User talk:Kingturtle/Archive4

Hello

Hi Kingturtle. I appreciate your vote and want to deal with your concern on my Rfa. I have sent you a message. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sent it where? via email? i have not received it yet. Kingturtle 22:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By email. :) Sent again. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the email was never received. Kingturtle 22:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome

Yeah, I like that little guy, probably because he looks a lot like me. Right now he's freezing though and looking forward to spring. So am I. All the best, <KF> 19:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Hey, thanks a lot for voting in my RfA, I got it! :) If you need anything, just give me a shout. - FrancisTyers 01:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

 Hi,
I just want to say thanks for supporting me on my request for adminship! It passed by a 58/3/0 margin, so I am now an administrator. If you need me to help you out, or you find that I'm doing anything wrong, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of anti-heroes

Thanks a lot for your message. I discovered this morning that the list had gone when I had a look at my user page and saw a red link there. Only then did I realize that it had been (successfully) put up for deletion. I also realized that you were one of the few people who said they found the list useful and who wanted to keep it.

I've had similar experiences before, so now I think I know what to do. I retrieved the list, and it can now be found for my own personal use on one of my subpages ("Sanctuary III"). I was "allowed" to do that sort of thing before, so I've done it again. Feel free to use the list.

Of course I'll support a vote for undeletion.

Thanks again for the message, and all the best, <KF> 22:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are interested, I have just added my thoughts to Wikipedia_talk:Lists_in_Wikipedia#Deleting_lists.2C_and_a_proposal. <KF> 03:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from newbie

Hi. I received a welcome message from you and have been making edits and new articles but really only know the very very basics so I thought I would ask here. I created an article for a political activist, Grace Lee Boggs. I also want to create one for her late husband, James Boggs. The problem is that phrase redirects to some US Senator. Moreover, the two James Boggses died in 1993 so currently my page is quite confusing. I tried to be self-reliant but the whole discussion on disambiguation sounds very complex. It seems like the redirect page needs to be changed to a disambiguation page to reflect the fact someone needs to create a new James Boggs page. Could someone help me? Rmalhotr 08:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rmalhotr...what we can do is change the James Boggs page from a redirect into a disambuous page. do you know his middle name? if not, what is his significance? was he an activist, a jurist, etc.? Kingturtle 20:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No middle name that I know but he was an activist in the civil rights movement for racial equality and community activist in Detroit. The current redirect for James Boggs goes to a Senator with a different name. What I found daunting was all the links to the old redirect apparently have to be changed and that's just beyond my technical skills. Rmalhotr 23:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of copyrighted material

I'm new here (I've been editing anonymously for a while but have just become a registered user) and have been trying to figure out how, when, or even if, copyrighted material can be reproduced on Wikipedia. I tried searching through the "Help" sections but just got more confused. The article that got me wondering about it is the Wikipedia Tree of Life/Update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group article, which is a near-verbatim (albeit "wikified") copy-and-paste of a published and copyrighted article. It seems that there is no consensus on the use of copyrighted material, but without a clearly stated and enforced policy it seems that Wikipedia is leaving itself wide open to some legal difficulties. This is an important issue to me (having had my own work plagiarized in the past) and has me re-thinking my involvement with Wikipedia. MrDarwin 19:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • i have removed the text of the article and replaced it with a copyright infringement tag. the syntax of the tag i used was: {{copyvio|url=http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1095-8339.2003.t01-1-00158.x/full/}} ...please use these tags whenever necessary. wikipedia must avoid copyright infringement at all costs. thanks, Kingturtle 20:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks for your support on my request for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. --Alf melmac 11:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Pgk's RFA

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (80/3/0), so I am now an administrator. I was flattered by the level of support and the comments, so I'm under real pressure not to disappoint, thus if you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as an admin then please leave me a note --pgk(talk) 11:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:SIGN

I've replied at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-02/ArbCom candidates. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Speech -vs- Property Rights

"A man who represents himself has a fool for a client." - Abraham Lincoln

I think I may be in need of the assistance of an administrator, hopefully someone who values the freedom of expression. I'm having a little debate of copyright law, fair use, and Wikipedia guidelines with some folks lately regarding my use of images on my Userpage. From what Thames has indicated to me, as long as an image is in use on Wikipedia for an article, I shouldn't have a problem using it on my Userpage or userboxes. That seems about right. Geni is of the opinion that only an image used in an article is "safe", and that any other use is illegal. I've tried explaining (and quoting US copyright law) that "Fair Use" law is very weak. If Wikipedia uses an image ANYWHERE it is pretty much at the mercy of who owns the copyright of the image. At least the use in an article gives some excuse of Fair Use. But, blocking images from being used elsewhere onsite won't offer Wikipedia any additional protection at all. So the only rationale for doing so is just plain censorship. He tried to use the argument that only governments can censor, and well...that's not true. It only requires the power to suppress speech, in any form of organization. I got the following from the US copyright office. I mean, am I wrong here?

