User talk:Calbear22

Welcome

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks very much for your contribution to Steven Weber (professor), and I hope you like it here and stick around. Looks like the article could still use some editing and cleaning up to make it a proper Wikipedia entry (I have placed a a "clean-up" tag at the top). Before you start doing a lot of editing, you might want to take the Tutorial. It gives a lot of basic info you'll want to get you oriented on Wikipedia. My personal user page also has a list of Wikipedia guidelines I have found useful in creating new articles, and you are welcome to browse them.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using three tildes (" ~~~ ") for your username and four (" ~~~~ ") for your username and a timestamp.

If you have any other questions about Wikipedia, check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Help desk. You can also drop me a question on my talk page any time!

Happy editing! — TheKMan^talk 05:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:CIMG1640.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:CIMG1640.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Population sign on Dolan Road.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you uploaded the same image twice: as Image:Population sign on Dolan Road.JPG and also as Image:CIMG1640.JPG. The latter copy of the file has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 22:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:CIMG1633.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:CIMG1633.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. 23:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Elkhorn_Elementary.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Elkhorn_Elementary.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. 07:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Berkeley Bowl

A tag has been placed on Berkeley Bowl, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Philippe 04:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldunc vandal

User:Geraldunc does not understand the rules governing Wikipedia concerning sourced information and vandalism. He has repeatedly vandalized the Don Perata article. The user deleted information that was provided by other contributors and sources and replaced that information with an unsourced argument (revisions on 07:27, 24 July 2007 and 07:34, 24 July 2007). On July 29, 2007, I removed the unsourced information and posted an explanation on the Don Perata talk page and on the user's talk page. Garaldunc proceeded to again remove sourced information and sources from the article and replaced the information with unsourced material (05:25, 7 August 2007, 05:36, 7 August 2007, 05:37, 7 August 2007). I tagged Garaldunc's changes as vandalism and reverted the page back to its previous version (05:46, 8 August 2007, 05:48, 8 August 2007, 05:48, 8 August 2007). I explained my actions on the Don Perata talk page (17:53, 8 August 2007) and warned Geraldunc on his talk page (06:01, 8 August 2007). Then, Geraldunc again vandalized the Don Perata article (21:48, 8 August 2007). He used information I provided on my User page to find my personal email address (which is not listed on my user profile). He sent me the following threatening email:

"YOU are the one who is printing unsubstantiated "storis. EBE has repeatedly printed unverified, undocumented, non-sourced crap about Perata and I have to assume by continuing this crap YOU are part of Bobbie's world - his boyfriend perhaps. The most recent story - about Perata's "lavish lifestyle" is so misleading it is basically a lie - for you college boys, that's called "Libel" in legal circles. Are you two so stupid you don't realize the expenditures listed were for FUNDRAISERS??? I notice in listing those thousand dollar dinners, nowhere in there did Bobbie Gagmee point out there were, for example, dozens of people dining - most of whom paid for the evening. Obviously you have never run a successful non-profit and held a fundraiser. Obviously you have never run a successful political campaign. It takes money, it takes events, it takes relationships.

So if YOU continue to fuck with the Perata Wikipedia listing, I'll not only have you banned, I'll have you sued. Thanks for giving me your real name. Nothing that I put in that post was UNTRUE - Bobbie has a history of writing slanted stories about Perata. That is TRUE and verifiable. Bobbie has never listed a single named source for his allegations against Perata - that is TRUE and verifiable. Bobbie has thrown Perata's name into any story about any Eastbay political figure even if it meant reaching back to Perata having met the person 10 years ago - that is TRUE and it's verifiable. You have NOTHING verified, yours is simply a repeat of insinuations. But enough about Perata. I think it's time to post Wikis on you and your boyfriend.

You poor pathetic little nobody. God, it gets old having to hear from losers like you who have nothing beside their name except blog credits and the fact they're still in school and living with their mommies."

I admit that the East Bay Express isn't the SF Chronicle. Some of his arguments might be valid but without verification of those arguments and combined with the vandalism of his actions in general (deleting sources, sources information, etc.) this user needs to be blocked. Although the user needs to be blocked and was very disrespectful to me, I will try to address his criticism.

