User:Emerson7/Archiv

October 2006

Redwoods

Hi Emerson - I'm assuming you mean at the list of US State Trees? If that's the one, it is because California has two state trees, Sequoia sempervirens and Sequoiadendron giganteum jointly, so plural is the correct tense to use in this instance. Hope this helps! - MPF 19:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

November 2006

Ultrafark?

Why does this NEED to be disproven in an article, and where is the verifiable external reference for it in the first place? Neither was given, so out it went. --JohnDBuell 02:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is indeed a meme, along the lines of "Tinywar does not exist," (a quotation used by MUDders to refer to a MUD/chat client program that did/does in fact exist, but it became a running joke to deny it), then it should be presented as a recurring theme/meme, with proper referencing from the board (link to a post or two), and not just put in the description/introduction, which would confuse a reader not familiar with the joke. --JohnDBuell 03:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Plant stem

have a look on that petioles, they are the continuation of the leaves. Stem in botanical sense means that selforganising, evergrowing structure, which holds them only.

Hello! While you had wonderfull idea to add some pictures in to the article of plant stem, which can make it much more accessible and ilustrating to the readers, I would like to ask you if there was some specific intention in the adding the Rhubarb leaves? I would'nt ask you if I would be completely doubting about it, but this image does'nt fit to me over there. That implies, that those leaves have anything more in common with stem than that they are sticking on one. Shortly: it is IMHO missleading. On the other hand, the adding of asparagus was such a great idea (I fear that such idea woud'nt come over my mind) as they are a nice example of commercially used stems never, that in outcome I wonder if I did overlook anything in the case of rhubarb. Maybe the Asparagus stems would be nicer leading picture. What do you thing about it? Reo ^ON | +++ 12:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Emerson, thanks a lot for your quick response :). But that is the case with rhubarb image, that the picture does'nt contein the factual plant stems. Those are petioles or you may call them leafstalks, but the stem is plant organ of diferent ontogenetical origin and of different physiological function for plant. Regrettably there is so little progres as regards the articles about plant anatomy in Wikipedia! Apparently, someone else had the same intent as me,  :) but he did'nt ask and insted .. I hope that you are not upset from this dissent. I think it would be nice job to find other great candidat than just the stems of Asparagus and place them in the head of the article. I will try. Have a nice time with Wikipedia! With regards Reo ^ON | +++ 18:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

December 2006

Jane Alexander

In cleaning up the article, I inadvertently omitted the succession boxes you had added. It was an honest mistake I will rectify now. Sorry! (I am going to leave the infobox deleted. It contains nothing not found in the body of the article and merely adds clutter. Thanks!)SFTVLGUY2 13:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Compacting references on Saparmurat Niyazov

Why are you compacting the reference templates on this article? It makes it much more clear when editing the reference itself if the separate parameters to the template are on different lines. --Dgies 19:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

it is not really my intent to compact. i was actually 'correcting' the ref data. i don't really have a preference either way (compacted/expanded) but i just thought it would be easier for some if the ref text was inline with text of the article, and expanded in lists. plus, i'm working with a template and it's faster to do them all the same, and fix the layout later since there are currently so many 'edits per minute'. --emerson7 | Talk 21:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did not notice that. I did notice that the template formatting was all compacted, which made it hard to read. --Dgies 21:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Saddam RV

Sorry, I missed the previous reference to the video. Thought I had something new to contribute. I'm new and simply missed the video link. Sorry.

Jaskemr 21:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Your revert was in order. I simply missed it. I try to be fair and cite sources. I simply missed this one. My fault. Perhaps a more prominent link to the video? Not sure. I missed it and read the section. Perhaps I'm not the only one. Anyways, no offense taken to the revert. My fault as stated above. Hope to work with you on future articles.

Jaskemr 23:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

January 2007

[[Aaron Copland]

Wow! Nice job! The article looks much cleaner and nicer! Thanks for your work on it! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! BTW, have you considered joining the LGBT WikiProject? Stop on by and take a look around, and if you're interested, sign up - we'd love to have your participation! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

El Rancho

The reason these were included is that are multiple hotel/motels and schools that have used this name. The ones with redlinks do not have articles so it is important to note this so that other users are not confused. If I am wrong and they really do have articles under a different name, that the entry should remain with a link to the correct name. That's the main reason for a redirect, alternate names or misspellings. Since this is a dab page, that principal still applies. Vegaswikian 19:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Vladimir Horowitz

Nice job on the updates. Thanks for your help!THD3 02:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your latest edit to Vladimir Horowitz. Your edit makes it sound as if Horowitz was under the influence after 1985. He was not. The medications were started in 1981 and discontinued in 1983.THD3 01:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The paragraph in question is in very poor condition. It has probably been edited to death. I will attempt a complete rewrite.THD3 16:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the paragraph. Do you have any ideas for a better photo at the top of the article? The 1985 picture now in use is God-awful.THD3 22:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Clark

Why did you revert the changes I made to Anthony Clark's entry? There is no evidence he is gay or atleast that he has come out of the closet on any reputable website. This is akin to someone adding gay categories to Tom Cruise or Clay Aiken's entrys. And if you check, the person who added the gay categories to Anthony Clark's page was a known vandal who has since been blocked. I've removed the categories again, and if you have a problem with it, please discuss on Anthony's talk page. -CJ 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, all I wanted was a good reference for proof. Thanks! -CJ 22:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:L'OrdreDesArtsCommandeur.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:L'OrdreDesArtsCommandeur.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles 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 fair use images 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits fixed

I made some edits to 2 paragraphs and several dates Leonard Bernstein and you reverted them. I had a look to find out why, and realized that I had added brackets to a couple of unnecessary dates. I have restored the correct edits (but not the superfluous brackets). In future you might consider either (a) correcting only the errors without reverting the entire edit, or (b) informing the user who has made the mistake. Thanks —SaxTeacher (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies!

Hi, Emerson7, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and intersex people. LGBT Studies covers people, culture, history, and related subjects concerning sexual identity and gender identity - this covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice or clarification. Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics. The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, peer review and a project-wide article collaboration, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there. If you're going to stay awhile, please create a square in our project quilt! You can put anything you want in it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome!

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Relax...It'sJustSexDVD.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Relax...It'sJustSexDVD.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OMG, have you seen Relax, it's just sex? You're the only other person besides me that seems to have seen it! I loved that scene with Diego and Dwight where they're having sex to classical music and talking about what they're going to bring to the church barbecue. Brilliant. Sorry, I don't meet a lot of people who watch the films I watch. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Jacqueline du Pre

Please stop correcting the Jacqueline du Pre page! It was I who made significant additions to the page a few months ago (albeit anonymously). At first I did make grammatical errors, but now they are in order. 'At the age of four' makes more sense for the flow of the article than 'at age four'.

And regarding the instrument, the 1673 should not be italicised, as it is not the name of the instrument. That is why I wrote 'an instrument made in 1673'.

I have done much research regarding du Pre, so please leave the page alone. Thank you very much

Ernest Emerson

I'll ask that you kindly leave comments on the article's talk page. Issues of notability have been met. Just because an article is about a man and his company does not make it advertising.

Article is rated as a Good article and is undergoing review as a Featured Article Candidate.

Thank You. --Mike Searson 04:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

SFGMC

Thank you for the excellent updates and new block on the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus article. It seems you have culled some facts from the SFGMC website (and from GMCLA's website as Bruce Mayhall is their conductor, not SFGMC's). SFGMC's website is out-of-date, hence my revisions. FYI, SFGMC's new website will be launched in March. Thanks again, MusicMen 01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you would clarify the tag you added today. You tagged the article for "external links clean up". Each of the eight referenced links in the article relate specifically to the content, so I'm confused about the reason for the tag. However, if the tag is related to the "References" list at the end of the article (which are not linked to the article), that would make sense. I will remove many of these as they relate to content that has since been deleted from the article. MusicMen 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

you left me a note about images, which i don't fully understand. sorry if i'm being daft, but could please explain further? thanks for your help. MusicMen 05:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your response, advice and encouragement :-) MusicMen 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Saw your note about too many links, so now I'm confused. I thought you suggested that the list of references should be incorporated into the article as relevant links, which is what I have done. Are you saying that I've provided too much evidence of fact? MusicMen 23:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you're editing currently, so I'll leave it alone for a while. If you delete references, could you please save them somewhere? I don't necessarily have all of these listed elsewhere. Thanks. MusicMen 00:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have submitted the article for Jump-a-Class. Perhaps ambitious, but seeing as I've done so much work in such a short time (since the B-Class rating was issued), I thought I'd give it a shot. I'm in the process of collecting old newspaper archives to further reference some of the factual information and I plan to incorporate the remaining few dangling references. Do you have any suggestions for what else I might do? Thanks. MusicMen 22:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bandini (1963 film) / Bandini (film 1963)

Hi. I didn't do the copy and paste move. I saw two identical pages and I took the one with the improper name and redirected it to the properly named article. I didn't check the history in the process since I wasn't deleting either page. If you think it's more proper you can request that that Bandini (1963 film) be deleted and then Bandini (film 1963) be moved to its title. gren グレン 00:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Better Source Request for Image:EstherRolle.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:EstherRolle.gif. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. —Angr 23:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:EstherRolle.gif

Thank you for uploading Image:EstherRolle.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. —Angr 23:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Gay News

Hi,

I see you reverted my edit to this article. I can't say I'm particularly bothered either way whether "GB£" is blue-inked or not. I just feel it was unnecessary. In my view it's not necessary to have any in depth knowledge of the currency in question to understand the Gay News article.

I'm assuming that pound sterling is a sufficiently well known currency to allow the reader to understand the article without having to research the currency further.

Anyway as I said I'm not particularly bothered either way in this case so I'm happy to leave it as it is.

Jules1975 10:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cher Infobox formatting

I have a few discrepencied with your reversion of my edits to the infobox in the Cher article.

• Sonny Bono should not be included as a past member, since that field is for groups only.
• Vocalist is an occupation or role, not an instrument, whereas vocals is cited as a singer's instrument on albums.
• The list of occupations and genres are not sentences which means the first member of the list should have the same capitalization as the following members, not capitalize the first member and lowercase the following. Also, the lists should be organized by level of significance or notability, not alphabetically.

Please let me know your thoughts on the above formatting issues. - cgilbert^{(talk|contribs)} 06:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for taking the time to leave a note...it's rarely done, and i admit i should do it more often. that said...the parameters have already been lain for this infobox, i couldn't disagree with you more on your interpretation.

• Sonny and Cher were indeed a group. in fact there were others with them, particularly in the earlier days. When they broke up, they both continued their music careers...one of 'em was a lot more successful as it turns out.

• whereas the the term vocalist might not be the best descriptor, the template gives guidelines on what should go there. based on the guidelines, the voice is the instrument, which sorta makes sense once you think about it.

• though not proper sentence, it is non-the-less a sentence, as well as a list. guidelines for lists require that they be alphabetical or chronological. anything with regard to significance or notability is wildly subjective and therefore not appropriate per WP:NPOV.

take a peek at Template:Infobox musical artist. the article there gives guidance and examples of formatting. cheers. --emerson7 | Talk 08:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your take on the formatting. I did find that the Mariah Carey example listed her occupations with the first capitalized and the rest lowercase, however, notice that singer is listed before record producer, which is listed before actress. I also know that Sonny and Cher were a group, and the Sonny and Cher article lists both Sonny and Cher as former members. Cher, however, is not a group, and it is not proper to say that Sonny was a former member of Cher. His musical association with Cher was limited to the Sonny and Cher group, which is the only place where his former membership should be included. On Neil Young's article, you don't see Stephen Stills listed as a former member, even though the two had a duo at one point. - cgilbert^{(talk|contribs)} 16:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Hyphen on Lily Tomlin's page

Well, if "it's not a typo" as you say, then it's simply improper punctuation. There is no reason to have a trailing, dangling hyphen after the word "Tony" in that sentence as you wrote it:

"Tony- and Emmy Award-winning"

"Tony Award" would not have a hyphen in between the words, if not separated by "and Emmy Award". The hyphen is properly used here: "Award-winning". Think about it again. Find another example or your usage to back it up, if you still think that's proper.--MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 20:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of be overly pedantic, hyphens are joiners that link words to avoid ambiguity or to form a single idea from two or more words. When actually, broken down, the sentence should properly read: "Tony Award-winning, and Emmy Award-winning..." I think we both agree what an awkward sentence that makes. So...we omit words to make a better flow. The hyphen behind "Tony" links it to "Award", hence we 'should' have something akin to "Tony- and Emmy-Award..." showing that Tony and Emmy are being linked with Award.

You are correct, "Tony- and Emmy Award-winning..." is indeed incorrect. The correct phrase should read: "Tony- and Emmy-Award-winning..." --emerson7 | Talk 23:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I do realize this is not a terribly big deal. Just for clarity's sake: What you described in the last sentence above is not what I was meaning. Here's what I believe to be correct usage:

1.) Tony and Emmy Award-winning. 2.) Tony and Emmy Award winning.

Here's what I believe to be incorrect usage: 1.) Tony- and Emmy-Award winning. 2.) Tony- and Emmy-Award-winning.

The only place a hyphen is properly used in this instance is between Award and winning, thusly, Award-winning and it's optional. Maybe someone else could offer their opinion. This is making me dizzy :)--MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

oddly enough i didnt even do that, and someone actually hacked into my account, i am changing my pw.. sorry for the inconvience..

With respect, i submit 1.) Tony and Emmy Award-winning. 2.) Tony and Emmy Award winning. are wrong on both accounts. 'How wrong' is but a trifling matter. For reference, check out google for 'suspensive hypenation.' --emerson7 | Talk 19:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can you show me other examples of your usage? I found none on Wikipedia. Here are a few examples I found to support my viewpoint.

See Cynthia Nixon's page Tony and Emmy Award-winning
and Tony Walton's page Tony and Emmy-winning
again here Deaths in July 2006 Tony and Emmy Award-winning

No hyphens are used here.
Shenandoah Apple Blossom Festival - Tony and Emmy Award winning
Hamilton Philharmonic Orchestra - Tony and Emmy Award winning
Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles, California - Tony and Emmy Award winning

Other examples.
List of Poles - Oscar and Emmy Award winning
List of University of California, Los Angeles people - Oscar and Emmy Award winning
Paul Jabara - Oscar and Grammy Award-winning
--MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 21:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just happened upon this discussion, but I agree with emerson7. The hyphen in award-winning isn't optional, and the phrase should be "Tony- and Emmy-Award-winning". And what's used in Wikipedia articles most often probably isn't the best source for what is right grammatically. :) --Galaxiaad 06:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Spencer Tracy

I researched and put the academy award nominations neatly into the infobox, but you deleted it. I was just wondering why, since it is seen in that format on other actors' pages. Supertigerman 01:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification on linkage...

Could you clarify your justification for removing links on the "Emerson (surname)" disambiguation page? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ulmanor (talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Image tagging for Image:IBDB.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:IBDB.PNG. 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:

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Was the problem with my edit to the Star Trek page that I didn't cite my text?

If I cite the text next time will it be ok?

Yours sincerely,

Carrotcheese.