(From US Copyright Office)
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

FL-102, Revised December 2005 --

65px "That's just, like, your opinion, man."

Mike Nobody ¿ =/\= 00:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Mike, i am not the one to ask about fair use rules. i am no expert in the matter, and when i've asked people's opinions, opinions vary across the board - which i am sure you've found out. in the discussion above entitled Fair use outside of article it was explained to me that images on user pages are not protected by fair use, because they are being used for personal use. "essentially fair use is out for user pages" is what i was told. aparently, "a link to an image ([:Image:…]), as opposed to an inline image, would not violate copyright."
i currently have dozens of images on my user page, but i am not going argue to keep images on my user page. if i am told to remove them, i will. in the end, user pages are not why i am here. i am here to work on an encyclopedia. hope this helps, Kingturtle 02:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

I'm having some trouble with an anon user at the USC Trojans football article; despite my numerous attempts, they have refused to work the dispute out at the talk pages either here or here (I'm guessing it's the same user, but since the complaints are always from anon accounts, and they don't sign their Talk posts, it's just a guess). I've proposed a couple of compromises there which I think present a balanced view, but they always revise the article text after simply dismissing my views. Any chance you could take a look and weigh in (particularly on my most recent suggested version)? MisfitToys 01:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i will look into it shortly. Kingturtle 03:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I hate to break it to you, but i couldn't really care less about that article. that was really cool, though, how you told me. thanks anyways. --daunrealist 22:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, thank you for your welcome message. I've found an error in the Friedrich Wilhelm Freiherr von Bülow page: it said it was the teacher of Louis Ferdinand of Prussia, a German prince, but the link to the latter brought to an omonymous born 200 years after Bülow's death, so I've created the page for the right person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Ferdinand_of_Prussia) and I hope I got all the existing links right.

217.23.167.59

Was just about to start reverting these when i noticed that you had...was placing them on the board first after looking at the history on the IP talk page. Teamwork!! :) Ian3055 00:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom vote

Hello, Kingturtle. I'd thought I let you know that you inadvertantly voted oppose twice at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Fred Bauder. I've flagged the second vote, but thought I'd let you know. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

holy moly that's embarassing for me! what a gaff! please don't interpret it as a personal attack against you. Kingturtle 00:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Computer

Hi. Your last edit to talk page of Apple Computer added a lot of older stuff and removed some recent comments (including one proposed addition of content by me). Could you check what you did and fix it? --C S (Talk) 13:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox width

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Infobox#Infobox Width Blight & lack of policy thereon. Thanks/wangi 13:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kingturtle, sorry to put this on your discussion page, but this is the first time I've been on here, and am not certain how else to contact you. I have a question for you:

I'm doing a report on USC Trojan Football, and came across one of your posts in the discussion portion. I read the copyright laws, but am not entirely comfortable with the jargon. I'd like to use some of the entry for a report as I mentioned. Am I allowed to do this? Am I required to cite it as a reference? If so, how would I cite it?

The questions to these answers and any others you think might be useful, I would greatly appreciate. Thanks.

NathanR152.163.100.68 15:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you certainly may use wikipedia as a resource. treat it like any other source. cite it like any other citation in your paper. since this is a website, you should use the particular citation format for websites. do you know if you're supposed to use a particular formatting style for citations? Kingturtle 19:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Berg

Hi Kingturtle. You reverted my edits to Nick Berg, which I thought were removing patent opinion. The caption says "Warning: Very graphic photo." It is also very unencyclopedic to warn whether something "may offend viewers;" we present the facts of what's in the picture or video, and the reader decides for themself whether or not they should check it out. // paroxysm (n) 04:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i switched it back. is that a written policy? Kingturtle 05:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations resolutions

Thank you for comment. As an administrator at multilingual Wikisource, English Wikisource, Chinese Wikisource (bureaucrat), Chinese Wikipedia, and Chinese Wiktionary, one of my major dreamed project is to edit things about the United Nations resolutionsin English, French, and Chinese --- all three are official languages of the UN. While I am not an administrator here, I have found several lists of the UN Security Council resolutions and started to fill in the blanks. If you are interested in adding the primary source texts of the United Nations resolutions, Wikisource is the place to go.

