en User talk:NorthernFire

Welcome!

Hello, NorthernFire, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - Shauri 22:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you reversed {{Alberta}} which Circeus had removed. I invite you to take a look at the following and add your 25 cents worth in the discussion :) See Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion#Harmonizing_province_templates. Cadillac 23:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shading

The default shading should appear. I would guess it's your monitor/colour settings. It's a common problem with LCDs. --Arch26 21:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, I did get a new computer with an LCD monitor just last month - I thought it might have been something to do with XP, but I don't know, because I had Win 98 with the old 'puter the entire time! The colors do show up a bit strangely on my LCD monitor (probably either not high-res enough or due to 32-bit color, which is the highest color setting I have), but it's a minor problem for me - for now. There is no way I know that I can adjust the settings on my LCD monitor to view the default shading for tables? If there are suggestions, please let me know and I would be glad to try. NorthernFire 21:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

I'm getting the coordinates from Google Earth. Go to [1] and download the program to your computer. Once you have it loaded, you can specify a town and then follow the highway accordingly. Cheers. Cadillac 20:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton Tornado

I have noticed on the List of tornadoes striking downtown areas, you removed the Edmonton Tornado. I added that tornado becuase the Sherwood Park Freeway (whcih the tornado struck) is only 3 miles/5 kilometers from the downtown core of Edmonton, Alberta. Besides, being a Strong F4/Weak F5, its effects were felt all over the city. Should it be re-added, since it grazed downtown, rather than pushing through it directly? RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 04:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the category template Transportation in Edmonton?

I didn't remove the category template Transportation in Edmonton. I removed the category link on the Transportation in Edmonton page because the category is empty and no page exists. It would likely only contain that one page if you created it. Please see Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ for when to create categories. Thanks. Please don't carry on any further discussion on this topic on my talk page, but rather do it on the talk page of the article. I'm not opposed to categories like this Transportation in Vancouver and Transportation in Vancouver have related category pages, but they're not the only ones on it. Start by creating a few pages that you want on the cat page and then create the cat page for real. --Walter Görlitz 06:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the new Transportation in Edmonton category. Looks good. --Walter Görlitz 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Land Area Argument

It is not a lie (you are right), but is extremely deceptive and should be explained further (man, it should at least be referenced) if it's going to stay in the article. Otherwise I say remove it. It is deceptive because the city that was and still is known as "Ottawa" proper was once MUCH smaller. A few years ago, most major cities in Ontario began a program of amalgamating large portions of their metro areas. In Ottawa's case, most of the Ontario side of Greater Ottawa was annexed. HOWEVER, satellite "cities" like Nepean and Vanier are still thought of as separate entities despite the fact that they are technically part of the same city. The annexation also included a lot of empty space. It would be the same as if Edmonton were to annex a very large portion of their massive 10,000 sq. km metro area... it would artificially skew the numbers. As a result, Ottawa appears (in numbers) to be much less dense than Edmonton. In fact, the density of the built up area of Ottawa is clearly much higher than Edmonton's. This is an example of where demographics become very manipulative and dangerous when they are misinterpreted. Therefore, I strongly advocate the removal or further explanation of your addition to the Edmonton article. Otherwise, it is a fairly meaningless and confusing factoid... not encyclopedic. --Arch26 07:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank-you for consulting me on this. I think you could probably put it back with the reference (although, part of me still thinks it needs a little more description). But I don't think it's worth having an edit war over. Although it is a factual statement, I might question whether or not it's important. I'm not sure that having it there adds anything to the article. However, like I said, I really have no concerns with you putting it back, I'm just not sure it NEEDS to be. Thanks again. --Arch26 04:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me

A couple of weeks back I posted something on the VEI discussion page about Las Cañadas the caldera on tenerife asking wether it was a supervolcano or not. I'm now asking you because you seem to know a lot about the subject. If you could post me your answer back that would be great --Wiki235

Image:060 es pic28.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:060 es pic28.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with VEI

Hi there As you have shown considerable knowledge in volcanoes, we have a user who is convinced that La Garita was VEI 9. I tried explaining but he won't seem to listen. Couldn't put him back on the straight and narrow could you. Thanks Wiki235 (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoes

Hi NorthernFire. I see you have shown some interest in volcano articles. Is there a possibility you could help with this subject in Canada? There is a total lack of this infomation on Canadian volcanology articles and need tons of work. Black Tusk (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Bryan Anderson (politician)

I have nominated Bryan Anderson (politician), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Anderson (politician). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Kim Krushell

I have nominated Kim Krushell, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Krushell. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abgp.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Abgp.jpg, 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. PleaseStand (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ishtarians

The article Ishtarians has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

See list of issues in the cleanup template below, which have been true for a decade and will not likely change. This entire article appears to be original research, citing no sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Fyrael (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of tourist attractions in Edmonton

The article List of tourist attractions in Edmonton has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Policies violated by this page:
WP:NLIST Not all of the entries discussed as a set by independent reliable sources.

WP:NOTDIRECTORY "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."
WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We have Wikitravel for that, and many of these pages could be recreated (or already are) there.
The core content policies are: 1) neutral point of view, 2) no original research and 3) verifiability. This page violages policies 2 and 3.
WP:VERIFY What are the criteria to meet to be in the list? This page has vague or no criteria. By definition, then, there is no way to verify the inclusion or exclusion of any particular site in the list.

WP:NOR Original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Who says that each of the items in the list are tourist attractions? Given the lack of inclusion criteria, that's understandable, as there is no need to justify being in a list that doesn't have standards for inclusion. However, that also points to original research as being the source for inclusion.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]