an edit conflict. That must have been what caused it. I don't usually do an {{inuse}} for small edits but perhaps for a website with heavy traffic like that one, I should. Mike Hayes (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Alleged

In the Dodson case the use of the word allege clearly suggests that Dodson lied - instead of the purpose of protecting someone from being undeservedly slandered it runs the risk of doing the opposite. There is no good reason outside of avoiding to presume guilt before it is proven to use "alleged". If there are reliable sources that express doubt about the veracity of the event then those should be included - but still using alleged would be unnecessary and unadvisable - a better strategy would be simply to describe the facts: someone called the cops saying an intrusion had happened, news came and interviewed, he gave his accont, x contradicted dodson's version by saying y. Alleged is not needed here and falls under words to avoid.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Pittsburgh

Hello Notyourbroom/Archive 1, this message is being sent on behalf of WikiProject Pittsburgh. You have previously signed up as a member and we are currently trying to determine any members that have become inactive or no longer care to be a member. If you still wish to be on the member list, please sign your name here. Thank you, on behalf of the project, Grsz¹¹ 22:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

cranberry morpheme

I've left a note for you on tp there. Myles325a (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Cornell page

Hello, Notyourbroom. You have new messages at Jss367's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology entry

Hello, Notyourbroom. You have new messages at Pel27's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Notyourbroom. You have new messages at Pel27's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GA Cornell University

Finally, after months of waiting the GA review is underway. Please keep your eye on the article and the talk page. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good! —Bill Price (nyb) 04:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I just read your user page. Did you know the Flansburgh family while you were at Cornell? Racepacket (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry. —Bill Price (nyb) 04:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The GA failed in part due to close paraphrasing a Cornell press release. I am disappointed. Perhaps you might want to take over the leadership of getting this article to GA? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Taking care of contributors

I wanted to express my appreciation for your comments to Montanabw regarding reversion. While I was a subject of that editor's dismissive reversion myself, the bigger concern I had was that which you alluded to, maintaining a healthy population of contributing editors. I was motivated just recently to comment on WP:ROWN to that effect, actually, because of the importance of the issue. Never waste volunteer contribution, after all. ENeville (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

How about killing the dogpile right here and now. I've been here over four years and everyone has a few snarky, crabby days. It's what the trout slap is for. I'll apologize to the extent that I was tired and abrupt, but in both of your cases I went back in and did the same thing, only with more detailed attribution. People who make poor edits are going to be edited. If people's egos can't deal with appropriate editing, they really do need to learn to deal with it. I was treated a lot worse than this when I started out. What this nonsense does is drive away the experienced people who have made massive contributions (in my case over 30,000 edits) to wikipedia. Loss of expertise is a bigger threat to the longterm viability of wikipedia that is hurting the feelings of a few oversensitive newbies. Montanabw^(talk) 00:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