While I plan not to apply myself for adminship here yet, I will not object if you would like to nominate me at anytime. It is up to you. As I see you being a bureaucrat here and a candidate for the Arbitration committee, I have to think before voting there.--Jusjih 08:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have received your recent message. The dates of the first 300 resolutions are complete. I will fill in more if no one else does it. While I see your user page saying "The mood of Wikipedia seems to be one of deleting more articles, which makes me less likely to start new articles", I do not feel starting a new page so badly while you are a bureaucrat but I am not an admin here yet.--Jusjih 13:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USC Trojans football

Hi - Our anonymous friend is back, repeatedly reverting to his version of the awards section at USC Trojans football. I've asked him if there's some compromise we can achieve, with no response. I'm not exactly sure how to proceed - have any suggestions? I don't think he's techically violated 3RR yet and he seems to be willing to wait for quite a long time before reintroducing his version of the text. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both the anon and user:MisfitToys have now violated 3RR. Since I've been involved in these reverts, I'd prefer a different admin take action. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the 4th revert; after I reverted the third time, I then semi-protected but thought about it again and removed the protect. When the anon reverted (immediately) for the fourth time, I thought reverting and protecting was the correct thing to do, but I suppose having someone else do it might have been the right route. Unfortunately, the current version is the one the anon's been putting up (and which several users, including me, you and Kingturtle) have been reverting away from. If someone could revert to your (Rick's) last version (the last one before the edit war), I think that would be useful, especially since the anon user seems unwilling to either participate constructively in talk discussions or make any compromises regarding content. The current situation might leave the anon user thinking that he's "won" and doesn't need to participate anymore. (BTW, how did the anon remove the semi-protect? Kind of defeats the purpose.) MisfitToys 00:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of the Moon

Yeah I went on a bit of a wiki-spree to rid wiki of some fancruft and redirected most of the red location links to that page.... Was trying not to encourage every damn building and town to have its own article.... - UnlimitedAccess 04:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i've turned that redirect into an article about something else. if this is not ok, i can turn it into a disamb page. Kingturtle 10:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 22; - removing less notable deaths from the events area)

Hi, This is obviously subjective but I feel the death of C. S. Lewis is important enough to be retained. We still have for example, Greek troops advance into Albanian soil and liberate Korytsa, Vaudeville actress Lillian Ruell makes her debut - both events of such little general interest that they contain red links. I don't know if you've been doing similar work on other dates and if there are criteria for this sort of thing? Dlyons493 Talk 19:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some deaths, like assassinations or historic firsts are included in events. but deaths are usually placed in the Deaths area and not in the events area. there is no official criteria, but some conversations have taken place in the TALK area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year. please add your ideas to the mix there. Kingturtle 19:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request for disambiguation

Hi again. You helped me before about a disambiguation situation and I am back. I apologize if I am violating some rule but I really am not good with technical computing skills. On a political page called Bureaucratic Collectivism, I added a reference that I think it is important to Joe Carter, an American socialist activist. Unfortunately, this is also the name of a baseball player. There needs to be a disambiguous page with all the leading links changed. Could King Turtle or someone else help? Thanks. Rmalhotr 23:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Joe Carter the baseball player has over 4 times as many google hits as Joe Carter the activist, I decided not to make a disamguation page. Instead, I changed the activist to Joe Carter (activist), and I simply made mention of him atop the Joe Carter article. If you feel strongly that the Joe Carter baseball player article should instead be Joe Carter (baseball player), let me know. Kingturtle 00:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I completely agree with your judgment but I am afraid I made an error. I am very sorry. It turns out that the activist person in question already has a page under Joseph Carter. I have changed back the link on "bureaucratic collectivism" to the right Carter but the new note on the Baseball player that you created would have to be either deleted or changed to refer to Joseph Carter. I am sorry for the trouble. I agree that 99.999% of Americans anyway would be searching for the baseball player so if you just want to delete the message on the baseball player, that's fine. Sorry for my mistake. Rmalhotr 01:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. i fixed it. go see how :) Kingturtle 02:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

60 point NBA games

Hi. FYI, I rv your last edit to the list of 60-point games because I don't like seeing that detail for just one game like that one is worthy of extra special attention. But, if you know of where to find those detailed stats on all of the 60-point games, I think that would look really cool in that article. Any clue where to find those? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

give it a little time. we can dig the info up. take a look how the early version of Major League Baseball home run milestones evolved into how it looks now. Kingturtle 22:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can live with that. Already looks better with those in their own column. I broke it out into three columns. Tonight, I'll work on filling out more recent ones anyway and adding the columns to the sort-by-date table. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

