Jump to content

User talk:WhisperToMe/Archive10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

commonscat

Good that you are including Wiki Commons categorisation, although perhaps you could rename them to "diplomatic missions" so that consulates, high commissions and other similar missions could be included? Kransky (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Please keep WP:N in mind. Offices of airlines that have minimal flight activity and minor presence in major airports are not economically notable. Companies that have small offices in central business districts or airline offices in small towns around major airports are not notable. HkCaGu (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"By extension" is going way too far. How many other notable companies are in Central, Hong Kong or Manhattan, New York? If IBM employs 20,000 people in Odessa, Texas, it is notable. A firm that occupied several floors in New York's WTC was notable. A small company office (no matter how big the company) is not. Learn your lesson on Guam and please review WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDE. And please, know what you know and know what you don't know--this principle has helped me here at Wikipedia to know when not to argue or get into a revert war and prevented me of getting too busy and turning into a robot. HkCaGu (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give you two more points: WP:RELEVANCE and WP:UNDUE. A street address alone already has to prove its relevance and how it is not GUIDE. (For example, you won't get an answer on Guam with a street address, but if you say "Post Office", everyone can point you there.) At airports, we can mention the check-in counters and the way they are named/labeled/lettered, but match that with individual airlines, that's GUIDE. It's relevant to mention the destinations, airlines and terminals because it's how you portray an airport. It is not relevant, however, to portray a city with the smallest office in town. Everybody comes to a small town or small neighborhood for visa for a certain country because the consulate is there--that's notable. But a listing of consulates in the articles for "San Francisco" is not--or be it embassies for DC--since they are expected to be there. And I can't see why WP:AVIATION has jurisdiction for airline offices. HkCaGu (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK let me explain. Airlines establish ticket offices in El Segundo but they are mostly city office for the Los Angeles metro area. Unlike McDonald's, airline employees will most likely not be from the immediate area. Therefore, airline offices aren't there to bring jobs to El Segundo residents, and they don't bring sales tax to the local government, and they don't bring significant lunch traffic to local restaurants--and therefore their rent alone has very little economical impact compared to most other businesses, especially big offices of big companies.
I can see a legitimate compromise by saying the airline industry as a whole has an impact in El Segundo. You can say something like "Due to the proximity to LAX, El Segundo is home to many airlines' ticket offices, including..." (Addresses aren't really necessary since they can easily be looked up, but sources/refs are fine.) I just can't accept the concept that a big company having a five-people office in a town of 15,000 is notable, or that a 100-people office in a busy central business district is notable.
The most important rule, as someone mentioned some time back, is whether your content in question has relevance in the article in question. We shouldn't robotically mention all ticket offices of all airlines in their locations' articles without considering their relevance. HkCaGu (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koreatown, Los Angeles, California

Dubai Public Library

I question the notability of this - are there other international public library systems in the database? Lucas20 (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, any outside of US/North America? Any where the primary language is not English? Should the Karachi Public Library System be included and all similar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas20 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]



AfD nomination of Jason Wong

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jason Wong, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Wong. Thank you. AnyPerson (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Am Flight 816

I cleared up an ambiguity around whether there was a survivor of this accident. There was indeed one passenger who survived according to the official French Air Accident Investigation Bureau (BEA). You may want to check the edits to make sure that they align with your understanding of the accident. Thank you. 68.146.236.43 (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Long

You mean the title is unreferenced? Yes, I think to classify Huang Long as Four Symbols is weird, too. It's all because the former title is Huang Long (mythology) and I want to avoid mythology being mentioned, I moved it to the present title. 百家姓之四 Matthew 討論 Discussion 08:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me. ^_^ 百家姓之四 Matthew 討論 Discussion 09:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

notable people in a community

Hi WhisperToMe, thanks for your diligent work tidying up articles. However, I don't agree with this edit which removes the list of notable people from Lake Oswego, Oregon. Your thoughtful edit summary The entire list should be independently cited; we can't use Wikipedia as a source. This is amiss since a) there's no likely way to cite the entire list; b) the required citation is indirect through the biographical articles; c) WikiProject Oregon guidelines require articles be present before an alleged notable person is added to such a list—which establishes notability (if the article survives)—and to document the person's association with a city, which likely will incorporate the expected cite. All the major cities of Oregon have such a section, except Portland which has a separate article, List of people from Portland, Oregon; there's also list of people from Oregon. Thanks, —EncMstr (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi WhisperToMe, I think as well that the link 'Notable Residents' in Hanover, Germany has to be back. All the references one can find directly in Wiki. If you are not agree with any name you should remove it with argumentation, but not remove the whole list. —Alevtina27 (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2009