From the point of view of a brand new contributor, it doesn't matter if you just happened to be feeling snarky or crabby. If their productive, good-faith contribution is trashed simply because an established editor doesn't like something finicky about the wording, they aren't going to see you on a good day, because they won't be coming back. This is a Big Deal. Raw expertise isn't worth much when there are millions of articles to watch. We need eyeballs. —Bill Price (nyb) 01:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Good article. It said "people get burned out. They get tired of hostility and endless debates. Working on Wikipedia is hard, and it does not offer many rewards." Yep, that's how I feel. And frankly I don't think I was even all that bitey. A little terse, sure, but I have something over 1500 articles on my watchlist, Zero revert is simply unworkable given as you say, millions of articles. You can't fix them all, and that same article you directed me to also has discussions over quality control. So I also was not "finicky." It's called quality control. ENeville has been around longer than I, which is long enough to know the game. He happened to edit some stuff in a way that improperly defined some things and messed up the nuance of others. I said "Descriptions inaccurate, reverting. Try again." It was true. But Neville just got hurt feelings, reverted back and did not improve his edits. So then I have to waste a bunch of my time on a disambig page to fix everything properly. Apparently that was evil of me. And on Assateague, frankly, who checks every single edit to see if a user is new or old? You evaluate on the content. And again, I fail to see anything all that bitey in saying "Um, the island has been an island long before 1933!" Then they fixed it somewhat, which was great, though insufficient. So once again, I go and spend an hour researching and improving that section too in order to explain the context and the nuance without having to toss the whole thing for POV and partial misrepresentation. Frankly, I think your deciding to dogpile on me instead of showing respect to a fellow long time editor by using a light reminder (such as Richard did) or a slight nudge or a humorous trout slap was pretty bitey itself. At the very least, it was schoolmarmish. So don't start preaching at me until you've looked in the mirror, whaddya say? Montanabw^(talk) 03:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"So don't start preaching at me until you've looked in the mirror, whaddya say?", the same I suppose. I was planning to respond on your talk page, but I see that you've redacted the relevant section there. I'm torn between the apparent fruitlessness of pursuing this and the depression of surrendering to the tide of hostility already referenced. I think the self-centered view in play here is pretty evident, but that it's worth pointing out for the sake of common understanding. One editor deserves a deferential comedic reminder, others reversion with a terse comment. I think your apparent presumption that other (unfamiliar?) editors' contributions should likely be reverted departs from the premise of Wikipedia. I was struck by your conviction that "no one does a ref properly right off the bat." Your expansive watchlist may be admirable, may be testament to the importance of discretion in valour, may be a poorly bounded sense of responsibility... I dunno, but I think it, too, demonstrates a protectionist posture. One that may on balance be detrimental, to Wikipedia and perhaps your own sanity. But, I would add, a posture worth modifying, not negating. ENeville (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Nevelle, let's see, you just implied that quality control doesn't matter, that I'm crazy and I have boundary issues -- I call that a personal attack. So how about we either stop now before this escalates or at least take it off NYB's page if it's you and me in a dispute. I shall expand at your talk page, you may leave me a talkback template on mine. Montanabw^(talk) 20:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A General Comment on Your Pet Peeve (and how it's likely to get worse in the coming years)

I believe it's an increasingly common (mis)conception that all of Allegheny County is "Pittsburgh." It seems to me that you're a long time resident of the area, and probably fiercely recognize and differentiate every single neighborhood and surrounding borough. However I feel that there is a trend of thinking that the metro-area of Allegheny County and some 1.5 million people is "Pittsburgh" just as much as the City. And it is one that is gaining a lot of momentum in recent years, given all of the serious talk of a County-City merger at the government level. Just google "pittsburgh allegheny county merger" and you'll see hits anywhere from 2003 to 2009 where the topic is seriously considered. And honestly as this trend continues, this change may have to be something seriously discussed within the City article. --Csoldner187 (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind living in a single City of Greater Pittsburgh, and I think it's ridiculous that we have 130 separate municipalities in Allegheny County, so it's not a political pet peeve, per se. (For the record, I live just past the city limits, in Swissvale, PA.) I guess the reason it bugs me when people give incorrect locations is that I do have the locations of at least 150 subdivisions of the county memorized, including every neighborhood from Fairywood to East Hills, from Brighton Heights to Lincoln Place, from Banksville to Lincoln-Lemington-Belmar, in the same way that many people know the locations of every state. It's sort of a hobby. Regardless, one thing I've tried to do in compromise is to specify that something is in the "Greater Pittsburgh area" or "the metro area" when its specific location isn't really important. —Bill Price (nyb) 05:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ithacan Who Needs Help w/Userpage

Namaste, Notyourbroom,

First of all, I'm a Cornell alumn and former staff member so I sure would appreciate some help from a past Cornellian.

A photo that I loaded to my page was deleted by you for copyright issues. The thing is, I have permission to use the photo from the photographer. She authorized use via an e-mail to me. I thought I cited that when I uploaded the photo but it was still taken down. The photographer does not have a Wiki account, nor does she want to get into it. Do you have any suggestions as to how I can post it without having it deleted afterward? And when I have to select from the various copyright options, which one would I choose?

My last question is one that I'm a tad embarrassed to ask. Once I get the photo issue resolved and add a bit more text, how do I actually launch the page?