François-René de Chateaubriand

Hamburger Chateaubriand and Meat Loaf Chateaubriand? If it wasn't from you, I'd presume this to be vandalism. The former pretty much fails the Google test, and I can't find anything offhand on line to connect the latter to the man himself. Have you got a citation for this? (If the answer is "yes", could you add that to the article?) - Jmabel | Talk 07:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the info comes from George & Berthe Herter's Bull Cook and Authentic Historical Recipes. i added the reference to the article. i need help getting the syntax correct. if the names of the dishes seem too far-fetched, maybe the Herters were wrong? Kingturtle 07:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Baker Image

Hi Kingturtle, I saved Frank-baker-baseball.jpg on commons. Its new name is Frank Baker Baseball Card.jpg. You are using the picture on your user page, I just wanted to let you know that this picture is flagged NowCommons so the local copy might be deleted. --Matt 314 20:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles

Hey, did you mean to do what you did to the Beatles page just now? John (Jwy) 06:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, in 1963, the beatles were not influenced by Bob Dylan. Kingturtle 06:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I agree with that and left Lion King a note, but I was reverting the loss of the stuff at then end. I'll clean that up. John (Jwy) 06:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ah, oops. good catch. Kingturtle 06:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mullet

Not sure why you reverted my edits, but if you take another look at the entry you'll see that the way it is worded after your revert implies that Joe Dirt the movie, not the character, had a mullet.

The first part of the entry was in italics, and since movie characters' names don't get italicized, it must mean the movie itself. Without italics, as I had it, means that the character Joe Dirt had a mullet (in the movie of the same name). I'm fixing it again. Please don't revert again without discussion. Kafziel 13:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R from title without diacritics

It categorizes a subset of "unprintworthy redirects" which are useful for searching for articles, and preventing duplicates from being created, perhaps by a newb that doesn't know any better. But these redirects shouldn't be used for linking because they are, technically, incorrect titles for the article being linked to. If they are all categorized as such, it makes it easy to spot check what links to these redirects and correct the spelling used in those pages. Also it makes it a short order to periodically run a bot and fix them all, which what I plan to do shortly. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:04, Jan. 30, 2006

Trojans football

Regarding USC Trojans football, I don't believe it's possible for the anon user and me to resolve the differences between us; as I've noted on the talk page, each of us insists on including text that the other finds completely unacceptable. I'd like your opinion regarding my earlier suggestions of Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Requests for comment. MisfitToys 22:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shea Stadium

I was amused by your "no offense" at that picture that looks like it was taken from a moving car. You missed a semi-obvious "punning situation": You could have told the uploader that Wiki has a policy against "drive-by shootings". d:) Wahkeenah 00:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HazelCarter.jpe

Hi Kingturtle. Please note that when you upload images, you should add source and licencing details at that time. The image was tagged as unsourced for the full seven day period - if you won't add licence details when uploading the image and won't add your uploads to your watchlist so that you don't know that they have been tagged as unsourced, your images are liable to be deleted as they are then speedy deletable. If you don't agree with this policy, may I suggest that you take the issue up with Jimmy Wales who implemented this policy. Regards, CLW 22:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the policy. I'm just asking that instead of deleting, ask the uploader to verify the copyright info. Kingturtle 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Hine

I was wondering what was "broken" about the picture that you removed recently. It is a relatively famous picture, and it is (as is explained on the image page) not subject to copyright, as it was created by the United States Government. The picture looks good, so I don't know why you wanted to remove it from the article. Morris 03:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking guidance

I am seeking your guidance and advice on a particular issue. Mahuri page on wikipedia was initiated by me, and I have contributed to the page from time to time. As per policy of the wikipedia anyone can use the contents of wikipedia, but I understand that use of such contents should indicate the source, that is, the wikipedia. The contents of the page Mahuri have been used in the site mahurivaisya without giving any reference to wikipedia - though I am glad that they have used our contents. In this case, a problem may arise at a future date if that website takes a stand that the contents of page Mahuri on wikipedia have been copied from that site and thus violates copyrights. In an alternative scenario, a user here may tag our Mahuri page with copyright violation under the impression that our contents have been copied from that site, reference to which was given by me long back as an external link when that site was not active and having only a welcome page. Although I am not aware of any such issue, which wikipedians may have encountered in the past, I believe that such a situation may have arisen earlier too. I seek your advice and guidance to deal with this issue, which you are requested to kindly post on my talk page please. I also utilize this opportunity to say Hello to you. Thanks. --Bhadani 13:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geek&diff=37580894&oldid=37548457 You wrote "do not use this image until you get the expressed approval to do so from User:Elvenscout742"

Are you sure? I put it in kimono, too and nobody had a problem with that (of course this image is the articles's only male kimono picture and it desperately needed it) and yet geek is not? Why not?