3RR

I hate to do this, especially because you're posting about it in ANI, but you violated the three-revert rule on Don Perata, which of course states that users are allowed no more than three reverts in a 24-hour period, except for vandalism. Just be more careful, okay? Sorry to be annoying. GlassCobra 05:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:HancockfromCaliforniaprogressreport.com .jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HancockfromCaliforniaprogressreport.com .jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Perata-New-session.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Perata-New-session.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Captain Davis image

The image may not be replaceable, but it also has no fair use tag or rationale, so it has been deleted anyway. If you reupload it, be sure to supply the appropriate fair use tag and rationale. --Core desat 05:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same with Image:Davis signs carbon emmissions bill.JPG, Image:Deportes-20021016-01.jpg, and Image:Fran Pavley.JPG. They need fair use rationales, though I deleted the first one since that one is unnecessary. --Core desat 05:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Skip-Bo.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Skip-Bo.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Walters talk

Hi Joseph, I wasn't sure where to insert this, so please forgive me, as I need to be further educated on communication technique on Wikipedia.

Hi Joseph (calbear22). I don't suppose your boss/member was/is Asm. Hector De La Torre, is he? You're rewriting of the Mimi Walters article is MUCH improved, but, while you take issue with the previous language as biased (I concede that it was), you cannot claim that the phrase "to restrict use of eminent domain by California local governments" is not equally biased.

Please look at it from this point of view: While the Constitution allowed for eminent domain in cases where "public use" such as building a school, road, bridge or some other form of public infrastructure, the purpose of increasing government revenues is not a public use, it is the use of the cudgel of eminent domain to take people's private land in order to give it to another private entity. This is corruption, political favors being repaid. Government's purpose is not to grant individuals their rights, its purpose is to protect our inherent, or as the Declaration terms it, unalienable rights. One of the most fundamental of these rights is the right to own property. If government decides it wants a particular property owner over another, how is this protecting the rights of individuals (particularly against what is invariably a corporate entity)?

It seems that the public perception of Democrats protecting the little guy and Republicans defending the corporation has been turned on its head. Now, I believe that because many Democrats (as a rule) view the Constitution as a "living" document, one could rationalize that what was meant by its text in the 18th century, could be something completely different today. I argue that thinking like this is intellectually weak. The "living" portion of the Constitution does exist; it is called the Constitutional Amendment. However, the amount of change that can be effected by an Amendment is limited specifically by the scope of what is written in that Amendment (and that is assuming that the Amendment actually becomes part of the Constitution, which, as you know, does not happen very often).

There is no provision in the Constitution for changing attitudes or mores in future societies other than the Amendment process. It stretches credulity that in the United States one would actually NOT support the "restrict[ed] use of eminent domain by California local governments" in this context--unless a powerful interest group spends large sums of money to protect its own business interests, which are not consistent with the Constitution, and convinces voters that to support restricting local governments' ability to exercise eminent domain actually does the OPPOSITE (that is to curtail one's individual property rights), which is, of course, not true, but a deception to strike fear in the hearts of those who would otherwise support what effectively upholds the original intent of the Constitution, to protect the private property rights of Americans except in the narrowest of circumstances.

Thanks for your dedication to Wikipedia. I hope you take this mini-dissertation as an intellectual argument and not a personal attack.

Rocksavs 08:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply dated 12 October 2007

Thank you for your reply my friend. I think you might have misunderstood a small portion of my message to you regarding the definition of eminent domain (not the term itself), but I believe you understood my overall intent. I like the terms you substituted and I agree that to make them as balanced and unbiased as possible should be the ultimate goal, in order to make Wikipedia as credible a source as possible (I have heard Wikipedia disparaged from time-to-time on the radio and I think the remarks tend to refer to citations that have yet to be verified or completely discredited, unfortunately). Your effort at a neutral term (or terms) in this case is commendable and I thank you for seriously considering my comments and efforts at revising the Prop 90 info.

I also appreciate your patience with my self-training on Wikipedia. My goal is not so much to be a regular Wikipedia contributor, but just to focus on specific topics when I have the time (which is not often!!).

By the way, I think Asm. Feuer is a nice and decent man. I can't say that we agree all that often, but he definitely has the respect of this contrarian.

Best, Garth

Rocksavs 18:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Newsom

Are you familiar with this citing style? Wikipedia:Footnotes#Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once Pairadox (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't know. I made the needed changes. Thanks. User:calbear22 (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really thing the towing incident is notable, or just humorous? I mean, c'mon, it's SF - everybody get's towed eventually. Pairadox (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it is hardly notable. There is an once of irony since Newsom got his start on the Parking and Traffic Commission, you might be able to say something from that angle, but that's a stretch. It does add a touch of humor, which isn't that bad. Some articles have trivia sections, but that's discouraged strategy. You can move it around, remove it, or put it on the talk page for further discussion if you like.User:calbear22 (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not going to touch it. I personally found it funny. Even funnier would be finding out that he paid the full fine, City Tow lost his vehicle, found his vehicle, and damaged his vehicle, just like everyone else. Pairadox (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Forces Bowl