Thanks for your time. WhysosiriusWhysosirius (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "delete" anything of yours (I don't have the power to) and I also didn't ever call for the deletion of anything of yours, so I believe you are mistaken... Check your talk page more carefully. No time to say more at the moment. —Bill Price (nyb) 18:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And A Happy New Year

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Too bad about the confusion on your new barnstar, but please accept thanks for your efforts and best wishes for an enjoyable holiday. I give you joy of the season. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 21:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not over yet...

Hi NYB, seeing as how you got drug into this initially, just an FYI that ENeville still is mad at me over that revert I did over a month ago. I've tried reason, negotiation, and humor and he still will not let it drop. I really am tired of this but seem unable to end the thing. I just tried an(other) apology but I'm sure that will not be enough, either. You can check out my latest response to him at his talk page or his comments on mine (which I have not removed yet, but probably will eventually). I want him to stay off mine. I am totally done with this thing and consider his continued not-getting-over-it to be harassment. I have no idea if you have any influence here, but ENeville seems to count you as his supporter, so I'm taking this to you in hopes that some sort of closure is doable. Montanabw^(talk) 17:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this still speaks for itself. You bit a newcomer, and when I called you out on it, you sulked and accused me of being a sock puppet. Now you come to me asking for help because you feel "harassed" by other editors who also take issue with your behavior. At some point during your self-touted vast tenure as a Wikipedian, I would have expected you to have learned how to play nicely with others. Your abrasiveness isn't my responsibility, and I would ask you not to bring your personal problems to my user talk page in the future. —Bill Price (nyb) 23:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, two part answer and then I'm done unless you wish to provide further comment that invites my reply:

1. I DO apologize for accusing you of sockpuppetry. And I jumped the gun on the Assateague Island article (but then also fixed the article itself -- I took a good two hours to go in, thoroughly research and fix the thing as the edit WAS problematic) However, as you appeared simultaneously with ENeville to chew on me over the same basic issue, I sincerely thought at the time you and ENeville were the same person. I believe that I quickly refractored that bit as I wished to remedy that error. A while back I was involved in the bust of the huge sock drawer involving User:It's Lassie Time, who attacked me quite viciously across multiple article pages. It was a difficult time. Since then, I suppose I'm a little paranoid when multiple people start attacking me over the same thing at the same time. Everyone has a few bad days in four years. I apologized at the time to the extent I considered myself in error have just done so again. I would hope that any issue between you and I is over. (I do take issue that you accuse me of "sulking," that's a personal attack term. You really don't want to attribute motive or emotion to others. You cannot know what I thought or felt--nor I you. Though, if you care to know, I really DID think you were a sockpuppet, and what I felt was fear of another round of horrible personal attacks cranking up. I'm human. I overreacted. I'd prefer not to ever make a single mistake in my life, but I suspect that I may err again sometime. I hope that's OK) Montanabw^(talk) 06:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
2. But, to the issue at point, ENeville chose on his talk page to invoke you and the discussion he began with you here as a cross-ref, hence my return. And, actually ENeville has been on wikipedia longer than I have, so I did not "bite a newcomer" when I reverted ENeville on a minor disambigution page with a terse edit summary. Truly, I am seeking perspective (not the same as "help") on what horrible thing he thinks I did that has him so angry that a month later he's still attacking me. I seriously made three attempts directly with him to settle things (an apology, a reasoned defense with an offer of truce, and a lighthearted suggestion that he let it go) all of which have been met by hostility. As my own attempts are getting me nowhere, I figured that seeking input from a known friend (or at least supporter) of ENeville would at least keep him from accusing me of yet more things like meatpuppetry or something. If the best thing is to just not reply to him at all, that's my current thinking of the best approach. But I'd prefer to arrange a truce and let there be bygones. I don't like turning my back on hostility. If you do not care to deal with either of us, that is fine, I'll go. But I was pretty unhappy about being roughed up by an unknown user at the behest of another unknown user, and so you did insert yourself into the situation and it would be gracious of you to help unwind something where you did choose engagement. Montanabw^(talk) 06:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Pittsburgh event for Wikipedia's tenth anniversary