John Cage

In response to the following from my talk page:

i know what you mean by changing the place of birth, but i don't believe your interpretation of Template:Infobox_musical_artist#Fields is correct. i think we need to get solid clarification on exactly what the origin field is to represent. --emerson7 | Talk 22:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just following the format as per the field notes and the sample of Mariah Carey. I would be in favor though of having more input from somebody with more experience from WP:Musicians. Maybe Heaven's Wrath can help us out. - cgilbert^{(talk|contribs)} 22:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ira Glass

I understand why you reverted my placing of the city into the date of birth sentence, because although it is widespread in usage, the Manual of Style shows that the correct format is just the date. But is there a particular reason you're being really gung-ho about reverting "born" back to "b."? "Born" is more grammatically appropriate. NickBurns 06:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actor infoboxes in general

Is the silver color used for dead people, and the yellow for living? Supertigerman 01:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

List of billionaires (2006)

Reason stated in the change description. --wil osb 02:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Again reason stated in why the revert, you wanna revert, fine, at least get the facts correct for Bill Gates and Warren Buffet's net worth. --wil osb 06:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

unbelievable

Please do not write specific criticisms of my editing on my talk page, it is shallow and pedantic Pags182 04:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

the text is not mine...it is transcluded from template. --emerson7 | Talk 05:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Re. List of billionaires (2006)

Sorry, when protecting articles, admins will lock on the current version, not on the "right" or "wrong" version. Choosing a version where to lock is to directly involve in the dispute and admins who do this may not protect the article afterwards according to the protection policy. Protection does not endorse the current version of the article though. Now it's time to try to reach a consensus with the other users involved in the dispute, by requesting them to join a civil discussion on the talk page. Once an agreement has been made, the article shall be unprotected. If the other party refuses to talk, then it's legitimate to unprotect and revert to a previous version. Regards, Húsönd 18:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it was a typical response but not a canned response. I did notice the vandalism, but since the edit war was there, I had to upgrade to full protection.--Húsönd 18:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, if the war is over I'll just downgrade to semi-protection. Easy. :-) --Húsönd 18:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Very biased editting, disappointing

who jackbooted the Raymond Burr content, Goebbels? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.183.159 (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

As much as it may annoy you, Carlos Slim Helu is Lebanese and frequents his native country every few months. Refrain from vandalizing the page if you will.Emбargo 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Summer of My German Soldier (Television film)

To answer your first question, page names generally should avoid abbreviations. As for citing sources for a movie synopsis, everything should be cited if possible. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 23:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be moved to Summer of My German Soldier (TV film)? Also, if you think it has enough sources, go ahead and remove the tag. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 00:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Pee Wee Herman

Wikipedia:Lead section states:

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context...and briefly describing its notable controversies"

That is why I am adding that part. The lead in this article also needs more info on his general career which I will add later today. I am just trying to improve this articles lead section.Hoponpop69 23:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

--202.164.195.56 01:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

queen latifah

hey, your reversion to my queen latifah edits might have been wrong. i was not vandalising the page at all. it needs sources.

cheers --202.164.195.56 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)mike

Dispute on JonBenet Ramsey's article

Before reverting again, read the talk page for what I wrote. 1ne 05:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Quirks&Quarks2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Quirks&Quarks2.png. 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:

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

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. 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC) end of archive-->

AYBS? characters

I'm not quite sure why you reverted my revert. Mrs. Slocombe always said "My" not "Me", and I cannot understand you reason for revert my edit to clarify that? --Berks105 20:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree on "often", but regardless she usually says "My" and thats what is important. --Berks105 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If she did use it regulary (I don't think once is enough, but nevermind) then it would be best to insert both "My pussy" and "Me pussy".--Berks105 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jean Harlow - unsourced claim

Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia, and just getting a feel for how things work, but I don't understand why you reverted a change I made to the Jean Harlow article.

My change was to improve (I think!) the readability of a sentence: It had the awkward construction "when she began to attend school, ... she did not learn until then" ("when" and "until then" serve the same purpose) and unnecessary phrases "a private school" (with a name like Miss Barstow's Finishing School for Girls, it'd have to be) and "with other children" (well, it's a finishing school for girls, so of course).

You reverted this change, calling it an unsourced claim, but it's exactly the same claim that was there before (except, I guess, that it doesn't explicitly claim the school is private and had multiple students). Should it be flagged as "citation needed?"

I apologize if the nature of my change wasn't clear--I know I forgot to include an edit summary.

Thanks --Eostrom 18:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I saw that you had warned the person at the following IP about vandalism recently, and I just wanted to let you know that it's happened again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:130.194.13.103 Tonight, he vandalized the following page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lasvegas.terra.1500pix.jpg Just letting you know. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.157.47.150 (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Vallejo, CA revision

Can you please explain what I did wrong in my revision to the Vallejo article? I want to learn better what is or is not allowed. Thank you.

Brad (EntirelyBS).

Vallejo, CA - edits

ok, understood. but instead of simply removing the section (reverting), can the links simply be taken out of the new content? Or is it now for me to do as my next step (putting them back in but without the links). Thanks, Brad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Entirelybs (talk • contribs) 16:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Seattle Men's Chorus article - where is it?

I added a link to the Seattle Men's Chorus on an article, and it came up red and didn't connect. I can only get to the SMC page now via cached links. Has the article been deleted? MusicMen 16:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

are you arguing the validity of the change I made? or the change itself?

please clarify - what change? MusicMen 01:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

George Szell - flags

Could you please respond to my question on "Talk:George Szell" re use of flag icons? couldn't find the policy you referred to in the edit summary. thanks much--Turangalila (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Billionaires edit

Hello, Thank you for your concern in following my actions on the list of billionaires edit. The only reason I entered in blank text to the page was that someone had put "your mom..." as one of one of the worlds top billionaires. I merely removed it. No vandalism intended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.166.13.195 (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Esther Rolle

We clash again. I restored the image request into the infobox on this article, but in my very humble opinion, that no-image image is very aesthetically ugly. NickBurns 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Queen Latifah

I just looked at the Queen Latifah page and it looks to be very poorly sourced. I see that it is a personal favourite page for you, so I will not add sources needed labels yet. If you could, could you try to source most of the stuff in the article. I fear much of it is spurious. --Momomoses 07:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Harlem footnotes

Thank you for engaging in dialog. I think my discussion on the talk page is clear. There is no justification for applying a footnote to facts not included in the source; that's misleading at the very best, and probably intellectually dishonest. WP:FOOT makes clear that footnotes should follow punctuation when punctuation exists, but does not address what to do where the cited facts have no adjacent punctuation. Since WP:FOOT does state that the footnote should be placed next to the text being backed by the citation, the original placement of the Harlem footnotes seems clearly to be the correct solution.

Your objection about "centuries of precedence" seems irrelevant. If you think WP:FOOT should be changed, there are procedures for that. Uucp 00:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Harlem, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Harlem. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 16:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi. I am a member of the Mediation Committee. Can I check whether you would still like to pursue this mediation? I note that there has been no discussion on Talk:Harlem for six days and there doesn't appear to be any dispute in the recent page history. If there are still issues that you feel mediation, please let me know and we can get underway.

Best wishes, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. There's no particular way this "should" work. Perhaps if you could outline to me personally -- by email or through my talk page what your remaining concerns are so I can get an understanding of the issue. Many thanks, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message. I'm going to start a conversation on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Harlem. Please go there to discuss this issue. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to summarise the dispute and to set out a course forwards. Could I ask you to make your comments there? Many thanks, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ira Glass

Hey, I noticed you reverted without comment my change (back) from "(b. ___)" to "(born ___)" in the Ira Glass article. Wikipedia style for biographies is to use the full word "born" (especially in this part of the article); you can read this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death and in the other examples in the Manual of Style (e.g. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)). Just wanted to let you know. — brighterorange (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Takemitsu

Hi there,

I'm not sure about your recent copy edit on this page. The opening now reads very ambiguously "Tōru Takemitsu (武満 徹 Takemitsu Tōru, October 8, 1930 – February 20, 1996) was a Japanese, largely self-taught composer of contemporary- and classical music" ----- It doesn't make any sense to say Takemitsu WAS a composer of contemporary music, it's an oxymoron. Furthermore the use of 'classical' music when refering to Takemitsu's work is entirely ambiguous and perhaps a little misleading. Also now you have moved the opening biographical information to the section headed 'music', the whole article reads very badly - if you look at the Messiaen page - (which is featured) you can see that this sort of general information BELONGS in the opening, and then further more detailed data belongs in the body. A single sentence to open the article is totally useless, especially when it conveys so little useful information.

I haven't reverted it but I do think it reads badly now and needs reorganising.

Matt.kaner 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

yeah, it was erroneously saved by someone trying to be helpful...then i forgot all about it. it had some really big problems with hyper-referencing to start with, but i'll just revert and start over again. thanks for the reminder. --emerson7 | Talk 00:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

cool - i'm glad someone else's doing some work on the page. The hyper-referencing is a problem, and completely my fault, but as you know it's always really difficult starting from a completely unreferenced article and gradually working in sources without having time to completely rewrite etc... good luck.

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

SatyrBot 05:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit of National Public Radio

I assume it was you who has twice changed the article to put Robert Conley back as the founder of National Public Radio. I assure you that he was not. I was there at the time, as were numerous people who have laughed with me at this total misrepresentation of Conley's role. For a very brief period (a few months) he was the host of All Things Considered at the very beginning of NPR, starting in May of 1971. He was replaced after that short period as totally inappropriate for the role. I know because I briefly replaced him with an another man, Mike Waters, but it was not a role I wanted to keep. All of this is stated by NPR in its official history. See http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/atc30/timeline/1971.html

I am new to Wikipedia, so I do not know how to make a correction the proper way. However, I have been a journalist for 38 years, and have won every important award. I do know the difference between fact and fiction. The incorrect information, now twice restored, about Robert Conley discredits Wikipedia among those who know the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimborus (talk • contribs) 04:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Sargent

Excellent edits. Bless you! Tim Riley 19:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

But now I look again is the link to the Sargent cancer charity taboo?Tim Riley 19:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

César Franck

Hello, why do you inexplicably delete the French flag icon from the place of death in the infobox?

Franck spent most of his adult life in Paris, France, where all of his major works were conposed and performed.

I've reverted this accordingly JGHowes ^talk - 23:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Welsh choirs

You recently reverted [1] an edit of mine removing an irrelevant paragraph from Choir. I had posted my intent to do this on the talk page and received no response. Do you have a reason for reinstating this paragraph? If so, please put it on Talk:Choir. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Radio Show

Hmm to me that sounds like the same as what a presenter/host does - if there is a second person, they are usually co-presenters/co-hosts. Can you give any examples? Or perhaps just suggest it on the Infobox's talk page. -- Chuq (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it must be different in Australia; here we have a host/presenter (or co-hosts/co-presenters) who does the bulk of the program. Adverts and promos are pre-recorded and have nothing directly to do with the radio show; station id's are both pre-recorded (again, nothing to do with the show) or just spoken by the presenter; news is read by a news-reader on the hour or the half hour. Most shows have a separate producer who handles talkback calls, mixing, etc. and doesn't have an on-air role. Not that I'm saying you are wrong, but I don't know what else there is. What does the announcer actually say/do? -- Chuq (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry...i'm relativley new to this...what do you mean?

François Nicolas Voirin

I have actually started the page. Could you please not change the actual information with subjective statements.

Saying: "Voirin is one of the greatest bow craftsmen of the nineteenth century on par with predecessors Tourte, Dominique Peccatte, Jean Pierre-Marie Persois, and Etienne Pajeot." IS NOT THE SAME AS "Voirin trully was one of the great makers of the 19th century along with his predecessors François Tourte, Dominique Peccatte, Jean Pierre-Marie Persois, and Etienne Pajeot."

Incidentally, the site you mention: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~leonid/bows_makers.htm is the one that has copied much of the information from Stefan Hersh and other very familiar sources. Others have followed suit: http://www.wps.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bows_makers.htm as well as http://www.atelierlabussiere.com/bows.htm Merci d'avance. User:Milliot 20:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

J.J.Millant

Could you please stop changing the information and the order. I have been expanding much of the Lutherie section. User:Milliot 08:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Keith Peck

could you please extrapolate as to why you keep objecting to the Quotes section of the page:

please visit www.keithpeck.com to see what a great many professionals said about this Master Bowmaker: quotes from J.F.Raffin, B.Millant, Elmar Oliveira, Peter Horner of Bonhams, and Gennady Filimonov of odeonquartet. User:Milliot 08:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain why it is that you do not approve of a QUOTES section with a referrence to the website as well as a link to a gallery of bows. I started the page, so I believe I know what I am talking about. It seems to me, that you are the one vandalizing this page by deleting relevant information about an American Master Bowmaker.

If you have suggestions about adding information, I welcome that. But deleting relevant information is vandalism in my view. User:Milliot 16 April 2007 (UTC) User:Milliot 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

If I have permission to use the quotes, I assume that is OK as long as it is stated so........correct? Please let me know. User:Milliot 16 April 2007 (UTC)

it is not only the qoutes. the contents of your edits are non-standard and do not comply with the wikipedia mos. EVERYTHING you post must be properly referenced--particularly quotes. external links must be place in the appropriate section, and stub articles do not require more sections than are necessary, i.e. "biography" section should not lead the article...it is redundant and unnecessary on stubs. you must not remove valid references, and you must not use copy/paste from copyrighted websites. also, the article must make sense. it is not my intent to be unkind, but much of your editing is not grammatically or syntactically correct. further, posting unauthorised 'locked' templates is enough to get you sanctioned by administrator. if you continue with your disruptive edits, i will have to report you. i encourage you to check out the wikipaedia help section for tutorials on how to set up and edit articles. --emerson7 | Talk 19:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I gather you are not an administrator but rather a contributor? As far as correcting my grammar, you have made plenty of mistakes yourself from the corrections that I have seen. At times, you alter the factual information dramatically. Please understand, that I am expanding the lutherie section and have started many of the new pages.

If I have permission to use the quotes, I assume that is OK as long as it is stated so, correct? Please let me know. User:Milliot 16 April 2007 (UTC)

ps: can you please address this previous question: "Can you please explain why it is that you do not approve of a link to a gallery of bows. I started the page, so I believe I know what I am talking about. This is relevant information about an American Master Bowmaker. If you have suggestions about adding information, I welcome that. "

Perhaps, if you wish to re-organize the deleted sections in the style that you feel is wiki-appropriate, please do. I would like to see the gallery of bows and quotes in the ==External Links== section.

User:Milliot 16 April 2007

yes i know i make mistakes too...i type really fast and i forget to check before i save. as far as the 'factual errors'...all of which are due to my attempts at translating your edits. i don't profess to be as knowledgeable on the topic of archetiers, your edits have been very confusing and difficult to sort out. i am, however, very well versed in writing and editing...and wikipedia. the corrections i (and others) have made to your edits have all been attempts at making them readable and in compliance with standard editing princples use here on wikipaedia. --emerson7 | Talk 19:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I gather you are not an administrator but rather a contributor? As far as correcting my grammar, you have made plenty of mistakes yourself from the corrections that I have seen. At times, you alter the factual information dramatically. Please understand, that I am expanding the lutherie section and have started many of the new pages.

