User talk:Patrickneil/Other

Cathedral of Jesus' Heart

Second time you're putting link to Coat of arms of Sarajevo (city of Sarajevo is part of Sarajevo Canton. But the design above the door to the Cathedral is part of Coat of arms of Sarajevo Canton which you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sarajevskizastava.png and there is no wikipedia article for this coat of arms. Smooth O 14:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Dates

I've always believed that yyyy-mm-dd is the only acceptable format for dates on here, but not many people tend to agree with me. Finally I've found someone who does :) I say we start a movement to make yyyy-mm-dd the official Wikipedia policy for representing dates (it isn't already, is it?), and try to get enough people involved that it's actually enforced!

Nice work. --Ecksemmess 04:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop changing date formats. Per WP:DATES both are correct here on wiki. --Jklamo 15:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There is logic behind this. I understand all sorts of formats are acceptable, but the yyyy-mm-dd is the most useful because the output can be set per user preference to display with more flexibility than the "day month" format, since it includes the year into formatting. Second, having translated articles to and from English, that the date format works in all languages, when "day month" needs translating, saves time and keeps the encyclopedia uniform across the commons.--Patrickneil 16:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The general practice across Wikipedia has been to spell out Month Day, Year, rather than YYYY-MM-DD. I'm not sure that it's an official policy (I'd doubt it - formal policies are usually limited in scope), but it does tend to be the general practice. Doing so tends to minimize problems in cross-cultural confusion, in that March is March everywhere. European writers may write Day Month rather than Month Day, but it's easy to understand that 9 March and March 9 are the same thing to everyone. But where Europeans will usually write DD-MM, North Americans will usually write MM-DD. As a result, 3/9 will be read by an American as March 9th and by a European as September 3rd. --DMG413 02:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.

Hi there! Thank you very much for my first barnstar. Truly a special moment for me... I'd like to thank the Academy, my fans... (just kidding). Yes. Washington, D.C. was a bit of a challenge, but I feel like a city of its importance should at least have an article free of glaring errors and missing citations. I'm going to attempt for FA, which is certainly going to be difficult but Brianboulton is definitely helping out with the peer review. Hopefully this article will keep moving along nicely through peer review. My main concern at the moment is just keeping an eye out for vandalism... the article seems to be a fairly popular target for nutjobs who think that the city is called Washington because "George Washington lived in the White House before it became the capital." Oh well. If you can think of any improvements to the article, please voice them. Brianboutlon seems to be a copyedit fiend so I'm mostly looking for comments of a more general nature (breadth, scope, detail, etc.) Any and all help is appreciated. Thanks again for the barnstar! Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