Hi! Since you're a member of WikiProject Pittsburgh, I wanted to invite you to the Wikipedia Tenth Anniversary celebrations we're having in Pittsburgh on Saturday, January 15. During the daytime, we're going to be having a photo contribution drive where anyone can bring in their digital photos or prints and Wikipedians will teach people how to upload them and add them to articles, and maybe introduction to Wikipedia workshops as well. Then in the evening, we'll have fun at the Carson City Saloon. There will be free Wikipedia t-shirts and other goodies, as well. See the Pittsburgh meetup page for more details. I hope to see you there!--ragesoss (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ivy League business schools

Sorry, I thought I was supposed to nominate them all together. Can you remove some of them for me? Or I can help, just tell me what to do. Jadunne (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't do anything about it; I'm a normal editor like yourself. —Bill Price (nyb) 07:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket's talk page

I wouldn't consider my lack of knowledge concerning the application WP:BLANKING as a "bad edit". However, would my restoration of the full indefblock section be inappropriate concerning that the unblock section refers to it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The user has a right to blank virtually everything. A strict reading of the policy holds that the only thing we are justified in keeping is the declined unblock request. And I apologize for my wording- the restricted length of edit summaries can lead me to be more blunt than I should be. —Bill Price (nyb) 22:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Cornell University for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Cornell University is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Cornell University until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Orlady (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ryulong

Do you feel that an RfC should be opened over Ryulong's behaviour? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

These types of issues have been brought to his attention a number of times, and my understanding is that they were one of the aggravating factors which led to the revoking of his admin powers. In light of the fact that Ryulong is (presumably) already aware of how certain actions are perceived as inappropriate by others, I'm not sure that a RfC would accomplish anything. —Bill Price (nyb) 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

The earlier rollback on the RfC was accidental. I was viewing my watchlist on my iPhone and made an accidental click. :( Honestly not intentional at all and hard to undo your accidental rollback from the iPhone or even edit on your iPhone. :( --LauraHale (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Joseon Dynasty

As one of the few users watching the page who doesn't seem to have strongly formed preconceived opinions on the topic, I'd greatly appreciate your comments on Talk:Joseon Dynasty#Here we go again.... Jpatokal (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Cara Mia and Portal 2

Sorry for metioning Portal 2 in this article - I thought it was the same song. I have put a note at the top of the article to try and stop other users from making this mistake as I can see from the edit history that I'm not the only one. It might be worth adding a short song sample (I think you are allowed to add a short snippet of a song) to further distinguish the 2 songs. Oddbodz (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Question

Hi there,

Yes, there is a 4chan thread, see here, and that article came up as part of the articles to be attached, as the thread post of the person who suggested it ended in 67.

Thanks,

The Helpful One 16:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pittsburgh activity

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pittsburgh is rolling out some new features (see our discussions at WT:PITTSBURGH). We are also trying to determine how many members are active, and interested in contributing to Pittsburgh content or coming to our real life meetups to discuss Wikipedia in general. If you could go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pittsburgh/Members and move your name from inactive to the active or semi-active group (depending on your interest in Pittsburgh issue and overall activity) groups, this would be great. Hopefully in a near future you'll also receive our first newsletter with various information on what we have been doing, and what useful tools are available. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the barnstar! You've made me feel all warm and fuzzy ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 21:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Good job

And I left a suggestion here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Fort Pitt Blockhouse for DYK

Hello, Notyourbroom. Could you address the {{Expand section}} tag in the article, please? We avoid using articles that appear to be "incomplete". Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the message, though I find it a bit confusing. Isn't the point of DYK to highlight new and expanding articles? No new article is going to exhaustively address all elements of its subject's history from the start; the "expand section" template is more of a "here's a good place to contribute content" marker than a problem marker. Regardless, I'll work on that section more. —Bill Price (nyb) 20:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And  Done. —Bill Price (nyb) 21:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. This article by you should get on MainPage within the next few days. Thank you for your contribution.