Hi Alevtina (and also EncMstr) I found out he also did this with Gary, Indiana. It can't absolutely be that one user removes a lists carefully updated and enhanced for months with no discussion whatsoever. I have a feeling that user WhisperToMe wants to make his name immortal with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.66.1 (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pantego Christian Acadamy

I removed this from Pantego, Texas as explained on the talk page. By the way, as the school serves 12th graders and participates in TAPPS interscholastic athletics, it's very likely "notable" enough to warrant its own article or at least a stub. Are you drafting one or shall I put something together? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial business listings in Auckland City

Hi WhisperToMe, the Yellowpages directory lists 80 results for "Airline" in Auckland[1]. I've reverted the two you've added because these trivial mentions appear to be irrelevant in the Auckland City article. XLerate (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see you're adding to the list section, first look at the diff looked like a new section on the economy, giving the office of one small business. Maybe worth considering a new article List of companies in Auckland - the greater metropolis, not the City, as that may well change in the future[2]. XLerate (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poe Elementary School

Your revert on Memorial Drive Elementary is fine, I had missed the Blue Ribbon for it (though the Wikipedia exception for that seems arbitrary to me, it is the custom), however your justification of Poe's notability doesn't convince me. The Poe School Attack occured 50 years ago, and while it may have been a highly notable event back then, it isn't now. My son went to Poe for 3 years and I never heard of the shooting. I did not attend UT, but I know all about the clocktower shooting. My opinion is the separate article on the Poe shooting event covers that, and Poe be redirected to HISD. There may be a case to be made that Poe itself is notable for the shooting, but I think it should be decided by more than just you or me. I'll send this to AfD.Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point. The shooting event itself is definitely still notable, I'm just not sure that it makes the school notable, hence an AfD to determine this and establish a precedent one way or another.Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask a favor?

I've never nominated an article for deletion before, and I don't think I'm doing it right. You seem very experienced, you you look at what I've done and fix it? Thanks. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help. I kept getting an edit conflict note when I tried to follow the directions. I am going to need to really read up on how to do that before I attempt it again. Thanks again! Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is my comment to start off the discussion in the right place?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Poe_Elementary_School_(Houston) Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

My screw-up

I'm dreadfully sorry. I should have seen who it was that created the article in the first place. I didn't see that it was you. I'll restore it immediately. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you already did. I am really sorry about the mess-up. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. When I do rapid-fire NPP, I sometimes blow off good stuff by good users. I promise to avoid deleting any of your future stubs.  :) Seriously, thanks again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northline Mall

Could I ask a favor? If you have some time, would you help me finish this wikipedia page User:Yung dre 59/Northline Mall. I have tried looking for some sources, but i ain't really good at it. thank you. --DJ Yung Dre 04:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • thanks for the tips. i found some stuff i think it might go with the page. im also tring to get this pic from a blog[3]but i dont know the author or the date the picture was taken. I also started on Northline Commons wikipedia page.--DJ Yung Dre 04:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok. thanks for helping me out on the wiki page. --DJ Yung Dre 20:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Taipei Economic and cultural office in Guam - Where is it?

Oops, sorry, late reply. It is in Hagatna. The Bank of Guam building at 13.4749N 144.7547E is probably the tallest building in Hagatna. The street's full name is Chalan Santo Papa Juan Pablo Dos (Chamorro for "Holy Father John Paul II Street") but the USPS standard is "Chalan Santo Papa". The TECO functions internally as a consulate, but externally it isn't, since the US doesn't recognize the ROC. Visits from the ROC President or VP will get VIP security treatment (better than Palau/FSM/Marshall counterparts because these are common), but the TECO staff don't necessarily get treated as diplomats. By the way I just found some street maps at Census' website. HkCaGu (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan has diplomatic ties with RMI and Palau, but not FSM. The TECO head is equivalent to consul (and IIRC is employed by the ROC foreign ministry). You may want to find out who has jurisdiction over FSM--is it Guam TECO or Palau or RMI embassy? HkCaGu (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Know what? If you have the time and skill to doctor those Census maps, cut/paste/join and create some village specific maps to upload. As you see, the BOG building is right at the boundary of two maps, splitting Hagatna in halves. Anyway, the current maps will be good enough to compare satellite photos with street names, since nobody else (Google, Yahoo etc) seem to have Guam street maps. HkCaGu (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: grace mugabe

that image was there to document the day she attacked the Sunday Times photographer. No such free image can or ever will exist hence it actually being acceptable... Mangwanani (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richardson, TX

I would love help citing the Richardson article. But please stop deletions or their will not be much left to start with. Most of the people of the Notable Persons list can just be clicked on to find out their affiliation with the city of Richardson and references. But you are right, they need cites. I like how you moved the major company list. I appreciate the HELP. DrewLB20 (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HEY! YELLING! YA!!!! HA!!!!

