User talk:Thivierr/archive-5

Notices of image uploading

Hi, recently I got this message from OrphanBot telling me that Image:Holly McPeak.jpg. Of course, I was well aware of this as *I* tagged it. As I've gained a better understanding of copyright issues and Wiki policies, I've gone back over my old uploads, and tried to find sources, where I failed to supply them. When I couldn't, I tagged them for (what I hoped was) speedy deletion. I was hoping that by tagging them myself, an admin would simply delete the images on sight (without any delay or warning). --Rob 11:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably the best tag for getting an unsourced or unknown-license image deleted quickly and without any fuss is {{db-unksource}}. --Carnildo 04:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

International school terminology

Hello, sorry about the confusion on the Charter school article. I can see that the terminology used in articles about education is confusing, and only to get worse. I am involved in WikiProject Alternative education and have posted a message in reference to this problem. When you get a moment, drop in and join the discussion. By the way, if you are interested, you are invited to join the project as well. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 17:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Drastic measures

Thanks for the much needed lighthearted chuckle this Friday afternoon. [1] Hall Monitor 21:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's stuff like that which makes me glad that we have the no original research policy. --Rob 21:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I'd like to discuss the Schools page. Do you use instant messaging? --unforgettableid | talk to me 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope. --Rob 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Or, do you use IRC? --unforgettableid | talk to me 16:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't. I have e-mail set-up, which you can use if you wish. But normally I just use Wikipedia talk. --Rob 16:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is my perspective: I have been working recently on Template:IncGuide. I would like the schools article to fit in, as Interiot suggested on Template_talk:IncGuide. So, I moved the page and its subpages, as well as cleaning up the page slightly, while trying to remain NPOV. But now, you reverted not just the page move, but also the cleanups. Why? --unforgettableid | talk to me 16:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Schools don't fit in with that, as there are no agree school specific guidelines, let alone notability guidelines (which is a highly debated issue). About the only thing agreed to on schools is the naming convention. --Rob 16:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My idea had been that these were proposed (and highly controversial) guidelines, and that doing the move/link would help build consensus sooner, but I see your point. I think I'll

• mark "Under discussion: schools" on that template
• reapply my cleanups to the Schools article that you reverted, but keep the old name Wikipedia:Schools.

Does that sound OK? --unforgettableid | talk to me 16:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Add cities, and I'll be ok with that (linkage from the template). The project page is already marked as being for discussion. As for the other edits, I'll agree not to do a straight revert, I'll just check to ensure no info is lost. --Rob 16:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "add cities"? --unforgettableid | talk to me 17:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Snoop article

Thanks for the new Snoop image upload. It's Great!! Hope you like the page. Lajbi 19:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coolidge Middle School (Massachusetts)

I'm not sure what you were getting at in the AfD; I've replied on the page itself. It's a suggestion. Please consider being WP:CIVIL. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic games medal count

Re your closure of the above, you did exactly the right thing, well done. If it comes to WP:DRV (and I'm sure it won't) I will happily speak up for you. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that. Hopefully, nobody accuses me of "Vadalism[sic]". --Rob 21:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ActonValeRoads.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ActonValeRoads.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 23:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect bypass from A to B using popups

How do you do this? Yamaguchi先生 01:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

After I set-up "popups" I set "popupFixRedirs=true" in my "User:USERNAME/monobook.js" file. Then, when my mouse is hovering over a link, a mini-window (popup) appears for it, which says its a redirect. I click where it says "Redirect" to fix the redirect. I probably explained this badly, but Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups should explain it better then I do. --Rob 01:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BDAbramson T 04:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Amanda Swisten

I came across User:Thivierr/degrees of separation via What Links Here from the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders image. The Amanda Swisten image: Wow!

Photographer Cpl. Christi Prickett picked an excellent moment and subject. :) Thank you for introducing me to the eye candy (The Washington Redskins Cheerleaders are not bad either), and in the case of Swisten, you cropped and upped it too. Merci! —TransUtopian 10:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jamie Lynn Spears 4.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jamie Lynn Spears 4.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you.

Re: Image:Nick Lachey Jessica Simpson USO 210405.jpg

Okay, sorry about that! If you don't mind, I have copied the explanation you provided on the image's description page to my talk page. Thanks, and I'll be sure to double check in the future. Extraordinary Machine 15:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, the sad thing is, I can pretty much predict that any really high-quality celebrity image (like this) under "mil" is copyrighted. It seems the public-domain ones, are almost always the grainy/blurry variety. --Rob 18:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Upton

Thank you for your contribution to Upton. I disambiguated the links to this page a while ago, and now I keep an eye on it. In my opinion, alphabetical order is appropriate here: none of the Uptons is significantly larger or more important than the others. CarolGray 11:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's nice to hear somebody is familiar with it, and watching it. I guesse I made the assumption there must be a famous or original "Upton" in England, that the others were named after (but I guess not). Incidently, semi-humorously, it seems people in French Wikipedia think the one in Quebec is so famous and important, that it's the only one with an article, and has the unqualified name fr:Upton. --Rob 11:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: 99Jonathan's prostitution edits.