Walton

Hi - could you explain why you have amended the style of the birth dates on this disambiguation page, from (born → (b. ?? The change goes directly against the Manual of Style. I've reverted your change, pending your response. Disambiguator 21:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

yes....reference WP:ABB. also protocol suggests that you talk before you revert. --emerson7 | Talk 21:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reference WP:ABB, but I think you misunderstand its purpose; the abbreviations listed there are to provide consistency if abbreviations are used, but does not force their use, especially (I would suggest) in those instances where the Manual of Style explicitly sets out the standards without abbreviation. For showing dates of birth, please check out Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) and Manual of Style (dates and numbers), both of which require the use of 'born' in full.

As for talking before you revert... you'd have seen from the history of Walton that I wikified this disambiguation page, over several days, in mid-October, so perhaps you might have been less hasty in amending all my edits without seeking my rationale beforehand. Now I have been able to point out these Manual of Style pages, please confirm you will be able to conform to their style. Disambiguator 14:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As you haven't responded with additional information, I will be changing the format back now, to conform to the Manual of Style. Disambiguator 23:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Trolling

Regarding your comment on my page, the user in question was engaging in trolling- intentionally trying to anger and disrupt the Wikipedia community- with an inflammatory quote used inappropriately on his userpage. --ProtectWomen 00:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a "what" but a "who" Proabivouac [2] [3]--ProtectWomen 00:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Keith Peck

can you please explain why you object to an external link to his gallery of bows. For people who are interested to know about this maker, they are most likely to be interested in seeing his work. If you don't mind, I would like to keep the link, as it is relevant in my view. There are plenty of other pages where they offer external links. Hope you understand.Milliot 04:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Emerson. I noticed you have also contacted this editor; I just left him a polite warning about copyright violations (Giuseppe Fiorini was taken from here, but since it's down you can see it cached here). I haven't looked through the rest of his edits yet, but I hope we can get him to follow our copyright policies. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yah, I know, these kind can really eat up your time ... he's adding good information that we need, but just doesn't seem to understand the importance of copyright compliance ... Antandrus (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

About the Ralph Waldo Emerson article

Hey Emerson, I revised the R.W.Emerson article because some things were repeated in the article. Why did you decide to change back? --Cantaire87 18:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to keep the current version of the R.W.Emerson article, please do consider editing the first three paragraphs.--Cantaire87 18:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Beecham

No, I didn't. I reverted to the version prior to the editing by the banned editor intentionally, and you were welcome to make your edit again if required. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Henry V

Fair comment. No offence meant. AndyJones 21:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Academy Awards

Hi, I see your edits to the Acting Records section. Thanks for your help in improving that article. I "undid" the edit because I felt that some (not all) of the edits were unnecessary, inconsistent, and grammatically incorrect. I see that you then "undid" my edit, with a comment to the effect of "It's called copy-editing, not list making." I don't want an edit war, and I am sure we are both here to improve the article. So, any suggestions as to how to handle our (for lack of a better term) "disagreement"? Please let me know. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

Rimsky-Korsakov a Romantic?

I see you have just labelled R-K as a Romantic. I think if you check the reference books you'll find this isn't accurate, e.g. Richard Taruskin, the Russiuan opera expert in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera who doesn't use the word Romantic once in his whole article. (He does talk about "historical realism"). Regards --Kleinzach 07:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Musical artist infobox images

Still trying to figure out why its broken :( --soum (0_o) 06:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you help with a list of articles where its broken? Random sampling of what transcludes the template is not helping. --soum (0_o) 06:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I had already nailed it down to manually specifying sizes. I will try to modify the template to add the px only when its not specified. --soum (0_o) 06:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

B. Fuller

No problem. Thanks for the heads up. — goethean ॐ 13:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

References

I disagree with you. Footnotes are referenced within the text and may refer in a short-form manner to the Reference section below. -- Ssilvers 19:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Puccini

I disagree with you about the italics of the "O mio babbino caro," especially when there's a reference to "Nessun dorma" on the same line without italics. I'm glad you put the infobox back though, I find it to be one of the stupidest things I've seen done on Wikipedia yet. What's your stance on the infoboxes in composer's articles?
NewYork1956 22:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

lol...of course you know what my response that is, right? my reading of WP:MOS#Foreign terms (and the Chicago Manual of Style) is that they should all be italicised. the qoutes, of course still necessary.
it's great that you let your opinion known on the puccini talk page, but be sure to also visit the page where the infobox debate is currently raging [4]...and tell a friend!--emerson7 | Talk 22:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry pal, but you got it all wrong. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)#Italian music terms page says "most Italian music terms are well-known enough to be considered part of the English language. Commonly used terms should not be italicized." Included in the list is arias. "O Mio Babbino Caro" is an aria, not a foreign term. I will be changing it back now.

NewYork1956 23:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Radio

Interested in joining WikiProject Radio? --PhantomS 02:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reversions in Elizabeth Taylor

I noticed that you reverted several of my edits to Elizabeth Taylor (diff). Could you explain your reasoning? - Ben Ram 07:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any response, I'm going to restore my changes to the article. My edit summaries should make it clear why I believe these changes are necessary. Please, if you intend to revert to your version again, at least engage in discussion first. - Ben Ram 05:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

flagicons

That was the idea. However, it seemed like a better idea to do it with some people aware (in case of fallout, etc). –Unint 03:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Smith

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Smith. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. -- JHunterJ 01:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Morris

You are going contrary to WP:DATE in the date of birth formats for Morris as well, as I mentioned in my edit comment. Please fix it -- living people's dates are given as "First Last (born YYYY)". -- JHunterJ 01:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Gramophone (magazine)

I don't understand why you reverted my change of the references and sources to standard Wikipedia format — nor why your edit summary referred to this as "copy-editing". --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you haven't had the courtesy to reply to me, but have simply insisted on reverting to the curiously non-standard format. This is disruptive, and editors are often given editing blocks for such behaviour. I see from other comments here that this isn't an isolated example. Please don't let this get out of hand. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Rollback

Please be aware that using rollback in content disputes is very strongly frowned upon. Mak (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Rollback

This is a blatant misuse of TWINKLE. Wonderful as that rollback script is, it's not to be used for content disputes, nor for labelling good-faith edits vandalism, though I assume that was a mistake. Please don't.

As regards the actual dispute itself, have you considered that calling the Pittsburgh Symphony his "Associated act" doesn't make a huge amount of sense when talking about a classical composer? Quite apart from the consensus that these redundant boxes are not to be used on composer articles. Moreschi ^Talk 15:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Morris

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Morris. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. -- JHunterJ 17:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

List of HIV-positive people

Hi, thanks for copyediting this list. I did reverted some of your changes though. It's better to keep question marks in years. That at least gives more information than just stating "unknown". I also removed the (b. 1953) way of writing. The way it is now is more consistent with other simular articles. Garion96 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected concerning the open ended date formatting. I do prefer it when it's "born" instead of the abbreviation "b.".

Regarding the question mark(s). It might be non-standard, but it still gives more information than just unknown. Sometimes we do know the decade, but not the complete year. Then it's better to at least give some information we have. Garion96 (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject newsletter

sorry was just trying out dint see the sanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:emerson7&action=edit&section=new# 86.131.129.131 17:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)dbox86.131.129.131 17:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Pere d'Alberní i Teixidor

1.- That does not explain why do you remove the flag, nor why do you undo my whole edit.

2.- About the picture, I have read several studies that talk about the history of the Spaniards and the Catalans in the Pacific Northwest, and also about Alberní, and there wasn't any picture of him. Neither looking at google. On the contrary, I have found pictures from much less important people, such as Esteban José Martínez. Therefore, I can conclude that there is no picture of Alberní. And that image with the big "?" is ugly and ruins the layout, so why not remove it? It's just a matter of taste.

3.- About the fact that "it wasn't called California", well, I suggest you to read the references. All of them talk about him as "Acting Governor of California". Furthermore, there are several articles talking about the province of California in the times of New Spain: List of pre-statehood governors of California, California (province), etc. I've never traveled to the 18th century, but looking at the sources... I think you are wrong. In fact, how can you say that it not exist, if you added the template for "Governor of Alta California"? You are recognizing that it existed with that...

4.- Finally, about "Acting", ok, it may not be capitalized, but two things: "acting-governor", with the "-", is neither correct, and if you change it, at least change it in all the cases that "Acting" is mentioned in the article. Onofre Bouvila 19:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way you added Alta California, if you check its article, you can see that the name "Alta California" dates back to 1804, not before... Onofre Bouvila 20:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"dude...i'm not interested in playing a game of one-ups-manship...just trying to make a good article. i trust that too is your aim"

Well, then stop adding unsourced stuff to the article, and removing things like the caps, because for example, in Honoured Citizen of Barcelona, that must be in caps, because it's an official title. The same for Governor of California, check the Arnold Schwarzenegger article, it's in caps there also. And the same too for "Company"; if it's "Company" and not "company" is because I am talking about a concrete Company, and I write Comapny instead of First Free Company of Volunteers of Catalonia because it's shorter, but to indicate that I am talking about a concrete company, and not about the concept of "company", I write it in caps. So all in all, if you wanna add something positive to the article that's okey, but stop manipulating it for unclear purposes. Thanks. Onofre Bouvila 12:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not that you are correcting few spelling, that you are also writting false stuff, like that he was "Governor of Alta California" (when Alta California was officially created in 1804), and you don't mention that, eh? Who is being "indiscriminate, retaliatory, vindictive"? About what you said that "titles, unless used with proper nouns are not capitalise", well, I have written the article according to the sources I had, and it will remain so until you provide new sources that prove your statement. Also, you are removing other stuff such as the caps from "Honourable Citizen of Barcelona", which is absolutely wrong, because that is an official title, just that I translated it from Catalan (Ciutadà Honrat de Barcelona). And it goes in CAPS.

So all in all, your edits are incorrect in most of their cases, because you are just introducing your own nervies in the article without providing any source. Create a post in the talk page, provide sources that support your changes, and then, let's discuss about it. But don't go there and start removing caps and stuff because that is illogical. For example, in some cases, you are changing "Governor of California" to "governor of California", and in other cases, you leave it with the caps. So in conclusion, your edits don't follow any kind of logic but just your aim to manipulate in some way the article. All you do is to revert the upgrades I do to the article, because you haven't even done any substantial contribution to it.

Just check this, an official page from the State of California, and it capitalizes it several times, so, according to these official sources, your statement "titles, unless used with proper nouns are not capitalised" is false. [5], etc.Onofre Bouvila 16:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:BennettRiley.png

Thanks for uploading Image:BennettRiley.png. 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:

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

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. 22:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

J.B.Vuillaume

Thanks for trying to "clean up" but in doing so, you have either deleted very relevant information on makers that worked for Vuillaume and or changed certain meanings of models he worked on such as "Le Messie" Strad meaning the "Messiah" Strad.

I think that the opening quotes cut to the chase in defining one of the most celebrated makers of the 19th century. If you don't mind, let's leave them. Many have already told me they like the article as it looked. Thanks for your input.Milliot 09:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you tagging this wikipage with a cleanup tag? You have tried to make corrections, but instead you delete relevant information, and change spelling of some things that should not be changed. If you are not familiar with some of the words in Lutherie, please don't feel compelled to change them. Thanks . And BTW, are you an official wiki editor?

Can you please address my questions?Milliot 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Composer infoboxes

You recently spoke, on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, against the blanket removal of infoboxes from articles about composers, or in an attempt to reach a compromise solution. Despite around a dozen people doing so, there are claims that consensus for their blanket removal was reached. You may be interested in the ongoing debate on the former talk page. Andy Mabbett 10:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your image uploads

Hi, regarding some of your image uploads:

1. You've been adding the text, "It is believed that images published in excess of one hundred years are in the public domain and the use of this image is permitted under US copyright law governing public domain properties." It's actually anything published before 1923 is public domain in the U.S. However, you need to be certain that it was published (meaning, made available to a large audience in some sort of permanent format) and not just created, because unpublished works are subject to different rules. See [6] for more details.
2. You've been tagging these as {{PD-old}} which is only for when the creator has died more than 100 years ago. If the creator is unknown, you can't use this template.
3. Some of your images are public domain for other reasons, such as Image:RichardBarnesMason.png, which states right on the image that it was made by the U.S. Army Signal Corps, making this a work of the federal government and therefore public domain by definition.

Would you mind going back through your image uploads and fixing what you can? I'll be happy to help you out with anything you can't figure out. Thanks for your attention to this matter and thanks for finding such great images! howcheng {chat} 16:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:ManuelMicheltorena.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ManuelMicheltorena.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 18:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ordering of categories

Thanks for your message. Most articles, in my experience, don't have their categories in strict alphabetical order, but if I have disturbed any where they are in order, I apologise.--Runcorn 06:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It would break my heart, if I could never edit wikipedia for the worst again.

Vandalism ?

Being warned for vandalism for adding a {{clear}} ? That's a bit much.

I added this template because with firefox, the photo is over the text, so it's illegible. http://img329.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot007ia9.png If you have a better idea than the clear template, please do (be bold, they say, but maybe not as to tagging users as vandals for nothing)... Gohu1er 10:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

mea culpa....feel free to delete all of the above. --emerson7 | Talk 15:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

date hyperlinks

hey, i saw you revert someones date hyperlinks in Pee-wee Herman, and was curious if there was some guideline you know about that says dates shouldn't be hyperlinked like that. Cheers! Murderbike 16:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Takemitsu

Hi Emerson7, I'm glad to see you've been looking at the Takemitsu page, I've been working hard at it for quite some time now. I'm not convinced though by the header (which you just reverted). There are some serious grammatical errors in it!

In 1958, he received international attention for his Requiem for strings (1957), and providing the foundations for his place as a leading composer of the twentieth century.

The second clause is missing a main verb, and the whole thing is vague.

Again the next sentence has problems, in that it doesn't really connect with the previous sentence grammatically, nor is it strictly speaking accurate. The total number of film scores he wrote, as listed in Peter Burt's thorough biographical/analytical survey: "The Music of Toru Takemitsu" (Cambridge University Press, 2001), list 110 film scores in all (excluding those that were not actually published/produced).

The recipient of numerous awards, commissions and honours, Takemitsu has composed 93 film scores and has composed hundreds of works for ensembles of various sizes and combinations

One more thing: The first sentence now reads: "Tōru Takemitsu (武満 徹 Takemitsu Tōru, October 8, 1930 – February 20, 1996) was a Japanese composer, author of crime fiction and music theory, and celebrity chef." But I do not believe it is possible for anyone to be an author of music theory - it is not a literary genre, plus his writings were not usually music theory proper, but on the aesthetic theory pertaining to it.

I'm happy to discuss this with you, but I do think my revisions fixed these problems. Cheers Matt.kaner 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Alpha references

Aaaaarrrrgggghhh!! Are you kidding? The author's name comes first, so that would look weird, but whatever. Let me know, and I'll make the changes if that's what MOS says. @'!%&@*$!!! BTW, would you kindly leave the notice on my talk page at the bottom of the page? Thanks! -- Ssilvers 17:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Another editor's new edit summary notes that Alpha by author is correct. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Deprecated succession box?