DC part deux

Hey. What do you think of Aude's comments about the information on 9/11 and the McMillan plan? (Watching this page). -epicAdam (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed down the 9/11 info two weeks ago because I thought it gave too much information. However, there wasn't anything on the short or long term effects of 9/11 on DC there. Like you said, there was no unique way DC dealt with it. I don't know much about the McMillan plan. I'm broadly for putting information is sections other than history when it can be avoided. History can become a catch all for info that actually pertains to politics or to architecture. Perhaps a phrase like "The McMillan plan worked to bring DC's infrastructure into the twentieth century" or similar.--Patrick Ѻ 19:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I'm not altogether opposed to just removing the information about 9/11 altogether. Really, it was a national tragedy that is only tangentially related to D.C. itself. I did add a sentence about the McMillan plan, but I'm definitely with you about keeping the history section trimmed down. Let me know what you think about this new sentence. Hopefully that placates people. -epicAdam (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, should I add my voice in response to Aude's comments? You seem to have this covered.--Patrick Ѻ 19:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like, you can even throw in your own review. I mentioned you as being helpful but I don't think it precludes you from adding your support. Anybody who looks at the article stats will see that I am by far and away the primary editor. Personally, I think Aude is just being whiny. I mean, he was really quick on the trigger to provide a review at FAC; he probably just has the article on his watch list. He hasn't made any other FAC reviews either, except for the one on United Flight 93, which he also has listed on his user page. So I think he's just miffed that other people usurped him on the article. *shrug* Not much I can do about it, though. -epicAdam (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I was surprised to see a user I'd worked with before oppose an article they'd worked on, even if the article has been usurped. I hope my comments on the FAC underscore my support for the work you have done. FAC is a funny animal. And getting an early oppose can kill a nomination. Editors, like people, like to go with the winning side.--Patrick Ѻ 20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I mean, if people have genuine issues with the article, I don't mind them opposing; as long as they're specific issues that I can fix. I have, however, contacted some of the other primary editors who have lent a hand in fixing up the article. I was very careful to line up support from the more senior FAC reviewers before I actually listed the article specifically to avoid people who pop up once in a while just to kill a nomination. Ah well, c'est la vie. Thanks for your help. -epicAdam (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I hope you don't feel like you've been usurped on the article. Your comments and edits, as well as those from others, are always helpful. I wouldn't want anybody to feel like because I've made the most edits that somehow their views are unwelcome! -epicAdam (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What are your thoughts with the wikilinked dates? As far as I know, full dates are supposed to be wikilinked. However, that policy seems to be under scrutiny. Do you know if those dates should actually be linked in the article? -epicAdam (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you ever want dates to come under scrutiny. Wikipedia has been debating the proper way to link date for years now, and editors have lots of opinions. I believe this simply needs to be consistent across the article. I would discourage changing everything, and just stick with the way we have it. Also, I don't feel usurped. I always intended to get around to the DC article, but it seemed like far more work than I wanted to wade into. I know that I have usurped pages before, I've often botched it and done it rudely. I still undo most of the edits to Georgetown University, my first FA. You have done none of that, and have taken criticism better than most anyone else. I would note about the FAC that criticism tends to be arbitrary and broad based, and you shouldn't worry about that.--Patrick Ѻ 21:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We've got another comments about the wikilinks. Mattisse didn't actually oppose, just provided the comment. Should I go through and start delinking or wait until another editor opposes the FAC just for that reason? -epicAdam (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a judgment call. Yes, there are superfluous links. I'd say "workweek", "commuters", "at-large" can go. I'll go through it right now looking for others. But about dates, I saw leave it as it is. I get the impression that editor are still very divided on what to do about them, and if we remove the wikilinks, we're just as likely to get a comment on why they aren't linked. Again, all I can get from the MOS is that there needs to be consistency. I would be especially weary of responding to the user's comment with a rebuttal dealing with the date linking debate. Maybe a just response like "thank you for taking the time to comment."--Patrick Ѻ 00:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty. I went through and performed a sweep of the article to adjust things. It appears that SandyGeorgia has taken an interest in the article so I wanted to make sure his/her comments were dealt with quickly. It seems like the scroll bar is a "no no". I really don't understand rules that require editors to conform to the lowest common denominator of web users. The whole "it may not work on their computer" seems a bit arbitrary. If they were really serious about it, Wikipedia would be a series of 1KB ASCII pages like GOPHER. Oh well, c'est la vie. And yes, I'm definitely going to take your advice and just reply with a simple "thank you" to comments like those. :-) -epicAdam (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the historical population table needs to go back to being vertical. At least on my computer, it pushes the table out beyond the page's dimensions. I don't agree that the scrollbars need to be removed. They use the exact same code as Template:Wide image, and lots and lots of featured articles use wide images.--Patrick Ѻ 18:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I unlinked "July 9" that SandyGeorgia linked I guess as an example of "faulty linking."--Patrick Ѻ 18:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved the historical pop table back to vertical. I wanted to keep the similar formatting because I think the Template:USCensusPop table is just ugly. I think it's a serious eyesore on the NYC page. Anyway, this new table works, it just cuts into the crime section just a little bit. Since it's a subsection it's not the worst thing in the world. I agree with you about the scrollbar; I think the rules are just being applied arbitrarily. I do, however, have the horizontal table stored on my user page so that it can go back, should the rules change in the future. :-) -epicAdam (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This "Mattisse" fellow is giving me a headache. Do you think I should continue to respond to him/her or just leave their commentary alone? -epicAdam (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no reason to respond if its like that. Looks like Brian took care of it anyway.--Patrick Ѻ 14:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Adam, question: How did Lincoln end slavery in DC when it was already made illegal in 1950? Was it that there were 3,100 slaves living in DC but from other slave states?--Patrick Ѻ 18:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The compromise of 1850 made the slave trade illegal (i.e. people were no longer allowed to import new slaves from Africa). However, any slaves that were already here (and any children they bore) remained as slaves until Emancipation Day. -epicAdam (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