Hi, Thivierr, I noticed you also reverted him (99Jonathan). He is editing pages Brandi Sherwood, Shannon Marketic, Prostitution, Prostitution in Brunei, Miss USA, List of famous prostitutes and courtesans, Trafficking in human beings, Category:Sex Slaves, and Sexual slavery. (Think I noted them all). On a quick recheck, it actually looks like you've found most of these already yourself.

My guess is that 99jonathan is a crank with some sort of fantasy about these two women. His writing style within the sections he inserted is very voyeuristic and prurient and he inserts a lot of gloating links to abusive words like "whore" and "stripper", none of which makes any sense if the women were, as he says, forced into sex. (Being forced into sex makes you a rape victim, not a prostitute.) Of course, if he provides a reliable source for all this then I'll take back the fantasy part, but it'll still have to be drastically rewritten to be fit for an encyclopedia.

Are you an admin? Failing that, how do we bring this to the attention of administrators? Looking forward to helping with this in any way that I can. -Kasreyn 07:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, an additional point. If he were interested in the truth, wouldn't 99Jonathan be adding these claims to the pages on the Sultan of Brunei, and the nation of Brunei? To me this is further evidence that his only interest is in getting off on it. -Kasreyn 08:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. You can read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for rules on how/when to report things. You can also check out WP:RFC for "Content disputes". I'm not sure its at that level yet. If he repeatedly tries reverting the changes back, he'll have to vioilate 3RR, at which point, I would report him. Also, as to his accusations about prostituion/sex/slavery for these women and Brunei: I have actually heard of these before (I might have even seen something on TV). There were *allegations* in a lawsuit. I'm unaware of anything being proven. I also can't find any reliable publication that's printed an investigation into them. But, 99jonathan didn't personally invent this. His main offense, is writing in an unecyclopedic manner, without sources. So, for now, all I'll do, is revert anything with a highly reliable source, or anything written in a "purient" or POV manner. Since, there are at least two editors to revert him, he can't do much. --Rob 08:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen my errors and apologize. I have reedited Brandi Sherwood and Shannon Marketic with reliable sources and correct info. If my format is wrong could u or someone help? Thank you! --99jonathan 07:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Navigation popups

Thanks for the tip about Navigation popups. But I don't see the "diff my edit" feature you mention. Could you point me to how to use it? Thanks. -- Calion | Talk 16:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have popups installed? If you do, hold the mouse over the link your interested in (e.g. link in "my watchlist"). Then, you'll see a "popup" window. Now, hold the mouse over the highlighted word "actions", and a menu will appear. One of the menu choices will be "diff my edit". --Rob 16:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Belinda Thorpe

Okay I suppose it doesn't do any harm (besides encouraging edit wars) to keep the history. The way I looked at it, though, the people saying "keep" were a pronounced minority, with everybody else saying "delete" or "redirect" so I figured "delete and redirect" would be a fair closure. In any case I've restored it in case of future claims to fame. — Feb. 28, '06 [11:38] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Hopkins School

Hopkins School is up for peer review, and anything you could note as a member of WP:Schools would be appreciated! Thanks! Staxringold 11:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on the Demilich page. The fight against unfair deletion is hard to do alone. +Johnson542 20:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Amstrad CPC games