Hi. Re: this edit summary, how is that succession box deprecated? Is it replaced by the info box? Is that the case for just governors or other offices? Thanks in advance. WRK (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be as universal as you make it sound. The first three I just checked at random all had CA gov. succession boxes: Ronald Reagan, Earl Warren, Goodwin Knight. FWIW, I like the succession boxes myself since you can concisely show a chronological sequence of offices for a person. WRK (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Was it discussed somewhere? I'll be happy to help make them consistent if so. WRK (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

“unsourced”

• Please don't confuse a datum lacking a footnote with one that is necessarily unsourced. (Note now that most of the article on Willem Mengelberg remains unfootnoted.)
• Please use the {{fact}} tag, rather than summarily removing content that is-or-is-believed to be unsourced. The tag can provoke helpful edits from users who would otherwise not know that they can make a contribution, and it means that intermediate edits don't foul what should be a simple process.

—SlamDiego_←T 14:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, but there's no sense in permitting more unreferenced data just because the rest of it is unsourced. anyway the point is moot, as i provided the necessary link myself. --emerson7 | Talk 16:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You provided a footnote from a source that was already provided at the end of the article (by me). Meanwhile, the rest of the article is unfootnoted, yet sourced. —SlamDiego_←T 11:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your question

Hello Emerson7. I may not have a helpful reply to our question but I'll just give a couple of my ideas. First, infoboxes, to me, are meant to be a bit like having the USA Today newspaper next to the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. They give a quick thimbleful of information, but they should pique one's interest into reading more. Are they useful to the casual reader? I wouldn't hazard a guess. Do they keep people from reading the more detailed info in the text? Again I wouldn't know but when editors try to stick a ton of info in them they just look ugly (to me and I know that is POV) and detract from the overall page. I know that they are here to stay and probably fun for those that create them.

Now, to be honest, my eyes tend to glaze over when I get to deeply into the MoS so I may take a quick peek to see if anything is strictly prohibited (and it is always nice to keep in mind Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules). As to the "notable roles" section the one criteria I tend to think about is, when I read the actors name what one or two roles immeadiately springs to mind. Often this can be an award winning one but it doesn't have to be. Now, as you say , this is subjective but at least it is a place to start. My main idea is to keep the infoboxes brief so, if the text of the article mentions many of thier roles and there is a full filmography I just feel that it is redundant to keep adding roles to the infobox, however, if these are missing from the article I am more leniant. The strategy that you mention of just keeping taking stuff out until another editor tires is a bit tedious but usually works in the end. When you have to go further I feel that calling on the wikicommunity is the next step and I make a post on the wikiproject film page requesting ideas and/or consensus. I've never gone to the biography projects page since most of my entries are in the entertainment area but they might be helpful too. Now the community may decide against my edits but since it is a group decision I can live with that. If you are ever in a particularly contentious edit battle I can recommend that you take a look at the Audrey Hepburn page, wherein various editors hashed out an agreement on her discussion page and then posted one of the notes that you can't read until you go into edit to explain why it should be left as is. Well I hope that some of this is helpful and I apologize if it isn't so I'll just close by saying cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 17:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning about Romualdo Pacheco

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. WRK (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore...

I see from your block log that you were blocked just one month ago for similar behavior, i.e. refusing to engage in discussion. Administrators will likely take this into account when dealing with this matter.

In addition, please do not inappropriately term people's edits as vandalism when they clearly do not meet the criteria. WP:VANDAL only applies to bad faith edits and my edits have obviously been in good faith.

WRK (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please maintain civility and do not disparage people with your opinion of their maturity. Rather than advising me to cool my jets (my jets are plenty cool BTW, thanks), why not simply tell me where I can view the discussion where consensus for the navigation boxes replacements was attained? Since this is the third time I've asked and every random check I make disagrees with your claim, I can only assume that the community does not share your opinion. WRK (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Now the picture is getting clearer. The first ⅓ of the CA governors had no governor succession boxes because you removed them a month ago and never finished the job. I gather that's what you mean when you say they are deprecated. You've apparently decided that they're deprecated. I've decided otherwise and changed them back. WRK (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a section to WP:ANI to address your current crusade to remove succession boxes and thereby make articles inconsistent. I am now having to spend my valuable time undoing your changes so that the articles are back in a consistent state. WRK (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Takemitsu

Hey Emerson7, I don't think there's any real cause to put the list of complete works in a separate article. Look at Messiaen which is a featured article, and by far one of the best composer biographies on Wikipedia - plus look at WP:Composers.

Matt.kaner 22:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC) PS I'd appreciate a response, otherwise I'm going to revert it.

Ok point taken, it is a sprawling and very long list. But in that case i'm going to put up a List of notable compositions section, because it will serve as a useful point of reference while actually reading the article. I'm also moving the list of further reading back to where I had put it, above the notes - which really do need to go right at the end, so that readers actually see the further reading section. This is also the format that all the featured (i.e. best) composer content takes on Wikipedia.

Matt.kaner 13:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok cool. WP:Layout says the following "It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices, but the Notes and References sections should be next to each other. For example, you may put "Further reading" above "Notes and references" or vice versa", so if you don't have any serious objections I'd rather keep it above - as a reader the last thing I personally want to "read through" is the footnotes, but having a rough idea of the general reading available beforehand is useful. Anyway it's nothing major...

Cheers Matt.kaner 13:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I don't know who that guy is, but he was driving me to drink. I am not a drinking man, so far. Thank you. Thank you for catching the vandalism to Langston Hughes. Please, don't be offended that I am saying THANK YOU. :-)TonyCrew 22:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Cease removal of succesion boxes

This is a request that you stop removal of politicial succession boxes as "depricated" without either a.) linking to a community conesnsus shwoing such deprication b.) engaging in appropriate discourse over your controversial actions. If you continue to remove these boxes without discussion, you will be temporarily blocked. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is why things are going the way they are going. Politicial succession boxes are a common places. Even the first president of the United States has them at the bottom. From all of this, it appears that there is a communoity consensus for inclusion of these, as even some of the most famous politicians have them. You attempting to removed them from a subset of policiticians (california governors as far as I can tell) would be an ill advised action for several reasons. First off, as stated before, they are everywhere (which does not make them right or wrong, but does make them more difficult to get rid of). You need to discuss with the communoity the deprication/removal of succession templates, not just removing them on a whim. While being WP:BOLD is aprpeciated, there is a point whree bold becomes reckless. I dont care if you get a communoity consensus to remove them, however i ask that you do not remove them until you do. Replacing them, is to me, an interpretation of current consensus, in essence making it the way it was before. Good luck! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, there appears to be nothing wrong with the inclsuion of both types. both the nav template and the succesion template. See George Washington as an example. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally agreed. If community discussion went against what I prefer, I would stand by that consensus and assist in getting consistency across all pages to follow that consensus. To simply declare that something you disagree with is "deprecated" very much goes against community spirit. WRK (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox changes in James Stewart (actor)

Copyedit from my page:" James Stewart (actor) i'm not sure i'm clear on your objections the changes i've made. 1) the edits made by ...195 placing nominations in the infobox is wrong per template:infobox actor. 2) how is alphabetising the defaultsort cats controversial? let's not allow this to go pear-shaped here. --emerson7 | Talk 17:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Hello Emerson7, I noticed that you had made some substantial changes to the infobox in the James Stewart article. My contention is not that your changes were wrong or inapproriate but that whenever major revisions are made in a Wikipedia article, there is usually a discussion of the edit proposals rather than a wholesale change. :::Quote - Help:Minor_edit - "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, etc. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.

By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word.

The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences not to display them. If you think there is any chance that another editor might dispute your change, please do not mark it as minor."

This was clearly not a superficial change as it affected the facts presented by the article.

Make your case in the Talk:James Stewart (actor) page, give it a reasonable amount of time for editors with an interest in this page to make comments, and then proceed. FWIW Bzuk 17:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

I am going to reccomend that you start attempting to achieve consnsus before making controversial changes. A hint that it might be controversial is multiple reversions of your changes, most often asking for discussion. Changes that remove useful, established preexisting content are usually the most likley to be controversial. Before making these changes PLEASE discuss on the project talk pages, that is what they are there for. If you continue to engage in edit wars, you will be blocked. Remeber that 3 reversions is not a right and you may be blocked for edit warring even before exceeding your third reversion. Thanks and good luck. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is obvious a controversy or you would not be at the 3RR on the article. start a thread about it on the talk page when this occurs. The article is not seriouly hurt because of extra, accurate (as far as I can tell) information so taking a day or 2 to discuss is it generally a good idea. In these situations, feel free to post on the talk page. Im not trying to be annoying just trying to avoid escalating situations. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Emerson7, in replying to the second note you left on my talk page (with all due respect, one word? what wiki concept do you premise that on?--emerson7 | Talk 17:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)), the quote you to which you may be referring, regarding changes, is not "mine" but is an exact quote from the edit files (Help:Minor_edit). As I again reiterate, it's not the edit that is the issue but the method that was employed, i.e. the preferred method of conducting a major edit or revision is to read the discussion page, make an inquiry and then check for consensus before proceeding with a controversial edit. If you truly felt that your original edit was minor in nature but then had an immediate reversion with comments directing you to explain or justify the changes instituted, that would indicate that the edit may not be a minor edit after all. As I also indicated, the changes you have made may be perfectly acceptable and well-received, but other editors with an interest in the topic/subject may wish to contribute to the discourse regarding the proposed changes. IMHO Bzuk 17:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

←Also, you have lead us to believe that an IP added the oringial nominations. I looked through the history and believe [7] to be the oringiial additions of the information. Is there another earlier edit by an IP that I should be looking at? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Really, all that we are asking is 1.) that you use proper edit summaries and not mark content removals as minor. Explain what you are doing in your edit summary. and 2.) that id there is a question about your actions, discuss it on the talk page. It takes all of 10 seconds to pop over to the talk page, click the + button and create a quick thread asking for input. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit from my talk page: "with all due respect--and really mean it, i don't want this to get blown into something, but your one word doctrine is sorely flawed and completely ignores a halve dozen other wiki-concepts. ...and you really haven't defined the controversial nature of my good faith edits, other than to say 'someone might be offended.' and speaking of WP:AGF, wouldn't it have been better, and isn't it required to dialog about it before reverting? --emerson7 | Talk 18:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)"

As I indicated before, this is not my principle but rather a tenet that was established by Wikipedia editors. The comments above illustrate the concern that was indicated. This is an issue over process rather than content. If you begin a minor edit and it becomes a major one then it is contingent on all interested parties to dialogue and establish the need for change that is substantial or requires a measure of support. The discussion page for an article is the proper forum for determining a change in structure, content or format. I am throughly convinced that the changes you instituted will be for the better but as I indicated in my my first edit summary, I did not see the advantages of your edit. This is the time to state the reasons underlying the changes and if there is consensus, then these changes should be incorporated. I realize that there is no radical rewrite of the article recommended but if the infobox does become altered from its original intent then there is a need to provide the basis for an alternate version. As you may have noticed, not all of the changes you have made were of a contentious nature. FWIW, take a look at the past history of this article, read the talk page and you will gain a perspective in the many challenges that editors have faced in dealing with inappropriate submissions. All that is asked is for the edits made to follow an established procedure if there are concerns over the edits. I do appreciate that you are taking the time to carefully explain your editing actions. Now, find the James Stewart "talk" page and make sure that everyone has a chance to hear from you and others about some of the proposed changes in mind for the article. (|:0}) Bzuk 18:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

←You have my apologies if you believe that my previous statements implied an intentional deception. I assure you had no such intentions, however was attempting to understand what edit you were referring to? IF there is another edit by the IP that I was missing, I was inviting you to show it for clarification so I could better understand your reason for the reversions. Aside from that, there was no intentional hidden implications in my statements. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Gene Tierny

The last few books i've read on different Actors can be anywhere from five to ten or more. It depends on the career. The last book I read The 50 most Unforgettable Actresses of the studio era list six each. Each one of these movies represent a different stage of her career.

Depends on career. The last book concerning this, that I read The 50 most unfogettable actesses of the studio era listed six.

Since there is no consense and the last few books point to these films. And these are considered the high lights of her career.

J.B.Vuillaume

Can you please help remove "Categories: Wikipedia articles needing factual verification" from the Vuillaume article. The info in the article is very clear on who/which the sources are etc. Thank you in advance.Milliot 18:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm Sargent

Do you have an opinion on the current discussion on the Sargent talk page? If so, please share it. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 17:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Powell infobox

Greetings. Could you please point out where the "standard" infobox format is listed? Thank you. Biruitorul 15:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Technical University of Madrid (UPM)

Hello, I've noticed that you moved the article about the [Universidad Politécnica of Madrid] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (UPM) to Polytechnical University of Madrid. However, the official translation is Technical University of Madrid [8]. Best regards, —surueña 13:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

there's absolutely nothing on the page you proffer indicating that it's 'official'...only an additional mis-translation of the word Politécnica. [9] [10] --emerson7 | Talk 15:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

i'm curious and disappointed with your failure to respond to my inquiry. --emerson7 | Talk 21:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I work for this University, and our naming policy clearly states that the English name is "Technical University of Madrid". AFAIK, this is because a politechnic is a specific term in English, but my university can't be categorized that way. I can't find an on-line version of this policy, but I do have internal e-mail describing this policy. The link I provided are from a department of the UPM, but I can also post some links of the rectorate [11] [12]. I afraid your sources aren't very good. Best regards, —surueña 21:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Quirks&Quarks.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Quirks&Quarks.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. BetacommandBot 03:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up Emerson7. This editor has two obsessions - Olivier - and placing the age that a person was when they died in their infobox. They are trying to place Oliviers name in every single page that it could possibly go in. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing the stuffing of all of his roles in his infobox is a bit over the top. We might do that thing we talked about of waiting a couple of days and then paring them down but I suspect that even then I suspect we would have to keep the page on out watchlist because this editor seems to want to put Olivier's entire filmography in that box. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Protocols_.26_Standards

In it is the following from the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition:

8.21 Capitalization: the general rule. Civil, military, religious, and professional titles are capitalized when they immediately precede a personal name and are thus used as part of the name (usually replacing the title holder’s first name). Titles are normally lowercased when following a name or used in place of a name (but see 8.22). See 8.25–29 for many examples. For abbreviated forms, see 15.11–18.

President Lincoln; the president Dean Mueller; the dean

General Bradley; the general Governors Edgar and Ryan; the governors

Cardinal Newman; the cardinal

Although both first and second names may be used after a title (e.g., Vice President Dick Cheney), such usage is generally avoided in formal prose. Note also that once a title has been given, it need not be repeated each time a person’s name is mentioned.

Dick Durbin, senator from Illinois; Senator Durbin; Durbin

8.22 Exceptions to the general rule. In formal contexts as opposed to running text, such as a displayed list of donors in the front matter of a book or list of corporate officers in an annual report, titles are usually capitalized even when following a personal name. Exceptions may also be called for in promotional or other contexts for reasons of courtesy or politics.

Maria Martinez, Director of International Sales

A title used alone, in place of a personal name, is capitalized only in such contexts as a toast or a formal introduction, or when used in direct address.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Prime Minister.