French ship Tyrannicide (1793)

Greetings,

There are conventions about naming ships on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). In short, warships without a prefix are named "[nation] [type] [name]", or "[nation] [type] [name] ([date])" if the former title was ambiguous.

Good continuation. Rama (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Gnome around the world

Could I ask you a few things about the gnome in london? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.241.26 (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In case your IP address changes, check my response here.--Patrick «» 22:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Gnome around the world

Well I am doing a project and its similar, instead of a gnome it is a pink pillow k that we have taken all around america, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and New York. I was wondering if you would like to help us on our travels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkDonna (talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ted Leonis

It was the truth though. We both know that.

24.127.41.39 (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerning an item in the External link section of Iranian presidential election, 2009

I disagree with you in the strongest possible terms! If you have a point, make it on the talk page, instead of taking unilateral action. Incidentally, should you see me interfering in the pertinent page of Turkey's elections, you may object to me. --BF 17:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, you must keep to the rules and stay away from edit-warring!!! User:Khoikhoi is going to look into the issue. --BF 16:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

With reference to your last message on my talk page, you have the whole thing wrong: The first comment on the pertinent talk page was by this person, followed by my comment. You were the third. I repeat, leave the matter to User:Khoikhoi and do not needlessly turn the issue into an ugly confrontation. --BF 16:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Iran Election

I reported the numbers from the Iran Election Commission, which unfortunately does not have a source. So, I share that concern. But, it is appropriate to report the percentage reported thus far by Press TV? Rick Evans (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Your input is requested at Talk:Iranian_presidential_election,_2009#Inclusion_of_incomplete_results. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Delinking common terms

In answer to your question, I'm delinking terms that would already be well known to most readers of the article, per Wikipedia:Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked as there's no benefit to them. That's why, for example. I delinked Tokyo, but left Osaka linked. However, if you disagree about what cities and countries should be considered well-known, quote me some specifc examples and we can discuss them. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

All linking is a matter of judgment about which links might be helpful to the reader and which are just clutter. I agree that to be consistent I should also have delinked South Africa - I'll add it to my list. It seems to me that most readers will be reasonably familiar with Switzerland, but not necessarily with Zurich, and will probably know a little about Poland but not about Qatar. However, if you disagree with my judgment on this, feel free to revert me. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if I may reinforce what Chris is saying: we have come a few years ago from a situation where place-names were scattergun-linked irrespective of their place in common parlance. It is now widely considered an unacceptable trade-off to dilute wikilinking in general by linking very common country and city names; these include United Kingdom, United States, Australia, New York City, and probably Paris, Moscow and the like. While it is conceded that not everyone will agree with the boundary established by an individual editor, a boundary must be established nevertheless. You are welcome to tweak it if you find it unsatisfactory, as with another editor's prose—but please do not relink the very common ones. Tony (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, Patrick should feel free to restore links if he feels they are appropriate. The idea of "common terms" is entirely subjective, as is the desire to delink them, and editors are entitled to revert any such actions as they see fit. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz is a well-known link extremist, I'm afraid, who would link every occurrence of the most common country-names, in defiance of the established relevance text at the style guides. He's stalking me at the moment, it seems, and is probably stalking Colonies Chris, too. Tony (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tony, your reputation for extremist statements continues unabated. "Link extremist"? "In defiance"? "Stalking"? I notice how you failed to explain to Patrick that you were the one who wanted the "common terms" notion, and that you yourself rewrote the guidelines (reversing the existing consensus) without any discussion. Frankly, I'm tired of your habit of tossing unfounded accusations at people; it is tiresome in policy discussions, it is tiresome in edit summaries, and it is tiresome on user talk pages. I'd post this on your talk page, rather than bothering Patrick with it, but the reality is that - as in the past - you'd pay lip service to the concerns and then carry on with the same behaviour. When does it end? --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Relocated at my talk page and that of Ckatz. In addition, rather than framing this as my concoction, perhaps you'd like to take a look at a few other WPs? The Swedish one has good advice about common term linking. The French is notoriously a messy, ugly sea of irrelevant links—they have, effectively, ruined the wikilinking system. I and others are determined not to see that happen to en.WP. Tony (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is very interesting to me. I didn't know there was so much debate on this issue. I'll have to read up on it, as my mind was previously flipped on date delinking. Right now, since I am entitled to my opinion, I'm gonna keep thinking that most all place names, even European ones, should be linked on their first occurrence in a given part of the article. And what really peeved me was delinking half of a table of countries; tables I feel are an exception to prose rules. I still have a real problem with the lack of consistency. Saying blatantly that poor old Qatar isn't "common" enough shows horrific Western bias, when the English Wikipedia is used globally, from Sydney to Dubai to Karachi. In Demographics of Qatar you might learn that English is the most common second tongue.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 16:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the first part of what you say, tables, lists etc. are candidates for all-or-nothing linking. However the second part is not so clear, however we may wish that all our readers would be as well informed on Qatar as on the US, for example, the fact is that our readership is, in general, more likely to find a link to Qatar useful, than one to the US. Rich Farmbrough, 14:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

