User talk:Steven Walling/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Steven Walling. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Muff (chicken)

Hi,

When eliminiating this article, you stated that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't add articles for every little piece of jargon. Lots of other animals have muffs or beards, so this should be added to the main Chicken article, not a separate stub to define a phrase like in a dictionary."

I was simply reinstating someone else's piece of information.

Is there a way to link the redirect of "Muff (chicken)" to a particular section in the article "Chicken" as you prescribed? Otherwise, readers will find difficulty with actually knowing where to read about this fact and understand its significance. Also, this is not simply jargon; as Dr. John Skinner states in his article regarding "Classes, Breeds, Varieties and Strains" on feathersite.com, "Variety means a sub-division of a breed. Differentiating characteristics include plumage color, comb type or presence of a beard and muffs." (http://www.feathersite.com/Poultry/SPPA/SkinnerBreeds.html)

Thus, the muff and beard is a characteristic of only some varieties and breeds of chicken, differentiating them from others, just as plumage colors do.

To name a few breeds which have this characteristic are: Ameraucana, D'Anver bantam, Faverolles, and Russian Orloff among others.

Please read the definition on <http://www.backyardchickens.com/LC-glossary.html> .

I am interested in how this piece of knowledge may be better presented, if not in its own independent article, by redirection to a particular section of the "chicken" article. By simply redirecting it to Chicken the reader may be confused as to where to obtain this information.

Thank you for your assistance,

Sicilianu101 (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ameraucana-Cochin hybrid

To those who have proposed deleting this page please consider my reasons for keeping this page.

1. I have added some details which relate to genetic topics in chicken genetics (e.g. pea comb, feathered-feet, etc.)

2. Foundation Hybrids are the basis of the formation of every chicken breed and information on such hybrids is thus valuable for prospective chicken breeders to consider. In this respect this is important information which demands recognition in the context of Wikipedia.

3. I have added personal pictures which serve as evidence for their existence and various characteristics I have described.

4. I have communicated with the well-known and trustworthy website feathersite.com (which is cited as a source for many chicken breeds on wikipedia) and have given the administrator of this website pictures and information about this hybrid which will appear at the next update of the website and which could then be listed as an external link.

The reasons stated above discredit the statements made by those wanting to delete this article, reiterated below:

"Completely unsourced and not a significant type of hybrid chicken that can be verified, as absolutely no sources (reliable or not) cover it. You could combine virtually any two chicken breeds, but that combination doesn't merit an individual encyclopedic article."

I feel that this article may be a minor addition to a movement towards redefining the encyclopedia and wikipedia in particular: not only should it be a tool to understand what exists in standardized form and what already has become common knowledge in some respect or among some community, but it should also include tools which can be used by anyone interested and with internet access which strive towards new developments and innovation. This article does this while still providing a framework within standard chicken breeding and genetics terms. It encourages readers to understand the valuable attributes of the stated hybrid and hopefully for some of them to go beyond the computer desk: to research related topics (which further increases knowledge) and then hopefully for some of them, to actually repeat this hybrid and use it innovatively to create new breeds. Thus, this article serves as a tool to improvement of such processes.

Although this may seem a minor contribution on my part to these lofty ideas, I feel that it is important to focus on going towards these ends.... and I will eventually expand this page to include more valuable information in this respect.

And so, for all those reading this statement, I hope that you will reconsider deleting this article.

Thank you,

Sicilianu101 (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain to me how "Kavron is also a place name in Turkey. The Kavron mountains are a mountain group in the Kaçkar-Kavron range. The highest point is 3932 meters. There is a village called Yukari Kavron (Upper Kavron) on the northern slopes of the Kackar range. It has about 100 houses. There is an Upper Kavron Road and a Lower Kavron Road."