SORRY, JUST BORED. I FELT LIKE YELLING TO YOU instead of whispering. Chergles (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove this and not put it in your archives. Chergles (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a photo request on your main page (User page). If you are so kind as to do it, you can post it on photobucket.com or here on your page, or upload it to WP and let me know the links or put it on my user page or user talk page. Thank you. Chergles (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I edited an article and then happened to see that you edited the same article today, too. It's the Manaus Aerotaxi crash in Brazil article. Funny how we crossed paths at almost the same time even though WP is a big place. Maybe it's because the article was on the main page. Whipering, again.... Chergles (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

No problem at all. Chicago since yeasterday has had a "touch of Spring"; its been 45-50 degree weather. I will take all of the pictures in a day or two.

Thank you for your understanding, Vseferović (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man

Hello. :) Since you have been involved in editing the article Spider-Man, I wanted to let you know that we have nominated the article for "Good Article" status. You can view the review page, and if there is anything you can do to make the article better, please do so. :) There are a number of concerns to be addressed and some work to be done, so pitch in if you are able, make any suggestions that you think might be helpful, or at least just be there for moral support. :) BOZ (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense of Bin Ashur

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Bin Ashur, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Bin Ashur provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Bin Ashur, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon?

Umm, I just went to Wikipedia to look something up, without signing in, and I noticed that you left a warning message about my IP, and about vandalism, because I had made an edit without taking the time to sign in. I had just corrected a spelling error in another entry. I don't really understand the purpose of your message, and I'm worried it's going to get me in trouble at my place of employment, merely for fixing a misspelling I get cited for "abuse." Explanation?? Bruxism (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Received your answer on my page. Yes, but why did you make the initial post about the IP then?Bruxism (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why and since when? I've been a Wikipedian for over 3 years, I regularly do not sign in when I correct typos and misspellings I happen to catch, and no one has ever warned me like this before. So you're an admin. I'm not writing from a Senate or corporate office, what's the big deal? Bruxism (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Northrup Grumman would be a corporate address. So? I'm at a university. You're still not explaining my main question, which is, What does it matter whether it's a group IP address or not?Bruxism (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karantina

Hey friend, i wonder how u knew Karantina :S

212.116.219.82 (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinnikuman (fictional character)

Someone moved Suguru Kinniku to this title. Since I lack the sysop powers, can you use yours to move the article to Kinnikuman (character)? I'm using Sailor Moon (character), Astro Boy (character) and InuYasha (character) as precedents. Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, why haven't you moved it to the simpler title yet? Just wondering. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanair fleet

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0203/breaking52.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.117.145 (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A penny for your thoughts

I noticed your edit and thought you might be interested in this topic. I'm trying to figure out what neighborhood category I should add to several images on Commons. The boundaries of Downtown, Penn Quarter, etc. are all rather confusing (and that's coming from a local). Gracias. APK ain't the baby daddy 17:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I just read your user page and noticed you're not a resident of DC. Sorry to bug ya. APK ain't the baby daddy 17:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You recently contacted me requesting sources for my contributions to Bossier Parish School Board article. I don't know how to insert references but, I have the link to the article if you would like to insert it. It's located here Click Me

Thanks --MyspaceMan12 (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, i was wondering if you would coach me to become an admin --MyspaceMan12 (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CLLI codes

After adding numerous inline citations and deleting the now-redundant External Links section, I removed the {inline} and {refimprove} tags that you placed on the article CLLI code on 1 February. Cheers, Mmccalpin (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Thanks for your help --MyspaceMan12 (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of The Manzai Comics

A tag has been placed on The Manzai Comics, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Atsuko Asano (writer)

A tag has been placed on Atsuko Asano (writer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Airline HQ Picture

Ok friend, i'll try but give me some more days, ok ?  A M M A R  23:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Texas A&M

Re:"And what if we have the guy who doesn't know where Texas is? Does this mean we can not mention other countries in other articles? French-related articles not saying "France"? Burkina Faso-related articles not saying "Burkina Faso"? Look, this is not America-pedia. This is a worldwide Wikipedia."

