User talk:JeremyA/Archive06

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 20 April 2006 and 17 September 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Thank you. JeremyA JeremyA 00:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Project Sheffield

Hi JeremyA, as well as Warofdreams, we have been editing and adding much information to the Sheffield related articles. There still are areas, places, monuments and maybe people that do not have yet an article or perhaps not enough information. I do not know all the editors that actively edit Sheffield related article but you two and hope that through a collaboration project, we can fill in this void and make Sheffield one of the best group of articles on Wikipedia. The Commons already have a large number of useful photos, maps and diagrams for Sheffield related articles.

Perhaps we could work together and agree on articles that are important, need creating or updating, either through our user talk pages or Wikipedia:Project.

I am personally not fussed on look and allure consistency throughout the Sheffield related articles but more on content and indeed photographs. Hope to hear from you soon, Captain scarlet 12:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a Sheffield wikiproject might be a good idea, particularly as it would give a single place to discuss the Sheffield-related articles. The Sheffield-related articles have come a long way in the past year or so and the number of articles grouped in subcats of the Sheffield category has increased massively. But there are still gaps. You have made great progress in filling the gap in illustration--it was only a few months ago that the Sheffield category at the commons had less than 10 photos in it (half of which didn't even show Sheffield). And there are also gaps in the articles--notable buildings that are not mentioned; suburbs that have poor coverage etc. We could still do with a Buildings and structures in Sheffield article, and Education in Sheffield and Religion in Sheffield are probably good candidates for articles too. Having got the main article featured it would perhaps be a good aim to get some of the sub-articles to featured quality (History of Sheffield or Transport in Sheffield might be good candidates for this, as they fall within our areas of interest).
The wikiproject page suggests that 5-10 members is a good starting point for a project. As well as you and me, it is possible that Warofdreams, Joshurtree, and Wikityke might get involved (although I haven't seen the latter two editing so much recently). It is possible that we could start the project as a sub-page of either yours or my userspace, and move it to a full-blown project if it is working well.
I slightly disagree with you on consistency--although I too feel that many people get too worked up about look and feel, I also know that, whilst you can't hide bad content with good presentation, you can hide good content with bad presentation. As such, I feel that things like infoboxes and consitent naming that help readers to browse groups of related articles and give a more professional feel to wikipedia can be a good thing. But I also think that there is plenty of room for both points of view--it is good to have one group of editors who add content and another group who copyedit (I try to do a bit of both). JeremyA 15:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent news. Whichever userpage is good for me. I'll be back later as I'm out and about (Norton/Meadowhead, maybe Concord, Longley parks). See you later, Captain scarlet 16:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you enjoy your day out. I have started trying to draft some ideas for how to formulate a project at User:JeremyA/Sheffield. Feel free to edit/expand it in any way that you want. I suggest that we work it as a project proposal, and once we are both happy with it send invites to other potentially interested editors. JeremyA 16:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for contacting me. I'd be glad to participate. Wikityke 21:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, I just added my name to those patrticipating hawksworth 22:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think your project is a good idea, and i would join but im not sure that i would be much use (Ledgero2 19:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Jeremy, thanks for your invitation. I would be happy to join up to a wikiproject for Sheffield. Mushintalk 11:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basal Ganglia

Yikes! It's not that the material described is too advanced, is that it is poorly written, for example what does this sentence mean: "When crossing the internal capsule this form the comb bundle of Edinger." It is also very "jargony" and not Wikified. I can think of a few solutions, one is to plod through those edits correcting the grammar and clarifying and wikifying points, another is to take all those edits and put them in a separate article such as "anatomical subdivisions of the basal ganglia" (I don't like this idea though), and finally, removing them altogether and asking the editor to kindly rewrite the sections according to the Wikipedia style. Nrets 14:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anatomical arborescences, thalamus and BG

Dear Jeremy It appears that subjacent to the problem with my contribution to "Basal ganglia" is a deeper problem. This has to do with your arborescences on the brain. This should be reanalyzed with ontogeneticians. I have no particular competence but the subthalamic nucleus is not diencephalic, the hypothalamus is in front of the thalamus, the basal ganglia are not simply telencephalic. I agree on the fact that the learning of neuroanatomy is easier and best visualised when placed into a traditional subdivision of the brain. In this respect I prefer to refer to textbooks such as that of Carpenter rather than to Kendall-like books. Sometimes however simple rational descriptions are easier in the frame of systems. The arborescences should be cleaned. Another problem is the absence of reference to the considered animal species. There is no thalamus in general. The human thalamus has many differences even with that of macaque. Entities and thus names may be different. I have almost finihed the "thalamus" . I must specify that this is an account on the human thalamus. I have tried to Wikify it as much as possible. I failed in placing the PubMed numbers in the references. I would be happy if you could look at it and help me. Concerning the basal ganglia we are faced to distorted traditions. The system as it appears today may be simply described. But this is not yet entered in the academic tradition. My contribution was not a new work. I published papers in English and in French (1984-1994), presented it and discussed it with colleagues. There is an agreement for most of what I wrote. But again the basal ganglia system cannot be described starting from that of a rat and many prejudice should be forgotten. Sincerly Gerard Percheron