Yes, DYK is meant to showcase new and expanding wikiarticles, but not those that appear to be "some sort of work in progress". And the {{Expand section}} tag is indeed often used as a problem marker, pointing out gaps that need to be filled. This template is currently listed under Category:Cleanup templates. Hope this helps. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fort Pitt Blockhouse

The DYK project (nominate) 21:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Teaching with Wikipedia Workshop at CMU (Aug 15)

Since you are a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Pittsburgh, I'd like to invite you to the Teaching with Wikipedia Workshop that will take place at CMU on Aug 15 (this workshop is open to general public, and is a joint imitative of CMU and Pitt). There will be another workshop held at Pitt in the Fall as well. It will cover how to include Wikipedia in one's course (WP:SUP) and also how to become a Wikipedia:Campus Ambassadors. Pennsylvania has currently only one ambassador (myself) and it would be great if we could recruit at least several more. Ambassadors help course instructors, showing them how Wikipedia works, and interact with students. Many current ambassadors come from the body of students, faculty and university staff; it is a fun adventure, and adds to one resume/CV, to boot :) If it sounds interesting, feel free to ask me any questions, or to come to the workshop. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be out of the country. —Bill Price (nyb) 20:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As involving editors related to the universities in further editing and recruiting students/faculty is likely to result in improvement of those articles, I think it is an appropriate use of those pages. Anyway, I follow WP:IAR on this: it can't hurt, and may help. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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

re: Regarding the adaptation of public domain materials

Just noticed that myself, didn't check back to see if it was in fact ok. Since it is, I can put them back up at GAN, but can you or someone else make sure that when someone does review it, the problems are dealt with? Just checking since abandoned articles sit there more frequently than I'd like. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Dietrich School of Arts & Sciences

Hey Notyourbroom,

I'm wondering whether the main Art & Science article should be "Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences", per their new website and new logo and style guide.

According to that style guide, "Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences is the school’s full name and should be used on first reference in all communications. The shorter names Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences and Dietrich School can be used upon second reference."

Using the shorter forms would follow the Wikipedia article naming conventions employed for the Swanson School of Engineering and the Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences according to WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not really concerned either way, as redirects from either to the other would be appropriate. But what are your thoughts on the primary article title? CrazyPaco (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You make good points. It seems like Pitt's inconsistent, though, because in practice, they're prefacing "Dietrich School of A&S" with "University of Pittsburgh". Following the precedent of other articles is a good idea, though. —Bill Price (nyb) 14:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I like how the CMU article handled theirs, but I'll let you do the move if you see fit. If you decide not to move it (which I don't think is that big of a deal), just let me know and I'll create a redirect to it page from "Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences" (or feel free to do that, but I do think a redirect from one to the other is warranted in any case). CrazyPaco (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Look, you're right. I wasn't assuming good faith. It gets hard at times (when nearly everything you attempt to do ends up being a lot of work and a deleted page). Honestly, I'm just trying to help things out, the categories are all over the place (and a lot of them are duplicated) I've only just now started to get things in a semblance of order. Sorry to snap at you and be rude. I also read your statement in a way that sounded as if you didn't care what exactly was in the category and only glanced at it and decided it was worth deleting. I spent quite a few hours on this today and I will admit that I did jump to conclusions. I see this a lot though, people often nominate without trying to understand/communicate with the author. Regardless, I truly am sorry. Ncboy2010 (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Chordials Awards

Hi again,

I was trying to edit the awards section of the Chordials wiki page, but it is saving under "External Links." Any suggestions to get this sectio!n back where it belongs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle7390 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it (though I forgot to log in first). —Bill Price (nyb) 15:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Notyourbroom. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiknic 2012

	Great American Wiknic - Pittsburgh
	You are invited to the second Great American Wiknic taking place in Schenley Plaza, in Pittsburgh, on Saturday, June 23, 2012 starting at noon! This is a chance for all of the wikipedians in the Greater Pittsburgh area to meet for an afternoon of fun and fellowship. This is a bring your own lunch event, if you have special treats you would like to share feel free to bring them. We would love to have you there!

---

Message delivered by Guerillero | My Talk at 22:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Luke Ravenstahl

I've placed Luke Ravenstahl up for GA review at Talk:Luke Ravenstahl/GA2.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the recognition!

