Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 41 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man18:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shereth,
I missed this notice and discussion completely. This page was deleted at this person was not deemed to be sufficiently noteworthy to be included in Wikipedia, that this was based on a single incident, and didn't have sustained coverage.
This is my fault as I didn't maintain the page and wasn't sufficiently aware of teh BIO requirements of Wiki.
I would like this article to be re-instated so I can update it, as follows;
Antonino Rizzuto was the administrator for Public Health in Palermo.
(Centro Siciliano di Documentazione "Giuseppe Impastato" 11 January 2000, http://www.centroimpastato.it/php/crono.php3?month=1&year=2000)
He was responsible for issuing exemptions to builders allowing them to bypass normal public-health requirements (Mafia News, 12 January 2000, unable to locate original source)
He issued safety-certificates for dangerous and illegal meat products (Centro Siciliano di Documentazione "Giuseppe Impastato" Cronologia, 21 January 1997)
He was heavily involved in the running of the Noce cosche of Cosa Nostra (La Repubblica)
At the time he vaccinated the Riina children, he was Director of Vaccinations for the entire region of Sicily. ("DA PICCIOTTO DI LIGGIO A DITTATORE DELLA MAFIA", La Repubblica, 16 June 1993).
At the time of his arrest the State confiscated property and possessions valued at EUR 50million. (Centro Siciliano di Documentazione "Giuseppe Impastato" Cronologia, 21 January 1997)
This is a person who was sufficiently trusted by Riina, one of the most infamous gangsters in modern times, to vaccinate all 4 children, over a period of several years. U Cortu, according to Wikipedia, probably killed 40 people personally, and is certainly responsable for several thousand deaths in the Mattanza of the early '80s, including judges, prosecutors, police, women, children etc. etc. Anyone trusted by U Cortu with the wellbeing of his family is by any definition a noteworthy person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaneendubh (talk • contribs) 13:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me explain why the status of BP is relevant. The average reader will not know BP is a foreign company, since they no longer go by their former namee, British Petroleum." The US has not had a VP whose spouse was the employee of a foreign company. It may or may not be a security risk, but it is important that voters be aware of it so that they can make their own decision. --Zeamays (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one thing, Wikipedia is not a campaign brochure - it is not our job to make "voters" aware of things. Secondly, Todd Palin is not running for any political office. Finally, as I stated before, the article is about Palin, not BP. If readers are interested in learning more about BP, they can look up the article there (and learn everything they need to know about it), but the Palin article is not an appropriate place to place information that has nothing to do with Mr. Palin. Shereth01:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Few will care to look up BP if they do not know its a foreign-based company. I'm weary of people deleting well-researched factual information for weak reasons. Consider this: I recall when Geraldine Ferraro was running for VP that the media and the voters took very seriously her husband, John Zaccaro's, busineess associations. Have a look at the John Zaccaro article and you will see his finances and business associates prominently described. My text regarding BP was, by contrast to the Zaccaro article, a model of NPOV. --Zeamays (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It still has no place in the article. While the line may have been sourced and not inherently POV, it still is out of place in the Palin article. If you are adamant on putting it in the article, bring it up on Mr. Palin's talk page and try to get some input on the matter; however, without any consensus to the contrary, it's not the sort of information that falls within the scope of the article. We are not the media nor the press, it is not our place to pad articles with semi-related tidbits of information for any purpose. Shereth02:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a reasonable solution. There is no consensus on the Palin articles, as you must be aware, so it is useless to ask for consensus on a Talk page, an otherwise reasonable approach for many (non-controversial) articles. --Zeamays (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if you object to my concern about deletion of public-domain photos. My request was not to delete public-domain photos marked as such. I have found the Library of Congress collection of government photos invaluable for illustrating Wikipedia articles, and for no good reason I get automated messages stating that they will be rapidly deleted. Apparently certain users have some kind of program that posts messages which can't read the posted statement of the origin of the photos and don't bother to actually look at them before deleting. I have had this happen any number of times. It is not a rare event. --Zeamays (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to your concern at all - and in fact I share the concern regarding the over-eager deletion of certain types of images. It's just that in this case, Krimpet was deleting images that were duplicated and therefore the images weren't being removed completely, just from the Wikipedia space. It got deleted off Commons after the fact, and there was no way for Krimpet to know that had happened. Shereth17:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The graphic you have created on the page for St. Marks , Florida, could use an edit, it appears you have the city placed just a littl north of where it actually is. I know scale is hard, but the city is only 6 miles from the coast via the st.marks river.
