User talk:The wub/archive16

Archives

2005: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2006: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2007: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2008: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2009: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2010: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2011: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2012: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2013: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2014: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2015: J F M A M J J A S O N D

Happy Birthday

A bit early, and you'll probably read this late, but still:

Here's to you on your birthday, The wub/archive16! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Hope your exams worked out! --Anna512 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! They're not over yet though, only started today. In fact I have one tomorrow :-( the wub "?!" 18:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday!

File:Birthday.gif

On your day, I wish for you
Favorite people to embrace,
Loving smiles and caring looks
That earthly gifts cannot replace.

I wish you fine and simple pleasures.
I wish you many years of laughter.
I wish you all of life's best treasures.
I wish you happily ever after!

Happy birthday, dear Wub!
(and best of luck with your exam!)

Love,
Phaedriel
09:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Birthday.gif

Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee.

Arnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} 14:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day, The wub/archive16!

--Destructo^{Talk to me} 23:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break a leg!

Break a leg, sweetie! (not literally, of course!) We miss you over here, but exams are a must, so best of luck with it - we're keeping you a seat ;) Have a beautiful weekend! Love, Phaedriel - 18:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how did that exam go, Wub dear? I'm crossing fingers for you here... come back! Love you, Phaedriel - 05:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, it was okay. The good news is it's over, and I can get back to feeding my wiki-habit! the wub "?!" 09:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've got stuck back in very quickly. Now you're an admin again, so you can clear some more backlogs! Warofdreams talk 02:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canon William Lummis

Hi, Why did you remove the [hang on]tag from the above article? I want to contest the deletion as it has ben improved since whoever wrote the original article. Thanks Jack1956 12:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OOps! Sorry...didn't know that Jack1956 12:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, but seems you got the idea) If you want to contest the deletion you can do so at the Articles for deletion page. Discussion there normally lasts for 5 days. The {{hangon}} tag is only for contesting speedy deletions, which do not require a discussion first. Adding the tag causes it to incorrectly show up in the category for speedy deletion candidates. the wub "?!" 12:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Enescu

You removed the speedy tag so it's up on AfD now. I'm just letting you know in case you would like to discuss on the article's AfD page. --Javit 23:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. the wub "?!" 23:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:FGAndTheWienerIs.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XV (May 2007)

Project news

In the contest department, Kevin Myers and Climie.ca were the monthly leaders, with ten points each. Kevin Myers is the overall leader, with twenty points.
The subject-area contacts initiative is off to a good start, with several contacts having been named. Further exposure of this list is planned.
{{Infobox Military Cemetery}} and {{Infobox Military Memorial}} have been merged into a single infobox for both types of articles.

Current proposals and discussions

A discussion about military categories by nation has begun.
A discussion about military personnel categories by nation is ongoing.

Articles of note

New featured articles:

New A-Class articles:

Awards and honors

Kevin Myers has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on early modern warfare in North America, and, in particular, the creation of four featured articles on the topic.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Cabbage soup diet

I suppose that depends on one's definition of nonsense. --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 00:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patent nonsense is very specific about what it entails. That article certainly wasn't patent nonsense, and a quick google [1] turns up over a million results. the wub "?!" 00:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google is not my arbitrator for nonsense. If you don't believe living on a cabbage soup diet is utterly absurd, good luck to you my friend. --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 00:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if the concept is absurd. The article is perfectly intelligible, and therefore it is not patent nonsense. If you are tagging articles for speedy deletion, you should really make sure you understand the criteria. the wub "?!" 00:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do my friend. But such things will always remain patent nonsense to me. I'm told in the 1950s the "Watermelon diet" was all the rage. As popular as that was, I consider it utter nonsense as well. Ridiculous fads are not encyclopedic to me. --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 00:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You think that's stupid, check out breatharianism. Nevertheless it is Wikipedia's task to document things that have received attention, however ridiculous we find them. the wub "?!" 01:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But perhaps I should have given it a different tag. I grant you that. --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 01:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Cross

Kelly Cross would appear to have been authored by someone connected with him. That is why I tagged it {NPOV}. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomHumanoid (talk • contribs)

That doesn't make it POV. It only contains dry facts, so that's fair enough. the wub "?!" 01:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I give very little leeway with WP:Autobiography, particularly when the article had no citations.--User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 01:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It had a link to IMDB, which tells you what programmes and films he has been in. Which is all the article said. What more do you want? the wub "?!" 01:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are random links to external cites counted as references? --User:RandomHumanoid^(talk) 01:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For such a short article inline referencing would just be a pain. You can do it if you like though. the wub "?!" 01:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mars map

Many thanks for correcting the format, :) sbandrews (t) 16:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. These clickable maps are great, we should have more of them. the wub "?!" 18:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westwood College Reversion

Hello I was looking at Westwood Collge and trying doing a revert back to the your changes. It is not letting me do this. The reason I wish to go back to your version is because someone wrote a message about tightening up graphics as the title of the page. Can you please revert it back. Thank you.