I would have done it, Captain, but the ship was sinking.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Gary Karr

Can you explain this edit? Your edit summary had no content. I removed the sentence because it was meaningless. What's a "professional careerist bassist"? Thanks. Chick Bowen 05:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

i'm not quite sure if you are challenging the voracity of the claim or the syntax of the phrase. --emerson7 | Talk 12:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Both. That is, I assume it was intended to mean first bass soloist, which isn't true, a fact highlighted by the "see also" list in that very article. In addition, "careerist" means (OED), " A person (esp. a holder of a public or responsible position) who is mainly intent on the furtherance of his career, often in an unscrupulous manner," which makes no sense in the context. And you mean "veracity." Chick Bowen 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

while the distinction might be trifling, the voracity however, is sound. the double-bassists such as bottesini and dragonetti who proceeded karr made their livings as composers, conductors and other vocations. they were essentially guys who did other things for a living, but played the bass 'like really-really well.' karr, on the other hand, is a double bassist only. with regard to the professional careerist: a careerist is defined as one who follows a career or profession. so perhaps a better construction would be to say, ...first careerist double-bassist... --emerson7 | Talk 19:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to make the claim, you'll need to cite a reliable source. It's a huge claim; there are many bassists who would disagree, so it needs to be backed up. Chick Bowen 21:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Eubie Blake

I'd appreciate you stop removing footnotes on his age ok, i am not touching 1887. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eubie_Blake#12_Year_Old_Composer.3F.3F.3F It's possible he was 96 or even 100, because of army service, 1887 stayed, including on his social seucirty. And Since the Social Security Board did not have a network of field offices in late 1936, it contracted with the U.S. Postal Service to distribute and assign the first batch of Social Security numbers through its 45,000 local post offices around the country. Of these 45,000 post offices, 1,074 were also designated as "typing centers" where the cards themselves were prepared.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.1.199 (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr.

Does anyone actually call him that? The article has already been moved back by someone else to Willie Brown (politician), which IMO, is a much better title. If you really think Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. is a better title, I'd suggest going through Requested Moves before continue to "fix" links. older ≠ wiser 03:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't leave a note sooner. I moved the page back, mainly based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Whether you add a parenthetical or change to his full name, it is still disambiguation. In combination with the preference toward common names, I think that the parenthetical disambiguation is more standard on Wikipedia (at least from what I've seen).

P.S. Either way, there is not a need to bypass the redirects. The only time redirects need to be bypassed is if a page is moved to create room for a disambiguation page. Since I don't think you're creating a page for another politician named Willie Brown, I think we can leave things the way they are. Mike Dillon 03:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Another note, naming it "Willie Brown (politician)" also allows the shortcut text for link creation, i.e. "[[Willie Brown (politician)|]]" gets saved automatically as "[[Willie Brown (politician)|Willie Brown]]". Mike Dillon 03:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My argument, such as it is, is based on the community consensus on Wikipedia itself. This consensus is embodied in our guidelines and policies and sometimes it mandates things like parenthetical names. Mike Dillon 04:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to persist in advocating this move, please take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves as suggested by older ≠ wiser. I really can't say anything if you don't think that "Willie Brown" is the man's common name. Mike Dillon 05:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Jane Alexander

I may be misreading CMS, but it seems to me that, unless you're actually parenthetically citing the reference by author, publication date, and page number within the text, the footnotes/endnotes and list of references/bibliography are actually two separate things. Since Wikipedia uses a format that does not cite reference info within the text of the article itself, it's my understanding that there should be a separation between the two lists at the end of the article. CMS seemingly offers a number of alternatives, but given an admittedly cursory look through the appropriate section (16) I could find no example of a combined bibliography/endnote list that included traditional endnote/footnote info for specific quotes or pieces of information within the text without having source and page references included in the text itself.

I may be confused, but I also double checked the Wikipedia guidelines you mentioned in your message to me and found that they, too, suggested using a separate section for references when footnotes are used at the end of an article. Jancarhart 15:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Willie Brown

Given that there appears to be no support for the move you made, I'm requesting that you reverse all of the changes you made to individual articles since they now all link to a redirect. Thanks. -Chunky Rice 04:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem waiting longer, but I assure you that the situation is not going to change. The move should have never happened and I just think it would be better if you undid the damage yourself instead of waiting for someone else to do it. -Chunky Rice 04:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. It's beeen almost a month now. Would you please revert your changes so that all of those articles don't go to a redirect? -Chunky Rice 00:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Grover Dale Dance Magazine, July, 1960.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Grover Dale Dance Magazine, July, 1960.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:

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

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. 06:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

oops....forgot tag. done! --emerson7 | Talk 23:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:SF Symphony and Chorus.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:SF Symphony and Chorus.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:SF Symphony and Chorus.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[13][14]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:SF Symphony and Chorus.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

oops....forgot tag. done! --emerson7 | Talk 23:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:JohannesKindler.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:JohannesKindler.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

oops....wrong tag. done! --emerson7 | Talk 23:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:JasonBateman1987.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JasonBateman1987.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:

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

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. 23:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

oops....forgot tag. done! --emerson7 | Talk 23:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Unintentional content removal

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Brideshead Revisited. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Brideshead Revisited in pop culture is the only factor establishing notability of subject. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oscar2.jpg

Hmm... I could undelete it, but I'd prefer to see a rationale beforehand, just to make sure it's good. Wizardman 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that rationale wasn't that great, but I guess it works. Anyway, it was tagged as both "replaceable fair use" and "orphaned fair use" when it was deleted. Would you be able to satisfy both? Wizardman 16:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll restore it, but I can't guarantee it'll stay if other admins get a look at it. Wizardman 16:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Oscar2.jpg

Restored, sorry. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have listed this image at WP:FUR. Thanks. -N 19:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oscar2.jpg

there's a been a discussion opened regarding the deletion of Image:Oscar2.jpg at [15]. your comments are invited. --emerson7 | Talk 21:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware of this discussion. I have contributed my opinion to the debate. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 00:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC))

Uma and awards

Hey Emerson. Thanks for the quick response and precision. My bad, I obviously reacted before reading up on that policy. Cheers, --BadLeprechaun 19:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Flags and such

I think you've done the right thing in leaving a friendly message. I'm always a little disheartened when I see a user talk page and all the messages are warnings or suggestions about abiding by policy etc, and in this case the page consists of friendly advice. Whether it's taken ...? Time will tell. We can only keep an eye on it. Same as the awards thing. I don't know how much more explicit the template instruction needs to be. It's frustrating when one adds a link to talk discussion in an edit summary, and the person reverts without adding a comment to the discussion. Rossrs 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Andre Previn image

Can you please explain why the added image is "not permitted for use in infobx"? --Oakshade 06:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexis Arquette

the 'unsourced' as your reason for reverting the 'he does have a penis and it is quite large' amused the heck out of me. Aside from the fact that it was *atrociously* spelt, and completely irrelevant to the article, and I don't believe she is, uhm, currently in possession of it anymore, a quick search of Google for 'alexis arquette nude' will find that the statement is quite true. If completely WRONG for us to include :-) Thanks for keeping an eye on that page! --Thespian 10:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SummerOfMyGermanSoldier.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SummerOfMyGermanSoldier.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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. ElinorD (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Tycologo.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. BetacommandBot 03:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

HJO

Hey, just wondering why you removed the notable roles from the infobox for Haley Joel Osment. I'm not trying to start an argument - just wondering why? Thanks. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 05:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha - thought that might be the reason. Thanks. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 05:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Image:Charles Münch.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Image:Charles Münch.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 22:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:LifeWithJudyGarland.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:LifeWithJudyGarland.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 16:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Image:Oscar2.jpg

Hmm... I could undelete it, but I'd prefer to see a rationale beforehand, just to make sure it's good. Wizardman 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that rationale wasn't that great, but I guess it works. Anyway, it was tagged as both "replaceable fair use" and "orphaned fair use" when it was deleted. Would you be able to satisfy both? Wizardman 16:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll restore it, but I can't guarantee it'll stay if other admins get a look at it. Wizardman 16:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Oscar2.jpg

Restored, sorry. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have listed this image at WP:FUR. Thanks. -N 19:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Oscar2.jpg

there's a been a discussion opened regarding the deletion of Image:Oscar2.jpg at [16]. your comments are invited. --emerson7 | Talk 21:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware of this discussion. I have contributed my opinion to the debate. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 00:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC))

Uma and awards

Hey Emerson. Thanks for the quick response and precision. My bad, I obviously reacted before reading up on that policy. Cheers, --BadLeprechaun 19:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Flags and such

I think you've done the right thing in leaving a friendly message. I'm always a little disheartened when I see a user talk page and all the messages are warnings or suggestions about abiding by policy etc, and in this case the page consists of friendly advice. Whether it's taken ...? Time will tell. We can only keep an eye on it. Same as the awards thing. I don't know how much more explicit the template instruction needs to be. It's frustrating when one adds a link to talk discussion in an edit summary, and the person reverts without adding a comment to the discussion. Rossrs 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Andre Previn image

Can you please explain why the added image is "not permitted for use in infobx"? --Oakshade 06:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexis Arquette

the 'unsourced' as your reason for reverting the 'he does have a penis and it is quite large' amused the heck out of me. Aside from the fact that it was *atrociously* spelt, and completely irrelevant to the article, and I don't believe she is, uhm, currently in possession of it anymore, a quick search of Google for 'alexis arquette nude' will find that the statement is quite true. If completely WRONG for us to include :-) Thanks for keeping an eye on that page! --Thespian 10:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

HJO

Hey, just wondering why you removed the notable roles from the infobox for Haley Joel Osment. I'm not trying to start an argument - just wondering why? Thanks. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 05:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha - thought that might be the reason. Thanks. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 05:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Linking dates

Hello. Why did you remove my date links in Hans Pfitzner? I thought I read somewhere - alas I can't find where - that such were always desirable, except when excessive. Rothorpe 19:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Rothorpe 12:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Biography subheading

I've started a thread on Merv Griffin's talk page about this. I think it bears further discussion. Rklawton 21:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded to Emerson7 for exceptional contributions to Wikipedia. Your work is appreciated. ♫ Cricket02 19:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki year links

I saw that you are citing WP:MOSLINKS as your reason for removing interwiki links for years, but please keep in mind WP:CONTEXT, which states that "Stand alone years do not need to be linked but some users prefer it." I'm one of the ones that prefer it, in fact, and you may met resistance elsewhere -- this seems to be one of those MOS guidelines that is entirely subjective to the user. Therefore, if you're going to continue "rationalis[ing] datelinks," perhaps you should bring it up on the talk page first? Just a friendly suggestion. :) By the way, I came here via Toni Morrison, which I tend to watch like a hawk; I may re-add the interwiki links for years unless you have a more compelling argument. Take care, María (críticame) 23:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

FA Review of Charles Ives

Charles Ives has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. MrPrada 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Vegetable pic

Hi Emerson7,

I fiddled with the vegetable page and removed the tomato/green pepper/lime picture again. In retrospect, it was kinda douchebaggy of me, so I'm posting you a message regards. If you really feel strongly about it, you can put the old one back, but eventually I will get around to taking a better picture of botanical fruits that are culinary vegetables (cucumber, pepper, tomato, perhaps a squash...) and doesn't involve limes. Sound good? Is there another reason you'd like to have limes in the picture that I don't understand? I've never heard of them being used as such, but perhaps this is the case in Switzerland and I'm just ignorant of said fact.

Thanks,

WLU 22:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Miller (journalist)

What problem do you have with my edits? You should have contacted me before unilaterally rv everything without even providing a reason.

Timetrees 19:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Awaiting your response, s'il vous plait.Timetrees 19:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm pretty new at this. Thanks for the welcome.Timetrees 19:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Brandon Cruz edit

Why did you take it upon yourself to remove the trivia. That's part of who he was/is. Either you change it back, or I will.Maluka 13:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Is there any special reason why you reverted my edit for Nobel Prize in Chemistry? As I stated in the revert, the page is not a duplicate of what's on the Nobel Foundation's website. You may cause an edit war with other editors by trying to keep it that way. It makes more sense to disclose all of the citizenships that someone may have to avoid editors from changing the info all of the time. (See the history and talk pages for all of the Nobel Prize articles for how many times editors have changed a Nobel laureate's country and the disputes it has caused.) panda 19:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The country info on the Nobel site is ambiguous. It could be the country of residence at the time they won the Nobel prize, their country of citizenship, or possibly something else. One example of this ambiguity is John James Richard Macleod (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1925). He was never a Canadian citizen according to Canadians but the country for him on the Nobel site is Canada, [17] which he did live in in 1925. So, as I wrote on the Talk:Nobel Prize in Literature, "The Nobel citation is no more authoritative than a laureate's personal website or other reliable sources." To avoid edit wars, it's best to disclose all of a laureate's citizenships. If you haven't looked at the history or talk pages of the Nobel Prize articles about the country/nationality/citizenship issue, I suggest that you do so, especially Talk:Nobel Prize in Literature. panda 23:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So what does the "Country" stand for on the Nobel site? panda 01:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your presumption is wrong. The Nobel website doesn't state that the country is the laureates nationality. Please re-read my 2nd reply to you again. panda 03:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your reason for putting a template on my talk page about an edit war that you're engaged in is...? I won't bother to reciprocate even though it also applies to you. Waiting for a reply at Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#Country of record. panda 21:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You're apparently active on Wikipedia again so this is just a reminder that I'm waiting for a reply at Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#Country of record. panda 04:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

opera director vs. opera manager...et. al

Hi. Thanks for your note. I put some short explanations in the edit summaries but perhaps it's better to talk about this. We've been using 'opera director' in the sense of 'opera stage director' rather than opera intendant/administrator. There is a List of opera directors and you'll see they are all people who direct/directed the staging of operas. They are also in Category:Opera directors.

Category:Opera managers has been used for administrators ('he who is head opera boss') - who may be referred to as managers, directors or intendants depending on which opera house and which country they are operating in. IMO we don't need a separate category of opera administrators because we would be unable to distinguish them from 'opera managers'. (BTW I'm also in favour of using the word 'intendant' (which is an English word) untranslated/as is.)