No one is saying that this isn't a worldwide encyclopedia. It certainly isn't America-pedia. That said, I've been lots of places in the world and every person I've met knows that Texas is in the United States. Almost all knew the basic shape of Texas. As I said earlier, a wikilink to Texas is available for anyone completely unfamiliar with the state and it's location/nationality. The reason not to include this information is that it clutters up the page. By the same logic, you could include Southern United States, North America, Northern Hemisphere, Western Hemisphere, etc. but that would be redundant. Please also realize that this is a featured article and it must meet all the Wikipedia standards including the MOS which states, "In general, do create links to: relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully...articles with relevant information...articles of geographic places that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers or that in the context may be confused with places that have a similar or identical name."

Adding United States doesn't help to understand the article more than linking to Texas already does (it mentions the location of the state and includes the a link to the University). — BQZip01 — talk 01:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then please check more than just the recent history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_A%26M_University&diff=prev&oldid=212864524

This is not the result of American-centric thought, but consensus with other editors and the FA process. This simply isn't necessary. If you wish to discuss it on the talk page, please do so and we'll see what we can establish as far as consensus goes. I'm a big fan of WP:BRD. Feel free to start a discussion on the talk page if what I have said here doesn't address your concerns. — BQZip01 — talk 01:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To state that it is an American university implies some sort of federal association. While it receives federal funding (as do almost all public institutions of higher learning in the US), it is run as an entity of the state of Texas. Aside from federal law, by which every person is bound in the US, it is a Texan university, if you want to be specific. Like I said, if you want to talk about this on the talk page, you are more than welcome to do so. If consensus shows I am wrong, you are welcome to change it. If it shows the other way, I would expect it to stay the same. — BQZip01 — talk 01:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megatokyo

Just as an FYI, I have nominated Megatokyo to be the Today's Featured Article here. :) BOZ (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:AlisonDesForges.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:AlisonDesForges.jpg. 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) 05:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merged articles

Looks like several Houston neighborhood articles were merged today into List of Houston neighborhoods. I don't see any discussion about the merge or consensus to do this, were you aware of this? Postoak (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source tagging for Wai khru

Hi. You recently tagged the Wai khru article with a liberal dose of {{refimprove}} and {{fact}} templates, placing the latter on every single paragraph of subsections 2.1 and 2.2. These subsections are already served by the references cited at the end of the last paragraph of each respective subsection. Wouldn't it be rather pointless to inline-cite every single paragraph to the same single reference? How would you recommend the citations be formatted instead? --Paul_012 (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie in Watchmen script

It's irrelevant since that script was never filmed. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the script, but it was not published and it was not filmed. Events depicted in it are not necessary to note in character sections. As the script filmed by Zack Snyder is the final product, past versions are unimportant. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Early drafts of the film script are not the subject of the article; the character is, primarily how she appears in the comic itself, not the film. Details about early incarnations of the film would belong in the film article, but even then this would not be worth mentioning. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scripts aren't published, they are filmed. Scripts aren't intended to to be published, since the whole purpose is to act as a guideline for filming. Sometimes they are published in book form after a film has been released (as has happened with the Star Wars films). But no, the script hasn't been published; it's been leaked online. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are really placing too much importance on differences depicted in an unfilmed script. This is giving undue weight to a minor item. You need to consider the subject as a whole. Just because a film site reviews an unfilmed script does not make it notable. Find sources that explain why this proposed change in the character is notable, and then you might have something. Most importantly: DON'T simply link to a site featuring this early script of the film. This is a copyright violation and those sorts of things must be removed without question. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove any links to full scripts you see on Wikipedia, unless the film is in the public domain. Even unproduced scripts are under copyright by the studio that commissioned them. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mother 3

The fan translation IS mentioned in sources. Please read the sources and the discussions related to the fan translation. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Refimprove

you:

Hi! I saw this edit, which you made on January 27 of this year: [4]

"It's a stub, dummy!" is not an acceptable reason to comment out a tag. Every article, including stubs, needs references. Generally each paragraph needs a ref. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In whose opinion... somebody change the rules on endless editing, AGF, or IAR when I wasn't looking??? Last I looked any editor acting in good faith can make a reversing editorial decision on any given day... Use of that template on a stub is downright foolish.

