2007[edit]

Duplicate images uploaded[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:They might Be Giants Live!! 10-14-94 cover.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:They might be giants Live!! 10-14-94 cover.jpg. The copy called Image:They might be giants Live!! 10-14-94 cover.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 21:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violent Femmes, "Machine"[edit]

Hi RossO. I see you added a single to a couple of the Violent Femmes articles. I think since there is an article called Violent Femmes discography, they were trying to keep the discography listing on the main Violent Femmes article to a minimum - that is only studio albums, and charting singles. Not that I'm saying it shouldn't be there, I'm just giving you someone's alternate opinion. It definitely belongs on the discog page. I think it also definitely belongs on the New Times page, so feel free to work it in there. Oh, and you marked your edit as "minor." Please only use that for really minor things, like typos. Thanks for taking an interest in the Femmes articles, and if you have any more info on any of their other singles, please add them too! -Freekee 02:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008[edit]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:They might Be Giants Live!! 10-14-94 cover.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:They might Be Giants Live!! 10-14-94 cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009[edit]

Planar Systems[edit]

Going by this I'm not sure what you are talking about with info removed. Things were moved around, but I don't see anything disappearing between February and your edits. There was the restoration of info removed by an anon-IP without leaving an edit summary explaining what they were doing, which was reverted as vandalism, and 9 out of 10 editors would do the same. Anonymous IP editors who don't leave an edit summary and simply remove content are simply seen as vandals and their work removed. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So would it it be proper form for me to go in (as a registered user), remove the line "king of the LCDs", and note that this has been un-sourced for 3 years? Along the same lines, Planar no longer manufactures CRTs or Medical displays. Is it okay for me to edit those? --RossO (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, as to the picture, according to your company's website the address is "1195 NW Compton Dr." which a Google Map locates it in the AmberGlen campus, and that is where that picture is from. Now, it may not be the building where the president/CEO's offices are at, but is it not part of the headquarters campus? If you would prefer a picture of the main building, feel free to take one and upload it. Though for copyright reasons, take the picture with your own camera and on your own time, otherwise it is possible the company would own the copyright and you would then need to go through a procedure to show they approved of uploading it and releasing it to Wikipedia. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The building pictured is of 1600 NW Compton Drive, and I don't believe Planar has ever had any space there office or manufacturing. The 1600 building does face the 1400 building which does have Planar space and was the company headquarters through 1999. The 1195 building is further down the road and has all of the non-manufacturing US offices, and is used in company presentation materials. I will take a nice picture on a sunny weekend some time in the future. Should this inaccurate photo be removed until then? --RossO (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, great job adding some info and citing it. I have made some changes per Wikipedia's Manual of Style and removed the link to the company. InFocus may have it that way, and many other articles do too, but it is against our rules on external links to list it there when the link already exists in the infobox. Wikipedia does not exist to make sure readers find the link to an entity by listing it as many times as we can. Happy editing, but do be aware of the conflict of interest guideline. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kindness. I'm trying to get the Planar entry up to the same level as other public companies in the area; InFocus of course is a starting point, but perhaps the article isn't the best one to model after. Do you have other recommendations? I am trying to maintain a Confluence of Interests while keeping this article neutral and hopefully push it beyond the stub status. --RossO (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aboutmovies I have split your comment into three so that I can address them in a threaded format, and added your signature to each. Is that kosher? Also, should I consider this the place to have this thread, or should I respond back on your talk page? --RossO (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can respond either place, but if this thread goes stale after a few days and you have a question, best to do so on my page. With splitting, normally you don't need to, we aren't covering too many topics.

With the building, as the photographer there are Planar signs all around that group of buildings, and they all look fairly similar (who but a few people working there would even know the difference?), so I'll leave it up to you if you want to remove it or what to replace it with the one you add. When you take that pic, you might take some of the other buildings on the campus, as if the page expands a lot, then you would have more images to add.

As to editing the article, no problem removing things like the "king" part or updating the product line. We would prefer a citation for the product line info, just so someone else could verify it if they wanted to. The main problem with Conflict of Interest (COI) edits are that company marketing people get a hold of the article and make it an extension of their activities by talking up the company as much as possible. Wikipedia strives for the neutral point of view, and thus much of that style of editing is in appropriate. In fact, not only do we need the words to be more neutral, cited to reliable sources that are independent of the company, but the coverage needs to fairly reflect the coverage in the real world. For instance, the article on Intel cannot just talk about their awesome market share and totally rad culture and cool jingle and rock star scientists (a little sarcasm), it also must (and does) cover the anti-trust aspects facing them. This is often a downfall in COI editing. That and trying to edit competitor's articles.

So go ahead and update. As to articles, yes InFocus is one of the poorer company articles around. RadiSys and FLIR Systems are two better Oregon ones that I have done extensive work on. Notice the succinct lede sections at the beginning and the good sourcing. I'd start on getting a good history section covering the foundation and when it went public and some revenue numbers here and there to show growth/decline over the years. Then a nice products/operations section(s). Then go back and write the lede to be a summary that also gives a good basic introduction about the company that someone in France could read and easily know what the company does and where it is. Happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2011[edit]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer be able to have them marked as minor by default. For more information on what a minor edit is, see WP:MINOR or feel to get in touch.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2014[edit]

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Yo Gabba Gabba! episodes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Yo Gabba Gabba! episodes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Yo Gabba Gabba! episodes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]