Actually, WP:LINK explicity states that each row of a table is treated separately; i.e., that it's fine to link every item in a column (or none). This is especially the case where there's an auto-sort facility, I've heard. But aside from that, the linking of well-known geographical entities is discouraged unless there's a very good reason to link. Tony (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Lisbon Treaty .svg

I thought I was uploading a version that changed the color of Ireland to show ratified, but it didn't look like it did anything. I have no clue why it didn't work. The Monster (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Steve King petition

Hi! I've started a discussion regarding the notability of a series of similar edits, including some on Stephanie Herseth Sandlin that you reverted, over on my talk page: User talk:Arbor832466#Steve King petition. Please feel free to weigh in! Arbor832466 (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Entry for Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani

I would like your assistance in returning many of the edits that were done today, March 28, 2011. Well documented citations have been removed, and unsupported information has been inserted, much of the same edits that have been undertaken in the last few months. This is very frustrating as I have been working diligently to bring some balance to the article, which you know has seen its share of editing of the type that has been taken today. Even though I do not agree with all the content in the article, I have chosen to leave certain parts alone so as to assure that it is balanced.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it it not usual to add comments about edits, especially ones that not only change the content and tone of an article, but also ones that add or delete portions? Not only was the information incorrect, but several of the citations did not reflect the information that was added. I can add comments about improper citation, but this is what I did in previous months so as to tag the citations, ensuring they were properly cited.

I know we must not get into politics, but I will tell you that these types of edits have taken place when a major blow has been dealt against the case by the Iranian government. And in this case, the UN took an unprecedented step of calling for an appointment of a rapporteur to observe and report on human rights issues in Iran, including cases involving sentences/punishments of stoning. This all being said, your assistance would be greatly appreciated in helping with this. I know that simply doing an 'undo' will result in an automatic reversal, and a back and forth of edits will ensue. This will result in further assault on Wikipedia as unreliable as a result of this type of action, and I do not want to add to that as I do find that Wikipedia to be a valuable resource.

Respectfully,

Petit9621 (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)petit9621

Thank you so much for restoring the article! Is there a way to partially lock it down. I know that this is rarely done, but I'm afraid that this recent edit is not the last one...