Hi Rob, no shit the list contains lots of misdirected blue links and lots more besides... you can see my crusade to sort out this nightmare listcruft with the original AfD and the deletion review. However, the page has just survived AfD with no consensus - > keep, and also survived Deletion Review with "keep and cleanup" so I don't think it should be redirected right now. As per guidance from JzG, if the article isn't attended to by those who saved it, it will be renominated in due course. However, after all the recent debate over this page I don't think it should just be hidden and I'm going to revert the redirect. Hope you agree. Deiz 12:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't revert, but here's how I feel. We default to "keep" on "no consensus", because delete is permanent,and not easily reversed (more so in the past). We don't want to destroy information. That's the reason for the vote, and the caution. A redirect isn't a delete. No info is lost. Anybody can undo it. Editors are told to not go to AFD when it can be avoided. Redirecting is simply one type of regular edit. Like any other one, it doesn't require consensus support or a vote. Now if anybody contests a redirect (as has happened) than it's inappropriate to reimpose a redirect without a vote. That's why I'll leave it. But, I stress that there's a huge difference between a redirect and a delete. A delete (in Wikipedia) is like salting the Earth (or maybe scorch the Earth). For all practical purposes, information generally lost forever, and all work in an article is wasted (very unwiki). But, the redirect is harmless *if* done once. --Rob 16:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the technical side of your argument - that deletion is different to redirect - but you're missing my point. The page was kept on condition it gets cleaned up. If you hide it behind a redirect, nobody gets to see it and it stays the same. If somebody had redirected this before it went to AfD, then great. This article has been through AfD and deletion review, the decision was to "keep and cleanup". Not to "pretend it isn't there but if somebody really wants to deal with it and is prepared to do some digging in the history it could get re-instated sometime in the future". I genuinely want to see if anybody will deal with this list. If nobody cares about it then it isn't encyclopedic information and it's getting nominated again. You obviously have a good grasp of Wiki policy but you have to consider the merits of each case too. Deiz 20:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, you have a fair point. A redirect before an AFD is better. One after an AFD, has some problems. I've done this before, but on articles that never had an AFD. Another controversial approach, is to remove most of the information, but not all. This follows WP:V (which says unverified info can be removed). This leaves the cleanup tag/category in place, but no false information. Strip it down to a about half dozen valid/confirmed items, move the rest to the talk page, and slap a "incomplete list" tag on it (so people know it's incomplete). Anyways, I won't do further edits on this page, as I acknowledge I don't have a good solution. --Rob 20:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Torino

Replied to your comments on my talk page, thanks. Andrwsc 19:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Teenage Bestsellers 252.jpg

Why did u put the ifd-template in the Image? I uploaded the image to illustrate the article of this video. I think this picture needs to be in the article to illustrate it. If the article Teenage Bestsellers 252 is deleted after a discussion then the image may be deleted also. Why was this proposed deletion not mentioned on the page Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 March 3? Ik.pas.aan 23:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• I takes time. I placed the tag first, and then I wrote out the explanation after. --Rob 23:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I understand. I added my part to the discussion there. Ik.pas.aan 00:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

looks fair to me

the dukes movie is discussed immediately next to the image, and it is only one small image. my understanding is thats "fair use". i dont think there's any wiki authority for this other than the rfa process (which i doubt either of us are interested in) so we'll have to leave it to consensus.

Justforasecond 18:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jamie Lynn Spears.jpg

This image, like the previous image for her article is not usable. Even though it is low grade and resolution, one of the criteria for fair use is that it can must be used to illustrate the larger work in question. For future reference, virtually all images from premieres and award shows taken by photo agencies are not usable.--Fallout boy 00:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, and thankyou for correcting my mistake. --Rob 06:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC

Thanks for reverting the wording back from "major music media." GREAT new wording of the guidline!! Madangry 19:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Jessica Turner

Thanks. Sorted. Rich Farmbrough 11:50 10 March 2006 (UTC).

Deletion

You misunderstand the point of deletion.

Deletion is not concerned with the content of the article, except if the article is blank or contains nonsense or gibberish. Even if the content is only ONE sentence, that is not a reason to delete it--that is a reason to work on it. Deletion is concerned with whether or not the subject itself is worthy of an article at all--it is not a debate over the value of the article itself. If you think the article is poor or to small, bring it up on the article's talk page and work to fix it; don't delete it. Kurt Weber 12:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is in reference to. It might be an article I PROD'd recently, for being only one sentence. Your view, is based on the old AFD approach. If something AFD'd, it would be very difficult to get it undeleted, and new articles (even original ones) of the same name, faced likely deletion. Worse, a delete-AFD, sets a precedent for deleting other articles like it. However, PROD'd articles, can be easily undeleted, and their PROD-deletion doesn't set a precedent against the topic. PROD is basically is a safe, un-doable delete. In the case of schools, these one-line substubs are what's given school articles a bad name. People think all there is to write on a school is one sentence, and don't see what value there is to wikipedia. --Rob 12:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you still don't get it. First, a PROD article is no easier or more difficult to undelete than an AfD'd article--unless you're referring to the political process of getting it undeleted rather than the technical method of undeleting articles (in the case of an article that was deleted under PROD, all that is necessary is for someone to request it be undeleted, whereas for AfD it must go through a full DRV). However, PROD does NOT change the criteria for deletion--it simply provides a way for articles which obviously and indisputably already meet the current criteria for deletion to be deleted without bothering with a full AfD. That an article is "too short" is NOT a valid criterion for deletion; WP:DP explicitly says that if an article is short or has other content issues, it should be expanded and fixed, not deleted.