Does that all seem sensible? Let me know if you see any problems. -- Kleinzach 23:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

...well...no, not really! [laughing out loud]...lemme get this straight:

Category:Opera managers  =  admins, directors, and managers = intendants
Category:Opera directors =  stage directors 
List of opera directors   =  all of the above
theatre director          =  stage directors  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerson7 (talk • contribs) 01:15, August 30, 2007 (UTC) 

No it's much simpler than that:

• Category:Opera managers = admins (intendants), opera house managers, impresarios
• Category:Opera directors and List of opera directors = opera stage directors

__ Kleinzach 01:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits to All Things Considered Article

I honestly spent a couple minutes thinking to myself, "Should I put Andrea Seabrook's name in the infobox and host list now, or should I wait?" It was a tough call, but thanks for clearing it up! --Chief-O 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Twinkle

there was an update today that broke things. You may want to apply this temporary fix. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 04:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Templar

Hello, regarding your edits to Yo-Yo Ma. I suggest you assume good faith next time. Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint, in part because they leave no explanation for the revert in the edit summary. I was particularly concerned you used the edit summary "identified as vandalism". This is quite clearly a content dispute, not vandalism. Even if bad faith is evident, do not act uncivilly yourself in return. And I strongly suggest that you don't don't template the regulars. Thanks, -- Chris B • talk • contribs 08:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Paul Lynde

Hmm...I'm trying to remember on if Peter Marshall's book had said it, because I am pretty sure I remember knowing that he won the two Emmy's from that book alone. I'll try to find it, I'm sure it could count as a citation. FamicomJL 04:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, I found Marshall's book. I'm going to check it later tonight and see where he mentions Paul winning the Emmy awards. FamicomJL 19:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

James Earl Jones

Hi again Emerson7. I am just throwing in my thoughts about his voice. Although I have changed his page back to baritone a time or two I really have come to the conclusion (after reading wiki's pages for vocal ranges among other thoughts) that he really and truly is a bass voice. Now I am not trying to start an argument or an edit war so I won't change the page. I am just posting this as food for thought. One thing to note - as with most male voices his has deepened over the years and, where he could be described as a baritone in the 60's and 70's, if you listen to him today the only voice that I can recall as being deeper and lower in the vocal register is Barry White (may he RIP). I hope that you are well and isn't it great that they deactivated the notable roles section of the infoboxes for actors;-) Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Merv Griffin

Hi there. You said in your edit summary that you changed the headings back "per MOS." If it really is per MOS, than please forgive me, but I do have a problem with two "game shows" section, one that's a subsection within the "career" section and one that's not. Also, was his death really part of his "private life?" Sexual orientations were definetly private, but I remember watching NBC featuring his death as the main story of the day. And the first section is entitled "Biography"...if only that one section is a biography on Merv Griffin than what does that make the rest of the article? You would have to make everything a subsection under it, thus changing the heading to "Early life" would be much better. That one's common sense. I know my efforts to rename the sections weren't the best either, but I'm not exactly liking them how they are. You can reply on my talk page, or I've started a similar discussion on the Merv Griffin talk page. Best, Happyme22 06:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Garðar Thór Cortes: Fansites

Hi, I was the editor who created the above article. You seem to be engaged in an ongoing battle with an anonymous editor over his/her insertion of a fansite into the "External links" section of "Garðar Thór Cortes". Perhaps it would help if you explained on the "talk page" why you have taken out all the fansite links and refer to your explanation in the edit summary the next time you take out the link. Actually, I had a look at "Wikipedia:External links", and it doesn't really say in so many words that fansites shouldn't be linked to. Is it your view that fansites are undesirable because they inevitably contain material that breaches copyright? Cheers, Jacklee 09:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

C.V. Raman

I did a rework of this page. The information I added is correct and I see that you have reverted to a page with missing information and incorrect dates. You also removed the section I placed regarding his works. Is there a reason you did this? I am a scientist that works in this field and I am upset to see that my correct information was so blatantly disregarded. Thanks for your attention in this matter. [[User:Pavlina2.0|Pavlina2.0] 17:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I am passionate about my spectroscopy, you see. I added an entire reference section at the bottom of the page. As I was adding many details, I thought it would be best to list both the autobiography resource and a condensed version put out by the American Chemical Society there. This is an allowed manner to list such, I believe. Pavlina 18:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Brown

Ain't this debate over now? ––Bender235 14:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ossie Davis

Hi. Can you give me your thoughts as to why you feel the older photo of Davis is more appropriate as the article primary photo? Thanks. Nightscream 17:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Trivia

What exactly was your reasoning for this revert? "It was fine the way it was" isn't really a compelling argument. Melsaran (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

compelling? perhaps not. it does, however convey exasperation over having the template text change every other day, without improvement. it was indeed fine the way it was, in that wp:trivia as referred to in the template, encompasses most contingencies and uses quite well. --emerson7 | Talk 16:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Melsaran#trivia for my response (I like to keep the discussion centralised). Melsaran (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:TOCUSStates

I've been working for weeks to try and clear out duplicate, unused or single-use templates from Category:TOC templates. I don't mind if you can't provide a good rationale about what this does that the existing template can't do better: it's just going to end at WP:TFD as soon as I'm done combing through the list anyway. Circeus 18:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

s'okay. Really sorry I jumped at your throat myself. Circeus 18:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually moved the other template over to your name, because it does have the advantage of making the use clearer. Circeus 18:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nominated the tacky newcomer for deletion. Cheers. Circeus 20:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

I have reverted your edits to Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine because:

• As you know, there is an open RFC related to the changes you made.
• You made the table unsortable.

Please follow Wikipedia:Etiquette and help work towards a consensus using the despute resolution process. Thanks! panda 08:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Heinrich Reif-Gintl

A tag has been placed on Heinrich Reif-Gintl, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article 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 its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, 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 page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Pekaje 22:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Opera director redirect

I've just corrected this (in connection with work we are now doing on the Wagners) - and afterwards discovered that it was a new creation of yours. To avoid misunderstandings let me explain that opera directors are not the same thing as theatre (spoken drama) directors. There probably should be an article on the 'Opera director', but at the moment there isn't - so I think it's better that there is no link rather than a misleading one. Regards. -- Kleinzach 09:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. This is an area where English is deficient. In German/French they distinguish between 'regisseur' and 'direktor'. ('Producer' is similarly a problem in English). Anyway let me know if I can help. -- Kleinzach 16:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Heinrich Reif-Gintl

There's almost nothing available on him - nothing in the German wiki. That makes me think he was only an opera bureaucrat not a theatre (stage) director, but there's nothing really to go on. Barely notable? -- Kleinzach 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Beecham

Snarky? Who, me? :) I would appreciate any other suggestions as to what to put in the comment -- SteveCrook 20:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Collapsible navigation boxes

Hi. I see you have just done some reformatting of one of these. I have a question. Is collapsibility the norm now for these? Is there a policy anywhere on it? This has come up becuase someone is insisting that they don't have to be hideable. Thanks. -- Kleinzach 05:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That was for Opera lists, right? However the problem we have is with Template:Brecht plays. The 'designer' of this one insists it must be non-collapsible and has reverted edits by three different people trying to make it collapsble. That's why I was trying to find some WP policy on the navigation boxes. Any ideas? -- Kleinzach 22:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but is it possible to make it collapsible? That's the point really . . . -- Kleinzach 23:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Kleinzach 00:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Classic case of ownership. Anyway I've reverted. -- Kleinzach 02:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not a case of ownership - I detailed the reasoning quite clearly on the talk page. Emerson7, you made changes without reference to that discussion; in that light, it is not unreasonable to revert those changes. The improvements to the code in the first edit were not amended. As you know, collapsibility is not required and there are many boxes that do not collapse. Kleinzach has not contributed to the articles that the template applies to. His opposition to the template stems from an idiosyncratic opposition to recognizing the dramatic component of opera, (see the opera talk page) and the Brecht plays template occurs on one, maybe two of these articles; the vast majority are not. That Kleinzach has difficulty accepting that Brecht is the author of these works is not the most important concern in the design of articles on them. The only reason he has offered for his intransigence is that it looks 'cluttered', yet it occurs at the bottom of the article. It is a standard model and smaller and less obtrusive than many other examples. If you wish to contribute to the debate, by all means do so, but edits made in lieu of that discussion are not appropriate when it is already a issue of contention. DionysosProteus 14:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandra Oh

Hi there. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and I don't know who you are, but I am not vandalizing the article relating to Sandra Oh. It is impossible that her birth date is 1971. I lnow this from someone else who knows first hand. If you'd like to discuss this further, I can provide other contact information and we can discuss the issue. Otherwise, please stop changing the article to re-introduce factually wrong information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwolgel (talk • contribs) 14:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Clinton Davisson

Thanks for your work on this article; it seems to be improving nicely. Easchiff 01:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: your note to me

Thanks for your note Emerson7. Glad I brought a smile to your day. Although editors slapping brackets around a word and then not checking to see if it links to what they want it to link to is one of my pet peeves it is also true that this laziness gives wikignomes like me something to do so you gotta laugh :-D. Thanks again and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Igor Stravinsky

Personally I prefer it a bit smaller. But if you prefer it larger, feel free to revert. Garion96 (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Brooke Astor Photograph

What is the point of adding a photograph that doesn't even look like the woman and probably isn't her anyway? I am deleting becauses it is a deeply unattractive photograph with no verification that is actually an image of Mrs Astor, who frankly would never have been let out of the house looking like that.Kitchawan 15:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Castor oil

Yup, you're right; my bad. I was conflating {{reflist}} with {{refs}}. {{refs}} is obsolete per WP:FOOTNOTES, in favor of <ref>, but {{reflist}} is just fine. Sorry about that. -- Terry Carroll 23:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Flag Icons, be more careful next time!!

While I appreciate you trying to have the articles I edited conform to Wikipedia's guidelines, I don't appreciate your usually blind reverts which got rid of all the other minor tweaks that improved the infoboxes. For example, in Lana Turner's article, you simply reverted my edit because of the flagicons. In the process, you changed the article back to there being one flagicon on the birth location but none on the death location, the death location doesn't list the country like the birth location, etc. Another example is the Spring Byington article, where there was no country in the birth or death locations and the years active section was extremely messy, which I fixed. In the Jane Wyatt article, your blind revert got rid of the three Emmy Award wins that I added, as well as the spouse that I added. In addition, you also again made the article so there was still one flagicon and you eliminated the country of death and birth locations that I added.

In the future, instead of going on some egotrip revert spree, you might want to think about your edits and not just completely wipe out the edits of others because of one simple thing that you find wrong with the edits. I do not appreciate your lack of respect for my contributions or lack of concern for the articles, as now I have to go back and fix everything you messed up. Great job. :/

Ilampsurvivor5 15:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's alright and sorry for the kind of mean message above, I was just a little frustrated. Happy editing in the future :) Ilampsurvivor5 15:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

IP 70.20.46.65

Hi again Emerson7. I have seen your name a time or two helping to revert the editor at User:70.20.46.65 and their constant need to but flags in the infoboxes even though wikiP now has a policy against this (they also like filling up the unseeable notable roles field). Today I put a polite request on their talk page asking them to refrain from doing this in the future. I am hoping that they come to understand the waste of time (for both them and us) that these edits cause. If not, and if you come across these edits in the future, would you mind adding further requests to their talk page. If they persist it is possible that our requests may help to change their edit habits or allow an admin to admonish them in the future. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Vladimir Jurowski

Hello. I put the reason for removing the infobox in the edit summary. The Classical Music project, as well as the Opera project, deplores the use of inappropriate infoboxes for classical musicians. Have a look at the Jurowski box. Describing GFO and the LPO as "associated acts" makes Wikipedia look ridiculous, and demonstrates that these boxes are not suitable for classical musicians. Your comments would be welcome. --GuillaumeTell 10:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

GuillaumeTell is right. The Classical Music project has a policy of not using infoboxes for conductors, just as the Opera Project doesn't use them for singers. Regards. -- Kleinzach 11:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

actually that is not correct. the policy is regarding 'composers', not conductors. with regard to the decidedly clumsy nomenclature, i working up a few modifications to accommodate the genre. in any case, the proverbial baby shouldn't be thrown out. --emerson7 13:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Composers Project has a policy on composers infoboxes. The Classical Music project has a policy on conductors infoboxes, because conductors come under that project. I think it would be prudent to remove the one from Vladimir Jurowski.-- Kleinzach 13:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've now gone ahead and removed the box. Thanks. -- Kleinzach 07:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Economics

Your recent revert of Nobel Prize in Economics could be considered vandalism as you reintroduced an erroneous reference that a new editor fixed in good faith. If you didn't like the placement of the reference, you only needed to move it, not revert the changes. Please refrain from reverting except in clear cases of vandalism. You may also benefit from applying the The Golden Rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. –panda 14:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Toni Morrison

You will be reported for repeatedly, and with no explanation, deleting Morrison's Nobel Prize recognition. -Timeloss 01:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Anti-poverty advocates

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I've added Category:Poverty as a parent category for Category:Anti-poverty advocates. It's always a good idea to find at least two parent cats when creating a new category. That's what helps readers (and other editors) to find and use your newly-created category. Regards, Cgingold 22:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit on Template:IMSLP

I think that this edit changes the template to non proper or non fluent English; although English is not my native language. Your comment was: "for consistency with other wp db templates". Can you explain that?Dr. Friendly 14:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Mozart's Berlin journey

Hello, "Thomasschule" in German means, "Thomas school". So, "choir of the Thomas school", not "choir of Thomas school". Opus33 18:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics#Survey 2

In case you didn't notice, you've added your vote twice to the survey. (You were the 2nd editor to vote.) The normal procedure is to modify your previous vote. –panda 17:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

subterfuge?

I happened to notice your comment on Dekimasu's talk page: "i noticed your opposition to renaming the econ prize, and thought you would be interested in knowing that there's another attempt to thwart the will of the community by subterfuge." Those are pretty serious claims so you should definitely explain yourself. –panda 01:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your comment on Dekimasu's talk page again: "thank you for the canvassing note, i honestly didn't realise there were specific prohibitions against it. i've reverted those i could find regarding another matter. with regard to agf, for weeks i actually believed panda was making good faith efforts until i discovered and understood his tactics at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Page move after no consensus. at some point, it just has to be called. either way, i take your admonitions to heart. cheers.". Just so you know, I am actually interested in learning what WP policy is and obviously the only way to learn is to ask questions. Asking in the RM was pointless as no one there was an admin who specializes in that area. In case you'd like to know what other forum I asked, here's another one: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names)#Common name vs. correct name. That's not canvassing, unlike what you were doing, that's attempting to understand WP policies. As Dekimasu said here, try assuming good faith. BTW, you still need to explain your claim above. –panda 15:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Biographical infoboxes

Thank you for your polite message.

Please respect the views of the many editors on the classical music projects hwo have decided not to use biographical infoboxes. Please don't make any more of them for conductors. As you know the Classical Music project has a guideline on this. Also please don't revert pages where they have been removed.

Nobody has anything against infoboxes in general (navigation boxes are useful) nor are we against putting them in popular culture articles. So if you want to make bio-infoboxes please go ahead - but only in areas where they are welcomed.

Thank you for your cooperation. -- Kleinzach 02:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Its great that you are attempting to place infoboxes. If noone did we wouldn't realise how many people were actually pro-infoboxes still in the uncomfortable truce that we have currenly with Kleinzach/Opus33/etc. about the issue of infoboxes. In order to convince them you have to match their particular standards for perfect accuracy, which is unreasonable I know, but thats how arts projects seem to be going recently. Keep up the good work and don't fear to place infoboxes if they are accurate and reasonable. Don't let them archive things too fast if you think they are just precluding a real consensus, as opposed to the current fragile truce. Ansell 23:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: what a fine mess..