Thank you

Hilary T In Shoes (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup

Happy New COTW

Greetings from WikiProject Oregon’s Collaboration of the Week. First off, thank you to everyone who has done work the last few weeks on the last two COTWs. This week we have by request Oregon and California Railroad, part of the lands involved in the Oregon Land Fraud Scandal. Then as part of the Stub elimination drive, we have longtime politician Grattan Kerans, which hopefully can be turned into a nice DYK entry. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

Delivered by The Helpful One for Garden and iMatthew at 23:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Camel peer review

Hello, how are you? Since you were one of the main editors in bringing Domestic Sheep to FA status, I was wondering if maybe you could please review Camel, which I have just brought to peer review with the hope to get ideas to eventually give it a GA candidacy. Thank you. -- Fish-Bird (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Common Sense Media

I noticed that you deleted this article. I do not know much about it's relavavance or in fact anything about it. However this is in fact why I, TRIED TO LOOK IT UP ON WIKIPEDIA. Netflix uses it to rate all of their movies. Please excuse me if I'm talking out of my ass and it's totally irrelevant and not enough people are influenced by it. I think that netflix has around 10 million subscribers though so it might be worth a wikipdia article. Lazydragonboy (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

DYK for List of Oregon birds

On January 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Oregon birds, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Georgia (typeface) vs. Georgia (font)

Hi there. You recently moved Georgia (typeface) to Georgia (font) with the log summary

moved Georgia (typeface) to Georgia (font) over redirect: Georgia is a font. Fonts are a family of typefaces, with typefaces being Georgia Bold, Georgia Italic, etc.

Actually, that's not exactly right. In fact, historically, it's the exact opposite! A typeface is the overall design, including all weights and specific sizes, while a font (or fount) was the physical product of each size of each weight of the design. The terms are now at best interchangeable; see http://fontfeed.com/archives/font-or-typeface/ for a good discussion on the topic. Meanwhile, I would appreciate it if you could move the article back for consistency with all our other articles.

Furthermore, there really is no point in retitling this article "XXX (font)", because even in its broadest modern meaning, a "font" is the digital file containing a representation of a weight of a typeface that can be rendered on screen or in print; a typeface may therefore be available as a set of TrueType fonts, an OpenType font, etc. Our articles are about the designs themselves, not their physical or digital representations or their style/weight subsets, so they really should be titled "XXX (typeface)". Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Did you get a chance to read the article I linked to above? Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Science of Peace and LeVar Burton

He asked on Twitter for people to put some info in about it. Unfortunately, his legion of followers are largely Wikipedia ignorant. I'm trying to see if I can write something up with proper citations and references and all that. Of course, someone else may beat me to it. Just a heads-up :) Coreycubed (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Never mind, you've dropped a prot on there. I'll make up something pretty, do all my research ahead of time and wait for it to expire. Coreycubed (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dahnposter.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: CSDs

These are not alternative names for the breeds concerned, and are now orphaned pages. Please delete them. Ottre 08:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Horse breeds

Hi. I saw your edit on Donkey. Would you like to help improve navigation among the many horse breed articles? See Template talk:Equine. --Una Smith (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

17:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome! L Seed (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS

Please show me where blogs are "accaptable as reliable sources". The referall in WP:RS leads to WP:SPS which states: "Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source." - the LeVar Burton material does not meet this criteria at all. Please revert yourself. Thanks! -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you that there are certain cases where we can use blogs/self published sources, those occasions would be when the particular blog in question has been identified as a source that has an established track record of reliability and fact checking. Do you have a link to somewhere within wikipedia (or to a standard Reliable Source) that identifies this blog as one that has such a reputation? (Because I disagree with what I interpret as the overall message of your response - that if a traditional relaible source does not exist for a subject that we can use other sources regardless of whether or not they have a reputation for reliability and fact checking). -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

this discussion is being consolodated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LeVar_Burton#Blogs_as_sources_.3F.3F.3F.3F

Dahn-related articles

It is very obvious that a laundry list of accusations from a dismissed court case does not support a neutral tone in the Ilchi Lee article, yet you insist that the article remain as written. Do you really believe the material was NPOV as written? This is yet again evidence of your seeming intention to preserve and contribute biased material in Dahn-related articles. (Most of these edits were made under your alternate user name VanTucky. Sneaky!) This is inappropriate for an editor and even more so for an administrator. What's the beef, Van Tucky? Do you really, really believe it was neutral as written? I am not at all suggesting that the material be completely removed, but the content was way out of line and its relevance has become much lower now that the case has been dismissed. Please stop, look, and consider Wikipedia policy before reverting once again. Nicola Cola (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not "unilaterally remove" any content from the article. Another editor did, and I agree with your decision to revert that. I revised content that was not neutrally written and is of questionable relevance since the dismissal. This really makes me think you did not even read the revision I made since you characterize my edit as a deletion. Direct quotations from dismissed court cases are not proper encyclopedic content by any stretch of the imagination. Please respond on this thread or on the Il talk page. Nicola Cola (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Rick Ross and Freedom of Mind RS Issues