So, in short: PROD does not alter the criteria for deletion; it simply makes for easier deletion of articles that meet the criteria so blatantly that their deletion is unlikely to receive any serious challenge were it to be listed on AfD. Kurt Weber 13:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Woah there horsey :)

Hi there,

Just noticed you've been doing quite a bit of editing of the Miss USA pages I've been working on - and leaving some negitive comments. Just so you know I've been posting the lists from other web pages and haven't yet had time to go back and check. Perhaps a simple "woops, Maria Lekkakos is from Massachusetts" would have sufficed instead of the "look at her picture, and read the sash"??? - believe it or not I don't have the time to check every blue link at the moment. I'm new around here and just trying to get started so perhaps offer me some slack?  :) I appreciate you trying to fix and neaten stuff but perhaps not at the expense of those trying to do a good thing? CarlyPalmer 02:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude. However, I do suggest, that you do one article at a time, and check your changes in one article, before moving on to another. Also, one reason for my comment is that I didn't (at the time) know if there were many more errors copy/pasted, and I wanted to draw attention to it, before more similiar errors were copied elesewhere. This was one of multiple state/person-mixups I saw recently, and I was concerned. I don't expect you to have time to check so many articles for errors. Which is why its always good to do a few really good articles, than many "so so" articles. I do appreciate your effort, and am glad another editor is interested in these articles. But, if you're saying you don't have the time to check every blue link, then consider slowing down (not stop, but slow down). --Rob 03:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough :) I've since started going back over things and fleshing things out a little bit (Tamiko Nash, Noelle Meyer) - guess I was put off by the inability to cut&paste - writing things out takes a bit longer and a bit more thought (guess that's part of the idea!). Next stop -- trying to get pictures up :) CarlyPalmer 03:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Page History

Hi. Your talk page has a vast number of deleted edits because you supposedly quit Wikipedia. Since you are back, shouldn't those edits be restored? (excluding any which are defamatory against you, of course). --kingboyk 05:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why. They're available to admins, so I don't see the purpose/need in restoring them. --Rob 10:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thought I would comment here as well, as I was one of the deleting admins. This seems to be somewhat of a grey area — I'm not aware of any policy or guideline which covers something like this. After reviewing the deletion history further, it appears that there was a good reason to delete these pages (harassment, personal attacks). My personal position on this is somewhat ambivalent, but seeing that this page is technically located within the realm of userspace, and the user in question hasn't made a request to overturn his deletion request, I suppose we should continue to honour it. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Howie Gordon

You're right. I should have sourced my COMPLETELY FACTUAL statements about Gordon. I will now go and put them back in, with sources. In the future, don't jump to conclusions that someone is making a personal attack. I could care less about Gordon or his reputation. Pacian 05:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What you wrote was a personal attack. It has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Please read WP:LIVING. Also, please be advised that many things that are true are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal gossip blog. You must have sources that meet WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:LIVING. Its absurd to link to Google. You're expecting somebody to find sources, when you should have been giving them. Seriously, at least read WP:CITE. These kinds of attacks in Big Brother articles has led to a large number of such articles being speedy deleted by admins. It's also a reason they're frequently nominated for deletion, because people think they can never be more than gossip rags. --Rob 06:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It was NOT a personal attack, and if you say it was again, you and I are going to have a serious issue. What I stated was FACT, and now I have linked to a downloadable video clip of the incident in question, which is IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE of FACT. Per the other claims I've made, just what kind of a citation do you think is going to be acceptable? Do I need to find downloadable video clips of the light saber/saver and "busto" references as well? There are certain things for which it is UNREASONABLE to ask someone to provide a citation. "Common Knowledge" statements do not need to be cited. To anyone who has any knowledge of Big Brother 6, these statements are common knowledge. For God's sake, if you go to Howie Gordon's official website, he has an animation of a light saber on the front page as a humourous reference to the very incident! I can understand demanding a source or citation for the masturbatory incident, as it is fairly extreme, but Howie's excessive misogynistic behaviour towards April, and his goofy use of the light sabers, are hardly defmatory or potentially libelous, and they are COMMON. KNOWLEDGE. FACTS. Pacian 06:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You just removed my edits for a third time. This time you removed a link to a VIDEO CLIP which PROVES the statement is true. At this point I am considering your acts vandalism, and I am reporting you as a vandal, and I am requesting that the article be locked down. A message board is perfectly acceptable as a citation if it contains a link to a video clip downloading which visually demonstrates the statement being made. Pacian 06:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you file a content dispute WP:RFC. I welcome independent views on this issue. Also, feel free to appeal directly User:Jimbo if you're confident that you're in the right. Oh, while you're reading policy pages you may want to check out WP:NPA --Rob 06:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not personally attacked you. I have made no comments about you as a person, or as your character. I legitimatelly feel that you are acting vandalistically, and that you are not acting in the best intentions of wikipedia. I cannot fathom your dispute with my changes, at least as they currently stand, nor do I accept your partial explanations for your actions. I seriously doubt Jimbo is going to get involved. I am more than happy to file a content dispute, but that will not stop me from also reporting your actions as vandalism. You seem to be rational, but your actions indicate otherwise. Pacian 07:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. Even if I was totally wrong in my reverting (which I don't think I was), it still is specifically not vandalism. Consider where it says "While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism." --Rob 07:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