permission

Thanks for your editing of thalamus Taking into consideration the difficultyof being heard using the ordinary way would you allow me to open a Wikipedia Primate basal ganglia core that is only a part of the rejected text that could be presented simply with pictures.

.svg images

Thank you! I'm also wondering now how your computer has the technical means to save and upload .svg files - whenever I attempt to save them, it forces it to be ".svg.png", changing it to a .png image. I would very much like to do this, so I can upload and protect .svg images (mostly flags) myself. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 13:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image protection

Hi Jeremy. I noticed you uploaded and protected a local copy of Image:Flag of Indonesia.svg. I just wanted to point out that was unnecessary, since Commons:Image:Flag of Indonesia.svg was already protected. Only administrators can upload a local copy of a Commons image, so having a Commons image protected is just as safe as uploading a local copy and protecting. Cheers, User:dbenbenn 21:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Jeremy! Thanks for the reply. I didn't realize that the image was protected at Commons, otherwise I would have realized that such protection is sufficient. Just to clarify something - simple protection at Commons isn't enough, because an image can still be uploaded over it here at en. The image page - even if the image isn't uploaded - still must be protected to stop uploading over the same file name, which overrides the Commons image. (That's what I and several other admins usually do for Main Page images, uploading them, protecting them, and tagging them with {{c-uploaded}}. It's rare for an image to be protected on Commons first; I hadn't seen one in quite a while and must have missed the tag indicating so.) Protection at Commons only stops vandalism on Commons (which is reflected on en); protection of the image page, even if blank and with no uploaded image, is still necessary. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading dbenbenn comments it seems like I may be mistaken - I'll go find out now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you removed some of the external links from the car pages, the link is to a Free on line magazine on this topic which contains much useful information on these vehicles. As it is an online magazine information is added frequently not only by us but by readers. This is not a commercial or personal website although some of the external links on Wikipedia do link to personal and commercial websites.82.69.81.70 12:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...

I get scolded for adding like 2 words but some dude has a freekin entry under "Hispanic Ass" and the definition is a donkey of hispanic decent. Come on...

Question

I'm not so sure how I'm supposed to upload and correctly copywrite the Rambo IV poster. http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/product_images/1020/355681.1020.A.jpg There is a link to it. I was wandering if you have the time if you could upload it for me.:D

Hey thanks a bunches I appreciate it!--RBalboa

Template:Anglican Cathedrals in the United Kingdom

Hi! Thanks for that...I had always thought that the Church of Scotland was anglican, which really is quite a stupid mistake to make. So what do you suggest for the template, as I would like to keep the present cathedrals, which are more famous in Scotland and therefore more useful to users. Lofty 16:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the advice and information. I've decided to split up the templates, as I think that the original one was getting a bit long anyway. Thanks Lofty 16:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Numerology and In-Depth-Numerology.com

Hello Jeremy, Thanks for you reply about the external links, but i disagree with you and i wonder why you have left "http://www.astrology-numerology.com/" link at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_numerology and removed our site? adding our link was not advertising.

Our site has highly trusted and genuine content you can go and check on it im sure you will find it interesting, it's double rules if you allow Astrolog-numerology.com to be added but not our site.

I see it very reasonable to add the site at the Numerology page, this is where it matchs the topic very well, i have seen some visitors came from the page and they browse all around the site and got more information about Numerology and what they were looking for, Also we provide live support for the visitor if they have questions about numerology and this is for free.

if you would like to see some proves of the behaviour of the visitors that came from the page, Please let me know.