1) I don't play the liberal PC game, so be sensible, not fashionable... It was a dumb unnecessary tagging. Point, Set, Match. Actually, that tag and it's friends really doesn't have a lot of utility these days... three years back when cites first became possible, maybe... just barely... but the fact tag works much better, as it requires the LAZY IDIOT faking making a contribution (I see no reason to assist such people in their self-delusions) to actually think about where to put it, and if they're a good editor, they will specifically embed a comment in the template saying what needs supported or what they find questionable, etc.
  • AGF SEEMS to be totally unknown to the current crop of replacement editors (At this point, I'm weary of finding out which other long term editor has left the project, so it's almost always some young school kid replacement sans seasoning with an over large ego.)
2) How foolish are you? You some kind of kid wedded blindly to rules and without enough experience to make judgments as to when they apply? Or were you commenting on my blatant obvious come down (in which case, see "1")
3) If you're that raw and naive and resent it for being or resembling you, go screw up some other wiki, we have enough fuckups here. Stubs don't generally even get categorized, save by the stub type... they are TO DO lists. Placeholders. Beginnings. Asking for cites when someone is outlining a topic is ridiculous at best... not really even that excusable.
4) Then consider... IN YOUR FACE TAGS OF ANY KIND are and always have been controversial here. SO STOP BLINDLY HANGING PAPER AND fooling yourself that it's a contribution of the least kind. Hanging one's a detriment, a step backwards that makes us look like fools to the outside world of users... You know, our readers for whom the project exists?
5) If something needs references stand up on two legs and be an editor... it's educational to run down new information, and you can cure that little gripe you have on cites... and impress some with the fact you actually added some, instead of whined like a four year old screaming for ice cream. I do on average 10 or more of those a week just checking links... try to copy that and you'll have less reasons to feel proud of yourself for hanging trash. // FrankB 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to answer // FrankB 13:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On your last

Are you trolling???

Seems like it...

IN my humble opinion you are a sanctimonious asshole. What part of anything I've said to you made you think your picayune trivialities were anything I wanted to hear about from you. YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY WITH ME. YOU CONTINUE TO PUSH OVER A TRIVIALITY... GET A FUCKING LIFE! What are you... some kind of kid that has no real world experience? OR an academic used to pushing students around? You and I have differing ways of looking at things. LET THAT SAY IT ALL. Your perceptions are not my reality, nor are they even yours.

ON The last edit: (from the diff)

":::: I looked at this diff. [5] - First "You can't read too good" is a personal attack... and it's a false one. The message "Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found" is a system message stating that refs exist and that there needs to be a </references> listing of them. But {{refimprove}} says there are not enough references for the material. The system message doesn't negate the refimprove. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

My comment had nothing to do with the reference list... Look at the edit page I linked with the full url... that state of the article. (See tom Run. See Sally laugh!) LOOK AT THE FUCKING STUB TAG DUM DUM... YOU CLAIMED IT WAS NOT A STUB ARTICLE... I say that's enough for WP:V. NOW kindly drop dead and stay away from my talk. // FrankB 04:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: First "You can't read too good" is a personal attack... NO IT'S A BLATANT OBSERVATION. That stub tag is in the record and will be forever more. How's an observation of fact an attack? YOU'RE FUCKING GUILTY AS HELL OF PUSHING POV when you don't even understand distinctions, forsooth. // FrankB 04:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: ("and graduated in May 2007".) I shoulda known... only a fucking kid could be this asinine. Kindly get a life and back your self-righteousness down about five-to-seven decibels... you're far too raw and unfinished still yourself to be pro-offering unsolicited advice to someone any older than ... say, late junior high. As someone who could have been your father in nearly three different decades, you're a joke. Most people aren't fully human until they reach their mid-thirties... you've still a long large climb ahead, so humble yourself. Your lack of skill dealing with people is telling. (Hint. Experienced people with their shit together would have never started this discussion. THEY CERTAINLY wouldn't have tried to continue it when rebuffed. etc., increase magnitude with each exchange exponentially!) As a self-styled computer wiz, try to remember what an exponent is. // FrankB 04:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Blue ribbon schools

Hi, Alanbly. When a school wins a National Blue Ribbon award it is notable. We've had AFDs fail simply because the school won the Blue Ribbon. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming you mean Smith Elementary School (Austin, Texas), A blue ribbon is Notable enough for mention somewhere yes. I don't advocate deletion but what's there could be completely incorporated in the Education section of the Austin texas article or in a larger article with more information about all of the Blue ribbon schools in Texas or any of a hundred other places. As it is it has one sentence of notable content with no more than a statement and a citation proving it received the award. That fact alone does not warrant an article, only inclusion. Adam McCormick (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly live in two different wiki's

Tags have been encouraged by some, but have ALWAYS been controversial to others. I'm one of those. Just because some people outlast the others in various fora here doesn't mean the controversy has gone away. The way we decide guidelines sucks and always has as well. Need a quorum at the least, not the process where those who win their way do so by having worn down those too busy to keep up with the discussion that goes on forever. So let's cut to the chase. You don't like it, or my decisions, too bad. I don't care for jumped up know-it-alls telling me anything. I've told Jimbo off, I've told judges I held them and their court in contempt, I've ridiculed cops when they were acting out and unprofessionally, and I've dragged bigots out of their front door by the throat when they called my tenants a nigger so I'll be damned if I'll let you or anyone else dictate what I can and cannot say or how.