If you have time, could you take a look at Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Freedom_of_Mind_page_on_Chung_Moo_Doe? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Museums & Prisons COTW

Howdy to all those in WikiProject Oregon land! To start, thanks to those who helped improve Grattan Kerans and Oregon and California Railroad as part of the Collaboration of the Week. This week we’ll try and start some new articles with a red link elimination drive on a couple of Oregon lists. So, you have your pick of prisons, or museums. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

samamtha power

NPOV must reflect consequence well suggest an alternative phrasing rather then just removing it, describing a military invasion and occupation as a 'humanitarian intervention' is far from neutral too, period. You can't just say lets invade and occupy a country and not also remark on the consequences. liberal imperialism is well known tactic that has been employed for centuries, she has consistently advocated this for years in Sudan and elsewhere which i've given you several links for. Lostexpectation (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC) lostexpectation

Wrong On Robeson

Hi, you're incorrect. Robeson fought Colonialism the HARDEST after world was two, read a biography on him. It was a cause he dedicated his entire life to. May there is a better term but pre-world war europe is not correct. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Catherine Huebscher

For no reason whatsoever

The chickenhead award

I thought you might appreciate this. Katr67 (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Vvoice_march_cover.jpg

I have tagged File:Vvoice_march_cover.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. Otherwise, it will be deleted in seven days. Jordan 1972 (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your barn star! Cgoodwin (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Pioneer Courthouse Square

That guy has been pushing that homeless paragraph for about 4 years now under various guises, so a 3-hour block won't do anything. The page had been protected, but someone unprotected it a couple of days ago, and that guy jumped right back in where he left off, weeks ago. Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? 05:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The page is apparently semi-protected. It was full-protected until SheffieldSteel lowered the shields a bit, after discussion with interested parties, about 3 days ago. I also mentioned this on his page, but he's apparently offline or he probably would have jumped right on it. The sock was evidently a "sleeper" account set up in October but with no edits until today. Also, 4 years is a bit of an exaggeration. It's more like 2 1/2. I think this [1] was the first such edit. Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? 05:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Another admin, Ohnoitsjamie, has indef'd him now. I just wonder how many more sleeper accounts he's got, but I suspect we'll soon find out. The persistence of these characters, in wanting to put a single sentence or paragraph into an article, spread out over years (as with Rick Reilly, for example) is a monument to the god of obsessiveness. Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? 05:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

20:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by J Milburn, on behalf of the judges. 20:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

B-day for Oregon

Hello to WikiProject Oregon peoples! Thank you to those who helped start some new articles on prisons and museums. This week, in honor of Oregon’s 150th b-day, we have the slightly older Oregon Constitution and the first state governor John Whiteaker. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

23:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"too personal"?

[2]. From the source cited, so anyone who looks will find it: Although ReadWriteWeb has a global focus and is staffed mostly by Americans, MacManus continues to run the site from his Lower Hutt home office. My sense is that this is important, a substantial organization is being run from a home office. Would you consider reverting this last change? Or should I take this to the article Talk? What do you think?

Your removal of the link is, of course, fine, I didn't realize it was in the infobox.