The site is: http://www.in-depth-numerology.com

Please let me know what do you think. Thanks. Samer

Picture

Dear Jeremy I found a nice picture for the subthalamic nucleus. It is out of rights (1925) I did not succeed in placing it. Thanks for following my contribution gerard.percheron

Thanks for the reverts

Thank you, you prevented vandalism on that crucial, CRUCIAL article. I o u 1. --Lord X 17:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]

Spring-heeled jack protection

You might want to look at protecting this page again. The two editors responsible for the edit war that led to the previous period of protection have started up again, with no attempt at discussion as requested by you. Mikedash 11:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just noticed your block on Victrix for abusing the 3RR. As far as I can see he hasn't actually edited the page more than 3 times in 24 hours (although he has done so several times in the past by using his sockpuppet DreamGuy), so your block in this case is misplaced; he shouldn't be given undue cause for claiming that he is being "harrassed", in my opinion. --Centauri 13:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I take your point. Thanks for the response. Might also be worth keeping an eye out to see if DreamGuy suddenly reappears to continue the edit war. --Centauri 13:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Michael's College Photos

Hi, JeremyA-

This is user SMCMarketing. I work in the marketing office at Saint Michael's College. I have spent time figuring out how to add, and then adding neutral-based content with the appropriate license tags to Wikipedia on Saint Michael's. I just noticed that you took all the images off I had put up because they appeared to be copyright violations. Saint Michael's College owns the copyright to all the photos I put up. Perhaps I made an error with the license tags I used. If I did not do this correctly, could you please tell me which tags I need to use or how I could better post the photos? Could the photos be put back up?

I can be reached at 802.654.2447. I would appreciate your assistance in getting these photos back up. Thank you!

SMCmarketing 13:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DavidSuchet.jpg

Hi Jeremy! I'm Luca Balduzzi... I was not able to edit DavidSuchet.jpg so I've uploaded a new photo called DavidSuchet1.jpg with all the information you need about description, source, author and permission... Now you can delete DavidSuchet.jgp! Please let me know when everything is ok!

Re: Image:NYC subway riders with their newspapers.jpg

Hi Jeremy. Thanks for your message. Upon closer inspection, you will notice this image on Wikipedia and the image on the photographer's website are slightly different. The Wikipedia image is an outtake. The photographer, Travis Ruse, agreed to license it under "CC-by-sa" for use on Wikipedia in a personal email dated Jan 11, 2006: "As you know this is an outtake so I am agreeing to these terms. Off the menu of choices I'd like to go with the "restrictive" CC licenses... Please send me a link when it's up. And thanks for the info... Best, Travis" I'd be happy to provide you with his personal email address if you wish to follow up. Wv235 01:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Picasso would have a problem with the picture... after all he refused to even be paid for the sculpture/statue. He's also dead, and the City of Chicago cannot copyright public art.

J. Crocker 21:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rude user

Hi Jeremy. I have had a very, if not extremely rude message left by a user on my talk page. Although I have reported this to god knows which Wiketiquette discussion page, I have not yet received a response. User:Gaardbo has left rather ruse and abusive comments on my User talk:Captain scarlet; HERE. I have removed unsourced edits from Nivå (THEN) due to the lack of substantiable information given concerning local events. User:Gaardbo has nearly only contributed to Nivå; contribs and has so far added no edit summary. Could you have a go at this please ? Explain to this user the benefits of Wiketiquette, the advantage of edit summaries and adding sources to unverifiable information. Thanks. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dancing Columns.jpg

Thank you for bringing this file back to my attention. I’m afraid that at the time I uploaded it I was new here and didn’t yet understand the public domain laws. I found this image at a UK government website and assumed that was all that was needed to belong to the public domain. I will post it for deletion immediately.Justin Foote 23:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights

Hi, I read all about copyrights, but I can't understand the trouble when an image is taken from a website. I add the link of the site in the summary. What else I have to do? How can I know if an image in a website has copyrights? Thanks.

Images on Anish Kapoor Page

I notice you have removed images from this page, supposedly because of copyright. But then you have arbitrarily decided that two images constitute "fair use". I beg to differ. First, it is the works that are copyrighted, not the images per se. And as long as the images are not used for commercial purposes/reproduction, there is no infringement. Secondly, "fair use" includes being able to use images for educational/non-profit use, which is the case here. Third, there is no justification for you to leave two images and take out the other two. Four images are just as reasonable "fair use" as two.

I therefore request you to please restore the four images.

Not You Too

I expect this will be deleted within a minute but really - there is nothing wrong with Meese, JeremyA. They are adorable creatures. 172.216.212.104 17:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC) LD[reply]

Mike North

This should be sprotected, at least for the short term, because there seem to be a number of anonymous users (only identifiable from sbcglobal ip numbers) that keep deleting the substance. -Busjack 01:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another anonymous vandal has hit it. Busjack 19:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of people visiting a page

Dear Jeremy, Is it possible to find out how many people visit any particular page ? I am particularly proud of my additions to the Ponds Forge and Don Valley stadium articles (mainly from unimpeachable first hand experience ! ) and would like to know if any one is actually reading them !