Where on the wikipedia policy does it say that if I must get his permission since he listed it as "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts" that free copyright?


An unrelated question: You became an admin with 3,944 edits and 75 days experience? They require 10,000 edits and 6 months (or was it 9) last time I looked.

I am intereted in hearing back. Tempoo 11:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A) it is a matter of common courtesy and kindness to ask. B) what and what is not a geek is subjective, therefore POV.
how about growing up? Kingturtle 21:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CIMIC

Hey, I just made some significant changes to the CIMIC entry. As you seem to be the only other person to have ever done anything to it, I thought I should let you know. - User:Jason.Watt

Invitation

You are invited to take part in Wikipedia_talk:Changing username#Dropping inactive user names. Ems2 17:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babe Ruth

I'm posting this message on you Talk Page either because you've contributed to the article Babe Ruth, or because you've edited other baseball or sports related articles. I've recently completed a revision of this article at Babe Ruth/rewrite. If you have the time, I'd appreciated it if you'd compare the articles and leave any feedback you might have on the rewrite discussion page. I'd like to reach a consensus before makeing major changes to the main article. Thanks for your help. --djrobgordon 20:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs containing overt reference to real musicians

I agree that this list should only include artists/songs that are somehow accessible – be it on records/cds or the net. As this is the case with my additions from 2/5/06 (posted from 84.61.131.16), I don't see why you deleted them.

Netzhaut 23:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which contributions specifically are you referring to? Kingturtle 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Bob Dylan's 49th Beard" by Wilco, "Talking New Bob Dylan" and "Five Years Old", both by Loudon Wainwright III. I had added a song by Rufus Wainwright as well, but only noticed later that it doesn't fit in this list but rather the covert references list.

Netzhaut 01:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what happens. I am an administrator here which allows me to revert edits. i meant to revert only your most recent edit, but the software made me revert all your edits to the last user other than you. i meant only to remove the Rufus Wainwright edit, because it was covert not overt. feel free to re-add the other overt examples. Kingturtle 01:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible edits/Deletions?

Hi Kingturtle. I was just wondering if it's possible for a page to be edited in such a way that changes do not show up on its history page. I recently added some material to the Thin Red Line page--or at least I thought I did--and some of it now seems to be gone, without a trace on the history page. I checked the Help->Editing page before writing you, and there's nothing said about it over there, which makes me wonder if I'm just imagining things.... Perhaps I accidentally highlighted a bunch of my own text and then deleted it before saving a final version of the page? Anyway, please let me know what might be going on. Thanks very much. Buck 16:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i don't believe secret edits can be made. on rare occassions there is a glitch in the software. i am unsure what has happened in your case. can you give me more specifics about what you added that is now missing? Kingturtle 22:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. After my initial edit (13:35, 6 Feb), which was to insert a need-source flag, I went back and expanded the page with two paragraphs of text, which I thought had been saved under my expansion of the "narrative theme" section (14:24, 6 Feb--listed under "expanded narrative theme section, corrected spelling"). But when I went back this afternoon and looked at the page again, my spelling corrections were there, but the extra material I'd written--which consisted of an elaboration of the way in which the movie's major themes were demonstrated by way of conflicts between specific characters--seemed to have vanished. This is the first time this has ever happened to me, and I'm quite sure it's not another of the listed editors, since they all seem serious (i.e., non-vandalistic). Again, I'm not ruling out the possibility that I somehow made this erasure myself (I'm working with a new laptop computer, whose mouse touch-pad is a bit temperamental); I just wanted to know if it was possible that it might have been an edit that took place without any evidence of it being left over. Anyway, the answer seems to be "no", so don't worry about it. And, since you mention it, it might just have been a glitch (of the sort that sometimes takes place when searches don't go through properly, as sometimes happens). Maybe I'll go back to the page and try to rebuild what I thought I'd left there. Thanks again. Buck 04:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subst

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Thanks! howcheng {chat} 19:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myspaces

Kingturtle, is it against the rules to link to a Myspace profile of somebody on a reality show, like ANTM? I got kind of lost when trying to look up the answer. Thanks.

Buffy Novels

Hiya, just wondering why you changed the article 'Buffy novels', to 'Buffy novel'. My opinion is that the article I made is about the novels collectively, and not about the definition of a 'Buffy novel'? Also it is a parallel article to 'Buffy episodes', 'Buffy comics', Buffy video games', 'Angel comics', 'Angel novels', 'Buffyverse novels', 'Buffyverse comics', each one collects together the group of its subject, rather than defines the singular. Wouldn't a redirect from 'Buffy novel' to 'Buffy novels' be more appropiate and consistent with all the other articles?