By the way, thanks for your participation in the delisting discussion for readwriteweb.com. I don't know if you noticed that Hu12 removed a comment of mine from the discussion after you closed it; I warned him and reverted, he reverted me.... so I went to AN/I, feeling something very strange was going on. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repetitive_removal_of_discussion_by_Hu12_on_MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. I really didn't understand why he was so attached to removing that comment. I may understand now, I looked into the history of the blacklisting of readwriteweb.com, and it was based on a report filed by Hu12, no other participation or comment, and then unilateral blacklisting by him, with the log retroactively modified to group it with some other blogs. And then he declined the delisting request. Plaintiff, judge (no jury), executioner, and appeals court. What's really bizarre is that he practically forced me to investigate this. I had no clue that he was so involved. --Abd (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I said it was too personal because MacManus doesn't host the servers or have employees at that office. Everyone in the organization works elsewhere (mostly in the States), and to say that RWW is based out of his home office is misleading and has more to do with MacManus personally than RWW as a blog. Steven Walling (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Puzzled. The source says he "continues to run the site from his home office." That's completely consistent with servers being hosted elsewhere, and employees being elsewhere. (Actually, are you sure he has not even one employee at his home office?) The way the article read was clear: most everyone else is in the States. --Abd (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that mentioning where MacManus himself works (whether his home or an office) has very little to do with the running of global website with a focus on Web technology and employees all around the world. It's emphasis on the wrong aspects, i.e. Richard personally rather than something that is really relevant to the content of RWW. Steven Walling (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion, a reasonable one. However, the reliable source, a newspaper, thought otherwise. I'd say that, as a reader, I like reading little things like that, it makes the story more human, and I tend to let my experience as a reader inform my activities as an editor. So, tell me, how do we resolve this big honkin' dispute? --Abd (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that as this has to do with a living person and where he works has little or nothing to do with the contents and fame of RWW, that we defer against publishing details about MacManus. It might be interesting, but it's more do with him than RWW, and that makes it decidedly trivial IMHO. Steven Walling (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Pursuing this with diligence and vast excitement, it may be significant that such a notable blog, with employees all over the world, is managed remotely, from a home office, by the founder. The newspaper in New Zealand found it notable, and reported it, and anyone who wants to find out where his home office is could do so rather easily, whether or not we mention the home office in the article. So we aren't protecting him; we could also ask him if he minds (I would certainly respect his wish if he did), so the real question is the notability, and a reliable source, our primary standard for notability, has already made the decision that it is worthy of mention. Personal opinions about triviality aren't our standard, though certainly it's often asserted, and if editors agree, fine! --Abd (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Alligator farm

On February 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alligator farm, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ahunt/Pictures

Thanks for your improvement to this user box! - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

21:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 21:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Xenophopia does not involve a Xylophone: Another WPORE COTW

Greetings to WikiProject Oregon members. A big thank you to everyone who helped last week with the Oregon Constitution and John Whiteaker. This week, we have by request Clyde Drexler and a newer article in Religion in Oregon (I thought surveys said we didn’t have religion in Oregon). Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

18:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 18:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Toonlet

Hello! Your submission of Toonlet at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ∗ \ / (⁂) 13:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Core Contest Award

		2008 Core Contest Winner Award
		Let it be known that Steven Walling was awarded Second Place in the first Wikipedia Core Contest. This award is based on his outstanding work in improving Domestic Sheep. Thanks for your hard work in making Wikipedia's core articles better. -Earthdirt (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Arabian horse

Steven, your comment on my talk page was pretty poor wikiquette. It is not "ownership" to revert a poor quality edit made on a page. The pattern, and you know this, is edit, revert, discuss. You edited, I reverted, and now rather than start a 3RR problem, we discuss. The truth is, the Arabian itself didn't live as much in the interior of the Peninsula as along the coasts and in Palestine. I am not opposed to improving the lead, but to just wade in and make a statement that isn't supported later in the text is just rude. This time I'll tweak the nuance, but try politeness next time. Being a jerk isn't needed here. Montanabw^(talk) 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for toonlet

On 12 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Toonlet, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for nominating, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding South Asia non-protection

Can you at least hold some disciplinary action or warning against User:Aditya Kabir for his violation of WP:Civil

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say he at least violated "Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")" and Rudeness. At the least his calling my edits gibberish would be akin to "snipped rambling crap" Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, you didn't create that list. It was already there before you started to revert. None of those comments were aimed at you, rather it was aimed at the content. Nothing to take it so personally. Anyways, since your feelings are hurt, I apologize for coming on too strong. Aditya^(talk • contribs) 13:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Geraldine Davies

Hi, you deleted this page as I was declining the speedy deletion tag - Davies has played international cricket (which was cited in the article) and meets WP:ATHLETE. Please consider restoring this article. Thanks, Somno (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cricinfo is a reliable source and the Young England women's cricket team played in an international cup. Somno (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

17:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 17:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Killer Oregon COTW, its Totally Rad

Greetings WikiProject Oregon peoples. It is once again time for another edition of the World Famous Collaboration Of The Week. Thank you to those who worked on Clyde and [the lack of] Religion in Oregon. This week (as many have noticed), we have the “it was a red link” and by request Eugene Station and Heceta Head in honor of the work that’s been going on at Oregon Coast. Once again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. On a side note, does the recent news of Portland being the unhappiest place in all the land make people there more unhappy? Aboutmovies (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group

Hello. If you are in or near Seattle it would be great if you could join us.