Chicago Picasso ruling

Hi Jeremy, I noticed you posted the very interesting Letter Edged case at Image talk:Chicago picasso.jpg/LEB. Thanks a lot for doing so, it's really instructive. You also stated at Image talk:Chicago picasso.jpg that you'd remove the case summary soon as it was likely a copyvio. Isn't that the official case summary, written by judge Napoli? If so, I think it would be PD as a court proceedings. The only possible copyright could be on the particular presentation, not on the text itself, but that I think we could get around by formatting it differently (and more nicely). What do you think? Lupo 06:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it on wikisource is a good idea. We also might write an encyclopedia article on the case itself. I do think the text itself is PD; Lexis could only have a copyright on the particular presentation. See U.S. Copyright Office: Compendium of Office Practices II, section 206.01. Lupo 07:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, where did you get that? Lexis? Would it be possible for you to dig out the case Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. 153 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1998)? In view of the developments at Template talk:PD-USSR (from the "So what?" section on), I would like to know what the court ruled exactly. Could you do that for me, please? Lupo 06:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, I've found it myself at [1] and [2]. Don't know why I didn't find it before; I certainly did look, but now it was amongst the very first search results. Sorry for the bother. Lupo 10:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you somehow could get hold of 886 F. Supp. 1120, 1131 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) or No. 95 Civ. 2144(JGK), (S.D.N.Y. March 10, 1997), Lexis 2717, both district court decisions on the Itar-TASS v. Russian Kurier case, I'd still be interested. I haven't found the first one at all, and only a Russian translation of the second. Lupo 07:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's exactly what I was looking for. I'll put them on wikisource one of these days. Lupo 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago I-GO

You removed mention of the I-GO car-sharing service from the Bronzeville page as "advertising" -- I don't believe this was necessary. Unlike some servcies, I-GO is apparently a city-supported non-profit organization, and I think that the mention is relevant as it could be considered "infrastructure". I don't have any interest in I-GO and I don't feel especially strongly about the change, but I thought you might reconsider. Andrew Rodland 06:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Calder Flamingo.jpg

Greetings. You created the photograph Image:Calder Flamingo.jpg and uploaded it to Wikipedia. Thanks! In France, sculptors still retain copyright priveleges on photographs that other people take of those sculptures, but in the U.S. sculptors have no such priveleges. According to U.S. copyright law, this photo is only copyrighted by yourself, and you are free to license it as cc-by-sa-2.5. I altered the image text to say this, although if I misrepresented you please correct me. You may also upload a high-resolution photo if you like.

I believe the administrator on Commons who deleted the image was wrong to do so. I think he or she was probably only familiar with French law, but this photo was taken by a U.S. national on U.S. soil, so French law is not applicable. Regardless, it's certainly your copyright so far as the English Wikipedia is concerned.