Let me know on this page what you think. Thanks -- Paxomen 21:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it made more sense, i felt, but if there are arguments to switch it back to Buffy novels, i will not oppose the change back. Kingturtle 22:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I do feel its important to keep these 'Canonical issues' boxes around, because many Buffy fans who are Wikipedians have strong views about such things, whilst others don't really care. the 'Canonical issues' gives the chance for those who don't care to skip it, and those who do to spend more time on it.

Hiya, I brought up the issue on the wikiproject buffy page and only got 2 responses, but both favoured a plural option, so shall move to plural

_____________________________________________________________

it's not about the concept, it's about the collection. Plural is appropriate. Dave 06:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
agreed - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 17:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________________________________________

--Thanks, -- Paxomen 04:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universism

King, would appreciate your weighing in, based on your posts on the Universism talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Universism Universist 11:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

colored bubbles

Zubbles!  :) --Quiddity 03:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention this earlier

I forgot to mention this earlier, but I've been busy. You wrote "it is a matter of common courtesy and kindness" but then you went hypocritical by giving a personal attack and/or insult "how about growing up?" Tempoo 08:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Ah, you are getting married! Marriage is a wonderful thing, a bonding of love between two happy souls. My warmest wishes to you and the future Queenturtle! :) -- Cecropia 20:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai port management issue

Hi, Kingturtle. I saw your question and googled this:

Does anyone really know what's going on with all this stuff? --Uncle Ed 23:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject The Beatles

Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.
Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet!

You're the number one editor on John Lennon... seems a natural to give you an invite. You may be too busy with real life though, so no worries if you don't have time... ++Lar: t/c 19:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


New Sports Wiki/Community

I noticed you were active member of the Wikiproject Baseball Players. My friends and I started a sports wiki/community that you may be interested in. It uses Wikipedia's software but we made a lot of technological improvements to allow for more news, opinion articles, and better integration of sports statistics. The site is located here: www.armchairgm.com. Check our baseball and our baseball statistics help section its pretty cool:

  • armchairgm.com/mwiki/index.php?title=MLB
  • armchairgm.com/mwiki/index.php?title=Help:Baseball_Statistics

When you get the chance, let me know what you think.

Thanks!

--Awrigh01 22:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Congrats!

I see you're getting married - I'd like to extend my warmest congratulations (or is that condolences?) I wish the both of you the very best. Raul654 09:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image Tagging Image:Danielwebster2.jpe

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Danielwebster2.jpe. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then 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. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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 Image legality questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 04:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


POV Tag on List of incidents famously considered great blunders

Hi - On 30 March you added a POV tag to List of incidents famously considered great blunders. The tag states that there is discussion on the talk page. Since you have not initiated any discussion and it is not clear what your concerns are, I have removed the tag. Please feel free to replace but please share your concerns on the talk page. Regards--A Y Arktos\talk 08:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: THE

Saw you on the Grateful Dead talk page and decided to check out your page. Congrats on the wedding. TommyBoy76 12:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76[reply]


Proposed event policy for Wikicalendar

I recently posted some ideas about developing criteria for what should and should not be listed on Wikicalendar events at the Wikicalendar's talk page. Since you're actively involved in this project, I thought I'd let you know so that you can comment or add more suggestions. Thanks :). Fabricationary 23:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Hetar 06:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Lucretiamott2.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

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

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.96.38 12:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Berg

The Nick Berg conspiracy theories page is being nominated for deletion for the third time. It looks like it is going through this time. —131.103.138.231 00:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


An image that you uploaded, Image:Gibralter2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Edited your userpage

Sorry for editing your userpage, but I thought it's better than leaving you with a redlink. Conscious 13:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1975 World Series HOFers

I added breaks to lines after the team name and after the HOF group of each team. Hope this helps. Kjbopp 18:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have received your recent message. The dates of the first 300 resolutions are complete. I will fill in more if no one else does it. While I see your user page saying "The mood of Wikipedia seems to be one of deleting more articles, which makes me less likely to start new articles", I do not feel starting a new page so badly while you are a bureaucrat but I am not an admin here yet.--Jusjih 13:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reminding me of the spirit of wikipedia. i think i was in a pessimistic mood when i wrote that. i've removed it now from my user page! cheers, Kingturtle 13:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trudi Canavan - advert or article?