...meaning if it is done once, and in good intention. Not if it is done repeatedly, with questionable intentions. That's a straw man argument. Pacian 07:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll expect an apology when your "vandalism" claim is dismissed. --Rob 07:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Neil Bush

Thanks for your comments in the Neil Bush article and elsewhere. I do indeed know Wikipediatrix's history on the page and have been trying to moderate it from the start (as you've likely seen, it was even more tin-foilish at the start). If it were up to me I wouldn't even bother to mention that Scientologists were at the same hearing Bush was (unless I planned to write a separate article on the entire hearing and *all* groups that were involved). But, I was trying to find a middle ground while hoping Wikipediatrix would gain some better perspective on reality vis a vis her POVs. At any rate, it's nice to have a confirming opinion that I am not being too harsh with this user or pushing "censorship". Thanks. --67.101.68.65 19:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

State Abbrevs

Hi Rob,

Fair enough on the abbreviations [2] - but who's going to fix them all ???!!! Fortunately I haven't completed all the articles yet! Feel like going half with me? (I'll fix AL-LA and you can do the rest????) lol :P

CarlyPalmer 01:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not an urgent matter. As people happen come to the articles for various reasons, it will probably get fixed. I thought I'ld leave the edit summary, to discourage it in more articles. 90% of Wikipedia articles fail to conform to "standards", so I try not to make a "project" out of fixing all such items. Rather, I just fix them when I see them (but don't do mass hunts for them).

Lol fair enough, just being silly :P Just come out of a long lecture and my brain is addled (although, come to think about it, that is actually reasonably normal :P!)CarlyPalmer 01:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

References

I'm trying to reference something I'm adding to the Miss USA main page but its not working... is it because you can't add references to headings? (Fear Factor Miss USA 2004 edition... under "Special Feature Episodes")... CarlyPalmer 01:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, moved the refs somewhere else CarlyPalmer 02:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I should have mentioned, that you don't have to use footnotes "<ref><references></ref>" if it is inconvenient, or doesn't display ok. You can just state the source in the body of the article, like so:

(Source: SomeSource)

which could go at the top or bottom of the section with the data (instead of a "References" section). As long as people know where you got the info, it doesn't matter much how you display it. --Rob 02:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

About your reverting some of my edits in Wikipedia:Search engine test

Hi, why can't you establish Notability using Google suggest, did you try it ? --Khalid hassani 02:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've used it before. How on Earth could you use it to establish notability? --Rob 02:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Google suggest gives you occurences of a word or group words as soon as you enter them, you don't even need to click on the search button, it then refines occurences when you enter more terms. Install CustomizeGoogle and you will see what a mean, a picture is worth one thousand words. --Khalid hassani 04:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Since google hit count (unique or total) can't determine notability, neither can this. --Rob 04:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Municipal Regional County of Acton Map.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Municipal Regional County of Acton Map.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. If you're an admin, could you please go ahead and just delete that image (e.g. no need for normal week delay). Now that I know more about copyright and fairuse, I don't think it can be used. --Rob 23:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

William RfC

You may want to clarify the part about William being "recently departed." When I read that I thought you meant he had died and I was highly confused. JoshuaZ 05:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, about that. I was just refering to this comment, which indicated he was no longer with the Citywide. Prior to this, all his comments/edits indicated he was the current pastor of Citywide. So, I figured he must of just recently "departed" Citywide, but I didn't mean he departed the Earth. He's definately still with us (just blocked for 24 hours). Sorry about any confusion I caused. I edited my words, and hope its clear now. --Rob 05:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized what you meant after looking at the link you gave. JoshuaZ 06:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Amanda_Bynes_5.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Amanda_Bynes_5.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for fixing my mess on Neon Zoo --E-Bod 02:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)