You have the wrong info on the population of the cities San Bernardnio's to be exact the population is 210,069 cand can be proved on the website below please fix this problem-thankyou.
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust it me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone19:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Easy as pi?: Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership
I am trying to clean up some of the images with minor licensing issues and I came across Image:Arkyan truck snow.jpg which is only used on one of your subpages User:Shereth/Bio which I see you have not edited in a while. I wonder if you still need the subpage and/or the image. If you do not need the sub-page, just add {{db-author}} to the top and an admin will come and delete it. If you do not need the image, follow the instructions at WP:IfD or drop me a note and I will nominate it for you.
At a minimum, if you are going to use the image, could you go and fix the licensing on the image page and be clear about releasing the image under a GFDL license. Thanks. If you have any questions, please drop me a note on my talk page. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the heads up - I updated the image license. Not sure why you'd think I wanted the image and/or subpage deleted - if so I'd have deleted them myself a while ago :) Shereth22:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:SRPLogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of people who decide to come up with utterly unreasonable and illogical oppose rationales, like "don't like the user name", "feels bad to me", "no obvious problems but can't trust" , "too much automated editing", and then when they come on to RfA with the very same issues feel like they should be ignored. I find his oppose rationales upsetting, and I'm asking him why should we not hold him to the same hypocritical standard he seems to hold others to. I'm sorry that you feel I'm bating this user, but to me it's a valid question. May I please ask why you feel it's "baiting" and how you classify that? --LogicalPremise Ergo?18:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It just feels like a loaded question. Would there be any possible answer to the question you posed that could not be interpreted negatively by one party or another? It just seems more suitable to pose that question to the nominee in the discussion section rather than as one of the "headliner" questions, because it has so much of a "gotcha" feel to it. You may as well have asked him when he stopped beating his wife. Since the candidate seems OK with it I won't object further (and I'd withdraw my objection if it didn't make his and your responses look orphaned). Shereth18:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer he gave did answer my question. I do understand what your concern is,however, and I will attempt to ensure that my question rationales are clearer in the future. --LogicalPremise Ergo?14:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you could write up a draft in user space I would be happy to look it over and when its ready to remove the protection so it can be moved into mainspace. Thanks, Shereth20:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I have issued a 2 week block as this is the users' 4th time being blocked for this same issue. Shereth04:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the SVG image Image:Delaware_County_Indiana_Incorporated_and_Unincorporated_areas_Albany_Highlighted.svg, uploaded by ArkyBot is corrupt. Do you still have an in-tact version available to re-upload? Koert van der Veer (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i saw that you have participated actively at WT:RFA especially into the adminship candidates and stats etc. I agree that it is definitely something that we should all think about and something of note that i would want to know is keeping a watch of Special:Statistics especially the stat of active users (registered users with at least one action the past 30 days). At the moment it is 153K and i would like to know out of curiosity what the figure has been over time. Do you think this is possible, what the count was say 1 yr ago? It would be interesting to see. Best 220.239.56.131 (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: There is a request to fix one of your images in the Graphics Lab. I guess the wrong county got highlighted or something. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. I had meant to get the map updated but hadn't gotten around to it; the updated version is now live. I also noticed you re-added Utah into the Southwest US template, I can't believe I'd forgotten to put it in there for so long! However it made the template really wide and was causing side-scrolling issues, so I went ahead and broke Utah out into its own navbox template. Thanks again! Shereth18:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I wasn't sure Utah should be separate - it can almost fit on the size that the SW map is. In fact - although the Texan's might not like it - it seems to me that Utah could fit with Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico nicely, with Texas going back to the east :). But I'm ok with it as is since I can't do the work. --Trödel18:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean. It's kind of a balancing act, trying to make the templates include enough temples to be useful but encompass a small enough area that it doesn't become overloaded. I think keeping Utah on its own, separated from the Southwest US provides a sufficient density while still allowing for potential future expansion of the template(s). I was half tempted to come up with a different scheme for splitting up the US, something along the lines of the nav maps used at ldschurchtemples.org, but several of them have a low density (4 temples) and would kind of render the navbox pointless ... Shereth21:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but especially in the context of talking about a relatively small number of clearly listed items, I think it's pretty clear that "all" clearly implies "every one of the listed items, without exception". If a plain vote (no caveats stated) of Support means anything other than "move all of them, without exception", I don't see how the votes could be counted. Just trying to understand your objection to my interpreting "all" as "without exception", especially in this context. Thanks. --Serge (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Arkyan, or Shereth as your moniker now implies. Long time no type.