Respectfully,

Petit9621 (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)petit9621

Please watch for the slippery downward slide of the opening paragraph of the Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani entry. A number of edits were made by an unnamed source, with no explanation of the edits. I added a citation verification for one of the edits, but I can see where the edits are going, again. The citation verification I added was for a quotation (and cited as a quote), but it was obviously intended as a fact. A lay person reading this will not know that confusing and often conflicting statements have been made by many Iranian officials, and quoting them as fact is quite questionable. While I know that I am a bit biased on this so that's why I ask that claims made as fact on the opposing side be presented in much the same way - as a claim and not a fact. I may be totally wrong, but I have done LOADS of research on this, playing devil's advocate, and while there may be some claims on the side of Sakineh that are in question, I have found some universal facts derived from both sides. One of those facts is that she was not found guilty of murder. I cannot quote one source for this, but instead a series of sources which show this. So please help me to keep this entry from becoming another confusing mess. Thanks so much!!! Petit9621 (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)petit9621

Just as I suspected, the entry is getting beat up. This time, several people are changing the Azeri spelling to a Farsi one. Earlier I changed it back to the Latinized spelling because there is already a Farsi spelling. To validate why I changed it back, I added to the discussion section. A few hours later, the change was undone, with no reason in the edit summary and nothing in the discussion tab. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Petit9621 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC) petit9621

Oops, there was something in the discussion tab for this. I have added a rebuttal, and hopefully it will help put an end to this back and forth. After researching this a bit, I think there needs to be a concrete policy with Wikipedia on this. I found some entries where there are a Latinized version and a Persian/Arabic one, and others where both are Persian/Arabic. Oh, well. What am I to do, lol? Anyways, your assistance in ending this endless back and forth would be greatly appreciated. Petit9621 (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC) petit9621

One World Trade Center

Please see Talk:One World Trade Center – Cadiomals (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Czech presidential election, 2013

Hello! Your submission of Czech presidential election, 2013 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yazan (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding the article. Replied to your comments at the nomination page. Cheers. Yazan (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK

Sorry, ive b een b usy with other article. But there also Belizean and Guatemalan International Court of Justice referral referendum, 2013 for a possible DYK...(Lihaas (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)).

And Harbor Commons, though i dont go to DYK anymore. Im not getting around a loophole on QPQ either as im already owed one.(Lihaas (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)).

No worries about the Czech election, seems it worked out. I'll check out those other two as well. It's always a race to get things in for DYK, and the Czech election was the first one I've nominated there in a while.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 23:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

As long as its filed before deadline its key. Probs need to find the referendum soon. Could do both(Lihaas (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)).

About Opinion polling for the Iranian presidential election, 2013

Thanks dear Patrick for your points and the edits in the article Opinion polling for the Iranian presidential election, 2013. In the following days, I try to find some third party reliable sources for some of the internet polls and also remove the others that do not have the reliable sources. Best regards, Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 18:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nicknames of New York City, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gotham, Empire City and The City That Never Sleeps (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) 11:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Georgetown Hoyas in the NBA and WNBA Drafts may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

NYC Bronx Zoo picture

Hi, Patrickneil -

I feel that the new image of the Bronx Zoo in the NYC article leaves much to be desired - it's rather dull and non-descript. Giraffes in NYC, on the other hand, scream "zoo." Would you mind replacing this image with the previous one, or perhaps try a different one? Castncoot (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not wedded or anything. I'd suggest we look for one that includes some onlookers, zookeepers, or if possible an iconic structure/sign as well as some sort of animal activity. I liked the sea lions because it was capturing an action. My issue with the giraffes is perhaps that there's nothing particularly "New York" about the photo, it could easily be the Chicago or Atlanta Zoo. A photo that just includes animals would be fine to illustrate the article on the zoo or on the particular animal, but what I mean by an image that says "zoo" is that it shows more of a park experience unique to the Bronx.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 04:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, how about the Flickr image from "cacostello" which simply shows the Bronx Zoo sign close up? It's an attractive picture which shows the iconic sign yet doesn't show an empty after-hours picture. Or how about one of the others showing a crowd? It won't be possible to get the sign and live animals in the same image, however. Feel free to upload an image that you like.