Further, NOBODY RESPECTS LAWYERS (In their right mind), so don't get legalistic on me. I'd sooner live next to a thirty-times serial killing axe murderer. I care about wasted time. MINE. Not interested in making friends here... they've all left. Making more just brings more likely pain. Kapish? I'm civil enough most of the time. When I'm not it's an adult decision made under a different value system than the liberal garbage you're advocating. Private rights trump the constitution... not in my world view. That kind of thought'll draw a death sentence in much of the real America, so you be sure to stay out of those places. Not interested in your theories of constitution vs. websites, I'll speak frankly when I JUDGE it necessary. When and if someone is acting silly, costing others on the project time, some small percentage of the time, I'll do something like the edit you're bitching about to make their foolishness known. I didn't seek out and confront anyone... again that would be you. Why don't you take a wikibreak and consider how hostile an action that is. Almost as bad as a revert... but do others share both your values and your perceptions? Chances are not so. THAT's the bottom line. You don't like it... tough. Feel free to block me whenever... it'd likely be a favor as I neglect my business to do anything here. And do far too much of it. Got it? // FrankB 03:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

May I ask why you tagged Government of Hong Kong so excessively even though it has 4 references? Do you have plans to also tag Government of the People's Republic of China, Government of the Republic of China, Government of Macau with 25 tags per page? I find it really strange. I'll revert it for now. Benjwong (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you forgot to tag Government of the Republic of China. Benjwong (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Historical Commission marker text

You removed THC marker text from Dewitt C. Greer State Highway Building (and possibly others, I haven't checked) due to a possible copyright violation. There is no violation. Please see http://www.thc.state.tx.us/policies/polcopyright.shtml - "Permission to copy, distribute or use in whole or part for any non-commercial purpose without fee is hereby granted provided that the information (files, documents or photographs) is credited to the THC."

Gilbert Green listed at RfD

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gilbert Green. Since you had some involvement with the Gilbert Green redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ferengi (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section tagging

Please refrain from making edits like this. If an article is unreferenced, there is no need to leave it in every section, just leave it at the top. Thanks, — neuro(talk) 03:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's common sense. If the whole article is the issue, there is absolutely no need to tag all of the sections. — neuro(talk)(review) 22:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If people want to read articles, they don't want maint tags all over the place hindering their reading. People can see a tag at the top of the article just fine - the only people who are going to go to a page through section links are those of us wanting to do maint or look at an issue in the first place, and even then it will stay at the top until the id is loaded. — neuro(talk)(review) 22:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:German IMDB title

Template:German IMDB title has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Moe Kare!!

I have nominated Moe Kare!!, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moe Kare!!. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Winnenden school shooting (Albertville-Realschule)

I have nominated Winnenden school shooting (Albertville-Realschule) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Tavix (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Dallas7.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dallas7.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Dallas Pub Libr

I have nominated Dallas Pub Libr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 03:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Carol Karlsson

I have nominated Carol Karlsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Tavix (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic missions of Russia

It has been about six months since Russavia's proposed new bold format was developed, using a table, smaller pictures, names of heads of missions and cross accreditations. We did not come to any consensus about using it - but it was a good opportunity to see how it would look. May I also add we were worn down by Russavia's persistence that his design stay, that we redo the taxonomy of the DMBC articles ("by sending state", "by receiving state"), and we allow all those articles of Russian missions (and missions to Russia) to exist, even if they just consist of the name of the ambassador and its address.

I am still not convinced that the design of Russavia's format is an improvement on the existing design, or that these articles are the right place to list heads of missions or accreditations. I have not seen any significant endorsement of his new format, nor anybody stating they wanted to make wholesale changes to all articles.

Please note what the Arbitration Committee states about MoS conflicts:

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that the Manual of Style is not binding, that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.

Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

As the first major contributor of this article I intend now to revert the article back to its original style, including any subsequent updates.

Please add your views in the talk page of Diplomatic missions of Russia.

Kransky (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Atlanta

Hey, I got a question for you- I saw notice about the tone of 'Places of Interest' section of the Downtown Atlanta article. Please indicate ways to improve this section without removing many details that were provided. Thanks.

DukeArcTerex (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)DukeArcTerex[reply]

Now that I look at the article, the way I wrote it does sound like a travel guide. I look forward to the article being improved. Thanks for your help bro.