I noticed an issue with the city map images of Delaware County, Indiana where the maps wouldn't display properly and show a white block where the image should be. I went ahead and fixed these particular maps by manually editing the .svg XML and reuploading them, but I don't know now if any of the other Arkybot maps have the same issue. I just wanted to bring it to your attention.
Ixnayonthetimmay (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably I have come to inform you, that this bot project will not go into operation and therefore the project will be closing down. Thanks everybody for their time and support but there is a clear reason why it failed. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Something I've recently noticed is that most if not all U.S. counties are predismabiguated with , Statename. Including this unnecessary information in the article titles seems like a violation of naming guidelines and conventions since precision only is supposed to come into play "when necessary". I've raised the issue in a narrow sense at Talk:Los Angeles County, California#Predisambiguated_article_title, but am interested in whether you agree county names should be at [[Countyname County]] unless there is a conflict to work out. Thanks... --Born2cycle (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:King_County_Washington_Incorporated_and_Unincorporated_areas_Kenmore_Highlighted.svg
and discovered that it is not entirely accurate. South Kenmore extends quite aways down the east shore of Lake Washington, in addition to the area that you've highlighted. I don't have the tools to modify your image, so I'm letting you know here.
Hello, I noticed you created all the map pictures for Sacramento County with each map holding a different city/CDP highlighted like this one for example. I was wondering if you created one for Antelope, CA? If you have I haven't found it on wikipedia... if you didn't create it, could you possible make one? If you have time. The current picture on the Antelope page is atrocious. I have no idea how to edit graphics or anything, so I'd really appreciate it. Thanks for your time, - Killiondude (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shereth - I am with the Maricopa Association of Governments, the planning agency responsible for identifying new high capacity transportation corridors in the Phoenix Metropolitan area. The map you have representing the Phoenix freeway system, especially the conceptual corridors, is not consistent with current MAG planning efforts and conveys troubling information to the public at large (especially your route 803 across native American lands). Respectfully, please return the map back to its original form where the known freeway corridors are illustrated and the speculative corridors are removed. The best source for this map is available at [[1]]. If you have any questions, please Email or phone the MAG offices at 602 254-6300. Thank you. Az mag (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)AZ_MAG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Az mag (talk • contribs) 17:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shereth - Thank you for your remarks back. If you would like information about future corridor planning, please consult the Building a Quality Arizona website [2]. This is a cooperative website, between MAG, ADOT, and the Arizona COG and MPO Association, where we are looking at future of growth in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area and the potential high capacity corridors that may accompany them, especially in the Hassayampa and Hidden Valleys west and south of the urban area. I think you will find the information interesting as the region figures out how to accommodate another 5.2 million residents and studies other connections to and from the Phoenix region. Feel free to contact me through that website if you have any questions. Az mag (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)AZ_Mag[reply]
Bergen County New Jersey Incorporated and Unincorporated areas.
Please have a look at the new Teaneck which doesn't have a highlight (old image) and Saddle Brook which redirects to Teaneck. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-15t09:53z
Here are some improvements for your US Obesity map. First, the legend isn't part of the image. The legend is only viewable in its caption at Obesity. Second, it uses a rainbow color map for ordinal values. People don't have a built-in perception of order when it comes to the rainbow. For ordinal values, it is better to use something like gray-scale, the black-body radiation spectrum, red-to-green, or blue-to-yellow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.101.157 (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. A number Bradley County Alabama maps created by you on commons incorrectly highlighted Baxter county. (Such as: this, though I deleted the original because of past problems with people reverting maps and it going unnoticed) I've fixed the highlighting so not action is required there, but you may want to check your contributions for any similar systemic error. Thank you so much for creating nice maps for Wikipedia. --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
city boundary needs correction on Sarasota map insert
Your insert drawing in the infobox for Sarasota has an error that I am hoping you can correct. This is a really odd situation. Contrary to your drawing, the city boundary follows the bay front right to the Manatee county line on the mainland -- including a small portion of one incorporated neighborhood, The Uplands, the governance of which is divided among the city, Sarasota County, and Manatee County. The city portion extends from the waters of Sarasota Bay to the property lines of those parcels at Uplands Boulevard. The boulevard runs parallel north to south about 400 feet from the shoreline. At the intersection of Uplands Boulevard with Edwards Drive is the Manatee County line, runing east to west. At that point the city (on the bay front side of the boulevard) and Sarasota County (on the eastern side of the boulevard) abut Manatee County. The boulevard extends into Manatee County, terminating in a dead end.