(I've never uploaded from Flickr by the way, how is that done?) Castncoot (talk) 04:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean this one? Its good. No animals, but it is unique to the Bronx. This was my favorite of the images I looked at today. I like the domed Zoo Center building as something unique to the zoo, and that the image also has animals is great. As far as uploading from Flickr, I use the Flinfo tool that fills out many of the fields for you.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 13:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that one, but I agree with your favorite as well. I looked at Flinfo and still don't understand the uploading process - who is giving the permission to upload - the Wikipedia editor? Or the original photographer? Please feel free to change the image in the meantime.

Castncoot (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I uploaded four options to the commons, and will put in the reindeer for now.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic job, Patrickneil, thank you. Gives people a cadre of good images to rotate amongst for variety as desired.

Can you please explain the uploading process to me? Thanks again. Castncoot (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

(Will look it up myself, thanks...)

Castncoot (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's very easy, just copy the Flickr URL to Flinfo, and the download the highest resolution file from the link it gives you. Copy the text and click Open Upload Form. Paste the text in and browse for the file. Easy as it gets!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 03:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, will try it next time! Castncoot (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Nicky da B

Thank you for starting this article. I hope you don't mind, but I added the article to Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2016/Results, which tracks new and improved LGBT-related content as part of an ongoing Wiki Loves Pride campaign. If you create or improve other LGBT articles between now and the end of June, feel free to update this page with your contributions. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Good (political party)

Hello, there. How are you? I have begun significantly expanding the Good (political party) article, which I nominated for DYK. At this stage, it has been expanded by about 50%. Can you maybe review it once more? It will greatly be appreciated. Lefcentreright (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think WP: DYK is the place to feature this. The expectation for existing articles has always been a five-time expansion, as in 500%, not 50%. Sorry, I don't make the rules.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 22:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I created the article and practically grew it from about the 3,000 bytes when I created it, to about the 16,000 bytes it is composed of today. I believe it is notable to be included in the DYK section, because of its very odd and non-cliché name. Here in South Africa, we have an abundance of 300 political parties (yes, 300) that in their names include stereotypical words like "National", "Freedom", "Democratic", etc. All of the old worn-out words. When Good came along in December 2018, it was quite a surprise. We all expected that Good party leader and veteran South African politician Patricia de Lille would revive her old Independent Democrats party. De Lille has led two parties in her political life. The establishment of the party was strange if I can put it like that. Media and many political analysts expected that Good would not be taken seriously because of its name, yet the party went on to win two seats in the National Assembly of South Africa and one in the Western Cape Provincial Parliament. De Lille is now a minister in the cabinet of South Africa. I specified that I had moved Good to the "mainspace". I did not write "5x expanded". I was precautious this time about writing "5x expanded" because I had previously nominated the 27th South African Parliament article to be included in the DYK section. It did not qualify because of numerical terms (hence, the 5x expanded). Lefcentreright (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of House and Land

Hello! Your submission of House and Land at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Ideological categories

I'm sorry if this doesn't fit in with the category. But like the Category:Conservatism in the United States, which seemed to have so many people, groups, among others around possibly far longer than any category or template. The category got so big; you guys had to make Category:American conservative people, in which I believe many users on this site had a field-day of adding 500+ people in Template:Conservatism in the United States maybe even more. I disagree with adding many of whom I don't think they had much of or any influence on Conservatism like the 17-year old C. J. Pearson, unlike those in liberal/progressive templates. So instead, shouldn't there be categories called American liberal people and/or American progressive people as many people like Jamie Raskin have those ideologies to make things fair. 2605:E000:1126:42A9:CC43:B85C:DC08:CE5F (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Right, I'd recommend we discuss this at Category talk:Liberalism in the United States#Democratic politicians, where I posted earlier, but basically being a "liberal" politician doesn't mean they're part of Liberalism the political philosophy. I know its the same word but they mean different things. If its important for you to create Category:American liberal people, you can start it or request it at WP:REQ, but I'm not sure its needed. I'm not sure we need Category:American conservative people either, both are ill-defined categories, in the sense that they don't have a clear definition of what to include and exclude. Like Category:Presidents of the United States has a defined criteria for articles that should be included, but conservative and liberal are more up to interpretation, particularly from the opposing viewpoint.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)