Hello. You left a message on Trudi Canavan yesterday stating "this article looks like a sales page. it needs to look like an encyclopedia page." Could you elaborate on this (on the talk page), as I'm unsure which parts of the article look like a sales page and hence need to be reworked? Thanks. Mike Peel 13:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting vandalism

Hi Kingturtle. I'm not sure if you're the one I should be telling, but whoever is using IP 165.98.174.199 has been vandalizing articles (so far, "The Castro" and "Pam Anderson"). I've reverted it, but I guess they should be warned. I'm telling you because you're the only admin person I know of. Buck Mulligan 20:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The vandal appears to have left. I will monitor the IP's activity. I am happy to help again if you need it. If I am not around, you can ask any of the admins - most should be willing to assist you. Kingturtle 21:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban photo

hey. so, my taliban photo? well, i was in afghanistan for a month (july) in 2001 on holidays. i got a return flight to pakistan and i was able to get a visum in peshawar. traveled alone all around the country. you can see my route and more photos at http://travel.bluuurgh.com but i still haven't gotten around to typing out my travel notes (only five years later). Bluuurgh 10:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wow, those photos are really terrific. i'd love to read about your experiences in afghanistan at that time. it must have been fascinating and a bit scary. let me know when you have written out your travel notes. Kingturtle 14:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC) p.s. it'd be nice to use more of those afghan photos on wikipedia.[reply]
well, if you have any suggestions... i'm rather reluctant to promote my own photos as i'm not to sure about the quality of some of them. i am prepared to 'public domain' most of my work, shame there's no beer-ware license to select from. Bluuurgh 08:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio...

Put an external link to the overall subject, which will help make it verifiable. Thanks much, Kukini 17:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i culled the information from many different articles i found through google. what information in the stub are you curious about? Kingturtle 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did it myself...found an AP article that refers to it, thus bringing some verification to the article. Have a good day. Kukini 21:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Kingturtle 03:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Provinces

No problem. I also have a (random) interest in Afghanistan. Frankie816 14:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming New Users

Umm, thanks for the message on my talk page. I confess I was a little surprised, because I've been using (and editing) Wikipedia for several years (mostly proofreading that I didn't bother to log in for). But I appreciate the thought. ;-) Congratulations on your marriage. --Bedawyn 19:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan districts

Hi Kingturtle. Could I possibly ask a small favour, as you seem to have an interest in Afghanistan? Could you please have a quick look at Category:Districts of Afghanistan, and move any of the districts that are still listed in lower-case "district" to upper-case "District". There's about eight or nine of them left, which need an admin to move them, though (as far as I know) the only history on the target articles is redirects to a couple of different places. See Category talk:Districts of Afghanistan for discussion on which naming convention to use. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've clearly been on a Wikibreak for a while. No worries - Merovingian has sorted this out now. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Security Council Resolution

The individual resolution lists (1 to 100, etc) were all created in descending order, but this seems counter-intuitive. What can we do to fix them? --Ruyn 23:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Crane

Hi there! I see you were the last one to have done any work on the page Vincent Crane, which was redirecting it to his band Atomic Rooster (somewhere in 2003). I strongly feel Vincent Crane deserves to have his own page in wiki. So I started one, quite amateuristic until now but hoping it will grow. I hope you don't have any strong feelings against my changing the redirect into a page for Crane alone! I changed nothing to the Atomic Rooster page, btw. I am fairly new here, so I hope I've done it all right...! Thanks. Mark in wiki 15:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Afghanistan?

Hey Kingturtle. I've noticed you seem to have done a lot of work on various Afghanistan related pages on Wikipedia. Still, despite the best efforts of you and a few others, the general article standard seems quite poor, which is a pity given the doubtless widespread interest. Anyway, I've thought that it might be worthwhile starting a WikiProject: Afghanistan. I was wondering what you thought about such an idea. --RaiderAspect 23:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Boston Tea Party

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [2]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AntonDostler.jpg marked redundant

I've found better quality version of this image on Commons, so I've marked picture you'd uploaded as redundant. Ss181292 10:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at Lejay, Afghanistan...

You did a lot of work on the Afghanistan timeline. I'd like to ask you to help me trace the source of some of that information. American forces rounded up all the military age males they could find following an ambush outside the village of Lejay, Afghanistan, on February 10 2003. February 10 2003 is the date supplied in the transcripts of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Board hearings of the Afghans who ended up in Guantanamo. The US forces had called in air support when they were ambushed on the 10th.

The Afghan timeline says American forces subjected Lejay to an aerial bombardment on February 11th, killing 17 civilians.