All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked. That's not sarcasm, I'm really shocked. I thought I had a pretty good handle on U.S. copyright. I'll be reading for a while. . . thanks for all the depressing yet informative links. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still bummed out about this. The more I read, the more I am convinced you're right. I think if I snap a photo of my wife sitting on a sofa, I may be in violation if the pattern on my sofa or the pattern on my wallpaper is copyrighted. And although fair use would undoubtably apply there, it might not if my purpose were to illustrate the couch pattern. At least architecture is exempted! (in the U.S., anyway.)
I think the photo you take should still be tagged cc-by-sa-2.0, though, since you hold the copyright on the photo and can license it any way you like. But the Calder estate holds the copyright on the sculpture, so a fair use rationalle would have to be added as well.
So if the Revolution comes, all this is changing, believe you me. *grumble* – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You seem to be methodically deleting the external links recently added by newbie User:Dmill96 to Professor Mary Ann Sullivan's pages of excellent architectural photos and informative text. What is your motivation? --Wetman 06:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You responded at my Talkpage: "Hi Wetman! I have nothing against Dmill96 (talk • contribs), or the website that he/she was linking to. However, where I see external links that are outwith the guidelines described at WP:EL I delete them. There are many excellent websites out there, but we don't link to them all because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a web directory."
If you do have "nothing against" Dr. Sullivan's useful architectural details and professional descriptive text, perhaps you should have a look at the Wikipedia's guidelines Wikipedia:External links, which would serve in lieu of common sense. If I take the trouble to reinstate all the links you deleted without analysing their usefulness to the reader, will I be faced with an edit war? I don't want to misuse my time. --Wetman 20:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of entering into an edit war with anyone. However, I would urge you to consider whether these links really "provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article" (direct quote from Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided). I assert that these links do not pass that test. If this website contains useful information that is not in the articles already, then the proper course of action would be to use it as a source for expanding the articles (with the appropriate citations where needed). —JeremyA 23:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you look at Dr Sullivan's text and unrivalled photographs of Il Redentore, which I think might have escaped your careful perusal. If the Wikipedia article cribs from Dr Sullivan's notes, "the appropriate citations where needed" will have to include this external link, won't they. Perhaps you'd point me to any contributions of content you have contributed to any architecture articles: I see that you are very well informed on the whole. --Wetman 01:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not dispute the quality of Dr Sullivan's text—as I stated above, the site may make an excellent source for Wikipedia articles, and yes, I would have no problem with articles being fully cited and including a references section pointing the the sources of the article (including links to any websites that were used as sources). My objection is to this website being used in place of actual content—I think that the strength of Wikipedia is as a repository of information, not a repository of links to information elsewhere (google, and the innumerable other search engines/directories available do a much better job of that).
I'm not sure how my own contributions have any bearing on what is stated above, but there is a somewhat poorly kept list at User:JeremyA/Contributions. —JeremyA 01:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand how text from Dr Sullivan's site could be directly incorporated into articles, but attempting to insert the photos seems to me to a an unavoidable intellectual property violation. Architecture is inherently visual so access to the photos is, IMO, a contribution to the value of the article and an external link is the only way, AFAIK, to provide that content. It is not easy, if not impossible in many cases to simply find photos via search, so external links may be the only method for a reader to access this material. Dmill96 17:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The direct incorporation of text would also be a copyright violation, however using the article as a source would not be. Unless it would not be possible for a Wikipedia editor to obtain a photo (e.g. photos taken from restricted areas) there is (in my opinion) no reason to link to external sites for photos alone. In fact, just as red-links encourage new articles, I think that articles lacking photos are best left without links to external photo sources in order to encourage editors to upload their own photos for inclusion in the articles. Wikipedia articles are considered works in progress, and the major test for an external link is, as quoted above, is not whether the link benefits the article now but whether the link provides an unique resource beyond what the article would have once it is sufficiently complete to attain featured status; of course being complete includes being sufficiently well illustrated with user-uploaded photos etc... —JeremyA 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be only fair to inform Dmill96 that JeremyA's opinion in this matter is not remotely Wikipedia policy. There are external links to scholarly sites offering photos with extended captions at many art history, architecture and archaeology articles, an area that might be less than perfectly familiar to JeremyA. One mark of an educated person is that, as one reaches the limits of one's competence, one moves with increasing caution. An excellent general rule at Wikipedia, as in life, is "Avoid unnecessary interference." Over and out. --Wetman 03:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)--Wetman 03:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy on external links. There is however a set of guidelines at Wikipedia:External links that have remained mostly stable and uncontested for a long time. I see nothing that I have written above that contradicts or extends the reach of these guidelines. My entering into this discussion was not through any desire to purge Wikipedia of links to the website in debate, rather I noticed a link added to one of the articles on my watchlist that I felt the article didn't need. I removed that link, and, as I usually do in such situations, I had a look at some of the other contributions of the editor that had added that link. In this case that user was User:Dmill96 whose major contribution to wikipedia at that point was to insert links to that website into a number of wikipedia articles. I removed the links and left Dmill96 a message explaining my reasoning. I am not aware of any time during this in which I have strayed from standard Wikipedia practice, and I have made reference to the guidelines at Wikipedia that I feel justify my actions. In addition, I have offered the compromise of using the website as a source for the articles, and in fact I have stated above that I would not re-remove the links if they were re-added to the articles. I would like explanation of where you feel that in these actions I have "reached the limit of my competence", as I can see nothing that I have done that is not routine within the wider Wikipedia community. —JeremyA 15:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

This paragraph is POV because it does not cite any verifiable sources that say that its matching height with other buildings is a setback. If there are documented reports saying this is true then it can be included in the article. However, right now it sounds like a poorly crafted rant. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that these buildings are chosen out of all the skyscrapers in Chicago, and the fact that no credible source is cited leads me to believe that this is POV and OR. Like I said before, if you can cite a credible source that has already published this exact information then it is okay to have this in the article. Otherwise it violates a number of Wikipedia policies. Jtrost (T | C | #) 15:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added proper citations to the article. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's citation policy and add citations yourself whenever you find them to avoid this kind of confusion in the future. Thanks. Jtrost (T | C | #) 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]