I've changed the licensing to accommodate Wikipedia. Feel free to use them. http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamrstone/sets/72157603592423158/ General125 (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using tv commentators's comments as sources

Hey. Is there any way you could find print sources for some of the edits you've made? Those are more verifiable than something Scott Hamilton or Dick Button mentioned on-air. Kolindigo (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Johnny Weir's article, I agree, it needs a ton of sources. My hat's off to you if you want to undertake the job of improving that article. :) Kolindigo (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Kwan

I appreciate that you're trying to contribute to Wikipedia, but the Michelle Kwan article is already longer than the recommended article size, and most of our effort on improving it recently has been in pruning and tightening it up rather than expanding it -- cutting out excessive trivia and details about other skaters, cleaning up the wording to be as concise as possible, etc. Your edits are not only undoing this, but also introducing factual errors. So, can you please lay off for now? There are many stub-class skater articles that you could expand and polish instead, that really need a lot of work compared to this one. Dr.frog (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diane and her .38

Check this out. Cheers. —Noah 03:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks for your help, I just thought i'd tell you though you made some minor mistakes though--Rockies 17^{Holla at Ya Boy!} 04:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gray Davis Files.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gray Davis Files.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. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

Thanks! Socal gal at heart (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Taralipinski.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Taralipinski.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 '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 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Obama GA

Thanks for the prompt review of Michelle Obama. I am not sure how you would like the phrase "always respects each other's advice" reworded, but feel free to tinker. I am researching some of the other subjects you said should be added. The only thing that I could find worth adding from IMDB was info about their first date.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NY Senate 2000 GA

Thanks very much for your review of United States Senate election in New York, 2000. The requested citations have now been added. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, the editing you did yourself, and the GA! Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully but strongly disagree with the "NPOV" edits you are making to the article; I think they are draining the life from it. I would request that you change your GA "pass" to "fail" for the article, expressing your concerns on the talk page. You don't have to delist the article, because as it happens you never properly listed it in the first place (it's not shown at WP:GA, there are a couple of "pass" steps that you missed). I put a lot of work into this article, I would like a chance to advocate for it, and make changes as necessary to it, staying within my original vision. I care a lot more about how this article reads than I do about the GA. No hard feelings at all — I mean that — these things happen. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2008

Every thing you addressed to be fixed has been fixed. Please look over it again and give it another GA review. Thank you.--S TX 21:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some "words to avoid". If there are some I forgot or if there is any other problem please let me know. Otherwise, I think its ready. --S TX 00:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I renominated it. Thank you for your very thorough review. It is greatly appreciated. --S TX 04:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor Tom Bates

Thank-you for pointing out the obvious to me. I did not remove the citation in the second edit. I merely made it clear who the reference was. I wish to make sure every reader understands the sole source of this information. We can go back and forth on editing. In the end, we waste each others time. I will continue to edit the article as I see fit to make it clear. If you wish to keep taking away clarity, so be it. This is the wiki system. I urge you to reconsider or find a second source for the information. That would settle everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.206.144 (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion project

Your request for a third opinion has been edited to comply with Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute. If your entry as originally worded contained information vital to an understanding of the dispute, please add those details to the article talk page where the dispute exists. Thanks. — Athaenara ✉ 07:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bates Third Opinion

Hi Calbear22. What is the issue here? SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 16:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I've left my opinion on the talkpage. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 16:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Campbell Mitchell GAC

Joe. You appear to have inserted an "On Hold" tag below the article's name in the GA candidates' list, with a reference to your comments being on the talk page. Which talk page?. I cannot see your comments anywhere. Where are they?. So sorry if I am missing something obvious. Izzy (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Texas Longhorn football team

Thank you very much! I took a quick look at the Cal Bears article. It looks very good at first glance. I fixed a small reference format issue. I suspect this could make GA, although I did not go through it in detail.

I'm pretty happy with the structure of the 2007 UT article as it stands (all one article), but I know some people prefer shorter articles. I don't mind splitting off sub-articles, except that I sometimes have to waste time keeping them from getting deleted, such as I had to do with 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game. After the AfD it made GA on its own.