I am trying to figure out there was a mixup of dates, or whether the Americans subjected Lejay and vicinity to two aerial bombardments. The transcripts don't give any hint that there were any casualties, on either side. One of the transcripts, however, described the ambusher's fire as '"viscious". Between you and I I think this suggests a lack of professionalism on the part of the person writing the after-action report.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 18:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, my source for most of my Afghan timeline information was http://www.myafghan.com/default.asp . That site used to have an extensive archive of news stories from AP, Reuters, etc. and some British news services dating back many years. Because of copyright issues, however, that site had to remove its archive. It is a shame; it was an extremely valuable resource.
Because that site no longer has its archive, I cannot tell you the source. What I can tell you is that I was extremely careful and meticulous in my descriptions of news reports.
In my experience reading so many news stories about Afghanistan, there were sometimes conflicting dates. The same event was sometimes given different dates. For example, one article written on October 2, 2003 (a Thursday) might say an event happened "today" while another article written on October 3, 2003 (a Friday) might say the event happened "Wednesday" (October 1). I did my best to get the dates in the timeline accurate, but there might be some mistakes due to the subtle inaccuracy of the sources.
I hope this helps you a little, Kingturtle 06:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I could tell you were careful, and didn't mean to leave the impression I was challenging your accuracy. I just wanted to consult to primary source myself.
I have encountered situations where there was a source I expected to expire, and wondered whether there was a way to get sites like the waybackmachine to preserve a snapshot. I believe that the waybackmachine, and the similar sites, all honour the no-robots instruction. Of course you didn't have any clue the pages you were using would expire.
About this particular skirmish... I didn't see any of the documents the DoD released refer to any US casualties. But one of the references said the ambushers subjected the US forces to a "vicious fire". Kind of a stupid phrase, IMO. I think we can assume that, if an enemy is firing at you, unless they are firing warning shots, they plan to cause as many casualties as possible. Anthropomorphizing their fire seems unprofessional.
FWIW, I think the transcripts from the captives taken following this skirmish demonstrate some of the weaknesses of the Guantanamo intelligence efforts. One of the arguments of those who favor stripping the detainees of the protections of the rule of law is that soldiers aren't cops, and can't be expected to read prisoners their Miranca rights, or to preserve a proper "chain of custody" of the evidence against them.
Abdul Bagi says he wasn't interrogated until a week after his capture. He is alleged to have thrown a rifle down a well. He acknowldeges being captured near a well. He said that the water in the well was (1) shallow, (2) clear -- and that observers would have been able to clearly see a much smaller object than a rifle, if it was lying at the bottom of the well. He said that they would have been able to see an object as small as a pen at the bottom of the well. From my reading of the transcripts it seems like the US forces found a single AK-47. And, when the dossiers were composed against the detainees, the allegations against them attributed ownership of the single weapon to multiple suspects.
Anyhow, thanks again for your reply. -- Geo Swan 14:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request advice on revisions to Nortel Networks article

On October 30, 2006, the text of the Nortel Networks article was replaced with text that appears to come from the company's own press materials, such as http://www.nortel.com/corporate/pressroom/collateral/corporate_backgrounder_feb2006.pdf and http://www.nortel.com/corporate/index.html . I am reluctant to just revert the article to its previous version, as there is more current information present, though of course since it comes straight from Nortel's PR, it has a great deal of feel-good wording. Other than the timeline information, which is taken from the PDF link I gave, all history information has been lost, including discussion of the recent financial issues. I'm not sure what is the usual course of action in cases like this; can you provide any advice? Isaac Lin 07:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reflection, I plan to revert the article and request that any updates be integated into the older article. I do not believe it to be appropriate for the article to be a direct copy from PR material, and want to avoid having more people submit updates on top of this version of the article. Isaac Lin 14:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Roger Clemens salary

O.o I seem to have met my first old school admin.

Anyway, if you were still interested, I found the link for Roger Clemens' $USD 22 million dollar salary for 2006. See Talk:Roger Clemens. Nishkid64 03:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question re your 01:43, 18 November 2003 edit to IBM 604

You added See also: [[List of IBM products]]. I'm curious why, what value does this add to the article? Most IBM machine articles do not have that text and I tend to think in terms of all or none. Thanks 69.106.232.37 06:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropist

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Philanthropist, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Philanthropist. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. — Sebastian (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Segway Geeks
Because of your outstanding contributions to Segway PT and/or Geek, you have been selected for the Wikipedia group Segway Geeks.
File:PTtopview.jpg

Geeklera Segway Geek 21:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Berg-chair.jpe listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Berg-chair.jpe, 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —Strothra 18:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shakers FAR

Shakers 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. Sandy (Talk) 18:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you restore?

Can you restore? [3] You did before. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]