Making matters worse, the mailing address of all properties in the subdivision is "Sarasota" due to postal boundaries drawn before Sarasota county existed (all used to be in Manatee, but everything south of the natural barrier of Bowlees Creek (about a mile north) was considered "culturally" part of the city of Sarasota before 1921).
It is even more complicated because below the current Manatee county line, all of the state property on both the eastern and western boundaries of the Uplands subdivision, is within the city (and of course Sarasota county as well) -- but the central portion of the subdivision remains only in Sarasota County, totally surrounded by other juristictions.
So the configuration is a u-shaped portion of the city surrounding the only-county-portion and both of them abuting the line for Manatee County -- it is quite a conflicted neighborhood because of the divisions.
Sarasota map derived by 83d40m from yours being used on the page While awaiting a response from you I decided to try my hand at map making -- please see whether my version of your map would be acceptable for the page. If you think it would be acceptable, please let me know and I will insert it there. I have corrected the northern boundary and made the bay and gulf more distinct in the insert by putting the portion of Longboat Key that is in Sarasota County into the insert as well. That portion of the key used to be within the boundaries of the city -- until John Ringling requested removal from the city tax roles to save him in his new developments planned there, but which never were completed. Since it used to be part of the city, I thought it would be relevant for readers to include it as well. I realize that the use of a second color is not typical of the maps for many communities, but feel that it makes the position of the bay easier to understand quickly in the visual. Let me know if you would agree to my replacing the map that needs correction with mine, and I'll insert the image. ---- 83d40m (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Spokane County Washington Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Spokane Highlighted.svg
Arksey, the reviewers reviewing the Spokane FAC would like it if you provided a link or something to verify the information which was used to generate the image in the media file. It would be great if we could know where that info came from.
Hi Shereth, the Stamps, Arkansas map that you created is being used in I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, which is being prepared for FAC. We need more copyright info on the image. Would you mind listing the census information on the image's description page for us, and where you got the information needed to create it? Thanks, I appreciate your help in this matter. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This map (and the others I created like it) are based directly on the cartographic boundary files supplied by the US Census Bureau located here. They can be viewed directly with many GIS programs, but my maps were created purely by a custom PHP script written for the express purpose of mass-producing maps based upon these boundary files. All further information I can provide would be highly technical and not likely germane to a FAC discussion. Shereth02:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, and for coming out of your break to answer it. Another editor who's working on the article has added some census information to the description page already, and it should be enough. Hope that you come back to the project soon; your contributions seem very valuable. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you created a wonderful SVG depicting the location of the City of Gulfport in Florida. I would just like to thank you for taking the time to do this. 68.201.4.62 (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our Detroit population template meets and exceeds the standards of consistency. Let's let it stay. See Atlanta and Chicago, they use variations. The Detroit and Atlanta population template illustrates the topic at hand. Much time and detail was spent creating the Detroit and Atlanta population templates to illustrate the topic. The colors and titles are coordinated to the proper format. Thanks. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I do not understand how something can exceed a standard of consistency; something is either consistent or it is not. Of the 50 largest cities, 39 use the exact same format for the list (the one I have changed Detriot to). The remaining 11 should be changed to follow suit with the remainder. I will request further guidance on this issue at the US Cities project. Thank you for responding to my concern. Shereth22:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure why you are saying its not consistent. Its the identical information and format, thus it is consistent, and includes the MSA and CSA. Let's keep it in order to better illustrate the subject in question.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you made this image showing the legal status of Salvia divinorum in the United States, but there is nothing saying what each color means. Could you please add that info? — Athelwulf[T]/[C]22:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hindu terrorism. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. dab(𒁳)17:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an administrator, you should see both sides of the argument before you revert someone else's work. I have seen hardly any argument against this character having his own article as well. And I am NOT doing this thing unilaterally. There has been at least one user that has agreed with me. We are both members of the Article Rescue Squadron, and we work very hard to restore things like character articles. Next time, please think before you act. Thank you. Marcus2 (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence of any discussion regarding this topic. The article has been in the current state as a redirect (except for a malformed attempt at making it into an article) for some time now and disrupting the longstanding consensus of having a redirect here is, in fact, a unilateral move. You should be able to demonstrate that either consensus has changed or new information has come to light; simply reverting to an