DukeArcTerex (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)DukeArcTerex[reply]

I've read through the list that you provided on the Downtown Atlanta talk page. Number 3 on the list- this was done for most of the buildings that were listed in this section. When I wrote the article, I cited a source especially when I'm using a figure such as the amount of seating a facility has, for example. In some of the listings, such as Turner Field, I list the address at the end and the address is on the website (so I'm using the same source for the seating information of the facility as well as the address of the facility since they're coming from the same website.) I hope that makes some sense.

For the fourth point, I'm guessing that I will need to make an introductory paragraph and then get into describing each of the buildings.

Let me know if I'm missing anything. Thanks.

DukeArcTerex (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)DukeArcTerex[reply]

Miguel Contreras Learning Complex


Speedy deletion of "Airfrance.cf"

A page you created, Airfrance.cf, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it redirects from an implausible misspelling.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Nz26 | Talk | Contribs 07:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galveston Co. Courthouse Photo

Just FYI, re: GalvestonCountyCourthouseformer.JPG[6]: the building is still in use (and in fact was just completely renovated prior to Ike) and serves as the Administrative Courthouse, housing the Commissioners Court, tax office, human resources, auditor etc..etc --Nsaum75 (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Airlines Flight 261

I have noticed that all the passengers on Alaska Airlines Flight 261 have a redirect to the article. As this something we wouldnt normally do just checking is it something to do with the 419 scam ? Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, why did you remove the external links to the individual schools in the Alvin ISD page? Redjacket3827 (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (keeping external link at bottom of the page). Any other suggestions? Redjacket3827 (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Houston neighborhoods

Hello, WhisperToMe. You have new messages at Karanacs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
PLEASE STOP making changes to these neighborhood articles until we've had the discussion that you started on my talk page. Some of what you are undoing (such as Denver Harbor) had not independent reliable sources and thus don't meet notability guidelines. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosharon Texas Article

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

Hi! I removed the neighboring cities link from Rosharon as I didn't think it was necessary. And the "City of Rosharon" Link isn't official, so I don't think it should be included. As for the post office please leave the citation in there. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well that link was something I found off of google and im not going to remover the citation and thanks for contributing to the Rosharon,Texas article really appreciated it. Txtrooper (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and if it would be possible could you get a picture of the actual town site. Txtrooper (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Map Bangkok MKL1888 kl.png

File:Map Bangkok MKL1888 kl.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Karte Bangkok MKL1888 kl.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Karte Bangkok MKL1888 kl.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of June Kane

I have nominated June Kane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Tavix :  Chat  02:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starcraft

Hi, I replied on my talk page, because I like to keep discussions in one place, for readability's sake. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Satomi Hanamura

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Satomi Hanamura, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Not notable

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Kevin (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Dimas

Before you get up on your high horse, assume bad faith and tell another user both what to do and what he or she does or doesn't know on no evidence (and with the expectation they're psychic), how about writing an edit summary that makes clear why you deleted a list? Absent any edit summary, your edit to the San Dimas page looked for all the world like vandalism by SDHS kids, something the page has had trouble with at times. As such, my revert was perfectly reasonable. Your change merited a polite explanation on my talk page, not a rather rude "notification" of what to do. Clean up your own house before you start telling anyone how to clean theirs: WP:ES. Drmargi (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watchmen modules

I would advise against citing the modules themselves to improve articles because they are are primary fictional sources. Always rely on out-of-universe fictional sources, such as scholarly books or articles that discuss Watchmen. Also, that link you provided is not considered a reliable source. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself "Does an out-of universe secondary source discuss this particular story fact?" If it doesn't it probably doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. For example, we discuss the fact that Dr. Manhattan is blue because the creators stated it was a purposeful color choice, or we discuss that Alan Moore chose to name Rorschach "Walter Kovacs" because he stated in an interview that he wanted a character name that recalled the work of Steve Ditko. For most of the story's bit characters, their character details are world-building: they give depth to the story, but aren't notable in of themselves. Basically apply that rule of thumb to any bit of character info you want to include, and that'll help you decide whether or not it's necessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not every character needs to be detailed. Aside from the main characters, there's only a few notable enough to discuss. We don't need to provide aliases, backgrounds, etc., because those aren't notable enough to mention. We're not here to create a character guide. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The identity of Hooded Justice is a minor item in the story, and is not really discussed by secondary sources. Secondary sources will help you gain perspective on the source material, and while help indicate what is worth devoting space to. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By focusing on primary sources with fiction articles, you run into some unique problems. As the primary sources are fictional stories/in-universe descriptions, you run into problems that concern relying too much on in-universe context (because, after all, none of this is real) and possibly running into copyright violations (if you are duplicating information that is found in a story without any real-world context, this can constitute copyright infringement if you're not careful, as you are providing the same information that that work of fiction is supposed to provide as a means of generating profit). That's why it always best to predominantly rely on secondary sources. Because information about fictional characters without that context means you're just telling people what happens in a story or a series of stories, which is bad writing, doesn't give people a context based in reality, and can infringe on the intellectual property. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal

You removed the seperate shooter article for the bing.. incident, but it is no big deal to me, which is why that isn't on the article page, I initially did it because of previous precedents on wikipedia such as virginia tech. I'm not mad at you ZStoler (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:ManausAerotaxi.gif)

⚠
⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Tuninterlogo.gif)

⚠
⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:MusyaEnglishScreenshot01.PNG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MusyaEnglishScreenshot01.PNG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 23:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamtramck, Michigan

Deleting all the "unreferenced" but wiki linked names from the article was akin to using 'a shotgun to kill a flea.' There were many less drastic ways of handling this and getting the result you want. A banner, or even a note in the text or in the discussion were two of many alterantives. Being from elsewhere, I don't expect that you would have any knowledge about Hamtramck -- the linked people have Hamtramck connections (local knowledge is sometimes a useful resource in deciding the best course) -- but perhaps I'm wrong. In the future, you might try to 'whisper to me' and not SHOUT. Just a gentle suggestion. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

I know about WP:bio. I was not questioning what you did, only how you did it. There are 'many ways to skin a cat.' I was suggesting a more light-handed touch, coupled with some small amount of patience.
As to the specifics in the article, we have a coterie of editors that regularly monitor it. If B.S. gets pushed in, it gets pushed out very quickly. One of the things I have learned (in the limited areas I deal with regularly -- lighthouses, Michigan geography and history, United States Supreme Court and related articles) -- is that one should trust the interested editors, particularly when they have demonstrated their diligence over a period of time.
An overreaction, no matter how well intended and even justified, sometimes can be mistaken for 'officious intermeddling'.'
FWIW, I did not create those lists, and I can and do reference everything I put in. I know how to do all the things necessary to rectify the problem. Indeed, I will do that in due course.
I also recognize that you have a different view of the world from your end of the telescope. That being said, I would gently suggest that you might think about those of us working in the "micro" wiki world, and let us address problems as they are (gently) pointed out.
Good luck to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I will help on this article. Happy to do it. But it will be a couple of weeks. Real life is calling. Best to you. Keep up the good work! 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Bocca di Falco Airport

Hello there, since you have created the page, just checking with you if you are happy to move Bocca di Falco Airport to Palermo-Boccadifalco Airport (name used in the other languages). The name Boccadifalco is only one word even if is made out of tree individual.--Sal73x (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I guessed that you used the material to you available. Feel free to add or correct my grammar ;). Thanks!--Sal73x (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjwong and tags

Hello. I just informed User talk:Benjwong about his blanket removal of issue tags,[7] but now I see from his older comments that he was already fully warned about the topic, at the very least from you (11 March 2009). If you eventually consider RFC or such, you can give me a whistle. Regards, — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 11:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Actually he went on removing them until the page was protected... (permalink to post-discussion ANI). — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 06:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Boston

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

Boston Public Library

Note that the end of the paragraph you edited states "According to the American Library Association, the Boston Public Library, with over 15 million book volumes, is the third-largest library in the United States after the Library of Congress and the Harvard University library system.[1]" It is therefore correct to say that the BPL is the largest municipal library system in the USA. Right? --Boston (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles County Arboretum and Botanic Garden

Orphaned non-free media (File:VGCatsAnimatedLogo.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:VGCatsAnimatedLogo.JPG. 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) 05:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicking on Nitpicking

To be fair, if an article uses one spelling of a word in one sentence and another spelling of the word in another sentence, it shows that the editing is clumsy. When that happens multiple times in the same article, well...I don't even want to go there. Way to look at the History page of an article that you haven't edited since October of last year.--76.116.23.153 (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that I only looked at this again because I've been involved in Wikipedia drama before and I know how uppity some editors are about their regulations while ignoring the big picture. What I'm saying is that I think it's odd that a person would take the time to look at the History page of an article without having done anything to the article itself for nigh on 6 or seven months. So I feel 100% justified in telling you exactly what I and a few others think of you: Smacker. End of story. But, you're right. A more concise summary would have said "Corrected inappropriate use of British English in an American-English article." That totally uses fewer words! =D I will not be checking again, so if you feel driven to have the last word, please go right ahead. Nobody at this IP address is going to care.--76.116.23.153 (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/hqops/library/libraryfactsheet/alalibraryfactsheet22.cfm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhisperToMe/Archive10&oldid=1173079265"