Guy-next-last 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Guy-next-last[reply]

Done. the wub "?!" 23:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Windows Neptune

Hi. Could you possibly explain to me as delicately as possible why this image qualifies under fair use? I was told by a couple of admins that any image lifted from a website is strictly prohibited because when you click "upload file" in a red box Wikipedia specifically says "Do not upload images found on websites or on an image search engine. They will be deleted."

I would like to know why this image is exempted as soon as is possible. Thank you. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also says below that "For exceptions, see Wikipedia:Non-free content". In certain circumstances (at least on the English Wikipedia) it is allowable to use copyrighted material to illustrate articles where no free alternative is available. This is covered under the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law, although due to our mission our policy tends to be more restrictive than the law. Screenshots of non-free software do not have free alternatives, and may be allowable to illustrate articles e.g. Windows Neptune. In fact this is specifically mentioned under Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images - "Screenshots from software products: For critical commentary." That's why we have a template for such images {{Non-free software screenshot}}. Such images should also have specific rationale on their description page stating why their use in articles is allowable. In this case the image appears to meet all our conditions for non-free use, and therefore should not be deleted, certainly not speedily. I hope this clarifies things. the wub "?!" 22:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hilary Duff

Hello, I know the category was previously deleted but there is enough content in other articles for Hilary Duff to have her own category. I am kindly asking you if it's okay to re-created this category once more. Quasy Boy 16:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Which articles would fit in there, bearing in mind that we don't usually categorise films by performer? the wub "?!" 16:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, Hilary's fragrance "With Love... Hilary Duff", her clothing line, "Stuff by Hilary Duff" and her music DVD's: All Access Pass, The Girl Can Rock, Learning to Fly can be included in the category. QuasyBoy 1:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't really have a problem with that. I would just create it and see what happens. the wub "?!" 10:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm going to do it, again (crossing fingers). QuasyBoy 13:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! the wub "?!" 17:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are about to delete it again (getting frustrated). QuasyBoy 13:57 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Australian footballers

Wasn't the result was in favour of Australian footballers instead of Australian soccer players? Kingjeff 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It was pointed out that "Australian footballers" was more likely to be used for players of Australian rules football. the wub "?!" 20:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nice if there was some promotion or otherwise of the discussion to relevant places, such as the talk pages of affected articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia. The consensus reached in my opinion is inconsistent with the understandings seemingly reached in naming protocols amongst editors of the different football codes, such as seen here and here. I would urge a reopening of the discussion to enable a genuine debate. Blackmissionary 23:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can contact Kbdank71 who actually closed the discussion. the wub "?!" 10:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Houses in Scotland

I'm afraid I did not see that discussion and I wonder just how many of the regular contributors on Scotland saw it. I can't see any regular names that I know of. Could I just say how silly I think the new title of "Houses in Scotland" is and how utterly meaningless a phrase that is. You might direct me to the appropriate noticeboard whereby I can ask for this to be looked at again. Thanks. David Lauder 21:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask the closing admin, User:Kbdank71. the wub "?!" 21:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Llanerchaeron historical status

Hi there, W. I was surprised to see this National Trust mansion 'demoted' by you to a mere house. I visited there last month and was amazed by the 18th-19th century facilities and artefacts which have lain there untouched for many decades before being revived and placed on public view. So I have started to expand the stub at Llanerchaeron. Can I ask you to check out what is taking shape, and maybe undo your verdict? Or is there some categorisation principle of which I'm blissfully unaware? Cheers -- Aeronian 14:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a demotion at all, the same category change was made to all the historic houses in Wales, and is in the process of being done for other areas. It follows this discussion, where it was agreed that "historic" is a subjective judgement. We should only be including in Wikipedia houses which are notable in some way anyway. Thanks for your improvements to the article though! the wub "?!" 17:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, thanks! Aeronian 12:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPL party defunct

Hi, I'll defer to your opinion here, but the Non-Partisan League merged with the ND Democratic party and still carries equal billing in the party's title.

http://www.demnpl.com/

Does this qualify as defunct? TSauer 17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I would say so because the party itself no longer exists as an independent entity. Wikipedia convention seems to be that way as well e.g. the Liberal Party (UK) is in Category:Defunct political parties in the United Kingdom since it merged with the SDP to become the Liberal Democrats (UK). the wub "?!" 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Science fiction fans

Based on the arguments, I was just wondering why you chose no consensus instead of keep. Shsilver 12:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since a few people expressed a wish to delete, including some CfD regulars.
The category may need pruning, and I felt a "no consensus" may encourage people to do that, whereas a "keep" wouldn't.
As Robert A West said there may well be a better title for this, and I don't want to prejudice any future discussion.

the wub "?!" 12:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. While I agree with point 2, point 1 seems specious (since in any CfD at least some people will call for deletion) and point 3 seems like it is a completely different question. Shsilver 12:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]