Thanks kindly for the recognition. Little things mean alot! MarketDiamond 17:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As requested

Herewith the article which I deleted, and which you would like to play with. Feel free. It would not, I think, take too much to render it wiki-able. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

David Skorton's page

Hi-

I am the director of the Office of Web Communications at Cornell and President Skorton has indicated that there are several changes that he would like made to his page. In the past, changes that my office has made on his behalf have been reverted because they were seen as spin or otherwise PR-related materials.

I am interested in opening a dialogue to work toward a compromise so that President Skorton's page is accurate and to his approval; might you have any suggestions as to how we can best accomplish this? I realize that you do not have ultimate control over the page, but you are listed as the individual who has made the most changes, so I thought it would be a productive place to start.

Please let me know how we can work together?

Thanks,

Lisa Hck1 (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I cannot act as a liaison in any official (or reliable) capacity, but I would direct you to this page: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. In short, if you (and others in your office) stick to making clear and specific edit requests on the Talk:David J. Skorton page and allow established, neutral editors to make changes to the article itself, it's hard to go wrong. This advice is covered under Best Practices 4, 8, and 9 in the conflict of interest guide. I suggest you read the guide carefully, and if you have any questions, I would be happy to help clarify. Thanks! —Bill Price (nyb) 18:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your many contributions to the continued quality of Pittsburgh area articles. Marketdiamond (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! —Bill Price (nyb) 19:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Edgar Snyder Page

Good afternoon,

I noticed that the entry for Edgar Snyder is in your Sandbox. Will you be putting it back into publication? If so, when? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esamktg (talk • contribs) 17:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That's out of my hands- I would like it restored, but have no time to dedicate to the task. Please see [here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pittsburgh#Deletion_of_Edgar_Snyder]. —Bill Price (nyb) 17:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Allegheny City Central

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Allegheny City Central. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Central Northside (Pittsburgh). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Central Northside (Pittsburgh) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Vacation9 (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

What's the problem here? Literally the only thing I did was to make a redirect to the existing article. I think you've made a mistake. —Bill Price (nyb) 01:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Allegheny City Central

Hi Notyourbroom, you recently removed a deletion tag from Allegheny City Central. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

For the benefit of third parties seeing this: the situation here is somewhat complicated. I created a totally legitimate redirect, but then another user came along and pasted in prose from another article on top of my redirect. The resulting "article" was nominated for speedy deletion. I reverted to the redirect, which I suppose wasn't technically the right way to handle it. —Bill Price (nyb) 01:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Conk 9 and 6 years of copyright problems

Based on your comments here, I thought that you'd be interested in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Conk 9 and socks and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 October 20.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

WP Pittsburgh in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Pittsburgh for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Notyourbroom! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Antoine Dodson‎

The article Antoine Dodson‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - Notability isn't temporary but in the past 3 years, I think a BIO:1E has emerged. EBY (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pittsburgh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CSA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Use of Cathedral of learning Photograph

As per your license for your featured image of the Cathedral of Learning, I am writing to let you know that I am using it! You can see my work here (http://www.thepittsburghcenter.com/debtfreecampus). For the moment the picture is on the front page and on the PDF available there, but I am changing things around a fair amount.

Thank you for making it available on Wikipedia.

Best, Chris Bangs bangs.christopher@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.59.231 (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Pittsburgh meetup

Pittsburgh Wikipedians are invited to a meet up on April 3, 2015. Meetup Pittsburgh

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PWSA logo.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PWSA logo.PNG. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Auto-Tune the News 12c screenshot.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Auto-Tune the News 12c screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Etymology of Pittsburgh move request

You previously participated in a discussion of the title of the Etymology of Pittsburgh article. There is currently a formal move discussion of that article's title at Talk:Etymology of Pittsburgh if you care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  02:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Notyourbroom. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Auto-Tune the News 2 screenshot.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Auto-Tune the News 2 screenshot.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Auto-Tune the News 9 screenshot.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Auto-Tune the News 9 screenshot.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kentucky American Water

Hello Notyourbroom,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Kentucky American Water for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fox Chapel Area School District logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fox Chapel Area School District 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)