That’s alright. I’m sorry if a came across as a little harsh. I was rather annoyed by the statements made by several users. This whole issue has been blown way out of proportion by users who, in my opinion, wish to exploit this incident to further their own point of view. Canvassing is fairly minor in comparison too, say, making personal attacks or edit warring. In the future if a discussion needs more debate (as this one certainly did) it would be wise to drop all POV from the messages and simply ask a randomly selected group of users to please add further opinions. That would fall under “Friendly notices” in WP:CANVASS, and I cannot see how you could be criticized for that. In any case I hope to have the pleasure of working with you on future articles. Wikipedia certainly need more writers with knowledge of music! --S.dedalus 05:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Boyfriend

I redid the edits that you undid on the boyfriend page re non-romantic use. Please add your reasons for disagreeing on the talk page and provide a reference before reinserting the text. Thanks! 129.27.202.101 14:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia

I noticed that you participated in the recent CfD of the category "Homophobia" [18]. It has been re-nominated for deletion, on the same grounds as before, and I was making sure you had an opportunity to present your interpretation of policy on this matter. The discussion can be found here. Best. --Cheeser1 14:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reissiger

Not that clearcut- see the section on ß in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Disputed issues. However, from the same convention:

The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known. This I agree should have been done. Schissel | Sound the Note! 22:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize lists

It would be more helpful if you could give your comments about why you think the tables should be formatted a particular way instead of making changes without discussion. I encourage you to participate in the RFC instead of making formatting changes that may or may not be reverted in the future. –panda 16:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[comment copied over from User talk:Panda#Nobel Prize lists]

i don't believe any such rfc is required in an effort to bring some consistency to the five nobel articles. if you don't agree with the changes, you are welcomed to state your position. if you don't like the changes simply because it was i who made them....well that's 'your' problem. i really think your behaviour regarding these articles in particular is broaching on WP:OWNERSHIP, and it's frankly getting a bit tiresome. --emerson7 16:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care if you choose to change the tables. I just personally see it as a waste of your time when you could be doing better things with it. OTOH I do think that you should help build consensus over the formatting either via an RFC or some discussion since it's about changes to six articles and there hasn't been consensus yet about which formatting should be applied to all six articles. Until some consensus is made, even your formatting changes can and already have been changed by other editors. IMHO that's a waste of time for everyone involved. (Please reply here, I'm watching your talk page.) –panda 17:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[comment copied over from User talk:Panda#Nobel Prize lists]

my time should be of no concern to you, and my edits are consistent with policy. --emerson7 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe WP:Consensus is policy. (Please reply here, I'm watching your talk page.) –panda 17:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[comment copied over from User talk:Panda#Nobel Prize lists]

again, my edits are consistent with policy, and if you don't agree with the changes, you are welcomed to state your position. --emerson7 17:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to the policy that you are referring to? (Please reply here, I'm watching your talk page.) –panda 17:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

Image copyright problem with Image:TakemitsuToru.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:TakemitsuToru.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

Sorry to leave you this message, but it clearly states at the image's source "Commercial use strictly forbidden", and Wikipedia chooses to impose no such restriction. RobertG ♬ talk 18:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if the image were uploaded at a significantly reduced resolution, it might fit the bill? --RobertG ♬ talk 19:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Template for Econ Prize

Please see Template talk:Nobel Prize in Economics#Proposed Template Name & Title. –panda 21:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Randolph Scott

Hi, Emerson7! I saw your name on the discussion page of Randolph Scott. I don't know much about the guy, but User:Keysuc7 just added him to List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Sa-Sh (with a couple refs). Do you know much about Scott? Is he gay, or are there just rumors? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Category:Naturalized citizens of the United Kingdom

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Naturalized citizens of the United Kingdom, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Naturalized citizens of the United Kingdom is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Naturalized citizens of the United Kingdom, 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. CSDWarnBot 04:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:JapanAcademyPrizeFilm.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JapanAcademyPrizeFilm.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 04:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MarketplaceLogoOld.png

Thanks for uploading Image:MarketplaceLogoOld.png. 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 07:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lampens

Hi, Emerson7. In the article on Julien Paul Blitz, I made an edit noting that one of Blitz's teachers in Ghent was named Lampens. I did not put a given name because my source didn't provide one. I see that you supplied Juliaan as Lampens's first name. Do you have a source showing a Juliaan Lampens who taught music in Belgium in the early 1900s? The only Juliaan Lampens I find mentioned on the web was a 20th-century architect&#151;most likely not the individual with whom Blitz studied. Just curious. Thanks. Emoll 19:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes&#151;Joseph Lampens seems much more likely. Thanks for looking that up. Emoll 00:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Economics

Since you have voted in the last rename request and are aware of the dispute, I would like to inform you about new page rename request at Talk:Nobel_prize_in_Economics#Compromise_move. -- Vision Thing -- 17:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 12:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Third Stream

Hi Emerson7. I see that you moved "Third Stream" to "Third stream", so I'm just alerting you that I've moved it back; it's somewhat similar to "New Wave" - it's not "New wave". Hope you understand. If there are any qualms, please discuss it with me on my talk page. Thank you. Qwerty (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Quirks&Quarks.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Quirks&Quarks.gif. 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 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Quirks&Quarks2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Quirks&Quarks2.png. 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 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Miltiades Caridis nationality

Hello Emerson7. I just noticed that a while back you changed Caridis' nationality to read German. Please discuss this.--Atavi 12:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BuroHappoldLogo.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FritzReiner.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FritzReiner.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 (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:KathyGriffin2.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[19][20]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Long user talk page

This user talk page is becoming long. Some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please archive this talk page in accordance with the guidelines laid out here. You can do this automatically with MiszaBot III. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:TakeruKobayashi.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:TakeruKobayashi.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -Nard 03:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hola, soy un usuario de wikipedia en español y a mi tambien me quieren borrar la imagen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.168.251 (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tycologo.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Tycologo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —PNG crusade bot ^(feedback) 23:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Formatting Oscar Peterson

Thanks (in principle, I haven't checked) for you effort formatting the Oscar Peterson references. You should know that about 2 hours ago, I added a bunch (6?) of new references, almost all stemming from the memorial concert held yesterday in which many people spoke. It would be great if you could deal with those, too, as I am deadlined, and have already stolen time from work to put that material in.Bellagio99 (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Merv

Well, I would really appreciate it if you lose the degrading tone which you apparently like to use against people that don't agree with you (or just me). It is simply false to label only the first section (a level two heading) as being his biography, while all the other level two headings are labeled "career", "game shows", etc. That's saying only the first section (the two paragraphs) is Griffin's biography. What does that make the rest of the article? If you're so hell-bent on keeping the Biography title nonsense, as it is already implied by having an article on the man, I would keep that a level two heading and make the others level threes. But there is no reason to do any of that. Look at Griffin's good friend Ronald Reagan's page (a featured article); it goes over his life and mentions his legacy and honors, without splitting the sections into "biography" and "legacy".

As for the photo, it is a DVD cover which can be tagged as {{Non-free DVD cover}}. It's not the best find, but it's the only thing we have to display any sort of image of Merv Griffin on Wikipedia (and is better than a non-free, non categorized image). I also can find no MOS reference stating that it cannot go in the infobox; it cannot go on user pages, nor the main page, but infoboxes appear to be fine (see content policy, number nine). The photos I uploaded a few months ago were all fair use; I did not know all of Wikipedia's copyright policies then and I appologize.

I'm really just trying to help the article and make it look the other articles. You may not think so, but my intentions are good. Seriously. I really have no harsh feelings against you, but I would really appreciate if you actually gave me a chance and listen to my idea. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:EllaFitzgeraldStamp.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:EllaFitzgeraldStamp.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Calliopejen1 stamp purge of 2008

I guess cut an paste them all together under a heading (Stamp purge?). I would, however, also put a comment under each of the stamps. At one point the discussion over each one might get dispersed and your overall comment might get lost. Good to see that someone else is getting upset about the overzealous drive of the non-free image deletion Mafia. - Mafia Expert (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations for Oscar Peterson

Re this: Do you mean you would like to see what the FA precedents are (for listing non-alphabetically), or you would like to see references that Peterson was known more for being a pianist than for being a composer? Cheers, --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered sometime in January 2008 (UTC). SatyrBot (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bibliographic records

As per your question regarding bibliographies, see: WP:LAYOUT#References . Bzuk (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC).

Could we continue this discussion at Talk:Michael Powell (director)? It is too hard to follow when it is spread across three different talk pages. --Jtir (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Copland works

1. Why did you remove the columns?

2. Why did you remove my link to the list of works at the Copland House website?

Signinstranger (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

SEA-ME-WE 4

You're right about the reference being redundant, though I hadn't heard about there being a rule to do with placing references after punctuation (I could imagine a situation where a fact within a sentence is referenced to one thing and the rest of the sentence referenced to another source). Also, I'm not sure "kilometres long" is redundant more generally since kilometre may be a measurement of height, depth, diametre, &c., though "long" would be implied by the context making it redundant. Anyway, thanks for contacting me and clearing this up. --Oldak Quill 14:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is Joe Weber?

You restored (diff) a link on Weber to "Joe Weber (b. 1974), Firefighter/Paramedic". Was that accidental? Right now the link points to a Joseph Weber (1919-2000), American physicist. Kingdon (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for the confusion (I was looking at two edits in one diff, and got confused). You are right, it wasn't you. Whoever it is, they seem persistent ([21] [22] [23]). Kingdon (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Your unexplained, nonsensical edits to Ronald Reagan are getting tiresome. If you (somehow) feel that your edits are warranted, you need to reconsider when they are reverted. Please take the time to go to the Discussion page and state your case as to why they should be included. If I see te same edits reintroduced without explanation, I will report you. Have a splendid day. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

what the hell is your problem 'sport'. i don't understand your objection to updating a succession box to a template and sorting the footers. --emerson7 04:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's look at this closer, then. To begin with, while the article is not the article o' the day, it is still a Featured Article. As well, the excessive categorization was correctly termed by another editor as non-necessary and a bit (he was more generous in description than I would have been) over the top. See WP:NOT in that we are not a list. Endless categories that accomplish the same task are unneeded. Add to that that some of the categories are simply false, and you have my reason for reverting it. When you see the same edit - unaltered - reintroduced without discussion after another editor reverted it, it tells me that someone is choosing to forego the idea of discussion. That sort gets zero rhythm with me, so I essentially told you such.

Now, you can take the advice of two different editors and discuss your edits, or you can again reintroduce the edit and get reverted again. Your call. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my posts - I do. Perhaps I am judging you a bit harshly. However, you need to discuss your edits when they get reverted. Really. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Template

Sorry about that. I thought that you were deleting good info but didn't know that you added a template. Again, my appologies. Happyme22 (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:MTT6.JPG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:MTT6.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Stop reverting each other on Template:UNSecretary-General. Please use the talk page and come to a consensus for changes. If you continue to edit war, the page could be protected from editing and / or you could be blocked from editing. Please see Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes and Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption for more information. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you for the reminder. but just so that you know, my previous attempts to open a dialog [24] have gone completely unanswered. i feel my actions were completely within guidelines given how uncooperative SeNeKa (talk · contribs) has been. --emerson7 18:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw your attempt to talk with the other user, however, you were still reverting. That does not help things. I hope now that I've given you both a reminder that this dispute can be resolved in a civil and productive manner. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the comments. Your edits have been great. As for the footnotes within the template, I am fine either way. I just thought they should be consistent, but I guess it is not necessary to footnote the smaller boxes as long as the complete list is footnoted. Either way you prefer is fine with me. Remember (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Stirling Prize laureates

• 00:40, 21 February 2008 Emerson7 (Talk | contribs) (1,047 bytes) (date is too small is some fonts)

Hi. Suggest that if <small>-sized font is too small to read, boost browser font-size rather than remove <small>; <small> and similar sizes are in common use throughout the encyclopedia (e.g. refs). Alternatively, remove the dates altogether and add note above list along lines of "Annually since 1996". Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft templates

Hi again, Emerson7.

1. What have you against navbox subgroups??
2. Your reversion of some of my work has reintroduced errors such as incorrect uppercase, etc.
3. Don't forget that some folk may be viewing these templates on smaller screens/windows. Shorter and/or wrapped group names means less space wasted.

Let me know if I need to clarify anything. Best wishes, Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I wasn't starting to wonder whether you were stalking me! I think I may be starting to agree with you as regards the subgroups – at least some of them – and I'll start asking myself whether they really help as and when I think of using them again. I guess I got into the habit of seeing where they might be used but not considering how helpful or not it would be to use them. So, I'll reconsider them as and when I see them again. Meanwhile, I hope you don't mind if I revisit some templates in order to tweak some syntax and/or (re-)establish some line-spacing that makes it easier to distinguish between groups at a glance. Also to reduce the numbers of repeated words that make links less than quick'n'simple. Thanks for your reply, Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Have removed subgroups from {{Windows Live}}, {{MSN services}}, {{Windows Mobile}}, {{DotNET}} (first-level subgroups), {{MS development tools}} (reduced to first-level), {{Microsoft Office}}. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Solar System template changes

See (and respond in) Template_talk:Footer_SolarSystem. RandomCritic (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GlennGouldSignature.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GlennGouldSignature.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 may 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 (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TUM-Logo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TUM-Logo.gif. 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) 20:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of German Universities Excellence Initiave

I have nominated German Universities Excellence Initiave (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. emerson7 20:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered by SatyrBot around 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) SatyrBot (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ricky Dominguez

Excuse me, but keep your shirt on. I am in the process of preparing the AfD entry even as you interrupted me with your terse note. Meanwhile, I live in Indiana, USA, which at this moment has an ice storm which has caused my power to flicker twice, causing me to have to start over for the third time, and causing me, on dial-up, several disconnects.

As long as I am responding, perhaps you could explain what "notable enough" means, and from what sources you determined that. I have found nothing that independently addresses this person's notability. Everything that exists on this person is self-published, or is subject to change by the person himself, which does NOT meet notability criteria and in fact, flies in the face of guidelines at WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. I outlined these concerns on the article talk page, to which which you neglected to respond. Just saying so does not mean it is notable. This has been the reason the article has been tagged twice for notability, and nominated for speedy deletion and prod. Just removing those tags does not establish the person's notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Karen Bass

Hi, Emerson. BTW, may I just say you've been doing great work adding important and pertinent things to the page!

I didn't touch your addition, of course, just the footnote since it's redundant: The blue-link names on this page all link to articles that contain the proper citations (except, I think, for one, which for some reason only has a cite on this page). The red-link names, of course, require citation er WP:VERIFY, natch. Otherwise, we're looking at adding dozens and dozens and dozens of footnotes unnecessarily for blue-link names that already have verification in their respective articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:FranzSchalk.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:FranzSchalk.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) 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What's a rant, really?

It's something that requires more than 30 seconds to read, that you don't agree with or don't understand. Sooooooo, dude, I was, like, wonderin', uh... exactly how old are you? User:Professor Von Pie (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Time Persons of the Year 1976-2000

Hi again. Thanks for your message. I agree that less dense code is usually a good idea; I've found, though, that using <div>s with lists can cause problems with any liststyles/bodystyles also used. Hence the comment markers I've just added. Also, if you don't like "to date", how about "onward"? Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand: not only have you now reintroduced the <div>s, but you've also introduced a less effective (and more wordy) linewrap system...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your message and taking the trouble to explain your point of view. I think I understand exactly where you're coming from - and would like to think it's also where I'm coming from - but the trouble with what you've done (and may've done elsewhere?) is that it's (re)introduced some problems -- not dislikes or preferences as regards appearance, but problems:
  1. First, are you aware that framing lists in <div>s can negate or cause liststyles and perhaps other styles to malfunction? The more they are used in this way, the more likely it becomes that there'll be templates where they cause a problem. Like you, I used them until I realized they were sowing problems for the future.
  2. Secondly, the problem caused by using {{·}} is that it occasionally causes conflicts/collisions at righthand borders/margins. Currently, the only solution appears to be the use of {{nowrap begin}} item{{·w}} item{{·w}} ... {{nowrap end}}. I agree that the syntax (and consequent need for comment markers to make it look less dense) isn't ideal, but it seems that at present this is what's needed if this problem is to be avoided. In any case, this:

|list1 = <div>
{{nowrap|item}}{{·}} 
{{nowrap|item}}{{·}} 
...
</div>

...doesn't look that much simpler to me than:

|list1 = {{nowrap begin}}<!--
-->item{{·w}} <!--
-->item{{·w}} <!--
...
-->{{nowrap end}}

Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul Karason

Hi! I left a note for you at Talk:Paul_Karason. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

?