I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ameraucana-Cochin hybrid

Hi,

I noticed in your AfD for this page that you said "Species or recognizable breeds of domesticated species are automatically notable." I'm just curious, is this stated in WP policy somewhere, and if so, where? That type of argument might come in handy for other sorts of debates... Thanks, Matt (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oregon Government 2.0

Hi. A while ago, you expressed interest in the effort to put state works in the public domain. The central hub for that has moved to a PDX Wiki Wednesday page, and now there's a discussion forum. We have made quite a bit of progress, but we are hopelessly short on active members. If you're still interested, I urge you to get involved. Please check out the PDX Wiki Wednesday page and the forum for the progress we've made so far, and other info. Thanks! — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 21:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent ruling on Semi-Protection of NeverShoutNever!

If I establish the pattern of vandalism, will you be able to Semi-Protect it indefinitely? Russ is the sex (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you! I will watch the article closely. Russ is the sex (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of wiki farms

Hello. Please see this diff: [3]

You wrote: "The talk page consensus seems to be to not include external links, and this jives with WP:EL"

Actually, there is no consensus. It is about evenly split. User:Ronz keeps spamming the talk page repeatedly with the same stuff over and over. So you might have to go back a few talk sections at Talk:Comparison of wiki farms to see some actual discussion since most people who disagree with him have stopped replying to him.

The links are not external links. Please carefully read the talk page. The links have been there for years until User:Ronz begin a continuous campaign in 2009 to remove them. I have been editing the page for years. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I too, have been editing the article for years. I happen to agree with Ronz, since the format was using external links to each farm's own website like it was a reference. It's not a reliable reference if it's not from a third party, and there's no reason to include the links to the homepages in-line, since that's clearly in violation of the external links policy. Thanks, Steven Walling (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved your reply here to consolidate the thread. I see one minor edit of yours:

Diff: [4] - wikilink brackets added to Wikispaces,

and your removal of this from the page: {{Original research|date=November 2007}} - see diff: [5]

I do not see any discussion by you on the talk page. The links are in reference form, and so they are not considered inline links. They are primary-source references which is common in computer-related lists. Either directly, or indirectly via wikilinked entries in the computer-related list.

Can we continue and/or copy this discussion to the talk page?: Talk:Comparison of wiki farms. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"Actually, there is no consensus. It is about evenly split" Consensus is not a vote. In this case it's one side being backed by multiple policies and guidelines, the other side backed by nonsensical arguments such as "Do you bow only to Microsoft?" --Ronz (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate summation as usual. See article talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Complete dismissal of another editor's comments, without any explanation whatsoever. All too usual. More importantly, more evidence of misunderstanding or ignoring WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

See my comments on the article talk page. There are explanations galore in numerous past discussions. I don't want to spam this talk page here. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Explanations galore?" Yes, but explanations ad nauseam. The amount of arguing is absolutely no indication of the quality of the arguments, and has no weight toward consensus-making. Attempts to summarize those comments show that the arguments for inclusion are either inapplicable, nonsensical, or requests to WP:IAR.--Ronz (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent). Steven Walling. You are an admin. Maybe you can help initiate the formal mediation process of WP:DR. We have already done everything else on the WP:DR list up to Formal mediation. Ask yourself this: How does a computer-related list in chart form with feature and option columns stay updated? The references next to the wiki farm names in the top chart are for verifying and updating the features and options listed in the columns of both charts. I believe the primary-source references should stay up as they have for years. Otherwise the chart can't be updated. I don't mind removing the references next to the wikilinked entries. People can go to the individual articles to find the primary-source references. This is common practice. But the rest of the chart entries need the sources accessible. This chart is linked from many wikimedia project pages since we tell people (at Village Pump pages for example) to go to it if they want to do things they can't do on Wikimedia projects. See meta:Category:Proposed projects and meta:Proposals for new projects. Very few of these projects ever get done. So we tell them to check out Comparison of wiki farms. See Talk:Comparison of wiki farms for much more detailed discussion of rules, guidelines, exceptions, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have another request of you as an admin. Could you comment? I have repeatedly asked Ronz not to post on my talk page except to inform me of ongoing discussions on notice boards where I am mentioned. Article talk pages are where I prefer to communicate with him. Most Wikipedians honor these types of requests from one another. I have pointed out WP:TALK and WP:Wikihounding, and I have requested he respect common courtesy. From WP:Wikihounding: "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." My talk page history is here: [6]. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"for no overriding reason" Of course, each and every case has been for a very important, overriding reason - to address disputes. WP:DR is not the same as WP:HARASS, even if one were to violate WP:AGF by assuming bad faith. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing." It doesn't matter if you think all your disrupting, accusing, harassing, untruthful comments on my talk page are justified or not. Common courtesy among Wikipedians is to respect requests not to comment on a user talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Common courtesy among Wikipedians is to respect requests not to comment on a user talk page." No, it is not. It is not common courtesy. It also demonstrates a misunderstanding of a user talk page. I will continue to use it per the appropriate policies and guidelines.