old version without any discussion does not help. Thanks, Shereth17:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I have implied before, no, there weren't that many people that said that this should be, and remain, a redirect, as far as I know. Can you dig up something that indicates the otherwise? Thanks. Marcus2 (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please reference Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick (SpongeBob SquarePants) and the subsequent edits to the article. Recent discussion on the talk page has indicated a desire to retain the redirect. I still need to see some indication that community consensus (not just the opinion of one editor) dictates this should be restored to a full-fledged article. Shereth17:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see in this AfD you brought up, more people said "keep" than "delete" or "redirect". Also, I joined the Article Rescue Squadron because I think Wikipedia should be expanded, and I don't want Wikipedia to seem biased or hypocritical. Marcus2 (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point and it will be taken in to consideration. Bear in mind that discussions are not decided "by the numbers" and while that particular discussion provided no definitive result, it was the beginning of a longer discussion over the article that evolved into the current state as a redirect. I don't mean to deter you in your duties with the Rescue Squadron, but will still need to see that the consensus has changed - that's all. You've taken the right step by initiating the discussion on the talk page, now is the time to sit back and relax and wait for more input from other users. Shereth17:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thanks for your note about username reports. The reason I reported these users to WP:RFCN and not UAA is that users had left username concern templates on their talk pages, indicating that discussion had taken place and that the username may possibly have been declined at UAA previously. Due to this I thought it might be seen as poor protocol to report them to UAA again. Also, I was not really sure about several of the violations. However, I have started to report "admin" and "bot" usernames to UAA instead of RFCN, since these were found to be clear-cut violation. I hope this sounds ok. That pesky wolf from Kings Quest I (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore this valid article about a National Register-listed place which I created. You deleted it without notice and without explanation. doncram (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I since found that you had moved it, although i don't understand why it shows as deleted but then also shows me as having started the other article. I moved it back. Please don't edit war, let's discuss this in a contested move if you wish to have it moved again (please use the wp:RM) process. I am sorry, but I take offense at your deleting the article which is the only message i got in my watchlist, and that you did not give me any notice. Also, the official name of the site is "Painted Rocks" in the National Register system. Sure, there may be a different official name in the BLM, but it is not necessarily better, and there is no reason to delete even a redirect from the official National Register name for the place. doncram (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The BLM maintain the site, therefore it is the official name of the location. There is no sensible reason to force a parenthetical qualifier on an article that has no need for one. You reverted my move to begin with; it should be you bringing it up at RM if you are unhappy with the result. I am absolutely confident that my version would be upheld at a review. Shereth22:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I take offense at your style. I think it is a minor abuse of the Administrator tools for you to force your way in an edit war like this. I created it, you perhaps boldly moved it, I reverted it, conveying that the move from the default is contested by me. At that point it is your job to stop and discuss. I do think it is abuse of the tools to force your way after that point. I ask you to move the article back to the original name, and then open the requested move if you like. doncram (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will not. The only reason you were able to revert the move is because I deleted the (unused and unlikely) redirect it left behind; it should have been you to take it up at RM prior to reverting me. Point fingers all you want, but you fired the first salvo in this back-and-forth. I have since refrained from moving the article any further. Shereth22:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no comment about the article name, but the deletion of the redirect was completely inappropriate. Please don't do it again. --NE212:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your note to my Talk page about our starting off on the wrong foot, which is a good way of putting it. I appreciate your edits to develop the related mainspace pages positively and to resolve mis-communications and misunderstandings elsewhere. I accept your apologies completely, thanks! I am sorry as well that things got out of hand, and hope my responses were not too heated. sincerely, doncram (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please userfy this for me per your close. I consider the opinions of the knowledgeable editors to be of more value than those of the regulars like Treasury_Tag, whose contribution was only "delete per everyone". I therefore expect to be able to make something of this material. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For partisipating in my RFA. Even though it was a compelte and utter failure, I would like to thank you for the advice. I hope that I will be better for my next RFA. Thanks, Abce2|AccessDenied22:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-_Good_pic.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:SRPLogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
(which I think is yours) I don't see a locator dot. Furthermore, the Greenwater, Washington article says Greenwater is in Pierce County, so the file name seems unlikely. - Jmabel | Talk 19:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