What? I'm sorry but what exactly did I do wrong? I reverted him in total, twice. The first was because he gave absolutely no explanation for his edit whatsoever. The second time, he again just reverted back with no explanation as for why he was removing the infobox. So I reverted it back for the second and final time asking why. Again he reverted it with the phrase "non infobox". I didn't (and still don't) understand what he meant and so asked him on his talk page and he has yet to respond. That was that, hardly an edit war, especially as neither party reverted more than twice. Gran² 19:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

you didn't do anything wrong. it's just an inducement to communicate, which i know you have already made attempts to initiate. i, too, am unsure why the infobox was removed, so i put it back. cheers! --emerson7 19:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bullets

Are what are conventionally used to separate template entries such as these, not bold middots, which can hardly be seen in some browsers at normal text size. Please don't change this back in {{Barry Levinson Films‎}}. By the way, my apologies for using rollback on that. Your reversion wasn't vandalism and this was a click of the mouse that I immediately regretted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Boris karloff

I noticed that his birth and passing dates were wrong. I have since changed the date on the photograph,okay. Electric Japan (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Nobel Prize images

What's the rationale for removing these images from bio pages? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I started a discussion here regarding the image. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on this talk page, Emerson7! --Eustress (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:OTMLogo.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:TonyAwardBestPlay 1976-2000

Hi,

I notice that you're replacing Template:TonyAwardBestMusical 1976-2000 with Template:TonyAwardBestPlay 1976-2000 on several pages (Rent (musical), The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) are 2 I've spotted). Why is this? They won the Best Musical category, not Best Play...

I've already replaced the correct template in Rent, but I'd rather not have to do it for all your edits...

Thanks, Dafyd (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm...

• Template:NAS presidents‎
• Template:Turing Award laureates

Hello again, Emerson7. Why are you undoing the formatting that stops dividers in wrapped lists from touching borders?? Did you not understand what I tried to take care to explain above?? Please stop undoing improvements that are more than merely cosmetic! Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

PS I've discovered that <div>s are okay within templates thus:

|listN = <div>
............
</div>

i.e. without anything immediately following or preceding the tags. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Do you understand that the {{nowrap begin}} ... {{nowrap end}} formatting prevents dividers from touching the edges of templates, whereas anything using {{·}} doesn't? Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• ...Hello? Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Try it by reducing the size of your browser window until a {{·}} divider approaches the edge of a template. Meanwhile, I've asked anyone with access to the Navbox code to add a nowrap parameter to it. This will allow the improved linewrapping to be used without needing to frame the lists with the "esoteric" {{nowrap begin}} and {{nowrap end}}s. I don't see how all those {{nowrap|...}}s is any less "esoteric". Sardanaphalus (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message for both of you (Sardanaphalus and emerson7) at Template talk:Navbox#Incorporating improved linewrap handling code.

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good news!

While looking into this, I tried a simpler formatting that I've put in place here. What do you think? Looks simpler and "non-esoteric" to me! Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, yes, it looks like it still works without the <div> tags. I thought I'd tried all this before, but maybe I made a mistake... Anyway, you happy to keep this kind of formatting? Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think there should be any major conversion program (unless, I guess, more and more people start saying so) but instead I'll just use it when I come by templates that could benefit from it. Most probably can, but not necessarily all. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Philip Martin (director)

A tag has been placed on Philip Martin (director) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 (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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ctempleton3 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom Hooper (director)

I don't know what an "abortiion" is but your assessment that a table is "non-standard" is wrong: The manual of style presented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers currently advocates the use of tables in filmographies, though there is some opposition to it. Various discussions have taken place on the issue on the project's talk page. Please register your concerns there, not in the edit summary of articles that use the currently-accepted format. Bradley0110 (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, tables do look a little daft for directors who have very few credits to their name. But in Hooper's case I expect his workload will increase considerably over the next couple of years. Bradley0110 (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

please stop removing the acting award boxes.

thank you.Thismightbezach (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:RoscoeLeeBrowne.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:RoscoeLeeBrowne.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) 12:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been warned

Please stop removing award boxes from actress articles. Ultra! 15:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You blanked an SAG Award box. Ultra! 15:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Ultraviolet scissor flame

Comments like this can be considered a personal attack. Please keep a calm head and talk rationally with the user instead of insulting their knowledge of a subject. Rgoodermote  15:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am so sorry, I mis-read it. Please accept my apology. Rgoodermote  15:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Stephen Hawking. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Rissa (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you're wondering, WP:DTTR is useful. I've been getting a spate of them myself, which is just odd. =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was stupid of me. I'll be more careful in future. Rissa (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Japanese spacecraft

It is rather unusual for titles of articles where the subject has two different names to include both of them, especially with one being used as a disambiguator. Since I am not aware of an established precedent, it might be a good idea to raise discussion before moving articles in such a way in the future. --GW… 16:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Emerson7. You have new messages at GW Simulations's talk page.
Message added 16:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GW… 16:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Another one. --GW… 09:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Millenia Tower

Hi. Why do you want the Emprois link out of this article? This link provides proof for structural information on this building. Thanks --Shorty23sin (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point - did not see this. --Shorty23sin (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis

You moved this page, without any prior discussion, or even an explanation.
As the original title conformed to WP ship guidelines, and the new title could be anything, I’ve moved it back.
In future if you want to move a page, I suggest you broach the subject on the talk page first.
And it would help to have a good reason. Xyl 54 (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And what on earth does that mean?Xyl 54 (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:ServaisStradivarius.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:ServaisStradivarius.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Q4000

Hi, Emerson7. You have improved a lot of articles about ships/vessels related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. There is one more ship article–Q4000–which needs improvement. Maybe you are interested to look at this. Beagel (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to you for your tireless and dedicated work on improving articles about service vessels and platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Beagel (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Tharos / Transocean Marianas

Hi, Emerson7. Do you know what is the usual practice with ship articles if the same ship has served under different names? There is a stub about semi-submersible service vessel Tharos, which is now operates as the drilling rig Transocean Marianas. I think that the information about Transocean Marianas should be added, but should this to be done at this article or in the new article? Beagel (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Beagel (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Undoing constructive edits

Do not undo constuctive edits to articles without providing an edit summary, as you did here. I have undone this edit. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you've done so again. Explain yourself, please. I'm not in the habit of being summarily reverted out of ignorance. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

MV Atlantic Freighter

Hi, I've reverted your page move to Pelagitis as the ship is better known as the Atlantic Freighter having served under this name since 1987 including services in the Gulf War. WP:NC-S indicates it should be MV Atlantic Freighter with Pelagitis redirecting there. JonEastham (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've undone your edits to make ship names etc in bold as per WP:MOS italics are sufficient to draw attention to the ship names. In addition I've removed the addition of "Pelagitis formerly" from the lead as the name change is covered in the lead itself. I have instead updated the infobox with a full name history to alleviate any concerns of confusing readers, especially as most would be coming to the article to read up about its 23 year history as the Atlantic Freighter than its 3 month history as the Pelagitis. JonEastham (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

An issue concerning your editing has been raised at WT:SHIPS. Please read my comments there. Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Lina Basquette.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Lina Basquette.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Xbvca (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oasis of the Seas

Please explain yourself regarding this reversion. The Infobox clearly calls for both class and type. Class is determined by the designer/owner/maker, type is determined by a control or organising agency. And in the future, I strongly suggest you always provide edit summaries. It is never appropriate to simply revert someone without an edit summary, unless it is blatant vandalism (and even then, it is good to note why the reversion was made). You have over 30,000 edits, you should know better. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you were to read the documentation for the infobox, the appropriate usage for that field would be Oasis-class cruise ship, not what you were placing there. Continued edit warring will result in appropriate sanctions. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ventura

Your constant reverts without even reading the edit summaries will get you blocked eventually. You were reverted by me because what you did was copy what is in the article body and put it in the lead. The lead is meant as a summary, not a place to duplicate what is in the article body. Your edits to ship articles have been called into question on multiple occasions over the past week. I suggest that you step away from these articles because clearly your actions are not welcoming a collegial editing environment especially with your continued edit warring and general refusal to discuss unless reverted multiple times. This really is your final warning. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Emerson7. You have new messages at MBK004's talk page.
Message added 00:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WT:SHIPS regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Itinerary information in cruise ship articles. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for some info

Hi. Could you point me to the relevant infobox guideline you mention in this edit summary at A Whale. I'm curious as to why the removal of fields an article will most likely never have use for is a problem (fields that are empty because the info hasn't been found yet are a different matter, and I'm happy to concede if you think certain fields I removed may be of future use), and why it approves large tracts of whitespace (making up a fifth of the article's data size). -- saberwyn 11:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Converter rounding

Yes, I can see the point in rounding off. However in the entry before, it has 380.8 m as equal to 1249 feet, and the entry I was concerned about has 380 meters equal to 1250 feet. ie, it makes no mathematical sense. Chasrob (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Byford Dolphin

Hi, Emerson. Could you please have a look at the Byford Dolphin article. I am confused how to integrate the table with the rig information to the ship infobox. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Jebel al-Zayt oil spill

Yes, that article seems remarkable at first, but it also says "the spill, which began last week", so I think it's just an old article. Today's date is displayed at the top of the webpage, but I don't think that's the date of the article. -- Johnson487682 (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Big Five (orchestras)

Hi. I have nominated the above article for deletion. I welcome your input, pro or con, here.THD3 (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed your good work on Ocean Princess (ship)

If ships are an interest of yours, I wanted to suggest that you might like to pop over to http://ship.spottingworld.com where you can indulge that interest in ways far beyond the encyclopaedic scope that WP (rightly) insists on. As opposed to WP, SSW is a hobbyist site. They look very similar currently, but the objective is that they diverge as fast as participants make it hap[pen. No need to reply, and I most assuredly will not pester you over it! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hyatt Regency Albuquerque

Hello, I just proposed a merger of Hyatt Regency Albuquerque into Albuquerque Plaza. Looking at the edit histories, I now see that I had already performed such a merger in 2007 and that you later undid it. What was the reason for this? These two towers are part of the same complex (like the Petronas Towers or World Trade Center, which do not have separate articles for each tower). I don't see what there is to be gained by having two separate articles containing almost the same information. Camerafiend (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:L'OrdreDesArtsOfficierRuban.png

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Multiple issues template

You can't use Subst:DATE with this as it gives stuff like "rewrite= date = August 2010" here. Rich Farmbrough, 14:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

Undid

I'm curious as to why you undid my revision [25] with no summary. Generally that would be for vandalism. In addition, you re-inserted my edit with your next edit. Clamshell Deathtrap (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved Entry

You simplified my entry on the designer, writer and political theorist Martin Davies and moved it to a new location with no explanation as to why. You may know this guy as a designer but there are communities that only know him as a writer. Your edit will make no sense to people who know him as the leader of Newid, a political party in Wales although I think it would be wrong to describe him as a politician. Also, there are several designers in Wales called Martin Davies. If you know about this guy, I would be grateful for sources on his writings on economics, particularly negative interest currencies.ilgrosso 08:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilgrosso1 (talk • contribs)

Martin Davies (designer, writer and political theorist)

Okay. I understand your point and the rules but '(designer)' as a qualification doesn't make sense in context. Perhaps he should just be listed as 'Martin Davies' since the other entries for the same name are all qualified? ilgrosso 10:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilgrosso1 (talk • contribs)

Fox Theatre dab

I see that a while back you reverted my cleanup of the Fox Theatre disambiguation page, and that you have been editing there again recently. I re-cleaned it up again just now. I had posted about my reasons at Talk:Fox Theatre back then and again now. Please participate in discussion there. I believe i am following disambiguation policy and practice properly, but would be happy to discuss what is required or best. --doncram (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Beverly Hills Hotel

Please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ambassador Hotel

Hi, now that Ambassador Hotel is a disambiguation page, could you help clean up the links that need to be pointed to an article per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 10:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Arthur Hiller Penn.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Arthur Hiller Penn.jpg. 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hotel del Coronado logo.png

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Tallest buildings in Canada

Hello. I see that you created Template:Buildings in Canada timeline, but introduced the error that I pointed out at Talk:Canadian Pacific Building (Toronto)#Height. There is no source saying that its height is 65m, or it was ever the tallest building in Canada. 117Avenue (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but now the errors are transcribed onto even more pages, they will have to be fixed. 117Avenue (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Concern over currency templates

Hi, you mentioned importing some attributes of the US$ template into A and NZ $ templates. I haven't looked at them, but I do believe there's a problem if they force the signs to be linked, and indeed if they encourage the repetition of the A or the NZ where their identity in the context has already been established. Are they countering the advice in the style guides? Tony (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, emerson. Tony (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Tenderloin article edits

Hi, any particular reason why you insist on removing external links to actual cultural establishments in the San Francisco Tenderloin article? I see no reason given. Primecoordinator (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

california template changes

So somehow because it is the "Golden State" you have to have every template "under the sun" in a hideous yellow color? It looks really unprofessional having a load of bright yellow templates around the place, most of them containing poor quality articles. It is an encyclopedia, not a children's theme park. Should everything in California be yellow just because it is the Golden State? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, a bright yellow navigation box, substandard census designated maps and a bunch of shockingly poor articles on even major Californian cities and towns (e.g Glendale pre clean-up) isn't good, in my view. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The more serious issue is why most of the main city/town articles for California and indeed most places in the United States are poorly sourced and written and basically need entire paragraphs removing. Yet articles on small buildings and that like Rancho Los Alamitos will be much better in quality than the Los Alamitos, California article itself which contains nothing but an unsourced, poorly written history section, a rambot generated demographics section and some other scruffy looking lists. I am just puzzled as to why these articles are not cared for, given the very high Internet population in this part of the world. Some of the California place articles are on par with some of the Indian/Pakistan articles we have which I consider amongst the worst we have on wikipedia. I think the problem is high traffic from ip edits and those who don't really understand how to write for an encyclopedia so the articles end up degrading. If we could get each article looking like San Diego on any American city or town in which the articles are closely monitored I think we'd conquer this problem. I just pick any article at random in these yellow nav templates and I see most of them contain no more than 5 references/bare url links, long lists of schools, unsourced, badly written paragraphs and a distinct lack of photographs which is very surprising. No doubts the Californian project are doing their best with the numbers who are actively editing but an enormous task is needed... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:GlennGouldSignature.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:GlennGouldSignature.jpg. 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cheez it logo.png

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheez-It box picture

you put up the picture i took for the cheez-it box up for deletion, but i can't see any real reason why, as it follows the guidelines. is there something specific you are looking for about its deletion, or was it just because i replaced the logo you uploaded?

Evan-Amos (talk)

File:Dickipedia logo.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dickipedia logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Chzz  ►  21:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

cheez-it box picture again

what is the problem here? i took that picture myself of a box i owned. i declared it all fair use with the product things and attributed it. you want to replace it with a regular picture of a star wars cheez-it box and a redundant logo? please tell me in your own words what is going on here.

Orphaned non-free image File:Cheez it logo.png

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)