There is no 2007 Arkansas State Indians football team so I suppose I could create that article to split off info, but I don't want to write a full-blown season article with schedule and roster and all that. I'll hold off for now and see what suggestions come in. Johntex\^talk 22:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rickey Henderson

There have been a few responses on the talk page you might want to see. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments there. I responded to it on the talk page. jj137 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging replaceable fair use images

Please use {{subst:rfu}} instead of {{db}} and inform the uploader with {{di-replaceable fair use-notice}} (rfu automatically generates a notice code you can cut and paste on the uploader's talkpage). Thank you, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

earthquake

bear with me. I am putting it into the new category 1980-1991. Hmains (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Current California State Senators

Category:Current California State Senators, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bates

I've arranged some protection which should allow you to concentrate on building the article rather than fighting a trivial battle. As always, if you have any problems, let me know. Regards SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 08:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rickey Henderson GA

Please see the reply. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Here you are. Now it has close to 90 references. I removed much of the opinion statements. It looks like its ready for a pass? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to fix that. However, it seems you are asking for FA criteria rather that GA criteria. Can you please see the GA criteria one more time? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does it look now? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed as much as possible... I'm guessing you have more suggestions. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a minor minor dispute going on. The section states the facts clear. I don't think it needs to be expanded. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done with everything - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed as many opinions as possible. The list looks fine to me. There is no need. I'm going to start on the citations, although that is a FA criteria.- Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out the "few more suggestions?" I'm done with the citations, but I can't find ANYTHING in the GA review, that I have not done........ - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks nice now. Is there anything else? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please point it out. The layout seems to be fixed, as are refs, and lead. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page

for my reply. -Pete (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SummerSlam (1994)

Hi, thank you for your comments about this article. I have responded on the article's talk page to explain why the article looks as it does. I am open to feedback, but I am also trying to adhere to MoS guidelines as well as specific WP:PW guidelines. I am curious about the Words to Avoid and NPOV concerns, and I would really appreciate it if you could point out where these exist. Like I said, if cutting out a few "storyline"s and "angle"s will help and stay within the Wikipedia guidelines for writing about fiction, I can work on that. Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that you addressed you concerns for the article, can you review it, as it is still the oldest un-reviewed GA nomination. iMatthew 20 08 22:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! iMatthew 20 08 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review of Gavin Newsom

I have left some initial comments on the talk page. I will be reviewing the article further and more in depth.

Cheers, Malachirality (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made some adjustments to the article and left some comments on the talk page based on your comments. I look forward to your reply. Thanks!User:calbear22 (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the GA promotion of Gavin Newsom

Hi Calbear,

I've gone ahead and promoted the article, which was, from the start, thoroughly-research, well-written, and overall excellent. It was a pleasure to read and review, and the decision was easy. It would seem that you don't care for userboxes, but here is one anyway. Please pass it on to the other major editors of the article.

Best regards,

--Malachirality (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. It was a pleasure working with you. I looked over the final review and I was wondering where in the article there is Original Research. I'd like to fix that problem.User:calbear22 (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user helped promote Gavin Newsom to good article status.

Calbear, congrats on that! Sorry, meant to assist more once I saw the review was underway...but you guys took care of business too darn quick! -Pete (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldid

Hi Calbear. To find the oldid, whether on a talk page or article page, you have to find the diff of the old revision you want, eg. here. When the link is clicked, the oldid will be the last numbers in the URL bar here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AGood_article_reassessment%2FRalph_Nader%2F1&diff=199180643&oldid=195627113<<<<< Hope this helps! Best, PeterSymonds | talk 21:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Trueblood

Thanks for taking the time to do the Good Article review on Thomas Trueblood. I think I have now addressed all of the points you raised. If there is anything else that you think needs attention, let me know. Cbl62 (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Views

There's a user named Henrik who developed a page count system. You just plug in article name and select the month. Here's an example for Gavin Newsom views in February http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/Gavin_Newsom and March: http://stats.grok.se/en/200803/Gavin%20Newsom Close to 30,000 views since the start of February. It's a pretty nice tool. Cbl62 (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 50 in California

What is the status on your revisions to this article? --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rickey Henderson

Hi. I removed a couple of refs that fail WP:RS. Could you point out the others. Also, I think it would be best if we removed the "illeism, malapropism..." section per WP:COI, and it is a controversial topic. Tell me what you think. - 'M ilks 'F 'avorite 'C ookie 23:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section actually should be removed. Here is a quote from WP:BLP:

“

Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous.

”

- Milk's favorite Cookie 00:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Gehrig

I'm not sure if you have the page watched - but I'm Done with the references. Thanks, Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 22:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and

Done Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 00:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steroid use in American football

I was directed to you by another user, and was wondering if you could give this a GA review. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 10:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Gehrig

I've addressed you concern(s) - do you have any further comments? « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could just give it a complete review? This would make it easier for me or JGHowes to take care of the comments. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 22:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you requested a second opinion for this review, and I have commented on the article's talk page. Please get in touch if you have any questions. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done with everything on the page. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 20:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this review coming along? It has been on hold for awhile, and it seems like the editors have addressed all the concerns. Nikki311 01:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same question as Nikki. :) Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Lou_Gehrig —Giggy 03:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject College football July 2008 Newsletter

The July 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]