WP:BATTLE much? --Ronz (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground, and especially not my talk page. I'll try and look in to this more and participate, but please take any debate off my userspace. Thanks very much, Steven Walling (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. He prevents any discussion from happening on his own talk page, is too uncivil for any discussion on mine, but is behaving rather well here. Any suggestions on where to continue this? --Ronz (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Police attack

I read that before removing this.

It says

" bore similarities to last year's siege of the Indian city of Mumbai.

India has blamed the Pakistani militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba for that assault, and Pakistan has taken several of the outfit's alleged leaders into custody. Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is largely based in eastern Punjab province, has denied involvement in either Mumbai or the cricket team attack.."It referes to mumbai not to this!yousaf465 Thanks.Atleast you understood.yousaf465

V is for Victory at the COTW: Brought to you by the Letter W (naming rights still available)

Hear ye, hear ye WikiProject Oregon villagers. Tis time for another edition of ye ol’ Collaboration Of Thine Week. Thank you to those who worked on Eugene Station and Heceta Head the last few weeks, may the Black Death spare ye family. This time we have a we little stub in the John Ross Tower and by request Bill Walton in honor of a pretty good chance at making the playoffs for the Blazers (sorry can’t think of a good Old English type language for that one, but if we go with Olde English 800, then the Jail Blazers could come into play). Anyway, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

21:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Delivered for the WikiCup by  GARDEN  at 21:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC). Queries to my talk.

Mini cow

If you think this redirect is improper, please don't blank it. Either expand it into a disambiguation page or nominate it for deleteion at WP:RFD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, so it's an WP:IAR blanking. I disagree with your assumption that one shouldn't assume that our rules are applicable and that resort to IAR is the norm rather than the exception. I think we'll stick with process rather than delete it outright. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A joke

I wanted to point out that this version was created for all of the jokes about it and the rest. There are only two parts in the RfA that I joked about, and that was solely for the day. I expressed that at the very top. If you want to think that I didn't take the real one seriously, so be it. As I stated, it will be the only RfA I will ever go through and I meant every word about how I felt. My tough standards are based on principles that I have seen that stop those who have gamed the system to get Adminship, which is something sock puppets and potentially bad admin do. One need only look at this or the Poetlister incident to see that it happens. Too many people vote "no big deal", "why not", and the rest. However, at no time have I opposed someone because they had a sense of humor, because they smile, or anything like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I am taking this lightly in order to prove that I am not as serious and argumentative as most people will say. But look at the opposes. Many of them, if they bother to actually cite anything, refer to past incidents that were mostly meaningless and from a long time ago. There is no "second chance" when people oppose over reasons like that. It is simply a grudge, nothing more or less. But yes, I have supported many people's RfAs and I have been a vital reason in many close RfAs failing when i oppose. I look at experience, openness and chance that they will break rules. But yeah, I don't mind if I fail en's RfA, I have sysops elsewhere if I really feel the need that I have to use the tools. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If its about the project needing people, I would be opposing a lot more admin. Hah. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:SWatRCC09-cropped.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:SWatRCC09-cropped.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Logo-Edufire.gif)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)